Christian dun believe in Darwin's

vito_corleone SG

evolution has been proven? really har..then where's the missing link? Laughing so if there's no missing link doesnt that make it an unsupported statement? science also proves that a fish cannot turn into a monkey and water cannot turn into metal so according to science evolution is impossible so isn't science shooting itself in the foot?

Ibram Gaunt SG

Mr V,

I suggest that before you reply, please read the previous posts to prevent embarrassment to yourself. I have already touched on the issue of transitional fossils (i.e. related to missing links)

But then again most creationists are notorious for ignoring the facts before their eyes. Laughing Or perhaps the nomenclature in scientific papers is too difficult for creationists who have simple-minded ways of looking at complex issues.
Therefore to make life easier I've extracted the relevant paras from my previous post about transitional fossils (i.e. related to "missing links")...

Misconception 3: "There are no transitional fossils."

A transitional fossil is one that looks like it's from an organism intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some characteristics part way between the two. Transitional fossils can occur between groups of any taxonomic level, such as between species, between orders, etc. Ideally, the transitional fossil should be found stratigraphically between the first occurrence of the ancestral lineage and the first occurrence of the descendent lineage, but evolution also predicts the occurrence of some fossils with transitional morphology that occur after both lineages. There's nothing in the theory of evolution which says an intermediate form (or any organism, for that matter) can have only one line of descendents, or that the intermediate form itself has to go extinct when a line of descendents evolves.

To say there are no transitional fossils is simply false. Paleontology has progressed a bit since Origin of Species was published, uncovering thousands of transitional fossils, by both the temporally restrictive and the less restrictive definitions. The fossil record is still spotty and always will be; erosion and the rarity of conditions favorable to fossilization make that inevitable. Also, transitions may occur in a small population, in a small area, and/or in a relatively short amount of time; when any of these conditions hold, the chances of finding the transitional fossils goes down. Still, there are still many instances where excellent sequences of transitional fossils exist. Some notable examples are the transitions from reptile to mammal, from land animal to early whale, and from early ape to human. For many more examples, see the transitional fossils FAQ in the talk.origins archive, and see http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/talk_origins.html for sample images for some invertebrate groups.

The misconception about the lack of transitional fossils is perpetuated in part by a common way of thinking about categories. When people think about a category like "dog" or "ant," they often subconsciously believe that there is a well-defined boundary around the category, or that there is some eternal ideal form (for philosophers, the Platonic idea) which defines the category. This kind of thinking leads people to declare that Archaeopteryx is "100% bird," when it is clearly a mix of bird and reptile features (with more reptile than bird features, in fact). In truth, categories are man-made and artificial. Nature is not constrained to follow them, and it doesn't.

Some Creationists claim that the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium was proposed (by Eldredge and Gould) to explain gaps in the fossil record. Actually, it was proposed to explain the relative rarity of transitional forms, not their total absence, and to explain why speciation appears to happen relatively quickly in some cases, gradually in others, and not at all during some periods for some species. In no way does it deny that transitional sequences exist. In fact, both Gould and Eldredge are outspoken opponents of Creationism.

------------------------------
I would suggest that you go to the following links if you wish to obtain more information about the "missing links" in the animal kingdom.

Diverse
http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/talk_origins.html

Human ancestry
http://www.stcynic.com/blog/archives/2005/08/reply_to_gibbons_on_human_evol.php

Paleoanthropology
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/recent.html

And more at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

If you want a really meaningful debate, I dare you to challenge the authors of the abovementioned webpages. If you really wish to make a point that will defeat evolutionary theory, go and do research and publish a scientific paper with evidence to the contrary. Failing which, the words of a creationist are empty.... Laughing

Ibram Gaunt SG

Taken from:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2a.html

Primates

I'll outline here the lineage that led to humans. Notice that there were many other large, successful branches (particularly the lemurs, New World monkeys, and Old World monkeys) that I will only mention in passing. Also see Jim Foley's fossil hominid FAQ for detailed information on hominid fossils.

GAP: "The modern assemblage can be traced with little question to the base of the Eocene" says Carroll (198 Cool . But before that, the origins of the very earliest primates are fuzzy. There is a group of Paleocene primitive primate-like animals called "plesiadapids" that may be ancestral to primates, or may be "cousins" to primates. (see Beard, in Szalay et al., 1993.)

Palaechthon, Purgatorius (middle Paleocene) -- Very primitive plesiadapids. To modern eyes they looks nothing like primates, being simply pointy-faced, small early mammals with mostly primitive teeth, and claws instead of nails. But they show the first signs of primate-like teeth; lost an incisor and a premolar, and had relatively blunt-cusped, squarish molars.
Cantius (early Eocene) -- One of the first true primates (or "primates of modern aspect"), more advanced than the plesiadapids (more teeth lost, bar behind the eye, grasping hand & foot) and beginning to show some lemur-like arboreal adaptations.
Pelycodus & related species (early Eocene) -- Primitive lemur-like primates.
The tarsiers, lemurs, and New World monkeys split off in the Eocene. The Old World lineage continued as follows:

Amphipithecus, Pondaungia (late Eocene, Burma) -- Very early Old World primates known only from fragments. Larger brain, shorter nose, more forward-facing eyes (halfway between plesiadapid eyes and modern ape eyes).
GAP: Here's that Oligocene gap mentioned above in the timescale. Very few primate fossils are known between the late Eocene and early Oligocene, when there was a sharp change in global climate. Several other mammal groups have a similar gap.

Parapithecus (early Oligocene) -- The O.W. monkeys split from the apes split around now. Parapithecus was probably at the start of the O.W. monkey line. From here the O.W. monkeys go through Oreopithecus (early Miocene, Kenya) to modern monkey groups of the Miocene & Pliocene.
Propliopithecus, Aegyptopithecus (early Oligocene, Egypt) -- From the same time as Parapithecus, but probably at the beginning of the ape lineage. First ape characters (deep jaw, 2 premolars, 5- cusped teeth, etc.).
Aegyptopithecus (early-mid Oligocene, Egypt) -- Slightly later anthropoid (ape/hominid) with more ape features. It was a fruit-eating runner/climber, larger, with a rounder brain and shorter face.
Proconsul africanus (early Miocene, Kenya.) -- A sexually dimorphic, fruit-eating, arboreal quadruped probably ancestral to all the later apes and humans. Had a mosaic of ape-like and primitive features; Ape-like elbow, shoulder and feet; monkey- like wrist; gibbon-like lumbar vertebrae.
Limnopithecus (early Miocene, Africa) -- A later ape probably ancestral to gibbons.
Dryopithecus (mid-Miocene) -- A later ape probably ancestral to the great apes & humans. At this point Africa & Asia connected via Arabia, and the non-gibbon apes divided into two lines:
Sivapithecus (including "Gigantopithecus" & "Ramapithecus", mid- Miocene) -- Moved to Asia & gave rise to the orangutan.
Kenyapithecus (mid-Miocene, about 16 Ma) -- Stayed in Africa & gave rise to the African great apes & humans.
GAP: There are no known fossil hominids or apes from Africa between 14 and 4 Ma. Frustratingly, molecular data shows that this is when the African great apes (chimps, gorillas) diverged from hominids, probably 5-7 Ma. The gap may be another case of poor fossilization of forest animals. At the end of the gap we start finding some very ape-like bipedal hominids:

Australopithecus ramidus (mid-Pliocene, 4.4 Ma) -- A recently discovered very early hominid (or early chimp?), from just after the split with the apes. Not well known. Possibly bipedal (only the skull was found). Teeth both apelike and humanlike; one baby tooth is very chimp-like. (White et al., 1994; Wood 1994)
Australopithecus afarensis (late Pliocene, 3.9 Ma) -- Some excellent fossils ("Lucy", etc.) make clear that this was fully bipedal and definitely a hominid. But it was an extremely ape-like hominid; only four feet tall, still had an ape-sized brain of just 375-500 cc (finally answering the question of which came first, large brain or bipedality) and ape-like teeth. This lineage gradually split into a husky large-toothed lineage and a more slender, smaller- toothed lineage. The husky lineage (A. robustus, A. boisei) eventually went extinct.
Australopithecus africanus (later Pliocene, 3.0 Ma) -- The more slender lineage. Up to five feet tall, with slightly larger brain (430-550 cc) and smaller incisors. Teeth gradually became more and more like Homo teeth. These hominds are almost perfect ape- human intermediates, and it's now pretty clear that the slender australopithecines led to the first Homo species.
Homo habilis (latest Pliocene/earliest Pleistocene, 2.5 Ma) -- Straddles the boundary between australopithecines and humans, such that it's sometimes lumped with the australopithecines. About five feet tall, face still primitive but projects less, molars smaller. Brain 500-800 cc, overlapping australopithecines at the low end and and early Homo erectus at the high end. Capable of rudimentary speech? First clumsy stone tools.
Homo erectus (incl. "Java Man", "Peking Man", "Heidelberg Man"; Pleist., 1.8 Ma) -- Looking much more human now with a brain of 775-1225 cc, but still has thick brow ridges & no chin. Spread out of Africa & across Europe and Asia. Good tools, first fire.
Archaic Homo sapiens (Pleistocene, 500,000 yrs ago) -- These first primitive humans were perfectly intermediate between H. erectus and modern humans, with a brain of 1200 cc and less robust skeleton & teeth. Over the next 300,000 years, brain gradually increased, molars got still smaller, skeleton less muscular. Clearly arose from H erectus, but there are continuing arguments about where this happened.
One famous offshoot group, the Neandertals, developed in Europe 125,000 years ago. They are considered to be the same species as us, but a different subspecies, H. sapiens neandertalensis. They were more muscular, with a slightly larger brain of 1450 cc, a distinctive brow ridge, and differently shaped throat (possibly limiting their language?). They are known to have buried their dead.
H. sapiens sapiens (incl. "Cro-magnons"; late Pleist., 40,000 yrs ago) -- All modern humans. Average brain size 1350 cc. In Europe, gradually supplanted the Neanderthals.
Known species-species transitions in primates:

Phillip Gingerich has done a lot of work on early primate transitions. Here are some of his major findings in plesiadapids, early lemurs, and early monkeys:

Plesiadapids: Gingerich (summarized in 1976, 1977) found smooth transitions in plesiadapid primates linking four genera together: Pronothodectes, Nannodectes, two lineages of Plesiadapis, and Platychoerops. In summary: Pronothodectes matthewi changed to become Pro. jepi, which split into Nannodectes intermedius and Plesiadapis praecursor. N. intermedius was the first member of a gradually changing lineage that passed through three different species stages (N. gazini, N. simpsoni, and N. gidleyi). Ples. praecursor was the first member of a separate, larger lineage that slowly grew larger (passing through three more species stages), with every studied character showing continuous gradual change. Gingerich (1976) noted "Loss of a tooth, a discrete jump from one state to another, in several instances proceeded continuously by continuous changes in the frequencies of dimorphism -- the percentage of specimens retaining the tooth gradually being reduced until it was lost entirely from the population." The Plesiadapis lineage then split into two more lineages, each with several species. One of these lineages shows a gradual transition from Plesiadapis to Platychoerops,"where the incisors were considerably reorganized morphologically and functionally in the space of only 2-3 million years."
Early lemur-like primates: Gingerich (summarized in 1977) traced two distinct species of lemur-like primates, Pelycodus frugivorus and P. jarrovii, back in time, and found that they converged on the earlier Pelycodus abditus "in size, mesostyle development, and every other character available for study, and there can be little doubt that each was derived from that species." Further work (Gingerich, 1980) in the same rich Wyoming fossil sites found species-to-species transitions for every step in the following lineage: Pelycodus ralstoni (54 Ma) to P. mckennai to P. trigonodus to P. abditus, which then forked into three branches. One became a new genus, Copelemur feretutus, and further changed into C. consortutus. The second branch became P. frugivorus. The third led to P. jarrovi, which changed into another new genus, Notharctus robinsoni, which itself split into at least two branches, N. tenebrosus, and N. pugnax (which then changed to N. robustior, 48 Ma), and possibly a third, Smilodectes mcgrewi (which then changed to S. gracilis). Note that this sequence covers at least three and possibly four genera, with a timespan of 6 million years.
Early monkey-like primates: Gingerich (1982, also discussed in Gingerich, 1983) also describes gradual species-species transitions in a lineage of early Eocene primate: Cantius ralstoni to C. mckennai to C. trigonodus.
And here are some transitions found by other researchers:

Rose & Bown (1984) analyzed over 600 specimens of primates collected from a 700-meter-thick sequence representing approximately 4 million years of the Eocene. They found smooth transitions between Teilhardina americana and Tetonoides tenuiculus, and also beween Tetonius homunculus and Pseudotetonius ambiguus. "In both lines transitions occurred not only continuously (rather than by abrupt appearance of new morphologies followed by stasis), but also in mosaic fashion, with greater variation in certain characters preceding a shift to another character state." The T. homunculus - P. ambiguus transition shows a dramatic change in dentition (loss of P2, dramatic shrinkage of P3 with loss of roots, shrinkage of C and I2, much enlarged I1) that occurs gradually and smoothly during the 4 million years. The authors conclude "...our data suggest that phyletic gradualism is not only more common than some would admit but also capable of producing significant adaptive modifications."
Delson (discussed in Gingerich, 1985) has studied transitions in primates from the Miocene to the present. For instance, in a 1983 paper (see Chaline, 1983), he discussed a possible smooth transition from Theropithecus darti to T. oswaldi, and discusses transitions in hominids, concluding that Homo sapiens clearly shows gradual changes over the last 800,000 years.
Kurten (196 Cool reports a smooth transition linking Macaca florentina to M. sylvana

Ibram Gaunt SG

A good introductory resource on transitional vertebrate fossils, including primates may be found here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

I have cut and pasted the section on our primate ancestors in my previous post. You want "missing links", well our hardworking scientists have found 'em. How about creationists....what hard evidence have they found to back up their claims? Notice how creationists love to attack evolutionary scientists, but fail to substantiate their own beliefs with the same quality/quantity of evidence that they demand from the evolutionists!

Some examples of creationists' lies and flip-flopping may be found here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/gish-exposed.html
http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/gish.html

vito_corleone SG

Originally posted by Ibram Gaunt:
Mr V,

I suggest that before you reply, please read the previous posts to prevent embarrassment to yourself. I have already touched on the issue of transitional fossils (i.e. related to missing links)

But then again most creationists are notorious for ignoring the facts before their eyes. Or perhaps the nomenclature in scientific papers is too difficult for creationists who have simple-minded ways of looking at complex issues.
Therefore to make life easier I've extracted the relevant paras from my previous post about transitional fossils (i.e. related to "missing links")...

[b]Misconception 3: "There are no transitional fossils."

A transitional fossil is one that looks like it's from an organism intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some characteristics part way between the two. Transitional fossils can occur between groups of any taxonomic level, such as between species, between orders, etc. Ideally, the transitional fossil should be found stratigraphically between the first occurrence of the ancestral lineage and the first occurrence of the descendent lineage, but evolution also predicts the occurrence of some fossils with transitional morphology that occur after both lineages. There's nothing in the theory of evolution which says an intermediate form (or any organism, for that matter) can have only one line of descendents, or that the intermediate form itself has to go extinct when a line of descendents evolves.

To say there are no transitional fossils is simply false. Paleontology has progressed a bit since Origin of Species was published, uncovering thousands of transitional fossils, by both the temporally restrictive and the less restrictive definitions. The fossil record is still spotty and always will be; erosion and the rarity of conditions favorable to fossilization make that inevitable. Also, transitions may occur in a small population, in a small area, and/or in a relatively short amount of time; when any of these conditions hold, the chances of finding the transitional fossils goes down. Still, there are still many instances where excellent sequences of transitional fossils exist. Some notable examples are the transitions from reptile to mammal, from land animal to early whale, and from early ape to human. For many more examples, see the transitional fossils FAQ in the talk.origins archive, and see http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/talk_origins.html for sample images for some invertebrate groups.

The misconception about the lack of transitional fossils is perpetuated in part by a common way of thinking about categories. When people think about a category like "dog" or "ant," they often subconsciously believe that there is a well-defined boundary around the category, or that there is some eternal ideal form (for philosophers, the Platonic idea) which defines the category. This kind of thinking leads people to declare that Archaeopteryx is "100% bird," when it is clearly a mix of bird and reptile features (with more reptile than bird features, in fact). In truth, categories are man-made and artificial. Nature is not constrained to follow them, and it doesn't.

Some Creationists claim that the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium was proposed (by Eldredge and Gould) to explain gaps in the fossil record. Actually, it was proposed to explain the relative rarity of transitional forms, not their total absence, and to explain why speciation appears to happen relatively quickly in some cases, gradually in others, and not at all during some periods for some species. In no way does it deny that transitional sequences exist. In fact, both Gould and Eldredge are outspoken opponents of Creationism.

------------------------------
I would suggest that you go to the following links if you wish to obtain more information about the "missing links" in the animal kingdom.

Diverse
http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/talk_origins.html

Human ancestry
http://www.stcynic.com/blog/archives/2005/08/reply_to_gibbons_on_human_evol.php

Paleoanthropology
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/recent.html

And more at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

If you want a really meaningful debate, I dare you to challenge the authors of the abovementioned webpages. If you really wish to make a point that will defeat evolutionary theory, go and do research and publish a scientific paper with evidence to the contrary. Failing which, the words of a creationist are empty.... Laughing [/b]

words are words, websites are websites, i have yet to see solid evidence that proves the existence of evolution. Laughing so does that mean science is wrong then they say a fish cannot turn into a monkey? so if science is wrong doesnt it mean that its theories including evolution are wrong too? so lets say, if i take a fossil of a gorilla and a chimpanzee and compare them..can i say the chimpanzee evolved from the gorilla because it looks and shares similar features and such? so evolution said man evolved from monkeys..then if evolution holds true, why havent all monkeys or at least those which are considered closest to humans evolved into humans? monkeys have been around for years havent they? and according to mr darwin's furvival of the fittest theory, shouldnt these creattures who have yet to evolve into the strongest animal group die out? why are they still in existence? so does that mean evey single living thing evolved from a one-cell organism which evolved from nothing? so why cant scientists turn an amnoeba into a monkey? science has shown that you can turn a single cell of a certain animal into that of another animal, so hasnt evolution just been dealt a deathblow? Laughing

Ibram Gaunt SG

Mr V wrote:

words are words, websites are websites, i have yet to see solid evidence that proves the existence of evolution.

-----------

You are once again shooting yourself in the foot....
Because by the same line of reasoning I can also say:
words are words, websites are websites, i have yet to see solid evidence that proves the existence of Creationism.

or

words are words, websites are websites, i have yet to see solid evidence that proves the literal truth of the Book of Genesis

or

words are words, websites are websites, i have yet to see solid evidence that proves the existence of Adam & Eve.

or

words are words, websites are websites, i have yet to see solid evidence that proves the existence of a "Supreme Designer".

Very Happy Wink Rolling Eyes

First you claimed that scientists themselves disbelieve in evolution, and I have given you information contrary to this claim. Then you claimed that there are no missing links...but in the end I have given you a list of transitional fossils that serve as missing links to various organisms. Finally you claim that "websites are website" and "words are words" and that there is no evidence for evolution until you see it with your own eyes!
Does that also mean you will not believe in the existence of a Creator too unless you see Him in person!

By your line of reasoning, we can also say.....
You don't see gravity, so it doesn't exist too, yah?
You don't see the wind, so it doen't exist too, yah? Laughing
You don't see atoms, protons, electrons and other forms of particles, so they don''t exist too, yah?
You don't see "intellect", so how do you know the brain is the source of intelligence?
You don't see "disease" (you see only its symptoms), so how do you know that microorganisms are the cause of it?...no wait a moment, I just remembered that some Creationists believe that diseases are caused by demons and that faith-healing can cure all forms of ill! Rolling Eyes

Ibram Gaunt SG

Creationists claim that evolution has not been seen, but the following has been documented in recent times!!!

New species have arisen in historical times. For example:

A new species of mosquito, the molestus form isolated in London's Underground, has speciated from Culex pipiens (Byrne and Nichols 1999; Nuttall 199 Cool .

Helacyton gartleri is the HeLa cell culture, which evolved from a human cervical carcinoma in 1951. The culture grows indefinitely and has become widespread (Van Valen and Maiorana 1991).

Several new species of plants have arisen via polyploidy (when the chromosome count multiplies by two or more) (de Wet 1971). One example is Primula kewensis (Newton and Pellew 1929).

Incipient speciation, where two subspecies interbreed rarely or with only little success, is common. Here are just a few examples:

Rhagoletis pomonella, the apple maggot fly, is undergoing sympatric speciation. Its native host in North America is Hawthorn (Crataegus spp.), but in the mid-1800s, a new population formed on introduced domestic apples (Malus pumila). The two races are kept partially isolated by natural selection (Filchak et al. 2000).
The mosquito Anopheles gambiae shows incipient speciation between its populations in northwestern and southeastern Africa (Fanello et al. 2003; Lehmann et al. 2003).
Silverside fish show incipient speciation between marine and estuarine populations (Beheregaray and Sunnucks 2001).

Ring species show the process of speciation in action. In ring species, the species is distributed more or less in a line, such as around the base of a mountain range. Each population is able to breed with its neighboring population, but the populations at the two ends are not able to interbreed. (In a true ring species, those two end populations are adjacent to each other, completing the ring.) Examples of ring species are

the salamander Ensatina, with seven different subspecies on the west coast of the United States. They form a ring around California's central valley. At the south end, adjacent subspecies klauberi and eschscholtzi do not interbreed (Brown n.d.; Wake 1997).
greenish warblers (Phylloscopus trochiloides), around the Himalayas. Their behavioral and genetic characteristics change gradually, starting from central Siberia, extending around the Himalayas, and back again, so two forms of the songbird coexist but do not interbreed in that part of their range (Irwin et al. 2001; Whitehouse 2001).
the deer mouse (Peromyces maniculatus), with over fifty subspecies in North America.
many species of birds, including Parus major and P. minor, Halcyon chloris, Zosterops, Lalage, Pernis, the Larus argentatus group, and Phylloscopus trochiloides (Mayr 1942, 182-183).
the American bee Hoplitis (Alcidamea) producta (Mayr 1963, 510).
the subterranean mole rat, Spalax ehrenbergi (Nevo 1999).

Evidence of speciation occurs in the form of organisms that exist only in environments that did not exist a few hundreds or thousands of years ago. For example:
In several Canadian lakes, which originated in the last 10,000 years following the last ice age, stickleback fish have diversified into separate species for shallow and deep water (Schilthuizen 2001, 146-151).
Cichlids in Lake Malawi and Lake Victoria have diversified into hundreds of species. Parts of Lake Malawi which originated in the nineteenth century have species indigenous to those parts (Schilthuizen 2001, 166-176).
A Mimulus species adapted for soils high in copper exists only on the tailings of a copper mine that did not exist before 1859 (Macnair 1989).

There is further evidence that speciation can be caused by infection with a symbiont. A Wolbachia bacterium infects and causes postmating reproductive isolation between the wasps Nasonia vitripennis and N. giraulti (Bordenstein and Werren 1997).

fenixfire SG

Mr vito, i think you can stop posting here lah, you are only appearing not too intellectual. Either read up more before you post on the topic, or move on to other topics which are more favourable to you. For your own good, my two cents.

Ibram Gaunt SG

Mr V wrote:
words are words, websites are websites, i have yet to see solid evidence that proves the existence of evolution. so does that mean science is wrong then they say a fish cannot turn into a monkey? so if science is wrong doesnt it mean that its theories including evolution are wrong too? so lets say, if i take a fossil of a gorilla and a chimpanzee and compare them..can i say the chimpanzee evolved from the gorilla because it looks and shares similar features and such? so evolution said man evolved from monkeys..then if evolution holds true, why havent all monkeys or at least those which are considered closest to humans evolved into humans? monkeys have been around for years havent they? and according to mr darwin's furvival of the fittest theory, shouldnt these creattures who have yet to evolve into the strongest animal group die out? why are they still in existence? so does that mean evey single living thing evolved from a one-cell organism which evolved from nothing? so why cant scientists turn an amnoeba into a monkey? science has shown that you can turn a single cell of a certain animal into that of another animal, so hasnt evolution just been dealt a deathblow?

Ironically the answers to most of your questions can be found in
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp
which is a pro-creationist website. This webpage (entitled "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use)") is advising creationist NOT to use such stupid lines of reasoning against evolutionists, becos the arguments are untenable and tend to make the questioners appear foolish.

This answer to your above question is found here:
If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes today? In response to this statement, some evolutionists point out that they dont believe that we descended from apes, but that apes and humans share a common ancestor. However, the evolutionary paleontologist G.G. Simpson had no time for this pu$$yfooting, as he called it. He said, In fact, that earlier ancestor would certainly be called an ape or monkey in popular speech by anyone who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, mans ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous [mean-spirited] if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise.

However, the main point against this statement is that many evolutionists believe that a small group of creatures split off from the main group and became reproductively isolated from the main large population, and that most change happened in the small group which can lead to allopatric speciation (a geographically isolated population forming a new species). So there's nothing in evolutionary theory that requires the main group to become extinct.

Its important to note that allopatric speciation is not the sole property of evolutionistscreationists believe that most human variation occurred after small groups became isolated (but not speciated) at Babel, while Adam and Eve probably had mid-brown skin color. The quoted erroneous statement is analogous to saying If all people groups came from Adam and Eve, then why are mid-brown people still alive today?

So whats the difference between the creationist explanation of people groups (races) and the evolutionist explanation of people origins? Answer: the former involves separation of already-existing information and loss of information through mutations; the latter requires the generation of tens of millions of letters of new information.

Ibram Gaunt SG

Mr V's assertion: If humans had evolved from apes, there would no longer be any apes around.

RESPONSE: (i) Nothing in evolutionary biology says that humans evolved from apes. Rather, humans and apes both evolved from a common ancestor which (as it so happens) is not around anymore.

(ii) Even if evolutionists did claim that humans evolved from apes (because there are instances when evolutionists claim that a species is descended from another species still in existence today; apes and humans are just not one of these instances), to say that such evolution is impossible because there are still apes around today would be like arguing that an American cannot have Japanese ancestry since there are still Japanese people around.

(iii) The young-earth creationist organization Answers in Genesis has disavowed this argument as an argument that "should definitely not be used" by creationists. See their website at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

Hahaha....so you see....even the organised Creationist groups will not use the arguments that you have used!!! Hehehe.... Laughing

laurence82 SG

Darwin never say man evolve from apes.

Ibram, i think u need to post something from Darwin, coz some of these idiots are twisting Darwin's words

Ibram Gaunt SG

Mr V wrote,

monkeys have been around for years havent they? and according to mr darwin's furvival of the fittest theory, shouldnt these creattures who have yet to evolve into the strongest animal group die out? why are they still in existence?

----------------
One final point from me

Dear V,
You have the wrong concept of "Survival of the Fittest"

(quotes taken from Douglas Futuyma)
In evolutionary theory, the fitness of an organism is never defined in terms of the organism's ability to survive (though it has some relation to its ability to survive to reproductive age). The fitness of an organism is defined in terms of the organism's expected reproductive success.

The proper term for this process is known as Natural Selection.
Natural selection is the process by which species adapt to their environment. Natural selection leads to evolutionary change when individuals with certain characteristics have a greater survival or reproductive rate than other individuals in a population and pass on these inheritable genetic characteristics to their offspring. Simply put, natural selection is a consistent difference in survival and reproduction between different genotypes, or even different genes, in what we could call reproductive success. [A genotype is a group of organisms sharing a specific genetic makeup.]

The reason that natural selection is important is that its the central idea, stemming from Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace, that explains design in nature. It is one process that is responsible for the evolution of adaptations of organisms to their environment.

However, natural selection is not the only mechanism of evolution. Firstly, there cannot be evolution without genetic variation. So there must be mutation and often recombination to generate the different genotypes or the different versions of the genes, known as alleles, which then may or may not make a difference in the ability of an organism to survive and reproduce. You cant have any evolutionary change whatever without mutation, and perhaps recombination, giving rise to genetic variation. But once you have genetic variation, there are basically two major possibilities:

(1) There may simply be no difference between the different genotypes or different genes in their impact on survival or reproduction, and in that case, you can have random changes of one versus the other type in a population or a species until eventually one replaces the other. That is an evolutionary change. It happens entirely by chance, by random fluctuations. That is what we call the process of genetic drift.

(2) Natural selection, is a much more consistent, predictable, dependable change in the proportion of one gene vs. another, one genotype vs. another. Why? Simply because there is some consistent 'superiority', shall we way, of one genotype vs. another in some feature that affects its survival or some feature affecting its reproductive capabilities.

Under some circumstances natural selection plays a role in the origin of new species, by which I mean a splitting of one species lineage into two different lineages that do not interbreed with one another -- for example, the splitting of one ancestral primate lineage into one that became todays chimpanzee and the other that became the hominid line resulting in our own species.

Ibram Gaunt SG

laurence82 wrote:

Darwin never say man evolve from apes.

Ibram, i think u need to post something from Darwin, coz some of these idiots are twisting Darwin's words
----------------------------------------------------

Hi Laurence,

Bravo...indeed you are right. Darwin never made such claims and Creationists are forever fond of twisting his words to suit their fanatical beliefs and fundamentalist dogma.

I'm sure that whoever is interested (or who have sufficient time on their hands) can go to http://charles-darwin.classic-literature.co.uk/
where the various books and papers of Charles Darwin are available free online.

Or if anyone wants a brief intro/summary, he or she can get the excellent book "Darwin: A Very Short Introduction" written by Jonathan Howard (published by Oxford University Press, 2001). I have a copy sitting on my shelf, which I bought many years back in NUS Sci Fac co-op....however I dunno if it's still available there.

And anyone can just drop by the Life Sciences section of major bookstores to pick up an autobiography of Darwin to find out more about this matter.

Cheers,
Ibram Wink

« Previous Page