There is no proof that we evolved from apes. Period

Simon Schama appears to have little understanding of biology (Opinion, September 4). With an ostrich mindset that tries to ignore reality, pseudo-scientists continue in the vain hope that if they shout loud and long enough they can perpetuate the fairy story and bad science that is evolution.

You don't have to be a religious fundamentalist to question evolution theory - you just have to have an open and enquiring mind and not be afraid of challenging dogma. But you must be able to discern and dodge the effusion of evolutionary landmines that are bluster and non sequiturs.

No one denies the reality of variation and natural selection. For example, chihuahuas and Great Danes can be derived from a wolf by selective breeding. Therefore, a chihuahua is a wolf, in the same way that people of short stature and small brain capacity are fully human beings.

However, there is no evidence (fossil, anatomical, biochemical or genetic) that any creature did give rise, or could have given rise, to a different creature. In addition, by their absence in the fossil record for (supposed) millions of years along with the fact of their existence during the same time period, many animals such as the coelacanth demonstrate the principle that all creatures could have lived contemporaneously in the past.

No evidence supports the notion that birds evolved from dinosaurs, nor that whales evolved from terrestrial quadrupeds, nor that the human knee joint evolved from a fish pelvic fin. And the critically-positioned amino acids at the active sites within enzymes and structural proteins show that the origination of complex proteins by step-wise modifications of supposed ancestral peptides is impossible. In other words, birds have always been birds, whales have always been whales, apes did not evolve into humans, and humans have always been humans.

But you might protest that it has been proved that we evolved from apes. In fact, the answer is a categorical No. Australopithecines, for example, were simply extinct apes that in a few anatomical areas differed from living apes. If some of them walked bipedally to a greater degree than living apes, this does not constitute evidence that apes evolved into humans - it just means that some ancient apes were different from living apes.

Evolution is based on anatomy, geology and genetics.

The geological record indicates that the further back in time you go, the simplier the organisms.

Go back far enough and you find only indications of bacteria- like organisms such as blue-green "algae" (really a bacteria with cholorphyll). As you progress through the geological record you find the remains of increasingly more complex organisms which have physical similarities to some organisms which preceeded them and some which succeeded them.

Organisms which have anatomical similarities are believed to be related - to have had common ancestors. When comparisons are done on the DNA of living organisms which are presumed to be related through evidence like this in the geological record, these relationships are generally substantiated. They are also substantiated through amino-acid studies on body fluids and tissues.

Look at snakes. Snakes have scales. So do lizards. Anatomically, they are very similar with some very significant difference. Snakes have no legs or pelvic or pectoral girdles in their skeletons. But SOME "prmitive" snakes like pythons, still retain very tiny remnants of rear legs. It is assumed, based on these factors that snakes evolved from lizards.

The earliest horse fossils are of small animals with several toes. As you move forward in the fossil record, you find the fossils of those horse are gradully replcaed with fossils of larger animals with reduced toes until the most recent horses have only a single one-hoofed toe.

Similar relationships have been observed in very many species of animals.

There is even embryological evidence. AS an embyo developes, it has certain features of a primitive nature which later disappear or altered into another form as the embryo grows larger.

Once it was thought that evolution preceeded in a rectilinear progression - a primitive species giving rise to a more advanced species, and so on until the final modern product was achieved. We now believe that evolution preceeds more like a growing bush. Some species evolve into current organisms, other became biological "dead ends". We don't really know for certain which of these primitive homids were our ancestors, but if they weren't directly ancestral to us, they most certainly were our genetic "cousins". A current debate along these lines involves Neaderthals and modern man. Most anthropologists believe Neanderthals were our gnetic cousins and di not evolve into modern man. They believe modern man evolved from some other ancestor which might have also been the ancestor of Neanderthals and later modern man exterminated or displaced Neanderthals. Some others believe that Neanderthals may have interbred with early Modern Man and contributed to our gene pool.

These studies are somewhat in a state of flux, but few if any serious biologists really question the basic premise that all living organisms are related and derived from some common ancestors.

"Or do you think that new species arose from old ones after random mutations and natural selection over zillions of years?"

Yes.

"I don't believe in this last notion; and I assure you I do not have a "Quranic mindset." As for "evidence," I see the evidence for speciation as "nebulous and untestable," but maybe that's just because of my scientific training."

Based on my scientific backgroud - several degrees in the biological sciences, I believe in evolution.

As for the issue of Quranic mondset - if the Bible specifically stated evolution was a fact, would you believe it then?

"How about nobody saw it happen, science is about testable and repeatable processes, evolution is a description of something observed and testable, but evolution cannot provide evidence of history."

In a sense what you are stating is correct. But from a realistic perspective, prooving evolution in a laboratory is probably impossibel, although we have come near close to it with recent work on bacteria. But the overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence is so compelling that if evolution was ever presented in a courtroom, it probability would be unquestionable. Since we can't really prove evolution, bnut since the evidence available is so overwhelming, we run with it as there is nothing that can be presented as an alternative to explain what we are observing.

In fact, studies on astronomy and cosmology are very frequently done in a very similar manner.

Being a Rabbinical Teacher, I much prefer the loving instructions in the Torah (Bereshith/Genesis). Yahweh shows us that He designed Human after He designed all the animals. His Salvation (Yahs Salvation) actually did the physical duties. See Proverbs 30:4. Nothing is said about cloneing or mutations. We (human) are works of the Hands of the Mighty creator and are more precious than any work of art or treasure. When we destroy His Creation we are committing whitchcraft, by putting ourselves above the Master Designer. When we negate the Loving Instructions Torah) with a strange doctrine (Darwinism) we are stepping on dangerous ground.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.