Posted on 12/15/2005 9:10:41 AM PST by flevit
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.
I guess you're not going to address my questions.
Be happy in your belief.
ML/NJ
Zulu you're not listening. Problem with many militant evolutionists is they talk when they should be listening. The problem we have is when you're use of the term "common ancestors". That “Common ancestor” has never been found. In fact study on Neanderthal man has shown that through DNA analysis that it was improbably we had a common ancestor.
http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SUA10/neander797.html
Were hominids present around the same time as modern man, absolutely. But many of the theorems on evolution from a common Eastern African ancestor are not agreed universally in the scientific community. All theories nailing Darwinian evolution as scientific fact to this date have been either disproven or are on shaky ground, see Piltdown man. How many transitional species have been found to date, let me help you, a fat goose egg '0'. No short neck giraffes found to this date. I have a better question for you, if you are serious about the truth, why do you want the evolution theory to be true? Think about my question and not fire back with the “Skeptic” magazine James Randy type philosophical mumbo jumbo word games answer.
A.W. (Bill) Mehlert has a Diploma in Theology and lives in Brisbane, Australia. He is a keen student of Flood geology and the fossil record, including the supposed fossil evidence for human evolution, and has written a number of important articles on these topics in the Creation Research Society Quarterly and Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal.
But someone with Downs Syndrome is still a human...
Distinction without a difference. Was the common ancestor between chimps and humans an ape?
How about this. An archaeologist (me) says, based on 35 years of work in the western US, there is no evidence in the western US of a large-scale flood such as is claimed to have occurred some 4200-4300 years ago.
Don't quote the Channeled Scablands of eastern Washington, as that is way to early for the biblical flood, way too localized, and pretty well understood. The global flood would have made that look like a leaky faucet.
I repeat, there is no evidence of a large-scale flood in the areas I have worked.
Another article: Problems with a Global Flood, Second Edition, by Mark Isaak
Some evolutionists claim mammals evolved from therapsid reptiles.
Then again some claim that humans suddenly appeared.
They are all over the place. As such, evolution should be included as theory not fact. Other theories should be allowed in the discussion including ID and Creation - Judaeo-Christian Creation.
Actually I didn't. Perhaps great minds think alike...
You: "Ahhhh, there's the rub. Who defines "nutsy"? I would have preferred to have been taught all theories...Guess there wasn't enough time in a day or enough qualified teachers."
Reply: Oh really? Do you truly "think" we should teach flat-earthism, the geocentric theory of the solar system, that pneumonia is caused by evil spirits, that babies are brought by storks? Do you really say these notions should be taught in science class on an equal basis?
You wrote: "Other theories should be allowed in the discussion including ID and Creation - Judaeo-Christian Creation."
Please see my post #146.
Yes...as "Nutsy" beliefs once held until proven incorrect. Sure, why not?
That's a nice collection of skulls you have there, Yorick.
I can't recall where this came from, wasn't a new-age mystic, schlock book, but I was impressed about the description that life had been around for a LONG time, and in a flash, humankind ascended....6,000 years versus millions type of thing.
Actually re-enforced my religious beliefs.
Alas, they are not appreciated. (That's OK, I can find more.)
First: Did they compare the morphology of this skull to various existing humans? Humans have a significant morphological range. If this skull matches within a certain range to living human races, then you can pretty much eliminate the intermediate species interpretation.
Second: Since there is no empirical definition of species or subspecies, the discoverers are simply stating their opinion (influenced by their a priori assumption that evolution is fact).
Evolution is a THEORY. You have said so...therefore it must be true.
But, like ALL dogmatics, you must resort to demeaning my ability to think in order to prove your ability is superior.
Funn...but you sound just like a Liberal.
redrock
Very true, because when such bones are found, they are assumed to be contamination or the result of mixing because everyone knows that Bears didn't live 2 billion years ago.
Paradigms are fascinating things.
That wouldn't disprove evolution. You'd just say that men and dinosaurs must have lived together, and postulate a new common ancester farther back in time.
That isn't just talk, we've done this already many times, as we've found virtually modern-looking human skeletons dating farther and farther back in the timeline.
A discovery of two creatures in the same strata that were supposed to be separated in the evoulutionary timeline is often hailed as proof of evolution, rather than a debunking, much like any weather pattern, be it extra-dry, extra-wet, cold, hot, stormy, quiet, whatever, is a sure sign of global warming.
Of course, if evidence was found of humans and dinasaurs living at the same time, it is probably more likely evolutionists would simply deny the validity of the evidence, unless it is bones of a dead human inside the fossilized chest of a dinosaur -- because while evolutionists can easily re-write their mythology, it still is a pain in the butt to do so.
Is the discovery of the same building blocks used over and over proof of evolution, or proof of an intelligent designer? One thing is sure -- it's proof that God was not a software engineer...... (unnecessary programmer joke)
it boils down to dating....
to except a global flood, would be to abandon the explination that the fossil record (bulk anyway) represents a time line...what you think is "evidence" for evolution is ALTERNATLEY explained as evidence for a global flood,
in other words trying to proclaim "I don't see it" by your time line is counter productive, any one excepting the global flood, would not except your timeline.
I am explaining the position not trying to convince you.
Careful. You've smacked into Haldane's dilemna. He showed mathematically that the very thing you're talking about makes the Earth too young, by about a factor of 100, for humans to evolve.
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.