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.
Lets not resort to nastiness here.
You wrote: "Yes...as "Nutsy" beliefs once held until proven incorrect. Sure, why not?"
Reply: Now there you go. Well, can you really 'prove' that the planets are not pushed around the sun by angels? At what point do you decide that the geocentric universe is not a valid theory?
The ID notions of 'irreducible complexity' and "specified complexity' have been shown to be unscientific, internally inconsistent, and not productive of research. Why would we want to keep teaching them?
There is no proof that we evolved from apes. Period
I appreciate the explanation.
I think you have identified the problem. One either sees the scientific evidence or accepts what the bible says in spite of the evidence.
A few weeks ago I read an article in the newspaper about a new theory that a large asteroid hitting the ocean millions of years ago (or maybe it hit in the eastern shore of maryland, now that I think about it), anyway it caused a tsunami that supposedly topped the appalachian mountains.
I'm thinking that, if true, that should leave some sort of flood evidence.
I remember being down in Atlanta and seeing a cut-through which they had as an exhibit, which showed fossils of sea life. They happily explained how this proved evolution, and how this part of the world must have been under sea level and then it "thrust up" giving evidence of rapid sedimentation and aquatic fossils hundreds of feet above sea level. Couldn't have been a world-wide flood, nope, not a chance.....
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/photogalleries/ape_ancestor/
I didn't realize that NG, is trying to discredit evolution
Really? According to at least one FR evolutionists, man did descend from apes. Check out his post.
Alas, he probably does.
i.e...."If you don't agree with us...you're an idiot."
All anyone has to say is that "Evolution is NOT proven"....and the dogmatics come out of the wooodwork.
Evolutionists are NOT open to any other way but theirs...
redrock
Actually he's saying that we descended from the same organisms that apes did. This is always so confusing to the anti-science crowd.
Daschle is very concerned
Life is far more than scientific measurement and analysis. How do you measure spiritual well-being? What you and libs appear to fail to recognize is the potential benefit of some spiritual teaching....Yes, in conjuction with cold scientific facts.
A balance is in order....why doom children to cold science exclusively?
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.
You need to address this kind of evidence if you wish to support the flood story. This is not something I read or heard somewhere, this is something I have worked hard to learn. There is no counter to it on the creation pages, so most creationists on these theads simply ignore it when I bring it up. What do you say?
Stupid title. NOBODY who knows anything about evolution has EVER asserted that humanity evolved from apes.
The general assertion is that apes and humans share a distant, but common evolutionary ancestor. Evidence for this is the fact than humans and chimps have about 96% of their DNA in common.
Ultimately, it is a matter of faith. I believe that we may not have evolved from apes, but that humans and apes may have had common ancestors. Understanding the processes God used to introduce man and the other creatures into a dynamic environment does not make it less miraculous.
I fall into a third category--I see all the scientific evidence, but interpret it slightly differently than you do.
You wrote: "Couldn't have been a world-wide flood, nope, not a chance....."
Reply: The evidence against Noah's Flood includes not only the lack of geological evidence and much better explanations, but also from the domain of physics--condensing all that water vapor would release so much heat that the oceans would boil!
And is illogical from a theological and moral perspective. If God is so powerful as to create the Universe, surely He could have found a way to punish the bad people without having to kill innocent fetuses in pregnant women, without drowning innocent newborns and toddlers, without wiping out millions of innocent animals that had no stake in the argument (apparently in a fit of pique).
I used to hate bananas until I went to the zoo and saw the chimps peeling them and found they really do taste better without the skin...honest.
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.