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.
You've never met my ex-boyfriend!
Correct... there's never even been a theory that we evolved from ~apes~ exactly. ;~D
The answer is in PatrickHenry's List-O-Links.
BTTT
It is simply not possible to PROVE evolution with fossils.
There are too many counter explainations, and the fossil records don't usually contain a lot of complete skeletons.
The fossils are too old to extract DNA.
There is lots of evidence that can be used to support the theory of evolution. None that proves it.
You can put up pictures of skulls, but those scientific names gave are based on the idea that if it look like a human but different, it must be part of the fossil record showing evolution.
At most they might be able to provide evidence that there was a different species of that more closely resembled humans than apes in the past. They can't prove evolution.
We do not yet have the means to prove evolution, and almost impossible if not impossible to disprove as well. Maybe that will change as we learn more.
Hey, remember, I was a history major! Thanks for the link(s).
http://www.onesmallspeck.com/chapter%2010%20human%20fossils.html
I would certainly, like to read the who chapter.
the evidence you show are skulls of various forms...
the explination of which shows a timeline of change/relative-ness...above is an alternative explination.
"There is no proof that we evolved from apes."
Ever been up close with Teddy Kennedy?
That is probably correct.
If it was intelligent design, how come they didn't get it right the first time?
I always thought it was kind of stupid to fanatically support a world view on the presumption one could reliably reach conclusions about millions year old bone fragments.
Similarities in structure only constitute "proof" to true believers in the religion of evolution.
Think about it. You can't prove it. You can only suggest it. It is not science. It is speculation. Were you there? Can you reproduce it?
So who is the common ancestor and where is the fool proof evidence that it ever existed?
Honest question. I hear all of the time that we share a common ancestor, but nowhere has anyone showed any proof of that.
And that's how the tiger got his stripes. ;-)
Apes and humans share a common ancestor.
Why is that concept difficult to grasp?
"Ever been up close with Teddy Kennedy?"
---
Nope. I'm not a bartender.
yes a single celled bacterium like orgaism is your grandfather given enough generations. why stop at an ape like creature?
"I guess somewhere in the basement of the Smithsonian there is tons of proof of evolution but they don't want to show it to us just yet."
The "proof" is in any basic biology or paleontolgy text.
Its hard to take the Bible out of the argument as most people who object to evolution as an explanation for the origin of complex life base their opposition on the belief that Evolution somehow contradicts the Bible. I don't personally belief that as I am a Christian, believe in the Bible and believe in evolution. Where I part ways with atheists on evolution is that they explain the chain of events that led to modern man as a series of fortuitous accidents. I believe these so-called "accidents" - like the very rules of evolution themselves - were directed by the Hand of God.
I suppose there ARE some people whose opposition to evolution is based on other issues, like disagreement with the facts as presented or interpreted, but I beleive they are in the minority.
organism, better watch my typos on that one, could get in trouble.
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.