Scientists Speak About Evolution (Quoted Admissions Of Evolutions Condemning Evolutionary Theory

Pathlights ^ | Staff

[ThanhPhero]

So what if there are "top scientists" who insist that evolution is fiction? There are just as many "top scientists" who claim that global warming is real.

The point here is that while there are scientists on all sides of the question, only one side is deemed Constitutional to present to students. That defines Evolutionists as Politicians serving the ideology of Evolutionism.

[Prime Choice]

So answer me this: do you REALLY want an openly-hostile Leftist teaching your kids about religion? You think they'll stick to the written word? Got news for ya.

[carumba]

That abiogenisis is possible. I say no way.

[orionblamblam]

> That abiogenisis is possible. I say no way.

Why? When it's been done in the lab?

Scientists have created living polio virii out of non-living raw materials. Since scientists do not have access to magical, supernatural or god-like powers, that shows that life from lifelessness through entirely naturalistic means is possible.

Similarly, the Urey experiments showed how amino acids can be created in early-Earth conditions, and the Fox experiments showed how the same conditions can turn those same amino acids into something *arguably* alive.

This is not Darwinian evolution... it is just complex chemistry.

[An.American.Expatriate]

An honest question!!

You state that the first quote regarding the origin of life has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

Why not?

Is not the very beginning of the evolutionary chain of importance?

FTR - I am not a creationist, nor am I an evolutionist. I beleive the "truth" lies somewhere in between. I can not prove my belief - nor can I "defend" it. It is "my" theory based on the scientific and historical evidence I am familiar with. So please, no flames or battles - my interest is genuine.

[carumba]

... it is just complex chemistry.
Scientist following a known sequence, working in a lab, manipulating base pairs, is not a good argument for abiogenisis. Sounds like creationism to me. The more complexity, the less likely it is that it would be a spontaneous thing. In my opinion it is the wrong paradigm.

[muir_redwoods]

"You can't?

Does this mean my computer really isn't here? And isn't working?"

Why don't you prove to us that it is?

[An.American.Expatriate]

What a staggering coincidence! We have sediment preserved long enough to show an actual example of each species in the chain, but all the sediment that might have preserved transitional forms was subsumed into the magma. I think you missed the point of the original quote. That being, the earth has not cooperated with science in preserving each transitional step by having the correct conditions present at the time. (Aww, poor scientists!!) But, due to this, any "transitional" form which we have found preserved, becomes by definition a known species - with missing transitional forms before/after. There is probably much validity in the assumptions made by science reagarding the "mutation" between one species and another (along a common path!!) - i.e. since we have fossil records of early man - "middle" man and the present, there are some conclusions we can draw regarding the "missing" ancestors. I think this is equally true for other species as well (reptiles for example). I do have a harder time grasping the "apes to man" steps. There seem to be some commonality between us, but the "missing link" (like the Holy Grail) appears to be more a matter of faith than one of, what an earlier poster refered to as, "scientific fact" (and I use it in the way he meant it). I admit that I do not follow the current news of evolution closely, so if my assertion is false, I invite correction - but, it seems that the only "missing link" the evolutionists are seeking is the one which explains man. No other species needs this (as I said - this may be entirely false!!).

[Thatcherite]

Perhaps this set of fossil skulls will help you. Creationists disagree amongst themselves on whether each one of these skulls are ape or human. Mainstream biologists say they are transitional between historic apes and modern human apes. By definition there will always be a "missing link" between what we find because the fossil record will always be incomplete. But the gaps get smaller and smaller.

[An.American.Expatriate]

My use of the term "missing link" does not refer to the transitional form per se, instead to the traditional "where did we split from the apes" (which by definition would also be transitional I guess :-) ).

I concur that the fossil record can never be "complete" - which neither proves nor disproves the theory of evolution.

[Thatcherite]

Your question "where did we split from the apes" is slightly out, I think. Biologically we are apes so we haven't split from them at all. We are a particular species of erect large-brained ape which has evolved from our ape ancestors over the last couple of million years. It seems that in that period the environment and social behavior of our ancestors (and some cousins that eventually went extinct) were such that intelligence was being strongly selected for. So in a hundred-thousand generations (short by geological standards but unimaginably long by human standards) brain-size increased considerably. Such changes are a continuum over time. The fact that it is difficult to point at the moment when we became modern people even if we had a fossil from every generation is a prediction of evolution, because of the gradual nature of the change and because the very definition of species is hard to tie down when constant small changes are accumulating.

[orionblamblam]

> is not a good argument for abiogenisis.

The polio case, yes. Going from chemistry to a relatively complex virus in one step is more than a hell of a stretch for the natural world. But the poitn was that it showed that no magic or "life force" or "breath of God" was needed to turn glop into life

> The more complexity, the less likely it is that it would be a spontaneous thing.

Yes, that's why I also mentioend the Urey and Fox experiments, whech went from basic chemicals (methane, CO2 and whatnot) and produced *argueably* protoife without the scientists going in and meddlign on the molecular/genetic level. They showed the life could fairly easily form of it's own accord, depnding of course on what you considered the threshold for "alive."

[frgoff]

The methods of classifying fossil species and living species are different.

They should be the same. Precise, universal definitions are essential to good science. We don't define a meter differently depending on whether we are observing a meter in Europe or in America, or whether we are talking about a meter in sedimentary layers or in a laboratory.

And, of course, we should be seeing more than speciation. There should be an observable rate of organisms moving into new genuses as well as new orders, classes, families, etc.

You see, evolution also requires not just speciation, but phylum, family, class, order, and genus creation as well.

[Dimensio]

Why not?

Because evolution is a specific process with specific mechanisms. The process of evolution requires the presence of reproducing life forms at every stage. When speaking of the ultimate origin of life there is, by necessity, at least one stage where reproducing life forms do not exist. Because of this, evolution cannot be applied.

Is not the very beginning of the evolutionary chain of importance?

The "beginning" of the evolutionary chain was when the first life forms capable of reproduction actually did so. Prior to that, evolution does not and cannot be applied. The study of how the first life forms came into existence is of interest to biologists, but the processes that caused such a thing to happen wouldn't necessarily be the same as the processes that drive evolution.

[bobdsmith]

So what should the definition of species within a genus be?

"They should be the same."
Then come up with a definition of species that can be used on both living organisms and fossils. If you claim it can be done, then do what noone else has been able to do.
Noone has even been able to come up with a definition of species that fits living organisms alone, that doesn't have contradictions.

"And, of course, we should be seeing more than speciation. There should be an observable rate of organisms moving into new genuses as well as new orders, classes, families, etc."
This would take far longer than even speciation. Ring species already show speciation to be a fact of life. Are you going to even address ring species?

[frgoff]

Then come up with a definition of species that can be used on both living organisms and fossils.

Easy. The definition of species in living organisms is the same as that used in the fossil record. Fossil speciation is 100% morphologically determined, therefore living speciation shall be 100% morphologically determined.

It's not that biologists can't use the same definition, it's that they won't. The question then becomes: Why not?

Are you going to even address ring species

I give up. I've stated at least three times now that the prediction is to find a percentage of speciation occuring AT PRESENT. Ring species do not qualify for the very fact it is a reconstruction of supposed PAST speciations.

The same principle of steady state processes also predicts a certain percentage of the biosphere will be undergoing a genus shift at any given moment, though the percentage will be far lower.

I'm done with this thread. Feel free to have the final word.

[bobdsmith]

My final word.

You claim that living speciation should be 100% morphologically determined. If this was the case poodles and dalmations would be classified as different species due to their morphological differences. Therefore by your definition of morphology speciation has already been observed occuring.

In reality species are a man made grouping in an attempt to divide up organisms on earth into distinct groups. But in nature there really are no distinct groups. There will always be animals that cross any lines you come up with. Ring species are an excellent example of this. Mutations can cause two populations to be no longer capable of interbreeding. Further mutations can diverge the morphology of those populations. There is no known barrier on how far this change can go, and it is entirely likely that it goes as far as explaining the documented changes in the fossil record.

[PatrickHenry]

... it is entirely likely that it goes as far as explaining the documented changes in the fossil record.

That hypothesis gets tested all the time. And it never fails:
All present and fossilized animals found should conform to the standard evolutionary tree. And they do.
Fossilized intermediates should appear in the "correct" chronological order on the standard tree.
Species that are more closely related should share a greater portion of their DNA..

[ThanhPhero]

Non sequitur

[carumba]

I believe we can agree that we share skepticism about the origins of life stories. I will keep an open mind and maybe someday the right paradigm will be trotted out and it will all make sense and the questions we both have will have elegant answers.