How Coherent Is the Human Evolution Story?

<< It's not that I am calling you a liar. >>

Of course not. You just said I was dishonest. BIIIIG difference -- sure there is. LOL! Like I said -- I am used to treatment like this from creationists who themselves are afraid to look at the evidence. No biggie. You call me dishonest -- and I call you ignorant of the facts. One of us actually has some evidence for his statement.

<< You are simply deceived by knowledge. >>

Deceived by knowledge. And you, I take it, are enlightened by ignorance?

<< The transitional fossils if they existed should clearly show formation of one type of animal into another. For instance, fins turning into legs, long ape arms turning into shorter human arms, etc... >>

Repeating a claim is not evidence for the claim. Once again -- you need to learn that this is one of the stupidest claims you could choose to make against evolution. It's nothing but a straw man of creationist "design" -- heh-heh. So am I to take it that you didn't bother to read any of those articles I linked to? Too bad. If you had -- you might not believe them, but at least you would have a chance of understanding what it is you are refusing to believe.

<< If evolution were true it would be so clear there would be no debate. >>

There is no REAL debate among scientists concerning whether or not evolution is a solid, well-supported explanation of the evidence. There is no alternative explanation that even comes close. I ask you again -- and I will keep asking you -- to read up on the actual scientific literature and see the evidence, instead of just continuing to repeat the creationist mantra. Repeating your denials does not make them any more persuasive. Only evidence and logic are persuasive -- and you have given neither. I have handed you enough to get you started on educating yourself about what evolution really does say -- instead of that ridiculous straw man you have chosen to continue repeating.

<< And your number of 99% of scientists believeing in TOE is just taken out of your hat. You don't know that at all. >>

I said 99% of BIOLOGISTS. Among other scientists the percentage is at least in the 90s. There is no debate. There is no controversy. Besides -- I also said that they could be wrong. But to show them they are wrong, you will need more than this stupid "transitional" straw man argument and accusations against their honesty and attitude toward religion. You will need actual evidence.

There is no logical alternative at this point. There is nothing else out there that can explain all the evidence the way evolution does. If you can come up with a better explanation, then your theory will win the day, and you will be world famous. But your alternative will have to deal with the real evidence -- and not be based on straw men and logical fallacies.

<< What about the thousands or at least hundreds of scientists that can explain the falsity of evolution alot better than I? >>

A few hundred out of hundreds of thousands -- and most of those few hundred are NOT biologists. You do the math and then tell me my numbers are wrong! Hahahaha!

Look -- there are people who are better arguers than both of us are -- on both sides. So what? It's not how well you can argue your point -- it's how well your argument actually fits the evidence that counts. The anti-evolution arguments are built entirely of distortions, mischaracterizations, and outright lies. They are based on religious objections, and often, those objections are deceitfully hidden. I challenge you, again, to do some reading in real science for a while -- even if it is just to balance out your research.

As long as you keep repeating your straw men and your false accusations that have nothing to do with the issue -- I will keep repeating this simple logic: You are not ready to refute an idea until and unless you understand that idea well enough to avoid misstating what it really says. So far -- you have failed utterly in your attempts to show any problems with evolution.

There are some unanswered questions, you know. There are some problems that have eluded science, so far. But you haven't even bothered to understand the theory, so that you know what those problems really are. You are content to just keep repeating your straw man -- in defiance of the evidence. And you have refused, so far, to educate yourself so that you can learn to stop making such a blunder. There's nothing more I can do than to point you to some evidence -- but I can't make you read it and understand it.

<< I really believe something has happened to you to make you angry towards religion or God that makes you cling to bad knowledge in your head. >>

There you go, again, with the stupid personal accusations, instead of evidence and logic. The fact is that you know nothing about me or my religious ideas, or what I think of "God." Nothing. But personal accusations serve to change the subject from your lack of understanding of the subject, and you seem too willing to avoid that subject, apart from repeating your straw man arguments.

I have no anger against religion -- or against any god or gods. Well -- I'm not particularly fond of Allah -- but beyond that -- I'm cool with most of the rest of them. There are some religions that I don't like at all -- such as Islam -- and some I could just as well do without -- such as Scientology and Christian Science -- but overall, I think religion, particularly Christianity -- well, most of it -- is a good thing.

But the truth is that this has nothing at all to do with what we are talking about. Evolution is not about religion or God. Even if it WERE true that I have "anger" toward "religion" and "God" -- that does not change the evidence. It doesn't diminish the scientific support for evolution one bit. It doesn't help you learn to stop using straw man argument and pitiful attempts at psychological diagnosis from a distance. Even if I hated all gods and all religion with a white-hot passion -- that STILL would have nothing to do with the evidence for evolution.

The evidence, Fabian -- the evidence. The REAL evidence. Why won't you just take some time to read a small bit of the real evidence? Read why evolutionary biologists accept the evidence we have; read how they interpret it; read about how much evidence there really is. Read about the experiments, the discoveries, the mistakes. And PLEASE -- read some good material on transitional fossils, for Pete's sake!

<< I have anger too,not to be a hypocrite, it's just that I have looked at both sides and clearly evolution falls for lack of evidence. >>

I don't believe you. Oh, I believe you when you say you have anger. But I don't care. Your anger is not evidence for or against anything. But I do not believe your claim that you have looked at both sides. You may believe you have -- but it's clear from your arguments that you have not looked at evolution. Instead, you have been gazing intently at the creationist straw man of evolution -- but when you beat up that straw man, you are not even touching the real thing.

Repeating a stupid straw man gives evidence that you really have not looked at evolution. If you really had -- you would not be using that straw man. Until you decide to bite the bullet and study the real thing -- not only are you not ready to make an informed decision concerning its validity -- you are not ready to make any argument against it -- and you are not able to avoid foolish arguments that are clearly false.

<< Have you ever thought of the fact that if we were evolving to better humans why the mass murder and suffering caused by one and other continues? >>

Have you ever thought of the fact that "evolving to better humans" has nothing to do with the theory of evolution? This is just another example of your lack of understanding of the theory you propose to argue against. It is just more evidence that you have NOT really looked at "both sides" as you claim. The fact that you consider this nonsense statement an actual argument against evolution is just more evidence of your complete ignorance of the subject you presume to refute.

PLEASE -- do some reading in the scientific literature. It is sure to help. It certainly can't hurt. PLEASE. Then maybe you will be able to avoid these embarrassing statements. Maybe. Consider me dishonest. Consider me angry. Hey -- consider me perverted and ugly. I don't care. Just do SOMETHING to clear up this ignorance you have concerning the subject matter at hand, before you embarrass yourself further with yet more straw men, non sequiturs, and other fallacies.

And last -- how about answering my questions? What IS evolution? What evidence do biologists point to in support of it? What predictions does it make? How can it be falsified? When you can answer those questions knowledgeably -- THEN and ONLY THEN will you be ready to try to refute it.

Who knew ICR had created it's own degree programs?

Hoesch included.

Too bad they can't get accredited.

bump to find later...

Fabian's post #317: it is so clear that transitional fossils are missing

My post #319: includes pictures and description of a transitional and a chart showing its position

Fabian's post #320, two and a half hours later completely ignores my post and repeats the same false claim.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make 'em think.

I saw a bumper sticker coming into work today which read, "Smile, Darwin loves you." That's the level of stupidity and moral bankruptcy this supposed "scientific theory" has brought our culture to.

<< You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make 'em think. >>

I gave him plenty of fodder, too -- but you can't force-feed 'em. They'd rather diagnose our religious "problems" than educate themselves.

Did you bother to finish reading the first paragraph of the link that you provided?

As it is now, ICRGS offers accredited M.S. degrees in four key fields (Astro/Geophysics, Biology, Geology and Science Education)

given a longer perspective, you can see features changing: brow ridges shrinking, a chin developing, braincase increasing in size, dental morphology and other related traits changing with diet, etc.

We see theses same so-called "changes" when we take a brief stroll downtown. How can I tell which ones really aren't human and are actually "living fossils"? Please advise.

How can I tell which ones really aren't human and are actually "living fossils"? Please advise.

Based on your question, I suggest you study some science. Evolution acts on many traits at once, from simple things like skin color to more complex things like resistance to disease and the many things involved in chewing. Not all traits will change much over time, or to the same degree.

In regard to human evolution, "living fossils" is a pretty meaningless term. Humans are made up of thousands of co-varying traits. Some relate more to the environment, some more to descent. Its a big jumble. Some traits may be more primitive than others. Overall your question does not make any real sense.

Unless it was meant as just a slam on the theory of evolution?

Try putting "creation" in the US Dept of Education's search engine here and see what you get.

I suppose cosmetology and geology are the same if facts are irrelevant.

I found this. It appears that ICR has a state exemption from accreditation:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://www.icr.edu/accreditation.html

State Exemption:

The ICR Graduate School was approved by the State of California Department of Education for the Master of Science Degree programs in Astro/Geophysics, Biology, Geology, and Science Education. This approval was granted on the recommendation of an Evaluation Committee from the Office of Private Post-secondary Education (OPPE), and became effective July 1, 1981. Approval was renewed on various occasions since then and was extended to 1992 by the Council for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education. In 1995 the Council confirmed that ICR/GS met the terms of California Education Code 94303(B)(2) for exemption from state approval. This exemption was retroactive back to 1992 and extended to the end of calendar year 1996. Since that time, a new education law was enacted in 1997. The exemption continues under the new organization, Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education under the Department of Consumer Affairs through 2007.

Council for Higher Education Accreditation Recognition Statement:

At its meeting on May 1, 2001, the CHEA board of directors reviewed the recommendation of the CHEA committee on recognition regarding the recognition application submitted by the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools. The board of directors accepted the committee recommendation and recognized the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools.

Accreditation:

The Institute for Creation Research is a member of the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools (TRACS) [PO Box 328, Forest, VA 24551; Telephone: 434.525.9539; e-mail: info@tracs.org] having been awarded Reaffirmed status as a Category III by the TRACS Accreditation Commission in November 1999; this status is effective for a period of ten years.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I don't quite know what to make of this. I can't imagine any scientific accreditating agency would ever approve of a grad school in science that taught "flood geology," a 5-10,000-yr. old universe, and YECreationism. I do know that Patrick Henry College in Virginia, the "homeschool" college -- cannot get accreditation because of its creationist stance.

Overall your question does not make any real sense.

Unless it was meant as just a slam on the theory of evolution?

The post that I was responding to doesn't make any real sense. It appeared that you were trying to use variation of skull characteristics to show evolutionary development over time, but the variances that were stated (brow ridges shrinking, a chin developing, braincase increasing in size, dental morphology and other related traits changing with diet) are still present among the human race today. The words that are blue in the parenthesis are based upon your subjective opinion unless you or someone else have actually observed these changes taking place over time. Please, let's stick to the science and leave the subjectivity out of this discussion. Thanks.

The words that are blue in the parenthesis are based upon your subjective opinion unless you or someone else have actually observed these changes taking place over time.

You have a confused notion of science. You don't have to have an observer on-site to observe everything.

It sounds like you are getting more information from creationist websites than science texts and journals.

(And I actually have studied many of the casts of pertinent fossil specimens; six years of grad school, half spent in evolution, fossil man, osteology and related subjects. I do have some background for my opinions.)

You have a confused notion of science

Perhaps you're right. I come from the old school of Physical Science rather than that new fangled phylisophical ideology that you kids call science today. ;-)

It sounds like you are getting more information from creationist websites than science texts and journals.

I can understand why you would say that, since the foundation of these science texts and journals primarily present their case without discussing the problems with the theories.

In your six years of grad school, haven't you ever felt the frustration of wanting to see the proof that what they were telling you was true, but it just wasn't there?

Aren't you the least bit amazed at the unimaginable series of miracles that would have had to take place for the theory of evolution to be true?

Hasn't it ever crossed your mind that everytime science finally aspires to the next level of understanding that we had struggled and faught for, sometimes for years on end, that rather than finding the answers to the origins of life that we had hoped for, we only find higher and higher levels of complexity and more questions that need to be answered?

I'm not a PhD, not even an MS, but I have always been fascinated with science. I grew up as an agnostic and attended college and studied electrical and biomedical engineering. I was completeley unaware that there was even a debate regarding evolution and creation, I was sure that science's evolutionary explanation of eventual occupation of this planet was the truth. However, I met with one continuous frustration after another when I saw the flimsy, house of cards called evidence for the origins of life and evolutionary biology. The questions that I asked in class were never answered and the answers that were given were without any real merit. I am only interested in the truth, and I know for a fact that all of the evidence supports the truth. Right now, I am certain, that not all of the evidence supports the theory of evolution. That's the bottom line.

I encourage you to continue seeking the truth, just as I intend to. However, I prefer to seek the truth through observable, testable science, and not through blind faith and indoctrination that comes from the propaganda presented by the scientific community. So many scientists are so bent on acting like they have all the answers, that they can't stand the thought that someone would present a question, or even some hard evidence, that might cause their precious theory to fall like a house of cards in a hurricane. Anyway, that's my position, and if you, as someone with some scientific background, think that people who ask simple questions are getting their information from creationist websites, and that that is a good enough reason to ignore those questions and continue waving the flag of the general populous, then just go ahead and continue to march lock-step with your cronies for all I care.

As for me, I prefer to look for truth, because all of the evidence supports the truth.

/I met with one continuous frustration after another when I saw the flimsy, house of cards called evidence for the origins of life and evolutionary biology. These questions were never answered and the answers that were given were without any real merit/

bump

W.

/everytime science finally aspires to the next level of understanding that we had struggled and faught for years on end, rather than finding the answers to the origins of life that we had hoped for, we only find higher and higher levels of complexity and more questions that need to be answered/

bump

W.

'Continue seeking the truth, just as I intend to'

/seek the truth through observable, testable science, and not through blind faith and indoctrination that comes from the propaganda presented by the scientific community. So many scientists are so bent on acting like they have all the answers, that they can't stand the thought that someone would present a question, or even some hard evidence, that might cause their precious theory to fall like a house of cards in a hurricane/

Good point, for if the science was so strong why would they care wherever the questions came from?

Wolf

I will post some reputable facts about the lack of transitional fossils for you to show you that dismissing this very important lack of evidence is keeping you in the dark. By the way, it's pretty easy to be dishonest without even knowing it becuase the many thoughts in our heads confuse us. That's what I meant about you...not that you are an outright liar. You are just confused but don't know it.
It is important to see the falsity of TOE because it's purpose is to oppose the reality of creation and try and create a doubt in kids minds about God. That's why it was wholeheartly adopted by the communists soviet union and other communist countries. It all part of a brainwashing that you have accepted. It's pretty sad...and I know you probably believe that about me. I don't think teachers like you are trying to create the doubt but you are being manipulated thinking that you have a grasp on the truth.

<< I will post some reputable facts about the lack of transitional fossils for you to show you that dismissing this very important lack of evidence is keeping you in the dark. >>

BWAAAAA-HAAAAAA!! Again with the transitionals! You have a one-track mind -- I'll give you that. The only problem is that it's running in circles. Don't waste your time -- and mine -- sending me stuff from creationist crap sites about transitional fossils. I read all that twaddle till it was oozing out my pores! LOL!

You need to spend your time catching up on the science. And answering my questions. Did you read those articles I linked for you? If not -- then why bother sending me stuff I have already read before anyway? READ the SCIENCE. THEN look at your creationist transitional claims for yourself.

<< By the way, it's pretty easy to be dishonest without even knowing it becuase the many thoughts in our heads confuse us. >>

Total nonsense. The very word "dishonest" carries the idea of DELIBERATE INTENT -- not confusion. People who say false things without KNOWING they are false -- are not dishonest. They are misinformed. But people who deliberately say AS TRUE what they actually believe to be false -- THEY are liars. No way around it. You are not allowed to redefine words to suit your argument; that is too much like the creationists redefining so many scientific terms to fit their straw men. Ain't gonna let ya get away with it!

<< That's what I meant about you...not that you are an outright liar. You are just confused but don't know it. >>

Being confused is not the same as being dishonest. Being dishonest is lying. Stop wasting your time and mine with this pathetic excuse for calling me a liar. It won't work. Besides -- I already said I don't care. I'm used to creationists calling me a liar simply because I confront them with the real evidence that they won't even bother to look at. Ironic, huh?

<< It is important to see the falsity of TOE because it's purpose is to oppose the reality of creation and try and create a doubt in kids minds about God. >>

You already tried that one -- and it's still false. Repeating it won't make it true. The purpose of the ToE is to explain the evidence. It says nothing -- yea or nay -- about a creator. Your accusation is a lie. Whether you know it's a lie or not -- those who put that lie in your head know it is.

NOTICE -- I came right out and said that that statement is a lie -- but I am not calling YOU dishonest or a liar. I am sure you really believe it. THAT'S the difference between calling someone dishonest and calling him confused.

<< That's why it was wholeheartly adopted by the communists soviet union and other communist countries. >>

LOL! The Soviet Union rejected Darwinism for Lysenkoism -- with disastrous results. Will you PLEASE do something about this massive ignorance. You are only exhibiting more of the same problem behavior you have been exhibiting all along. You are relying on creationist apologetics for your information -- and it is ill-serving you!

And it doesn't matter HOW many evil countries "adopt" Darwinism -- that has nothing to do with whether or not the ToE is a good scientific theory with good evidence. If you want to use that line of logic -- to be consistent -- you would have to reject the use of the zero because it was created by Hindus -- or the 365-day calendar, which was invented by the Egyptians, while the Hebrew calendar was a complicated mess. And are you aware that -- hold on, I know this will shock you -- the GODLESS, ATHEISTIC SOVIET UNION uses the same calendar today! OOOOOH!

<< It all part of a brainwashing that you have accepted. >>

Ah, yes. I'm brainwashed. We need to start keeping a tally of all these wonderful psychological diagnoses of yours. Let's see -- I'm dishonest, but not a liar; I'm angry at religion and at God; I'm brainwashed; I have "dark doubts" or whatever that stupid phrase was; I'm.... Is that all? Or are you saving the best for last.

HEY! I know. You still haven't called me a demon yet. Please feel free to do so. Several others already have. LOL!

<< It's pretty sad...and I know you probably believe that about me. >>

What I believe about you is that you are a coward. Why do I believe that? Because -- we have been going back and forth about this for a while now, and you still refuse to avail yourself of the opportunity to educate yourself on even the simplest elements of the very thing you presume to be fighting against. It's not sad. It's comical -- and revealing.

<< I don't think teachers like you are trying to create the doubt but you are being manipulated thinking that you have a grasp on the truth. >>

Oh, yes, I AM trying to create a doubt. I am trying to get you to doubt YOUR indoctrination in your anti-evolution folderol. I am trying to get you to doubt your own self-deception about having "looked at both sides" -- because it is obvious you have not. I have NO doubt now that you have not done so -- because if you had only read some of those links I have provided you, you would not be continuing this ridiculous line of argumentation.

I read creationist propaganda for twenty years. It took only a few months of reading real science to see how foolish and blind I had been -- and yes, brainwashed is a good word for it. When are you going to have the courage to read some real science? Why not start with those links I sent you, so you won't keep parroting that straw man nonsense about transitional fossils? That's a start. You are not ready to refute anything about evolution until you actually know what it really is and what it really does say. You have made it clear that you do not.

Oh -- and BTW -- I am still waiting for you to answer my questions. Perhaps you could take a break from your intense arm-chair psychologosizing of me -- and get around to answering them:

What IS evolution?

What evidence is it based on?

What predictions does it make?

How can it be falsified?

You know -- I'm used to chasing creationists around this mulberry bush. I can keep this up for a long time. Aren't you tired of running? Why not answer the questions?

Good job tracking this down.

But you can see it isn't real accreditation. It's an exemption.

And now they're turning out graduates who claim to have science degrees who don't know any more than someone who spent a couple hours at ICR's website.

The upside is that when we finally get this border thing solved we're going to need a lot of unskilled labor. ;)