Charles Darwin's unfunny joke

Here we go again, the ignorance parade has started....

And now that you're here they have a bandleader.

They may be fossils alright, but they're not transitional from apes to humans etc.

People see what they want to see in rocks.

And people, for religious reasons, can't see what they don't want to see in rocks.

Why don't you let scientists figure out what specimens are transitionals and what specimens are not. At least they have the qualifications to do so.

For your edification, here is a transitional. Note its position in the chart which follows (hint--in the upper center):

Fossil: KNM-ER 3733

Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)

Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)

Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)

Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)

Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)

Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)

Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)

See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33

Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html

Wow, you thought of that all by yourself?

Hint: Jokes are funnier when they are original, and you don't just piggyback on someone else's.

I fail to see why the theory of evolution as it stands is incompatible with the idea of a creator.

I agree.

But that doesn’t mean that Darwin’s theory of evolution is good science. There has been a lot of junk science that was/is accepted as good science. Notable names and groups: Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, Rachel Carson, Kinsey, Robert Malthus, and a bunch of environmentalists to include those afraid of global warming, or, in an earlier decade, global cooling. On closer examination, I believe the same may apply to Charles Darwin. This is hard to see because we have been indoctrinated to believe in evolution. The competition of ideas has not taken place on a level playing field in high school and elsewhere for many decades.

"Could it be that this whole evolution idea has grown out of a deep desire to escape the implications that necessarily accompany the concept of an infinite Intelligence, a Creator?"

Good chance.

There is no question that Biology and perhaps moreso Microbiology are great indicators of a rather deep relationship between all life forms on the planet.

The notion that all of these diverse life forms came about as a result of randomness in the physical universe is rather an uninviting concept for any seriously thinking person, IMHO!

Never the less, that is the sort of nonsense that we and our children are being spoon fed by the brilliant minds of Academia.

In a nutshell, something had to come from nothing if the Intelligentsia have it right.

Of course, some might argue that God came from nothing, but that is circuitous reasoning.

Any attempt to use that silly, spurious reasoning does in the end prove exactly nothing less than the best thing to do is to just continue arguing or let it all go, or accept the "substance of things hoped for, evidence not seen" as a way of life.

The rest can worship or fear Thanatos, as they will.

Creation Archive > Volume 14 Issue 4 > Those fossils are a problem

First published:
Creation 14(4):44–45
September 1992
Browse this issue
frame right
frame bottom left frame bottom frame bottom right
Those fossils are a problem

Dr David Pilbeam, of the Boston Natural History Museum, has considerable expertise in palaeoanthropology (the study of fossil man). He came to the attention of the scientific community as being an objective scientist when he wrote an article for Human Nature magazine, June 1978, entitled, ‘Rearranging Our Family Tree’.

In that article he reported that discoveries since 1976 had shaken his view of human origins and forced a change in ideas of man’s early ancestors. Dr Pilbeam’s previous views were wrong about tool use replacing canine teeth, evidence for which was totally lacking. He did not believe any longer that he was likely to hit upon the true or correct story of the origin of man. He repeated a number of times that our theories have clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of the actual data. Too often they have reflected only what we expected of them.

In an interview with Luther Sunderland, Dr Pilbeam elaborated on the subjects he had discussed in his 1978 article. Currently, he was teaching a course that covered primates and was also doing field research in Africa and Pakistan. He was advising the Kenya Government on the establishment of an international institute for the study of human origins. His office was near those of anthropologists Richard Leakey and his mother, Dr Mary Leakey, in Nairobi, Kenya. He referred to several more recent publications, a review article in Annual Reviews of Anthropology, and several on his work in Pakistan.
Why had he changed his position on human origins?

He said it was not due to the discovery of only one particular specimen, but the recovery of various materials made him realize that his previous statements, which had been made so adamantly, were really based on very little evidence. Because they were based on so little evidence, he began to wonder why he had held them so strongly. It made him think about the nature of scientific thinking, and this precipitated a very profound change in his approach to analysing data. He said that many of the statements made in the field of human origins had ‘very little to do with the real data and a great deal to do with unstated assumptions’. He thought this was true not only of his field but, ‘Much of what is said in other areas, I think, is also highly speculative’.

Dr Pilbeam said there were two ways to look at evolutionary theory: the punctuated way and the gradual way. Before the punctuated equilibria theory came along, scientists said emphatically there was only one way. Dr Pilbeam thought it would be very difficult to tell for most mammal groups which alternative was correct, but he thought that some people who disagreed with punctuated equilibria theory did so on philosophical rather than empirical grounds. He emphasized that this was why he had made such a point in his 1978 article that one’s preconceived notions shape the way one perceives data.

Dr Colin Patterson, a senior palaeontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, agreed about the lack of fossil evidence connecting man with a lower primate. In answer to the question, ‘What do you think of the australopithecines as man’s ancestors?’, Dr Patterson replied, ‘There is no way of knowing whether they are the ancestors to anything or not.’ The above was largely quoted from Luther Sunderland’s book, Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems. This book takes a refreshingly different line from other creationist books on the fossil problem.

Sunderland formally, and in detail, interviewed five leading fossil experts from the world’s major fossil museums. Face to face in a formal scientific discussion, they not only confirm, but also enhance, what creation scientists such as Dr Duane Gish have been saying all along. Sunderland relentlessly takes the reader on an excursion with the experts to every single major transition—the net result is devastating. Australian anti-creationist palaeontologist Michael Archer is still insisting that evolutionary transition is adequately documented in the fossils. The ‘best of the best’ in the evolutionary fossil camp claim otherwise, in their own words.
Are there any transitional fossils?

None of the five museum officials whom Luther Sunderland interviewed could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another.

Dr Eldredge [curator of invertebrate palaeontology at the American Museum] said that the categories of families and above could not be connected, while Dr Raup [curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago] said that a dozen or so large groups could not be connected with each other. But Dr Patterson [a senior palaeontologist and editor of a prestigious journal at the British Museum of Natural History] spoke most freely about the absence of transitional forms.

Before interviewing Dr Patterson, the author read his book, Evolution, which he had written for the British Museum of Natural History. In it he had solicited comments from readers about the book’s contents. One reader wrote a letter to Dr Patterson asking why he did not put a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. On April 10, 1979, he replied to the author in a most candid letter as follows:

‘… I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?

’I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.

‘So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defence of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job …’

Reference

* Patterson, personal communication; documented in: Luther Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma, Master Books, El Cajon, CA, pp. 88–90, 1988.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/fossils.asp

I'm making this long post because you seem reasonable, and I think sincere--somewhat rare in those who defend evolution.

I did not "acquire the notion that evolutionary theory is about origins. After all, it all derives from a book named "Origin of the Species," in case you have forgotten. If creation is denied (which it is by me) and life has a beginning, (which is doubted by me) whatever else the evolutionist is interested in, he must assume that life originated somewhere, somehow, and however much he'd like to avoid the subject, the origin of life is central to the whole quesion of evolution.

Quickly I'll address some points you made:

1) mass extinctions of species (more species have lived and perished than currently exist)

Extremely doubtufl, and at least unproveable.

2) embryonic development in higher life forms exhibits stages in which archaic, biologically useless characteristics manifest, such as tails and gill slits in human embryoes.

This is very old and almost universally repudiated.

3) Parallel evolution, as with crocodiles and alligators, two distict species that are nevertheless remarkable similar and well-adapted to survive in similar environments. Or were those Florida alligators here all along, BEFORE the land subsided into the Carribean Ocean, just waiting (out in the desert or in the forests?) for the ideal environment to evolve? How did they survive in the meantime?

Interesting question, "how did they survive." It is interesting because those who reject the creation story (or deluvian story of Noah and two of each species) are quite right in observing, if there are only two of a breeding species that odds against survival are zero to none. Yet, if evolution is right, each new species had to begin with at least one new breeding pair. Since the only known way a new species could develop is by mutation, that would mean the exact same mutation would have to occur in at least two offspring of some creature to make breeding of the new specie possible at all, and for survival, would require a larger number of breeding pairs, all with the same genetic characteristics produced by mutation at approximately the same time. Since there are millions of species, this event would have had to happen millions of times.

In all of recorded history there is not one example of a mutation that has produced a new specie, and, with the exception of some extremely doubtful cases, there has never ever been one mutation of any creature that was beneficial.

Now, with apologies for it's length, I'm going to provide a very long argument against evolution by a micro-biologist who is neither a creationist or "intelligent-designist" but simply recognizes that evolution is nothing more than a very unsubstantiated hypothesis that is interesting, and may ultimately be valid but is a long long way from being established and has no basis for being taught as science at all.

The so called “theory of Evolution” was first proposed by Darwin based on observable, physiological characteristics. This was seized upon as an escape from the dominance of religious thought, which had held that man was a being made, and thus owned, by a mystical God.

Some fossilized remains of human-like bones were found, and the “flow-chart” constructed which fitted the theory. Basically, the theory was, in order to explain similarities of form across specie, the various species must have had a common ancestor and then “diverged” in small but cumulative ways. It was a neat story. And there are some small ways it does work - but only within species. As an explanation for the variety of species, and for the origins of the existence of man, it is ultimately wrong.

The fossil record theory of evolution had to rely on a few scattered bones for its evidence. Collected from geological strata dated back 4 million years, very little – relatively speaking - has been discovered the majority of which are scattered bones from which final body shapes have had to be reconstructed. The evidence is scanty. However, with the discovery that the genome was the conveyer of hereditary material, came the “link” that paleontologists were looking for. DNA carries the information for the amino acid content of proteins and triglycerides of lipids which make up the enzymes, organs and structure of the body. Minor physical variations which were passed on to offspring within species were discovered by Mendel, and rediscovered in the early 20th Century (Mendels’ work was largely ignored since no-one could understand it, and it was assumed to be either wrong or faked – an attitude which persists to this day!!). Using simple crosses, these variations could be linked to genome diversity, later discovered to be variations in DNA content and information.

This is where the major error was made. Information regarding genetics was linked to known anatomy and physiology, and assumed to be direct. In other words, the gene provided the information for the structure of the human form, different humanoid forms had been found and posited to have arisen from previous forms, with humans and apes having arisen from a common ancestor, and all animal life having sprung from the same set of cells and with accumulated random error in the DNA inherited by offspring the means.

How do genomic variations occur?

1. Point mutation. This is when damage to the DNA from external sources such as radiation, or cellular aging, the DNA changes one of its base pairs, thus changing the code from one amino acid to another. Almost always this is deleterious.

2. Recombination. This occurs when DNA from one part of the genome breaks away and rejoins at another part of the genome. It is more regularly and frequently an event in all genomes, prokaryote and eukaryote, as small sections of DNA are exchanged between chromosomes during the phases of cell division, usually being either neutral in effect or deleterious as in Philadelphia 21, which leads to Chronic Myloid Leukemia.

3. Transposition. Small fragments of DNA known as transposons are able to “lift” fragments of DNA and transport them, in the case of bacteria into a different cell via plasmids and viruses, or in the few eukaryotes found to have them ie. Drosophila, around the cell genome.

4. Re-assortment. Possession by eukaryotic cells of two pairs of genetic information which separate randomly in cell division and then pair with the opposite from the second parent during fertilization.

Which type of genomic variations are important for evolutionary theory?

Since evolution posits that changes are acquired and passed on to offspring, only changes in the germ line DNA, ie sperm and ova, have any significance. Changes to somatic cells are irrelevant to the theory.

Thus, the unit of significance is not time, but generations.

Prokaryotes (Bacteria).

Bacteria have been studied extensively for years. They have a single, looped genome, which has been fully analysed. With a short life span [E.col) under optimal conditions reproduces in 20 mins] they are ideal for examining generational changes. Many can swap DNA very fast, as the spread of Antibiotic resistance genes demonstrates. In spite of years of treatments and environmental changes, alterations to genomes, spread of genes via phages, plasmids, transposons, no bacteria has ever shown any sign of any characteristics of anything but itself. Even bacterial types, eg. Staphylococcus, Tuberculus, streptococcus, don’t change into one another.

Eukaryotes – multi celled organisms

The most extensively studied eukaryote is the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster. With only 4 chromosomes and a reproductive cycle of 7 days, they have made an excellent tool for investigation. Used since 1910, when T. H. Morgan first started modern genetics with them, we have been able to study 4,940 generations. (If we assign 15 years as an arbitrary generational time for humans this is the human equivalent of looking back 74,100 years).

Drosophila, over this time have been exposed to just about every sort of mutant generator. Mutations have been found for almost all characteristics, the wings, colour, eyes, thorax components, and many more. Certain genes that convey rapid mutations have been isolated. Drosophila come in every wing shape (including wingless), colour and twisted up contorted variety. But in all this time, they have never shown any indication of being anything other than D .melanogaster.

There are reasons why Drosophila is more likely than humans to express an evolutionary change – they have less DNA to be changed. With only 4 chromosomes compared to humans 22, there is a smaller “target” area.

Morever, they have transposons, which can move DNA rapidly around the cell. Humans have no transposons, and have to rely on point mutation, re-assortment and recombination. However, there is even here a difficulty. Females form their ovaries and ova while they are still themselves embryos. At birth, all of a females reproductive capacity is already “in place”. Ovaries are buried deeply, not easily exposed to environmental assault, and each ova has partially completed its cycle to final stages of release ready for fertilization. We are on a better chance with males, whose sperm are made freshly and frequently, in very large amounts, and whose organ of construction is more exposed to the environment. But this means the chances of genetic mutation are halved to only one of the two needed to produce new generations.

Further problems are encountered when considering that:

Most mutations are deleterious, those that are not are usually neutral (i.e. brown eyes to blue)

Because only one parent will be carrying the chance arisen genetic variant, it must be dominant in its expression, ie. It is expressed in the phenotype in preference to the original gene carried by the other non-mutant bearing parent. In most cases, the mutant form is recessive (again, blue eyes to brown).

There is a dilution effect. Down generations, a single mutation, which may gain expression in 100% offspring in the F1 cross, will gain less expression in the F2 as the offspring reproduce with partners without the mutant form and genetic reassortment of chromosomes will produce offspring not carrying the mutant variant.

From plants, prokaryotes, simple single celled organisms, and on, studied extensively, forcibly mutated, crossed and re-crossed with selected mates, the only variation ever seen is always within the species. No specie has been seen to change into the beginnings of another.

The theory claims that the selective pressure for a species to change is survival.

However, the problem with this is that species survival is directly related to the ability to produce more offspring in the face of the challenge. This means that a change has to occur quickly, yet the theory states that changes are slow, over millennia.

If the theories claim that changes occur but lie dormant until selection favours them, we have to ask how and why changes of complexity which require the entire change to be present occur, and why should they, when the organism was obviously surviving well enough. An example is that of certain insects which when clustered look like a flower. Co-ordinated changes all must occur at the same time, for each insect which carries the different colours and shapes to produce it’s part of the jigsaw. Given that the insects were obviously surviving well enough to produce these changes – slowly over time according to the evolutionists, we have to assume they were surviving well enough as they were in order to have got to this point. So, why would they change, and how would such a complex change occur by “random mutations”?

The issue of complexity is knotty problem for classical evolutionists. Quite apart from the frequently cited case of the mammalian eye, all aspects of which needs to be in place to work, we can simply consider that of the working cell itself. Let’s look at DNA transcription to produce a protein. The correct DNA sequence must be in place. The mRNA must have been produced correctly by it’s DNA, and be in place, the tRNA - a different one for each amino acid – must have been correctly transcribed and formed, the ribosome - both units, must have been correctly transcribed and its tertiary structure formed, the enzymes involved must all be present and active. The ATP pump must be working to provide the energy required. The correct solution of salts and trace elements must be present and at exactly the correct pH.

And this is just to form one simple protein. To suggest a small change in one gene can bring about major changes in the face of such complexity beggars belief.

But there is another major problem which those who linked genetics to paleontology seem not to understand.

To return to the protein, once all the amino acids are linking into the chain, this is only the first stage. The protein then takes a tertiary conformation. Almost all proteins form and alpha-helix. Since a helix can twist right (d) or left (l) in theory this could be either. In fact, apart from a very few rare instances, all proteins are left helices. This tertiary folding is dependent, not only on the amino acids being present in the correct order, but the molecular shape and charge of the amino acids, the liquid environment the protein is floating in, and the presence of various trace elements and minerals. Since all proteins take a (l)-alpha helix, we are left facing the conclusion that the shape, the three dimensional attribute, is something which the environment the protein is in forces on it, and that there is only one shape available to proteins because of this constraint.

The issue of tertiary structure is found in DNA, which is not linear, as the diagrams represent, but forms a twisting, twisted and twined shape manipulation of which is essential for genetic transcription and recombination to occur.

Which brings us to Developmental Biology.

Developmental biology is that area of biology which asks, what makes the final body shape. Why an elbow? How come a knee? What rounds a heel, gives a liver the exact shape and conformation it does. And the answer is, we don’t know. We do know of certain complexes of gene groups which contribute certain factors involved in the skeleton, largely because of the altered effects seen when the genes are altered. The products of some of these genes, acting in concert with a multiplicity of other factors, does play a part in at least providing the cellular components required to form a developing limb bud, cranium and jaw structure. However, many of the experiments which claim an ‘effectiveness” are simply noting the presence of an essentially toxic compound useless to the body, and a malformation, as the Hox1a gene associated with slightly mal-formed hands and feet of those carrying the variant (very very rare). This doesn’t, of itself, prove the Hox box does in fact control limb structure, since the product of the mutant gene is a shortened form of the required protein, therefor unrecognisable to the bdy and possibly treated as many other toxic elements are and consigned to the furthest limbs. However, other more positive evidence, does support the contention that the Hox box provides some of the requirements for limb bud formation in the developing embryo up to the 12 week gestation. However, although it provides the limb bud, there is no evidence that this directs and controls the final shape, ie the anatomy of the limb.

There is no genetic evidence which demonstrates the final skeletal form is purely genetically driven. And the skeletal form is the basis of all of paleontology. The evolutionists are in fact basing their entire "theory" on a mistaken link - that of genetics with skeletal form.
Ultimately, there is far too much complexity to the living cell, plant and animal for single changes to do much other than contribute to likely elimination of the indivual carrying the mutation. To suggest a single mutation can so affect an entire species is like suggesting that the fruit seller at the gates of a vast and complexs industrial city can significantly affect the entire city by altering where he is standing by a few feet.!!

An alternative speculation to Intelligent Design and Evolution.

It is stated by scientists today, that either humans “evolved” from previous, different animals by random mutations in DNA, or we were made by a God. It is never considered that both may be wrong, and there could be other explanations for speciation, a different explanation for the “fossil record”. This is due as much to the blind almost religious fervour of evolutionists as to the same religious dogmatism of the creationists. If one does not accept that something is possible, one does not, after all, go looking for it.

I would like to propose that it is perfectly possible that the reason shape is largely conserved across species, and has stayed so for millions of years, is the same as that which directs tertiary formation of proteins. That it is a combination of factors, including the environment which the forms develop in, which directs the final shape, and that the shape found in all animals, (with a series of minor variations) is so, not because of “descent” from a common ancestor, but because in the environment of this world, it cannot take another. That the fact that this is a water and air based planet, that all living things are made of carbon, with some hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen thrown in, the combination of molecular shapes and charges, pH, salts, trace elements and minerals, water, temperature, gas pressures and many more, combine to effect the developing animal such that the final tertiary structure cannot be anything other than what it is, and which in almost all cases conforms to the same basic shape.

I suggest that the animal forms we see now have always existed as they do, but have minor variations within species, which can arise from a variety of sources, largely genetic recombination, and which has the effect of allowing specie continuity in the face of minor environmental changes, such as the case of pale and dark moths on trees darkened by industrial smoke pollution.

There is one final point. The fossil record is not as sequential as paleontologists represent it. Fossil remains have been found “out of sequence” in the time scale and are either ignored or written off as “aberrancies, or washdowns”.

And fossil remains have been found in strata dated at millions of years old; they are identical to Homo sapiens sapiens. That is, us. A flat contradiction of the “fossil record” and evolution and which never gets adressed by evolutionists. Wonder why??

The evidence against evolution, to my mind, is much more convincing than the evidence for it. Today, anyone who takes that position in academia, or even in science, will be branded a creationist or "intelligent-designist" or something worse. Evolution is the accepted "religion" of the day, and whoa to anyone who questions the accepted orthodoxy.

Hank

This cannot be described as anything other than a bald-faced lie. Oft-repeated, of course.

I consider it as an analogy to Zeno's paradox. :-)

Cheers!

You opined, "Unless you happen upon God creating species." Since you have such a short view of space and time, the evidence of DNA and the resulting animal by animal results seem to you to be randomized. With a longer view you might actually 'see God' in the creation.

"Newton codified our intuition of absolute space and absolute time as Axioms, and derived his results as theorems from this and other "Axioms, or Laws" of motion.

Einstein exploded the entire axiomatic basis of Newtonian Mechanics, and this was the reason he caused such a sensation."

What? Einstein did not use the terms acceleration, velocity, position? Take away those concepts and there is no physics, either Newtonian or that of Einstein. They are not "axioms" in any sense, not assumptions, and certainly not "intuitions." If they were, why did Galileo have to disprove the intuition that heavier bodies fall faster than lighter ones.

If Einstein "exploded" Newtonian Mechanics, why is it necessary to first study Newtonian Mechanics before general and special relativity can be understood. What you are saying is essentially the same as saying multiplication "explodes" addition.

Good grief!

Hank

This 150 year-old scientific endeavor was created and perpetrated to confuse people as to where rights come from.

Please re-read the sentence as posted:

"evolution is a tool of the left, used to destroy the notion that our rights don't come from a creator and are inalienable"

The poster did not say the evolution had beed *devised* for that purpose, but that it has been seized upon or wielded by some Marxists and their ilk.

To some extent, that is true; much as post #2 in this thread says that many of the sexual scandals in the Catholic Church (as well as, say, liberation theology) were part of a deliberate effort by Marxists to subvert the influence of the papacy worldwide.

But that is a separate issue from the evidence for and against; just as the presence of Al Gore in the debate is not disposative of the discussion of global warming.

Cheers!

Absoluteley. Once the Sociialists indoctrinate our youth with the vile lie of evoloution, our freedoms are next. Gun grabbing, Darwinism, porn, it's all part of the same thing, meant to weaken our Constitutional society.

You forgot gambling over the internet.

Using answersingenesis.com as a scientific source is very dangerous.

They are apologists, willing to twist any scientific fact or theory as needed to match their religious belief.

Just in the first paragraph of the article you cited it states, "He came to the attention of the scientific community as being an objective scientist when he wrote an article for Human Nature magazine, June 1978, entitled, ‘Rearranging Our Family Tree’."

When I took my first Human Evolution course in 1974, Pilbeam's textbook, The Evolution of Man was the main textbook. It was first published in 1970. At that time he was already a well-established evolutionary scientist; that is well before the June 1978 article cited by the answersingenesis.com article as when "he came to the attention of the scientific community as being an objective scientist."

The rest of the article is ingenious in its mendacity. It implies that Pilbeam has turned from evolution to creation "science" when that is an outright fabrication. It implies that a number of other evolutionary paleoanthropologists don't believe there are any transitionals. That is outright falsehood based on the creationist art of quotemining.

Is it any wonder that those of us trained in science only laugh at the lengths the creationist websites will go to in order to push their anti-science message?

Is it any wonder that so many folks who don't know the scientific data fall for this claptrap in the guise of science, and post it from website to website in the hope that repetition, no matter how inaccurate, will prevail over scientific research?

Those aren't transitionals because there is always room for another transitional between any two so-called transitionals!

How does one define a transitional...strictly speaking?

Here's the question--not flame bait, but I just plain old haven't ever seen it spelled out.

I am approaching the question by considering the definition of a species as "animals genetically similar enough that they can mate and produce fertile offspring" -- leaving aside plants and unicellular critters for the moment. :-)

Are there any hard-and-fast rules governing the demarcation line between species, when the process of transition between old species "A" and new species "B" takes place over, say, a dozen generations?

Say species A could have mated effectively with successive generations 1-4.

Generation 4 could have mated in turn with species A, generations 1-4, and down to generation 6.

Generation 6 could have mated with generation 4 through generation 8.

Generation 8 could have mated with members of generations 6 through 10.

Generation 10 could have mated with anyone from generation 8-12 and produced offspring.

And in the midst of these changs there are accompanying physical differences, say, size of the beak (hat tip to finches, don't you know), or hardness of the pecker ;-)

Is the going approach to wave one's hands and say "the distinction is for practical purposes immaterial, since we *know* that species A is different from species B 12 generations later"?

Or is an attempt made (when possible) to correlate DNA changes in the different generations?

Yes, I realize 12 generations might not be a good example, nor necessarily representative.

But it is a small enough cohort that one can phrase the question in a more or less succinct form.

Oh, and one other question...

When one says that the members of the two species cannot mate...

does it matter what is the efficient cause of the copulative dissonance ;-)

E.g. Great Dane and a Shih Tzu. Either the male is too small to mount the female, or (going the other way) peg A won't fit in slot B.

Or, is there required to be a mismatch in the chromosomes such that fertilization does not succeed?

...and if the latter, has anyone studied the correlation between cladistics and the fertilization process in detail?

Cheers!

The competition of ideas has not taken place on a level playing field in high school and elsewhere for many decades.

False.

Ideas (I presume you mean formulations of scientific hypotheses and theories) are not arrived at in high schools. They are formulated in technical journals and other interactions among established scientists.

High schools are near the bottom of the food chain--they are consumers, not originators, of scientific thought. High school students, and most high school teachers, are simply not equipped to evaluate a "competition of ideas." They fall short by several years to decades of intensive study.

If no test can be devised for testing a hypothesis, it means the hypothesis has no consequence, that nothing happens or doesn't happen because of it and nothing depends on it being right. If this were not true, whatever depended on the hypothesis could be tested. There is absolutely no reason to entertain a notion that has neither purpose or consequence.

So close :-)

This fails to make the distinction between the humanities and the "hard sciences" -- there may be inherent limitiations in one's ability to *control* the conditions; or there may be classes of experience or phenomena (social interactions) which can be demonstrated, but not *conclusively* -- see also the legal phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt".

In other words, there may be things which are true, or false, but for which science is not a suitable instrument to discern the difference in practical use.

Cheers!

it may or may not be part of the globalist-atheistic agenda, but it advances their cause by contributing to the breakdown of society.

In all of recorded history there is not one example of a mutation that has produced a new specie, and, with the exception of some extremely doubtful cases, there has never ever been one mutation of any creature that was beneficial.

Please define your terms more carefully.

By "all of recorded history" do you mean "during the time of written records"?

By"not one example" do you mean directly observed 'as it was happening' as opposed to "inferred from indirect evidence"?

What do you mean by "specie" ...?

As far as beneficial, have you considered The Nylon Bug?

Cheers! Cheers!

http://www.coralridge.org/darwin/experts.asp?ID=crm&ec=I1301

High school students, and most high school teachers, are simply not equipped to evaluate a "competition of ideas." They fall short by several years to decades of intensive study.

The problem is that many scientific ideas use very specialized terminology and notation; such notation (and even the concepts) being not only obscure, but "counter-intuitive".

So in an attempt to translate the concepts into lay language, many of the essentials are shunted aside or simply morph into something "neither fish, nor fowl".

Try explaining (for example) Hartree-Fock theory, or expansion of a function in a known basis, then translating to another basis set.

Most undergrads (if they follow at all) will immediately jump at the wrong conclusions, and consider each new term as a specific correction or modeling a discrete feature--the concept of numerical convergence just isn't something they are familiar with.

Cheers!