Why do you debate about evolution?

me ^ | 2-5-2002 | me

[JediGirl]

For those of us who are constantly checking up on the crevo threads, why do you debate the merits (or perceived lack thereof) of evolution?

[incindiary]

Wow, we said basically the same thing and I didn't even read your post! :-)

[Doctor Stochastic]

I don't see how a strict materialism can be anything other than strictly deterministic.

Quantum mechanics is a non-deterministic strictly material theory. It seems to work rather well.

[jennyp]

Jenny, I have read through a few of these...ahem...misquotes, and you evolutionists are dead wrong to think that the quotes are taken out of context. Nowhere in what i have read so far on this page, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/misquotes.html shows me that creationists have taken out of context anything. ...

Java Man? Where was Java Man in incindiary's list of quotes? Eh, whatever. The point of the highly cropped quote was that Java Man, which was supposedly an ancestor of humans, turned out to be "just a gibbons" (nothing special - just a monkey like we see today). But the truth turned out to be that Dubois thought humans' ancestors were more closely related to modern gibbons than to modern chimpanzees, and that part of his theory was wrong. Java Man was a Homo erectus. Keep searching talkorigins & you'll come across this page:

The first photo is of the Java Man skullcap. Many creationists consider this an ape, including Gish, who says (Gish 1993):

"Now we can see the skullcap is very apelike. Notice that it has no forehead, it's very flat, very typical of the ape. Notice the massive eyebrow ridges, very typical of the ape" ...

"I would tend, quite strongly, to agree with Eugene Dubois and with Marcellin Boule that these creatures [Java Man and Peking Man] were giant primates of some kind."

and:

"... it is very likely that Dubois' final assessment of his Pithecanthropus erectus may be the correct one - a very large primate of some kind within the generalized group called apes, possessing no genetic relationship to man whatsoever." (Gish 1995)

The second photo is of the skull of the Homo erectus specimen WT 15000 (the Turkana Boy). Gish (1985) accepts this as human, and suggests that it was placed in Homo erectus, rather than H. sapiens, only because of its age of 1.6 million years. In a later book, Gish says:

"The size and shape of the braincase and a few other characteristics of the postcranial skeleton were the only exceptions when the skeleton of this young boy was compared to those for modern humans."

"...the features of the Nariokotome juvenile were remarkably human with few exceptions." (Gish 1995)

The third picture is a drawing of a modern human skull.

And later on in the page:

In spite of this remarkable similarity, Gish continues to claim that the Java Man is an ape, while the Turkana Boy is a modern human. In his words, they are "very apelike" and "remarkably human" respectively. If a "human" and an "ape" that look almost identical aren't transitional fossils, what would be?

Still that Walt Brown's tightly cropped quote that Java Man was "just a large gibbon" is an example of accurate, honest scholarship & isn't misleading in any meaningful way?

[jennyp]

correction: "Still think that..."

[Karl_Lembke]

He's saying that Gradualism is having problems finding intermediary forms within species to explain the smooth transitions between species. Note that this statement does not count out PE, which says that transitionals happen in short bursts, notably when species expand to fill new habitats, which is what Gould is talking about.

I know that. If I remember correctly, Gould supports PE, does he not? Again (for the 3rd time) I never said that he was a creationist or even an anti-evolutionist. I posted the quote because IMO (and in the opinion of others) there is very little evidence of transitional forms... and that is a problem if you want to prove evolution.

Indeed, Gould does support PE. He's one of the inventors of the concept.

The quote is a favorite among anti-evolutionists, because it makes it appear that evolution is in trouble. However, when the quote is honestly presented, we see that Gould refers to the scarcity (not "absence") of transitional forms.

PE is his attempt to explain why there are fewer transitional forms than he expected to see.

The creationists have the task of explaining the transitional forms that have been found (archaeopteryx, ambulocetus, ictheostega, the therapsids, to list a tiny fraction of what's been found so far). So far, they have no explanation.

Only some sort of evolutionary process accounts for what we're finding.

[jennyp]

THE QUOTE IS ACCURATE!!

No, the quote is precise. It's inaccurate because it's misleading about what he meant in context. The best kind of lie.

[jennyp]

The creationists have the task of explaining the transitional forms that have been found (archaeopteryx, ambulocetus, ictheostega, the therapsids, to list a tiny fraction of what's been found so far).

Correction: Should read "The creationists have the task of explaining away the transitional forms..." :-)

[RaceBannon]

It is only in the mind of an evolutionist that a skull cap from a gibbon can be mixed with the femur of a human and then thrown into the Homo Erectus category, because the theory says it has to. Ignore the human skulls found in the same strata, ignore the fact that of the three teeth found, one was human, and ignore the fact that we still have gibbons. Gibbons did not evolve into something else, they are still here. Also, ignore the fact that the age of Homo erectus ranges from 300 MYA to 1.8 MYA, while homo Habillis is living alongside many of the fossils of the creature it is supposed to be replaced by!

Homo Habillis Olduvai Hominid 13 from Tanzania dated 1.5 mya matches with Homo Erectus KNM-er-992 at 1.5 MYA...YET

Homo Hibillis KNM-WT 15001 Cranial Fragment, Kenya matches with the Homo Erectus fossil Damiao...both dated 2 MYA!!!

That is a HALF MILLION years of living together!! I thought one replaced the other??

At least 106 fossils of Homo erectus were dated at younger than 3000,000 ya, and of those, 62 are younger than 13,000 YEARS!!! Homo Erectus cannot be opur ancestor if we lived hundreds of thousands of years with each other!

(Lubenow, Bones of contention, p.131)

[RaceBannon]

No, it is still accurate, because it used the portion of Gould's point that he himself defends. The quote was not used to say Gould didnt believe in evolution, just that Gould himself believes there are no transitional forms and that is a problem for evolutionists. That was all the creationist was trying to say, not that Gould didnt believe in evolution.

[Karl_Lembke]

The creationists have the task of explaining the transitional forms that have been found (archaeopteryx, ambulocetus, ictheostega, the therapsids, to list a tiny fraction of what's been found so far).

Correction: Should read "The creationists have the task of explaining away the transitional forms..." :-)

I disagree. Explaining away merely happens to be the only technique I've ever seen used. I will, however, allow for the possibility that someone will show how the Intelligent Design/Intelligent Origin Theory can account for the known transitional forms better than any evolutionary theory does.

[incindiary]

The creationists have the task of explaining the transitional forms that have been found (archaeopteryx, ambulocetus, ictheostega, the therapsids, to list a tiny fraction of what's been found so far). So far, they have no explanation.

Well, when I have more time I'll look into that. I'm sure there's an explanation for those things that you consider 'evidence'.

Right now I have some other things I need to do. Later all!

[Karl_Lembke]

The creationists have the task of explaining the transitional forms that have been found (archaeopteryx, ambulocetus, ictheostega, the therapsids, to list a tiny fraction of what's been found so far). So far, they have no explanation.

Well, when I have more time I'll look into that. I'm sure there's an explanation for those things that you consider 'evidence'.

Indeed there is an explanation. It's called evolution.

[Virginia-American]

For years before I started doing this, I read Scientific American and thought I was keeping up.

SA is a huge disappointment to me; it used to have fairly substantial science in it, now half of it is PC foolishness and Wired-style graphics. Sad. I haven't bought one in quite a while.

[PatrickHenry]

No, the quote is precise. It's inaccurate because it's misleading about what he meant in context. The best kind of lie.

Darn, jenny. You're on a hot streak today!

[Publius6961]

I'm glad you asked.
I don't.

[Publius6961]

I think the idea of believing in god in pretty stupid and I would like to know why any intelligent person would do it.

Ideas and Opinions by Albert Einstein might provide some insight for people who are deluded into thinking of themselves as intelligent.

[ThinkPlease]

No, it is still accurate, because it used the portion of Gould's point that he himself defends. The quote was not used to say Gould didnt believe in evolution, just that Gould himself believes there are no transitional forms and that is a problem for evolutionists. That was all the creationist was trying to say, not that Gould didnt believe in evolution.

Before I leave for the evening, I'd like to point out my prior quote from Gould from another work.

"since we proposed punctuated equilibrium to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists - whether through design or stupidity, I do not know - as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level but are abundant between larger groups."Gould, S.J. (1983) p 260, Hens teeth and Horses toes. Norton & Co., New York

One thing is for sure, incindiary should check his work before he posts. So should you, it seems.

[ThinkPlease]

Gotta run myself, be back later.

[Virginia-American]

Let's mention another aspect of these discussions that fascinates me: the psychology of the people on the other side. Nearly all are totally evidence-proof.

Ain't that the truth! I also fine the rhetoric and psychology fascinating.

One thing I've noticed on many threads, is that D*m*cr*ts, drug warriors, and creationists all share several rhetorical flourishes:

1) They don't have opponents who simply disagree, who weigh the evidence differently and come to different conclusions. No, you're a Cl*nt*n-hating rightwing conspirator, or a spaced-out druggie who loves the Taliban and hates America, or an atheist trying to rationalize his sinfulness.

2) Part of this is ascribing motives to their opponents and then attacking that particular strawman.

3) They prophesise the most horrible consequences if you don't follow their prescriptions. "seniors starving", "everybody a junkie", "no possible basis for morals".

4) Flat-out ignorance and impermeabliity to evidence. Have you ever tried to pin a D*m down on exactly what it was that GW Bush (or Jeb, or Katherine Harris, or whoever) was supposed to have done to 'steal' the election? They *know* he did *something*, and that's enough! It's like getting a Woddie to admit the Anslinger appealed to racism when he was lobbying for the MJ tax act, or getting a creationist to acknowledge that very similar DNA sequences are found in different species, and that the tree of variations in the DNA pretty well matches the tree of life deduced by evolution.

[Virginia-American]

Homo Erectus cannot be opur ancestor if we lived hundreds of thousands of years with each other!

Why not? Dogs are the descendents of domesticated wolves.