Posted on 02/14/2007 2:07:15 PM PST by Tim Long
Please report the link and I will try to get to it.
I had looked at that link and found no evidence against transitionals, so I assumed you had another.
Here are three paragraphs from the link:
It is difficult to tell from this whether Bowden is claiming ER 3373 is a human or an ape. Most people would probably accept that it looks quite human, despite the massive brow ridges and small brain size. But Bowden seems to accept the judgement that it is very similar to the Peking Man skulls (which he considers apes), although the brain size is smaller than any of them.Bowden's concern about the angle of the facial bones indicates that he may think ER 3733 is an ape which has been incorrectly reconstructed to make it look more human than it really is. In the case of ER 1470, the facial bones attach to the rest of the skull at only one point, and there is some uncertainty about the angle of the facial bones. But ER 3733 is much more complete, and there is little room for adjustment in the angle of the face. We have, therefore, a skull with a human face, attached to a braincase that Bowden thinks belongs to an ape.
March 18, 1998: In email, Bowden confirmed to me that he thinks ER 3733 is human. That does not explain, however, how this can be reconciled with his belief that the similar but larger Peking Man and Java Man skulls are apes.
The difficulty in determining whether this specimen is more human or more "ape" exhibits why it is considered a transitional.
(Narby) Creationists are funny. Being immersed in a religion allows them to view everything else as just another religion to compete with.
Kind of like my Southern Baptist grandmother and her attitude about Catholics.
So you are accusing Dan1123 of boxing evolutionists into the confines of his experience... just as you have done with Christians based on your grandmother. How wonderfully condescending and myopic of you!
LOL - You are obviously intolerant of logic too.
It's evolutionary you see.
Most people would probably accept that it looks quite human, despite the massive brow ridges and small brain size. But Bowden seems to accept the judgement that it is very similar to the Peking Man skulls (which he considers apes).
They're saying its either ape or human. No mention of transitional.
I am aware of that, but the reason there is a dispute over whether this specimen is more similar to human or to ape is because it shares traits from both.
The dating is also a factor; it is intermediate in time between critters you would call ape and modern humans.
Thanks for the polite discussion. Real life calls...
The difficulty in determining whether this specimen is more human or more "ape" exhibits why it is considered a transitional.
I'll fix your tagline - which seems apropos to the above:
Belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
(cause brother - whether or not you see it - you are a believer)
I have to disagree. The example I gave you is definitely transitional. It even meets the creationist criteria that it be extinct.
Pambdeluria have characteristics belonging to 2 distinct phyla. You can't get much more transitional than that.
That value has been repeated by Genesis literalists for a long time.
(2) Even if it is 6,000 years old, it doesn't mean that older galaxies around us can't exist.
Have you forgotten about the "six day creation"?
In any event, the geologic evidence for an old earth is staggering. Several religious creationist scientists tried to prove a young earth in the 50's, and since then there has been no serious effort to do so (the obvious charlatans that have tried are laughable).
["If a Creator exists, how can He be detected?"] Easy, look at the Human Genome. It's coded. How does something get coded if not by intelligence?
You need to check out Caltech's Digital Life Lab. They've been simulating evolution of complex DNA from less complex DNA for quite a while there. They start with, I believe, 15 "instructions", that have the ability to reproduce themselves, and after that all it takes is lots of CPU cycles and a proper "environment" and they will evolve themselves quite nicely.
That doesn't explain where the first life came from, but it does demonstrate that complexity can arise from extremely simple beginnings via evoluton theory.
We can see the same process, even in humans. If memory serves, I think someone recorded a third type of human cholesterol type that came from a random mutation in an Italian guy about a century ago. His family now carries the third cholesterol type, and it gives them an extra resistance to heart disease. That such a gene would evolve in Italy, with it's heart clogging pasta, makes perfect evolutionary sense.
"That value has been repeated by Genesis literalists for a long time"
Okay, that's one opinion....there are others. It doesn't give an exact date in the Bible.
"Have you forgotten about the "six day creation"?"
No, I haven't. Again, opinions vary regarding 6 days.....scholars aren't sure if these are actual days, thousands of years, etc.
"They've been simulating evolution of complex DNA from less complex DNA for quite a while there. They start with, I believe, 15 "instructions", that have the ability to reproduce themselves, and after that all it takes is lots of CPU cycles and a proper "environment""
That's my point. It requires intelligence for these things to happen (in your exapmle humans and computers). Order cannot rise from chaos.
"Thanks for the polite discussion."
Thank you as well. I appreciate the debate.
Scott
No, it doesn't. All it requires is imperfect reproduction. Given that, evolution happens.
> Order cannot rise from chaos.
Look up "Dissipative Structures".
It requires more than just imperfect reproduction. You won't get Beethoven's ninth by just continually copying a Crazy Frog track.
BTW what is this ?
What do robots dream of?; C. Adami, Science 314 (2006) 1093-1094
It requires more than just imperfect reproduction. You won't get Beethoven's ninth by just continually copying a Crazy Frog track.
Your analogy falls flat!
First, evolution requires living, self-replicating systems. Beethoven's ninth is neither. (Duh!)
Then it needs some sort of selective pressure, whereby some individuals in a species reproduce more poorly than average, while others reproduce better than average. That has been called natural selection.
You are merely proving my point. The argument was that only imperfect reproduction was needed for evolution to occur. I demurred. You have now backed me up. Thanks.
P.S. My Beethoven example was not an analogy. It was an example of imperfect reproduction, ... that which was claimed.
No, just that.
Implicit in the phrase "imperfect reproduction" is the fact that it exists within some kind of environment, that this environment has some particular conditions, that reproduction requires certain things, that the organism requires energy, etc.
If imperfect reproduction exists, then those other things will exist as well, and evolution will occur. At least up till some kind of equilibrium is reached, and since there seems to be nothing in the universe that is permanently in equilibrium, then the organism will evolve. Or die.
By the way. If evolution did *not* occur, but reproduction is imperfect (which we know to be the case, given DNA mutations), then eventually all species would die from accumulated reproduction errors.
Someone may point out that 95% or more of all life that existed on earth is extinct, so perhaps the above is occurring. But if that were the case, then the fossil record would start with all 100% of life existing, and gradually dying out, while in reality we see the opposite, that life gets more complicated over the ages.
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.