Posted on 01/30/2003 9:33:28 AM PST by matthew_the_brain
Letters of Recommendation
Before you ask me to write you a letter of recommendation for graduate or professional school in the biomedical sciences, there are several criteria that must be met. The request for a letter is best made by making an appointment to discuss the matter with me after considering these three criteria:
Criterion 1
You should have earned an "A" from me in at least one semester that you were taught by me.
Criterion 2
I should know you fairly well. Merely earning an "A" in a lower-division class that enrolls 500 students does not guarantee that I know you. In such a situation, all I would be able to provide is a very generic letter that would not be of much help in getting you into the school of your choice. You should allow me to become better acquainted with you. This can be done in several ways:
1) by meeting with me regularly during my office hours to discuss biological questions. 2) by enrolling in an Honors’ section taught by me. 3) by enrolling in my section of BIOL 4301 and serving as an undergraduate TA (enrollment is by invitation only). 4) by serving as the chairman or secretary of the Biology Advisory Committee.
Criterion 3
If you set up an appointment to discuss the writing of a letter of recommendation, I will ask you: "How do you think the human species originated?" If you cannot truthfully and forthrightly affirm a scientific answer to this question, then you should not seek my recommendation for admittance to further education in the biomedical sciences.
Why do I ask this question? Let’s consider the situation of one wishing to enter medical school. Whereas medicine is historically rooted first in the practice of magic and later in religion, modern medicine is an endeavor that springs from the sciences, biology first among these. The central, unifying principle of biology is the theory of evolution, which includes both micro- and macro-evolution, and which extends to ALL species. How can someone who does not accept the most important theory in biology expect to properly practice in a field that is so heavily based on biology? It is hard to imagine how this can be so, but it is easy to imagine how physicians who ignore or neglect the Darwinian aspects of medicine or the evolutionary origin of humans can make bad clinical decisions. The current crisis in antibiotic resistance is the result of such decisions. For others, please read the citations below.
Good medicine, like good biology, is based on the collection and evaluation of physical evidence. So much physical evidence supports the evolution of humans from non-human ancestors that one can validly refer to the "fact" of human evolution, even if all of the details are not yet known. One can deny this evidence only at the risk of calling into question one’s understanding of science and of the method of science. Such an individual has committed malpractice regarding the method of science, for good scientists would never throw out data that do not conform to their expectations or beliefs. This is the situation of those who deny the evolution of humans; such a one is throwing out information because it seems to contradict his/her cherished beliefs. Can a physician ignore data that s/he does not like and remain a physician for long? No. If modern medicine is based on the method of science, then how can someone who denies the theory of evolution -- the very pinnacle of modern biological science -- ask to be recommended into a scientific profession by a professional scientist?
If you still want to make an appointment, you can do so in person during office hours (M-Th, 3:30-4:00), or by phoning my office at 742-2729, or by e-mailing me at michael.dini@ttacs.ttu.edu
Citations
Ewald, P.W. 1993. Evolution of infectious disease. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 298.
Ewald, P.W. 1993. The evolution of virulence. Scientific American 268:86-98.
Morgan, E. 1990. The scars of evolution. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 196.
Myers, J.H. and L.E. Rothman. 1995. Virulence and transmission of infectious diseases in humans and insects: evolutionary and demographic patterns. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 10(5):194-198.
Nesse, R.M. and G.C. Williams. 1994. Why we get sick. Times Books, New York, pp. 291.
_____1997. Evolutionary biology in the medical curriculum -- what every physician should know. BioScience 47(10):664-666.
Rose, Michael. 1998. Darwin's Spectre. Princeton University Press, Princteon, NJ. pp. 233.
Seachrist, L. 1996. Only the strong survive: the evolution of a tumor favors the meanest, most aggressive cells. Science News 49:216-217.
Stearns, S.C. (ed.) 1999. Evolution in Health and Disease. Oxford University Press. pp. 328.
Trevathan, W.R., Smith, E.O. and J.J. McKenna (eds.). 1999. Evolutionary Medicine. Oxford University Press. pp. 480.
Williams, G.C. and R.M. Nesse. 1991. The dawn of Darwinian medicine. Quarterly Review of Biology 66:1-22.
I think I saw that cartoon once - It's about a guy who can't keep his saxophone to himself, right? ;)
and support abortion and homosexual rights and any number of wrong causes. It is not up to me to judge their salvation, but I can judge their beliefs and actions because the Bible guides me.
LOL! Funny, I always thought judgement was reserved for a higher power, and that, in addition, there was also room for tolerance and love in Christianity - Though your login name certainly has an old-testament ring to it... OK, if you want to decide morality and apply it to the rest of, based on your own personal reading of the Bible (which is going to exclude not only a lot of non-Christians, religious and otherwise, but a lot of Christians as well), be my guest. I won't argue with you, because I'm sure you won't change your mind - But I hope you can see that we cannot enforce your beliefs on everyone - It simply is not right - And that there is, indeed, room for interpretation of the Bible.
Why is evolution incompatible with Christianity? Because it says that the Bible is not true.
No it doesn't. The statement that "the Bible is not true" is absolutely irrelevant to the theory of evolution.
When you start denying the truth in the Bible,
...then your head explodes. God it. {BOOOM}
like in claiming that the meaning of "day" might be 400 million years, (no, a day means a day), then you invite the denial of other parts as well.
How can we know what God's sense of time is like? How can we know that our way of reading the Bible is the One True Way (tm) and everyone else is wrong?
The spread of the idea of evolution is absolutely crucial in the destruction of Christianity as it attacks the very basis ofJudism and Christianity; that God created.
No it isn't. God is perfectly capable of creating any system of natural laws he so chooses, including one that relies on evolution for the creation of man over a long period of time. The theory of evolution has been widely disseminated in the Western world, and there are still plenty of Christians.
Besides, I have seen much more evidence of a worldwide flood than evolution.
Have you been looking for evidence of evolution? Would the existance of any number of worldwide floods somehow contradict the theory of evolution?
I have seen too much circular logic in evolution. I have seen outright deception and lies. I have seen the evolutionists simply ignore any evidence that didn't fit in the right place. I have seen evolutionists denounce and sneer at anyone who places their faith in God rather than men.
I'm neither denouncing nor sneering at you - Religion is not something to sneer at. What you say above may very well be true. It is also true that it has nothing to do with offering a counterargument against evolution and everything to do with making people who you term "evolutionists" look bad. Do not judge the whole of science based on the actions of a few unpleasant people - You would not want someone doing the same thing to Christians. Scientists are not, as a whole, out to get you, nor are they out to destroy religion; they are scientists, and most of them are simply out to apply the scientific method.
I have seen mathematical evidence for the argument of a young earth.
Noting that there is a big difference between evidence and evidence that has validity, according to the scientific method - And that is the realm you enter, when talking about a "young earth" theory - I would very much like to hear this evidence, as well as the theory it supports, explicitly stated and subject to critical examination. If it is immediately obvious that it means that the theory of evolution cannot be correct, we can all go home!
I simply choose to believe God.
By all means! I'm glad you do - You're not the only one. This has nothing to do with accepting the theory of evolution, however.
DFS
Besides I think we need to give God more credit in his Creations. We were made in God's image, but over a long period of time.
Well said.
DFS
Then you don't understand biology. Read this for a quick discussion on the topic.
But if you're that fixated on them, here are some for you:
From Hominid Fossil FAQ forum:Or how about:
Re: Hominid fossils FAQ file
Kathleen Hunt (jespah@u.washington.edu)
1 Jan 1995 23:24:55 GMT
>In article <3e1nv9$ouc@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Kathleen Hunt: "Re: Hominid fossils FAQ file"
- Previous message: Elaine Morgan: "pseudoscience and fossils"
>Steve ThM <stevethm@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>Granted, there are transitional forms within certain species. But can you
>>list one clear-cut, completely authenticated transitional form between one
>>species and another species? I do not believe you can. If so, please
>>file the name of it to me for study.
I posted several such examples just LAST WEEK. Perhaps you didn't see
them. So here they are again.
I particularly recommend you find Gingerich's 1980 paper and look
carefully at the figure that shows *hundreds* of specimens from entire
*populations* of fossils, slowly diverging in average morphology until
there were two distinct populations, which slowly became two distinct
species, which slowly became two distinct genera, etc. Rose & Bown's
paper also has a very good figure showing gradual transformation of the
teeth. These species-to-species transitions consist of literally hundreds
of individual fossils spanning the transition from one species to another.
Frequently the fossils right in the middle are so exactly intermediate
that it's almost impossible to decide what name to give them. Krishtalka
& Stucky had to invent a new way of naming fossils, with hyphenated names,
because of this problem, because they had so many intermediate specimens
in such a smoothly changing, complete lineage!
Also look up K & S's hyena monograph and carefully read the descriptions of
"Artiodactyl A" and "Artiodactyl B", which were transitional between a
species of _Diacodexis_ and two new *families*. Also carefully read the
description of the population averages for that _Diacodexis_ species.
Notice how the "Artiodactyl A" features were present in occasional
individuals of _Diacodexis_? The new features occurred in a higher &
higher proportion of the _Diacodexis_ population, until the population in
one particular location had those new features in *almost all* of the
individuals. At that point it was not really like _Diacodexis_ anymore and,
in fact, it was a new species. The descendents of that species became
more and more different, and, in fact, became a new family.
The take-home message here is that species-to-species transitions *ARE*
known. Period. If you haven't heard of them it's because:
a) the research is slow and tedious and doesn't consist of a single
dramatic discovery.
b) paleontologists are really unsurprised by the discoveries of these
transitions. It's exactly what everybody expected. So they haven't
bothered to popularize it.
c) most of this research was started in the 1960's, with the papers being
published in the late 70's and throughout the 1980's (it takes about ten
years to collect and analyze that many fossils), and so, much of it is too
new to have gotten into popular books.
Species-to-species transitions are most commonly known for lineages that
have well-preserved and numerous fossils. That means fairly recent large
animals, such as mammals since the Miocene. There is also a pocket of
much earlier Eocene strata in the Rockies that is very complete, and has
also yielded many species-to-species transitions. BTW you need about one
fossil every 25,000 years to document species-to-species transitions
(Gingerich's estimate), which for older (pre-Cenozoic) strata is very
rarely found.
I'll append the information about the papers below. If you can't find
these papers in your library, I would be happy to xerox them (and others)
and send you copies. Just give me your snail-mail address.
Now here is the info, AGAIN, for some of the known species-to-species
transitions. I picked four well-known case studies here (more are known).
I have copied out all the species names involved in every transition. Let
me reiterate that in every case listed below, there are numerous known
fossils that fall *between* each pair of named species and are
intermediate in both time and morphology.
1. _Diacodexis_ species (early artiodactyls)
Krishtalka & Stucky (1985) documented smooth transitions in the common
early Eocene artiodactyl genus _Diacodexis_. The fossil record for
these animals is very good (literally hundreds of new specimens have
been found in Colorado and Wyoming since the 1970's). Analysis of
these specimens found gradual species-species transitions for *every
step* of the following lineage, including the origination of *three*
different familes. The lineage is as follows: _Diacodexis secans-
primus_ is the first artiodactyl species known. Immediately a new
group of animals split off that gave rise to the _Wasatchia_ and
_Bunophorus_ genera (not further discussed by the paper). Meanwhile,
the main lineage of _D. s-primus_ continued, and gave rise to _D. s-
metsiacus. Two species split off from _D. s-metsiacus_: one was _D.
gracilis_, the other was an as-yet-unnamed new species "Artiodactyla
A", which gave rise to "Artiodactyla B"; these two were the first
members of the new families Homacodontidae and Antiacodontidae.
Meanwhile, _D. s-metsiacus_ continued changing and became _D. s-
kelleyi_. Another species forked off, _D. minutus_. Slightly later
another species forked off, _D. woltonensis, which apparently was the
first member of the new family Leptochoeridae. Meanwhile, _D. s-
kelleyi continued changing and became _D. s-secans_.
The authors said "...it appears that different taxa of artiodactyls
-- in hindsight, the most primitive members of originating suborders,
families, and subfamilies -- arose at different times from different
lineage segments of the single species _Diacodexis secans_."
Reference:
Krishtalka, L., and Stucky, R.K. 1985. Revision of the Wind River
Faunas. Early Eocene of Central Wyoming. Part 7. Revision of
_Diacodexis_ (Mammalia, Artiodactyla). Am. Carnegie Mus. 54:413-486.
2. The hyena family.
Though there are only four species now, hyaenids were once *very* common
and have an abundant fossil record. A recent monograph (Werdelin &
Solounias, 1991) discussed over one hundred (!) named species, with
extensive discussion of the eighteen best-known species, and cladistic
analysis of *hundreds* of specimens from the *SIXTY-ONE* "reasonably
well known" hyaenid fossil species. Their core tree shows a main stem
of generally small to medium-sized doglike forms, showing a general
trend toward an increase in size:
_Herpestes antiquus_, a viverrid (civet-like animal) thought to be the
ancestor of the hyenid family.
_Protictitherium crassum_ (& 5 closely related species). Transitional
between the early civet-like viverrids and all the hyenids. Split
into three lines, one of which led to the aardwolf. Another line
eventually led to modern hyenas:
_Plioviverrops orbignyi_ (& 3 closely related species)
_Tungurictis spocki_
_Ictitherium viverrinum_ (& 6 closely related species)
_Thalassictis robusta_ (& 5 other spp.)
_Hyaenotherium wongii_
_Miohyaenotherium bessarabicum_
_Hyaenictitherium hyaenoides_ (& 3 other spp.)
_Palinhyaena reperta_
_Ikelohyaena abronia_
_Belbus beaumonti_
_Leecyaena lycyaenoides_ (& 1 other)
_Parahyaena brunnea_
_Hyaena hyaena_
_Pliocrocuta perrieri_
_Pachycrocuta brevirostris_ (& 1 other)
_Adcrocuta eximia_, which split into:
_Crocuta crocuta_ (the modern spotted hyena), _C. sivalensis_, and _C.
dietrichi_.
The authors said "We view the evolution of hyaenids as overwhelmingly
gradual. The species, when studied with regard to their total
variability, often grade insensibly into each other, as do the
genera. Large specimens of _Hyaenotherium wongii_ are, for example,
difficult to distinguish from small specimens of _Hyaenictitherium
hyaenoides_, a distinct genus. Viewed over the entire family, the
evolution of hyaenids from small, fox-like forms to large,
scavenging, "typical" hyenas can be followed step by step, and the
assembly of features defining the most derived forms has taken place
piecemeal since the Miocene. Nowhere is there any indication of
major breaks identifying macroevolutionary steps."
Reference:
Werdelin, L, and N Solounias. 1991. The Hyaenidae: taxonomy,
systematics, and evolution. Fossils and Strata 30.
Universitetsforlaget, Oslo.
3. The elephant family
The Pleistocene record for elephants is very good, and almost half of
the Pleistocene elephant speciation events have been preserved in
fossils. In general, after the earliest forms of the three modern
genera appeared, they show very smooth, continuous evolution from one
species to another.
For example (quotes are from Maglio, 1973):
_Elephas ekorensis_ An early Asian elephant with rather primitive
molars. "At present, a direct phyletic relationship between E.
ekorensis and E. recki seems certain."
_Elephas recki_ "Can be traced through a progressive series of
stages...These stages pass almost imperceptibly into each other."
_Elephas iolensis_ "In the late Pleistocene a more progressive elephant
appears which I retain as a distinct species, _Elephas iolensis_,
only as a matter of convenience. Although as a group, material
referred to _E. iolensis_ is distinct from that of _E. recki_, some
intermediate specimens are known, and _E. iolensis_ seems to
represent a very progressive, terminal stage in the _E. recki_
specific lineage. "
Maglio also documented very smooth transitions between three Eurasian
mammoth species: _Mammuthus meridionalis_ --> _M. armeniacus_ (now
called _M. trogontherii_) --> _M. primigenius_.
Overall, Maglio showed that at least 7 of the 17 Quaternary elephant species
arose through smooth anagenesis transitions from their ancestors.
Lister (1993) reanalyzed mammoth teeth and confirmed Maglio's scheme of
gradual evolution in European mammoths, and added another branch to
the tree: _M. meridionalis_ also crossed to North America and
evolved into _M. imperator, which then evolved into _M. columbi_.
Carroll (1988) says "Within the genus _Elephas_, species demonstrate
continuous change over a period of 4.5 million years. ...the
elephants provide excellent evidence of significant morphological
change within species, through species within genera, and through
genera within a family...."
References:
Carroll, Robert. 1988. _Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution_. W.H.
Freeman & Co., New York.
Lister, A.M. 1993. Evolution of mammoths and moose: the Holarctic
perspective. Chapter 9, pp. 178-204, in: Morphological change in
Quaternary mammals of North America, eds. R.A. Martin and A.D.
Barnosky. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Maglio, V.J. 1973. Origin and evolution of the Elephantidae. Trans.
Am. Phil. Soc., New Ser. 63:1-149.
4. Early primates
Gingerich (1977) studied the early lemur-like primate _Pelycodus_. He
traced two distinct species, _P. frugivorus_ and _P. jarrovii_, back
in time, and found that they converged on the earlier _Pelycodus
abditus_ "in size, mesostyle development, and every other character
available for study, and there can be little doubt that each was
derived from that species." Further work (Gingerich, 1980) in the
same rich Wyoming fossil sites found species-to-species transitions
for *every step* in the following lineage: _Pelycodus ralstoni_ (54
Ma) to _P. mckennai_ to _P. trigonodus_ to _P. abditus_. _P.
abditus_ then forked into three branches. One became a new genus,
_Copelemur feretutus_, and evolved into _C. consortutus_. The
second branch evolved into _P. frugivorus_. The third led to _P.
jarrovi_, which evolved further to another new genus, _Notharctus
robinsoni_, which itself split into at least two branches, _N.
tenebrosus_, and _N. pugnax_ (which then changed to _N. robustior_),
and possibly a third, _Smilodectes mcgrewi_ (which then changed to
_S. gracilis_). Note that this sequence covers at least three and
possibly four genera.
Notice here that these species had previously been recognized on the
basis of a few, clearly distinct specimens from widely separated
strata. Not until Gingerich studied the hundreds of specimens from
intervening levels did the transitions become clear. The species
actually form several continuous morphological series that can be
divided into separate species only arbitrarily. Also note that the
intermediate specimens had been there all along; Gingerich was simply
the first researcher to put in the quite tedious work (over ten
years' research!) of collecting and analyzing them. Overall, in this
1980 paper Gingerich described 24 species that have arisen by gradual
phyletic evolution, and 14 cases in which species appear suddenly in
the fossil record (he attributes these to immigration). The species
he studied did not all show progressive change; some showed stasis
for considerable lengths of time.
Another example: Rose & Bown (1984) analyzed over 600 specimens of
primates collected from a 700-meter-thick sequence representing
approximately 4 million years of the Eocene. They found smooth
transitions between _Teilhardina americana_ and _Tetonoides tenuiculus_,
and also beween _Tetonius homunculus_ and _Pseudotetonius ambiguus. Note
that both transitions cross genus lines. "In both lines transitions
occurred not only continuously (rather than by abrupt appearance of new
morphologies followed by stasis), but also in mosaic fashion, with greater
variation in certain characters preceding a shift to another character
state." The T. homunculus - P. ambiguus_ transition shows a dramatic
change in dentition (loss of P2, dramatic shrinkage of P3 with loss of
roots, shrinkage of C and I2, much enlarged I1). These changes are very
"dramatic" when you compare the first fossils to the last fossils. But
when you look at all the fossils in between, you see that the changes
actually occured *gradually* and smoothly during the 4 million years. The
authors conclude "...our data suggest that phyletic gradualism is not only
more common than some would admit but also capable of producing
significant adaptive modifications."
References:
Gingerich, P.D. 1977. Patterns of evolution in the mammalian fossil
record. In: Patterns Of Evolution As Illustrated By The Fossil
Record (ed. A. Hallam), chapter 15, pp. 469-500. Elsevier Scientific
Pub. Co.
Gingerich, P.D. 1980. Evolutionary patterns in early Cenozoic mammals.
Ann. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 8:407-424.
Rose, K.D., and Bown, T.M. 1984. Gradual phyletic evolution at the
generic level in early Eocene omomyid primates. Nature 309:250-252.
Kathleen Hunt
From Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ Part 2CThis is from the same source as the whale transitional fossils I quoted for you earlier -- what's your excuse for not even bothering to go look at what information was available? Oh, I know... You purposely avoided it so that you could continue to say false things like:Species-species transitions in artiodactyls:
- Brunet & Heintz (1983) describe gradual shifts in size and shape in Plio-Pleistocene artiodactyls (cited in Gingerich, 1985)
- Harris & White (1979) show smooth species-species transitions among pigs.
- Krishtalka & Stucky (1985) documented smooth transitions in the common early Eocene artiodactyl genus Diacodexis. The fossil record for these animals is very good (literally hundreds of new specimens have been found in Colorado and Wyoming since the 1970's). Analysis of these specimens found gradual species-species transitions for every step of the following lineage, including the origination of three different familes: Diacodexis secans-primus is the first artiodactyl species known. Immediately a new group of animals split off that gave rise to the Wasatchia and Bunophorus genera (not further discussed by this particular paper). Meanwhile, the main lineage of D. s-primus continued, and became D. s-metsiacus. Two species split off from D. s-metsiacus: one was D. gracilis, the other was an as-yet-unnamed new species "Artiodactyla A", which gave rise to "Artiodactyla B"; these two were the first members of the new families Homacodontidae and Antiacodontidae. Meanwhile, D. s- metsiacus continued changing and became D. s-kelleyi. Another species forked off, D. minutus. Slightly later another species forked off, D. woltonensis, which apparently was the first member of the new family Leptochoeridae. Meanwhile, D. s-kelley continued changing and became D. s-secans. Some quotes from the paper: "A good fossil record, such as that of Diacodexis, flies major anagenetic change in the face of artificial [naming] conventions..." "Evolutionary change (both anagenesis and cladogenesis) among these artiodactyls appears to have been gradual, chronoclinal, and mosaic, involving an increase in the degree of expression and frequency of occurrence of derived morphologic features..." "...it appears that different taxa of artiodactyls -- in hindsight, the most primitive members of originating suborders, families, and subfamilies -- arose at different times from different lineage segments of the single species Diacodexis secans." The authors conclude: "Microevolutionary processes can account for both cladogenetic and anagenetic change among these artiodactyls; macroevolutionary processes are not called for."
- Kurten (1968) describes a transition between Dama clactonia to Dama dama (deer)
- Lister (in Martin, 1993) describes transitional moose antlers linking a Pleistocene moose, Alces latifrons, to the modern moose, Alces alces.
- Wilson (1971) describes the gradual evolution of the late middle Eocene Protoreodon (family Agriochoeridae), showing progressive development of crescentic tooth cusps & other significant dental features. The species split into two diverging lineages which smoothly led to 1) Agriochoerus and 2) the oreodon Merycoidodon, which was the first member of a new, different, and eventually very successful family, Merycoidodontidae.
- Vrba (in Chaline, 1983) studied speciation in the wildebeest tribe (specialist grazers) and the impala tribe (generalist browsers). She saw almost no smooth transitions among the numerous and diverse wildebeest/blesbuck/etc. species, and concluded that they have arisen mostly by punctuated equilibrium by "fortuitous subdivision of gene pools" due to repeated oscillations in African climate, rainfall & vegetation). The impalas, in contrast, have evolved smoothly in a single non-splitting lineage since the Miocene.
Species-species transitions known from other misc. mammal groups
- Bookstein et al. (1975) describef gradual shifts in mean size in early Eocene mammals (cited in Gingerich, 1985).
- Gingerich (1980) documented gradual change in a lineage of early Eocene tillodonts: Esthonyx xenicus to E. oncylion to E. grangeri.
- Hulbert and Morgan (in Martin, 1993) describe gradual evolution through 2.3 million years in a genus of giant armadillo in Florida, Holmesina, with a noticeable spurt of evolution at 1.1 Ma when H. septentrionalis changed to H. floridanus.
There simply is no convincing evidence to "prove" evolution.
Well, sure, if you keep rejecting all evidence by the simple expedient of claiming it doesn't exist, even after it's shown to you... But that's not very intellectually honest, is it?
Now, are you going to keep lying and saying that there are "no transitional fossils", after dozens have been shown to you, spanning species-to-species and larger groups as well (with thousands more available in the literature)? Yes or no -- show the lurkers what you're made of. Show them whether a creationist can admit his mistakes, or whether he will continue to lie about the available evidence even after he has seen it. Yes or no?
"No convincing evidence", eh? What about the transitional fossils I've already shown you? Whales with legs don't count? Semi-aquatic whales which live on both land and in water don't count?
Well then, what about this fundamental evidence:
It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.Or for more specifics, read this all the way through if you're honest enough to face it: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for the Theory of Common Descent with Gradual Modification.The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution.
- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit.
One can reasonably disagree about the implications of some of the evidence, of course, but anyone who simply says there is "no evidence" for evolution is either a fool or a liar -- there are mountains of evidence.
Calling me a liar does not prove your theory.
Of course it doesn't. It wasn't meant to. It was meant to show that you, and all other creationists who make such astoundingly false claims in a dishonest, urgent attempt to distract attention from the evidence are liars, and are not to be trusted.
I can respect someone who argues about what theory might best fit the evidence. I have no respect whatsoever for someone who just covers his eyes with his hands and says, "evidence, what evidence, I don't see any evidence, tra la la I can't hear you..."
It only reveals how desperate you are to silence any skepticism.
I have no problem with skepticism. I love skepticism. What I won't abide, however, are liars and fools. And if you think I'm being too personal, too harsh, let's review how you started this exchange:
Not a single transitional fossil has ever been documented. Any taht have been put forth have been debunked as problematic or outright frauds. [...] Also, it really is too bad that most people do not know how to engage in critical reasoning. [...] I just cannot help thinking that evolutionists are no more lucid than babbling street people. Their ability to twist reason and logic defies the very truth they claim to seek.
You started with a lie, an accusation of fraud, an ironic lament about people who can't engage in critical reasoning (denying the existence of evidence, anyone?), and then dismissed evolutionists as "no more lucid than babbling street people".
So am I being harsh on you now? Absolutely -- you earned it.
Such deperation makes you theory all the more untrustworthy.
I'm not desperate, I'm disgusted. And what do you think your lying about the very existence of evidence, your slurring the opposition as "babbling street people", says about *your* position?
Also, why do you care about lies? What moral authority would you appeal to?
Oh, puh-LEAZE... What authority would I appeal to? Truth.
It's a good thing that those frauds (like Piltdown Man) were exposed by good Creation Scientists... Oh, wait. They were exposed by evolutionary biologists. Nevermind.
He also "forgets" to mention that the number of fossil frauds over the last two centuries (not counting sideshow fakes for circus attractions, of course) can be counted on the fingers of one hand. And genuine fossils number in the tens of millions.
Snicker -- post some, if you dare.
I have seen too much circular logic in evolution.
Document, please.
I have seen outright deception and lies.
Document this one too, or retract it. You'd better have a lot, though, or else I'll post three examples of blatant creationist lies for every one you can find from a scientist. Heck, I probably won't even have to go beyond this thread for examples.
I have seen the evolutionists simply ignore any evidence that didn't fit in the right place.
Such as? You're talking about *valid* evidence, I hope?
I have seen evolutionists denounce and sneer at anyone who places their faith in God rather than men.
No, I doubt that you have. What *I've* seen is people "denounce and sneer" at people who cast the first stone.
I have seen mathematical evidence for the argument of a young earth.
Oooh, my *favorite*! Please, please share it with us, I just love those.
4 posted on 01/22/2003 5:01 PM PST by jdege
fC...
We have your variety of ideology // tyranny // religion // politics // brainwashing. . . EVOLUTION (( science nazis )) - - - FASCISM // taliban -- jihad ! ! !
Why don't you address your, um, ideas towards someone who said anything remotely like you imagine they did?
That just shows your ignorance in the Bible and Christianity. Read these words carefully; I do not judge your SALVATION because THAT is God's realm alone, I judge your guilt for ACTIONS because God has already told me which actions are right and which are wrong. We also have courts where JUDGES decide on a person's guilt based on their ACTIONS. There is a whole book in the bible named JUDGES where they, guess what, pass judgement on people!
As for love and tolerance, I have no love or tolerance for sin, but sinners are welcomed into the church (we are ALL sinners, that is in the bible, too), as long as their desire to explore Christianity is genuine and not simply to be a disruptive or subversive influence. Neither an alcoholic, nor a child molester, nor a homosexual, nor a thief would be allowed into the leadership of a church.
BTW, it is liberals who are always preaching "tolerance" of perverted lifestyles as if homosexuals had equal moral ground to stand on.
The ENTIRE bible is the literal truth. To pretend that you can believe some parts and not others allows you to pick and choose the parts you like and simply disregard those you don't. If you claim to be Christian but believe in evoltion, then you reject the teachings of Jesus Christ who talked and taught on the creation; Mark 10-6 "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female." (not amoeba and bacteria) and the flood of Noah, Matthew 24:38 "For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark;" ( I guess Jesus believed in the flood of Noah, huh?)
Absolutely correct, though I fear this point is getting lost in the science vs. religion debate :) Well, anyway, I liked it. Thanks,
DFS
Now, when you say that "God has already told you...", do you mean that you talk directly to the Almighty on a regular basis? Or are those your interpretations of God's word, as written, edited, and politicized for a couple thousand years? And is that the same God everyone else talks to and believes in? Just so I can be clear on that point.
As for love and tolerance, I have no love or tolerance for sin, but sinners are welcomed into the church (we are ALL sinners, that is in the bible, too), as long as their desire to explore Christianity is genuine and not simply to be a disruptive or subversive influence.
Cool! I am glad to hear you say that. You're right, none of us are perfect, and a genuine interest in the love and tolerance that Christianity teaches is clearly superior to a more disruptive and intolerant take on things. I'm not sure how it relates to evolution, but I'm glad we agree.
Neither an alcoholic, nor a child molester, nor a homosexual, nor a thief would be allowed into the leadership of a church.
I should hope not :) But I'm not sure I see the relevance - Unless Dr. Dini is an alcoholic, a child molester, or a thief, in which case I wholeheartedly agree that we should not let him into the clergy, no matter what anyone else says.
BTW, it is liberals who are always preaching "tolerance" of perverted lifestyles as if homosexuals had equal moral ground to stand on.
Would accepting a theory, based on the application of the scientific method, constitute a perverted lifestyle?
The ENTIRE bible is the literal truth.
OK, let's assume we accept that, and ignore the idea of metaphor in religious texts altogether. Have all edits and additions to the Bible to date been the literal truth? Are all revisions equally true? Have politics and accepted religious beliefs at the time of said edits ever had any influence on the literal truth of the Bible?
In some Islamic countries, fundamentalism of this sort is taken to such an extreme that anyone suggesting that the Koran is anything other than the literal word of God will be put under threat of death. That is the case even when they are deeply religious and simply wish to understand the evolution of the main religious text of one of the worlds three great monotheistic religions - All of which share striking similarities in their basic tenents and which revolve around the same geographical areas and periods of time.
Is this really what we want? Is this level of fundamentalism and intolerance to dissent really a good thing? Is it good for any religion?
I believe that the original, literal truth of the Christian religion is in the Bible, somewhere - On that I most wholeheartedly agree with you. I also believe in the value of that truth. It's just a matter of where it is, how it is being expressed, and how you get at it. Theologians have not resolved this debate, so I don't see how we will either, but in a serious and objective study of religion, the matter of interpretation cannot be so easily brushed aside.
If you claim to be Christian but believe in evoltion, then you reject the teachings of Jesus Christ who talked and taught on the creation; Mark 10-6 "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female." (not amoeba and bacteria)
Does this mean that god made men and women, or did he simply decide on the concepts of organisms being male and female, i.e. the idea of the two sexes? Does this tell us how he made them, or simply that he did so?
and the flood of Noah, Matthew 24:38 "For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark;" (I guess Jesus believed in the flood of Noah, huh?)
The flood is most likely based on a real event, and whether it happened or not, or whether Jesus believed it or not, is irrelevant to the theory of evolution.
DFS
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/832645/posts?page=219#219
Give it some thought. And seriously - Scientists are not, on the whole, bad people, neither are they out to destroy Christianity - Most of us go into the sciences in order to use what has been given to us to help our fellow man by pursuing an understanding of the underlying laws governing our universe. I hope that we can do so, even when the answers we get may surprise us our challenge our beliefs. Such challenges are inevitable - Take the case of Galileo. He was not wrong, nor was he anti-Christian in any sense (in fact the man was deeply religious and by all accountrs very disturbed by his initial findings), but he was nevertheless persecuted for being objective in his pursuit of the truth. This is why this argument can be so dangerous. The idea of a spherical earth that orbits around the sun in no way detracts from the central message if Christianity, but this is exactly the debate that was going on then, and that is being paralleled, here and now. Thankfully, we no longer hang or burn people quite so often, but the ideas and emotions are the same.
Proper application of the scientific method (which is what I mean when I say "Science") can tell us a lot about the world in which we live, if we only have the courage to believe what we observe. Science cannot address who or what has put the underlying laws I mentioned above into place, however, and that's why we, as a species, have need religion and spirituality - This cannot be denied.
I don't want to generalize all of those who believe in Creation as being ignorant or hateful or intolerant - We are all human, and some of us fall farther than others, whatever our beliefs or training, nor do any of us have all of the answers. I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt; I hope I can count on you to do the same. But all of us, scientists or not, have to be able to entertain the possibility that maybe we do not understand everything, or, in the context of any discovery that challenges religious dogma (not true fundamentals, such as the value of tolerance and mercy, which can never be challenged), we will repeat the trial of Galileo over and over again, never learning from our mistakes. This would be a tragedy, and would benefit no one, religious or otherwise.
DFS
One in 200 years, and people started raising red flags from the start.
Burnt once twice shy, right?
Correct.
Bird studies proved speciation. All shown later to be false but initially approved via lazy science.
Excuse me?? Documentation, please.
If people are skeptical, maybe evolutionists should start by looking in their own house for the reason.
Hardly -- the actual number of major errors or frauds in evolutionary science is incredibly small, and is absolutely dwarfed by the number of *false* accusations made against it by creationists.
"If people are skeptical", the creationists bear the vast burden of responsibility -- they see it as their full-time *job* to cast doubt on evolution and those who study it, often by any means available including outright falsehoods.
For just one flavor of example, creationists are inordinately fond of misquoting so that they can dishonestly "support" their arguments. For example:
From Quotations and Misquotations: Why What Antievolutionists Quote is Not Valid Evidence Against Evolution :
Online resources documenting antievolutionist misquotations
The Fossil Hominid FAQ of The Talk.Origins Archive has several pages on creationist misquotations on human evolution:Here are some other pages of The Talk.Origins Archive that are about creationist misquotes:
- Creationist Arguments: Misquotes (Many specific examples are provided.)
- Duane Gish quote about ER 1470
- Creationist Arguments: The Monkey Quote
- Rear view of Sinanthropus
The following articles from The Talk.Origins Archive that that, in part, address creationist misquotations:
- The Revised Quote Book: Looking at how Creationists Quote Evolutionists
- Patterson Misquoted: A Tale of Two 'Cites'
- Clarence Darrow: Misquoted by Creationists
- Missing Supernova Remnants as Evidence of a Young Universe?: A Case of Fabrication
Here are some pages on the web that address creationist misquotations:
- Lucy's Knee Joint: A Case Study in Creationists' Willingness to Admit their Errors
- Creationist Whoppers
- Geochronology kata John Woodmorappe
- Supernovae, Supernova Remnants and Young Earth Creationism FAQs
- Thrust Faults
- 29 Evidences for Macroevolution: A Response to Ashby Camp's "Critique"
A searchable archive on creationist quotes can be found at Antievolution Quotes and Misquotes: The Archive.
- Hiding the Numbers to Defame Radiometric Dating: A Few Examples of the Many Misused References in Woodmorappe (1999)
- More Classic Misquotations in Woodmorappe (1999)
- Chopping a Title Hides the Truth
- Quote-Mining...The Tradition Continues - ICR Representative Frank Sherwin Visits Eureka College
- Creationist Misquotations
- Quotes About Evolution
- Gee Responds to Discovery Institute Use of Quotations
- Discovery Institute Quotes Clark Out of Context
- Gilbert Rebukes Discovery Institute for Use of Quote
- Coyne Exposes Discovery Institute's "old tricks"
- Doubting Darwinism through Creative License
- Intelligent Design Bibliography Misleading
- Misquotations in the Creation Book
- George Gaylord Simpson Said There Are No Transitional Fossils?
- Tom Kemp Said that the Mammal-like Reptiles Are Not Transitions Between Mammals and Reptiles?
- "Dawn Horse" Is a Good "Ancestor" For Rhinos Discredits Horse Evolution?
- Simpson Rejected the Transformation From "Dawn Horse" to Modern Horse?
- Niles Eldredge Says that the Geologic Column is Circular Reasoning?
- D.M.S. Watson Admitted Evolutionists Dogmatically Rejected Creation?
- Creation Science is Garbage (This article has an example of a creationist citing a negative review as if it were an endorsement.)
- Criticism of moth study no challenge to evolution
- Charges of fraud misleading
- Famous Quotes found in books
- Just what DO they say Dr. Morris?
- Does Dr Jonathan Sarfati Have Any Integrity?
- Creationist "Out of Context" Quotes
- Creation Book: a critical analysis
- Re: Disowing Darwin
- Ted Holden's "intermediate fossil" quotes from Walter ReMine's "Biotic Message"
- Another Creationist Misquote (News report in Science two decades ago screwed-up and the creationists continue the error.)
- Lie Ho! Lie Ho! It's off to the quote mine we go...
- Michael Ruse on the misuse of his religion comments
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.