Ouch! :cry: I place the X-Men and Darwins Evolutionary Theories in the same context of non-reality. Except I like the X-Men better...:up:

Regarding the Tiktaalik: "Parts of an animal"... Hmm, ok. I'll give them that. Sounds like the same story that was used to describe the Archaeopteryx, ( of which at least 8 specimes were found, the first in 1861 ) as the "missing link" between reptiles and birds. However, it has been proven since that there are FAR too many structural differences between Archaeopteryx and modern birds for the latter to be descendents of the former.

Considering that the Tiktaalik remnants are so newly found (2006) and so few (one instance), I think it presumptive to declare it as the "missing link" between amphibians and reptiles.

BTW, Owen used a evolutionist argument that used the homology of vertebrate limbs as a common "archetype" to support evolution. He compared the forelimbs of a bat, a porpoise, a horse and a human and declared them to be homologous. Unfortunately Owen's argument was circular, he defined homology as similarity due to common descent then used it as evidence for common descent.

Another point, biologists have known for centuries that homologous features are NOT due to similar genes, so the mechanism that produces them are still unknown.

So, I wouldn't jump on the "conclusive evidence bandwagon" of the Tiklaalik quite yet...

A Mudskipper is an amphibian, no more or less. In this regards, it no more unique than a frog, newt or salamander. In what way does a Mudskipper prove itself to be an intermediate form of ???

:lol: Ohhh... ya know, sometimes I just utterly fail to exercise any restraint.

I was just about to unsubscribe too...

Frogs, Newts or Salamanders do not have gills. A mudskipper does. That alone makes it more than your average amphibian.

Actually, I must correct my previous error. Mudskippers are members of the family Gobiidae, or Gobies, a fish. Not Amphibia as I posted earlier. Hence the gills...

The Mudskipper therefore has shown an adaptation to its environment, and this certainly does not invalidate natural selection. However, we don't see a fish evolving to walk on land in this case. Instead, we see a survival trait that has been continued in the species as successful.

One could argue that because the legs of the mudskipper allow it more effectively on land, that this is significant to an evolutionary line of reasoning. But again, however, we don't see the mudskipper "evolving" past its current anatomical form, nor do we see "ascendents" deriving from the mudskipper.

Perhaps we should consider "anti-evolution", as manifested in the sharks, crocodiles and the ancient coelacanth, to name a few. The latter having not evolved in millions of years to the modern day and supported by such evidence as found the fossil record.

Well adaptation to environment is what evolution is. What you seem to be against is speciation, which has allso been observed. Leaving your position with little to no ground to stand onthey have changed over time, but to a very small degree due to the fact that they are allready very well adapted to surviving in their given environments.

Deepiron, the scientists I mentioned partially are theoretic workers, yes, however that does not necessarily minimize their conclusions and insights which have influence far beyond the scientists oroginal field (and else the Nobel comittee would have been more carefully, I assume), and anyway: I just wanted to point at that scientific thinking as well as certain philosophical and mystic traditions agree in what I would describe as a general trend, an inherent characterstic of material existence: that it has a self-emerging ability, a inherent potential to develope from an inferior to a superior order of complexity, and that the emerging of consciousness has something to do with it. Different to what some people here may think about me, I do not think that science alone will ever be complete an approach to the the existential question if you leave out the philosophical and spiritual dimension - and the latter are uncomplete without the scientific approach. what imo must be the common basis for all three, is reason, else creative science turns into fruitless dogma, philosophy turns into shallow mysticism, and spirituality turns into superstition.

to bring all these different approaches together, give them their just place in the spectrum of existence, but also define the borders and limits of each of these appraoches, is the service of Ken Wilber. As you described him, it sounded as if you think he mixes it up. but he does not - exactly the opposite.

Self-emerging order seem to be present on many if not all levels, and in many if not all fields of scientific observation, from chemistry over physical phenomenons to social communities, the synchronicity of new developements in nature as well as man's history, the behavior of galaxies or the coordinated movement of fish swarms. We have just begun to discover these phenomenons on the meta-level, I mean: outside laboratory conditions when handling with test tubes. Science and spirituality are not contradictory, imo. In fact, they need each other, and are mutually stimulating, as long as reason is the leading principle that binds both. As one of my favourite quotes goes, by einstein: "Imagination is more important than knowing facts." Vision is what gives sciences it's direction, and spirituality it's cause. I there would be no vision of something different - why would there be any need for the one or the other? How could there be ever any understanding that does not stagnate, but is growing in itself? And if I should see it right indeed and evolution means nothing else than a growing degree of the cosmos becoming aware of itself and realizing itself - how could that ever be possible without the realm of what is known trying to explore the realm of what still is unknown - by reason, science and spirituality? - If I eventually just "believe" in something like other believe in their religion - this is as close to it as it gets. And that is why I describe myself as atheistic, antitheistic, spiritual, and basing on logic and reason as well as subjective experience. In the end, what I call reality is inside my brain, inside my mind, inside my thoughts, and if my reality is pictured and imagined the same as yours - we will never know for sure in this phase of our mental evolution.

Or in short: evolution is a state of mind.

Of course not, it's very difficult to detect motion from a snapshot.

That is one aspect of evolution and not one that I'm particularly against. In actuality I support evolutionary theory in this context. As for speciation, I'm sure that it's a fact. The upshot of speciation is simple, species differ within their own family. What you don't see are creatures like centaurs, or merfolk... Which, if you take Darwin's theories at face value, one should be properly expected to see.

And of course, the Platypus, is certainly one of the oddest creatures known. A duckbilled, warm blooded mammal that lays eggs... Darwin must turn over in his grave on that one!

What I don't believe or support is Darwins theory that we all share a common ancestor, which is the crux of his Theory of Evolution. Frankly, the evidence supporting it simply doens't bear up under careful and logical scrutiny. I do believe, and moreover, modern science is bearing out the arguments for Intelligent Design which would fall into the Creationist camp, and the real topic of the thread anyway.

What I fail to understand is in what timeframe do we quantify "a shotshot"?

"Shotshot"? :D

Hey, I'm evolving... lemme be...
http://www.northrim.net/jhouck/image..._Hobbes_sm.jpg

Scientists are not quite sure why the 'Cambrian explosion' happend. But it doesn't neccesarily invalidate Darwin. Sudden or rapid in a geological sense is a very long time, its only rapid when you put it in a geological context. In this case we could be talking anywhere between 10 to 40 million years. Evolution can speed up or slow down, it does not occur at a constant rate. As environmental conditions change or go through periods of virtual status quo, so evolution speeds and slows. Take human evolution from early Homonids to Homo Sapiens; 4 to 3 million years? Then look at the changes in evironmental conditions in Africa then, the fairly rapid change from rain forrest to grassland. Could there be a corelation between that and our appearance? In the Cambrian case the earth had recently come out of a global ice age, that warming and the evolution of lifeforms prior to that could well have combined to see the explosion. Also bear in mind that Darwin does not have access to the 150 or so years of scientific advances and discoveries that we do. If we could resurect Darwin would he still be as stumped by the 'Cambrian explosion'?.


As Tchoky posted, 'we are all intermediate forms'. species don't have a point where they stop evolving. For example; a wolf won't stop evolving now just because we now identify as a wolf and like it that way. Agreed animals may reach an optimum adapted form for the current evironmental conditions that they live in. But these conditons will not remain indefinately. But even then they don't stop evolving, the adaptations may simply slow or become less noticable. If the conditions change the species will either evolve to adapt or nature will select it for extincton. Its sobering to think that the vast majority of species that ever lived are now extinct and most will never be known to us.

There are also many problems with the fossil record, it is far from complete. The formation of fossils is not particularly common and there are many ways in which fossils can be destroyed by nature. So it may be that the fossils simply no longer exsist. Also the vaults of museums are packed with unstudied fossils crated up and gathering dust, who is to say how many intermediate species are lying around unknown.

The results of Millers experaments do not debunk evolution. There is a lot we don't know about what the conditions which life appeared were. Miller's tests were not the be all and end all. There have been other experiments done using different atmospheric conditions which have produced amino acids. Also life may have begun away from the amosphere on the sea floor for example, perhaps it hitched a lift as microbes on a meteor or commet? Also some chemicals which can be toxic are actually part of the process of building compounds like amino acids, their toxicity is irrellevant in this case.

He did indeed falsify some of his evidence or skate over other parts. But again that does not debunk evolution. Similarities between embryos of different species do exsist but also why should we accept all embryos to look the same? That was Haeckle's mistake.

15 billion years is a very looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time. :hmm::o


Good post though DeepIron, something that can be engaged with, not just a torrent of Biblical rhetoric. :up:

A question for creationists though: Why do humans have vestigial tails?

This whole debate is pointless. It may sound like the two sides are having a debate, but they aren't. Both are speaking what may as well be different languages because they are coming from such very different positions. This position is best illustrated by that cartoon that skybird posted regarding the different epistomological methods. You know, scientists look at facts and ask for supportable conclusions whereas it's the other way around with creationists.

What the debate amounts to is:

evolution supporters say "look at this vast amount of evidence and the sheer logical force of the argument and you must accept it". Whereas creationists say "Don't you see? Look in the Bible, first book! This is what God did!"

No matter how many times this is repeated, it won't work because neither party is using a line of argument that the other gives any credence to. The fact that more evidence and more spurious counterarguments can be wheeled into play is irrelevent - there are always more, or rehashed counterarguments, the evidence can always be ignored or denied. The purpose of creationist counter-arguments anyway is not, i suspect, to convince the other side, but to convince themselves that they may continue believing in creationism and still claim to be logical, truthful and scientific in the process.

(Forget ID, no one believes it. Scientists do not and neither do creationists as that fully contradicts the genesis story too.)

DOn't believe me? OK I'll ask Deep Iron as a representative creationist. After how much more evidence has been presented and after how many of the creationists' spurious counter-arguments have been carefully demolished and after how many of the wrinkles of the theory have been ironed out (for it is a living theory that is still being refined) will you turn around and say, you know what, you are right and I'm wrong, and I guess I'm just going to have to get on with the difficult task of reconciling evolution with my faith and Chrisitanity and the conclusion that the bible cannot be entirely, literally true?

I'll ask Tchocky as a representative evolutionist. After how many times of having the relevant passages of the bible pointed out to you, and after how many times of clever but ultimately spurious counter-arguments pointed out to you, will you turn around and say, you know what, you are right and I'm wrong. You have planted doubt in my mind regarding the validity of evolution theory and logic and that means that the biblical tale is likely the literal truth. It is God's word, as you say, and best not to disagree with the big fellow.

Personally I really don't understand why so many Christians are so hostile to evolution and see it as such a threat.

I'll tell you all this: Both Christianity and Evolution are here to stay. That goes for other religions and the rest of science too. You can continue to fight about it, or you can try and learn to live together and accept perhaps that you don't know how to exactly reconcile these seeming areas of contradiction. Perhaps both are true. After all Jesus can be all God and all man at the same time.

Another thing. Christian fundamentalists have just had 8years of the most friendly government they are likely to see for some time, and they did not intervene in this debate. They allowed Christians to make some plays, for to lose their votes would be foolish, but when it was defeated in the courtroom, they allowed the momentum to whither. They do not want an end to real science.

The high-tech sector is very important to the US economy, and that includes big pharmaceutical companies that need world-class biologists and big oil that needs world-class geologists. To become these things you need to have faith in the validity of the scientific method and the confidence that your own conclusions, that may contradict preconceived beliefs, may in fact be the right ones, and that the previous authority was wrong. Thus creationists will never "win" the battle to get creationism taught in the science class.

Well, ultimately I don't care. I'm not American, but I do know a lot of european and east asian scientists. In fact I'm married to one. If the demand for world-class scientists increases because of a decrease in the quantity of American ones, that will increase our family's disposable income. So I in fact will be a winner if creationists get their way in US science classes, so go on boys and girls, don't give up the fight:arrgh!:

What people should keep in mind is that evolution occurs over thousands of generations for even the slightest change.
One very small example of human evolution is that Europeans can tolerate lactose far better than almost all other races, since the people of western Europe were the first to drink raw milk thousands of years ago. Europeans have evolved to tolerate drinking milk. In fact, about 70% of the world's popualtion is still lactose intolerant.

This is hardly concrete proof of evolution, but it's an example of a change which has happened within our species, within a (relatively) short time span.

Evolution has in fact been proven though, it is occurring everywhere and it's easily measureable.
Micro-organisms go through several generations at incredible speed, and thus their evolutionary progress can be seen from one day to the next. This is FACT. Evolution is happening at the bacterial level at the very least. This alone is enough to debunk the literal interpreation of creationism.

@Mrbeast, I think there is a big difference between those who search out the truth of Creation, and those who simply accept it. I'm trying to argue from the point of a "scientific and proveable" argument for Intelligent Design. I read the Scriptures certainly, and some of what is there is pretty strange, but after reading and considering the mounting evidence, and yes, one can call it evidence to support ID, my acceptance of the teachings of Jesus Christ have become more understandable and desirable too.

For the same reason we have an appendix? :lol: Actually, the vestigial tail is considered be a case of spina bifida, where the embryonic structure supporting the formation of the spinal cord is not completely absorbed during fetal development. So say the physicians and biologists.

You appear argue from the standpoint that you think I'm close minded to the thoughts of Darwinist Evolution. This is not true. As I've stated before, I don't prescribe to Mankind ascending from a common ancestor as Darwin theorizes. Other than that, I have don't have issues reconciling evolutionary changes with my belief in God.

The other issue I have is the continuing education of the public in the iconic examples of Darwinist Evolution that have long been debunked or simply proven false. The Miller/Urey experiment is still taught as being valid, the Haeckle Embryos are still taught as valid. Owen's Homology is still taught as valid. The truth is this, they, and other examples of Darwins evolution are not valid as proven in the face of modern scientific methods and research.

"Ironically, to say that science is the only begetter of truth is contridicting, because that statement by itself cannot be tested by the scientific method. It's a self defeating philosphical assumption" ~ Stephen C Meyer, Ph.D.

You are quite wrong in this point. The scientific community has come to embrace more and more the idea of Intelligent Design. In practically all disciplines, cosmology, geology, biology, etc, the scientific community has come to a realization that increasingly, the theory that our universe and the life within is the result of ID. Some prominent scientists (all Ph.Ds) of which you might care to read would be Johnathan Wells, Stephen C. Meyer, William Lane Craig, Robin Collins, Guillermo Gonzalez, Jay Wesley Richards, Michael J. Behe, J.P. Moreland but to name a few.

Why is this? Simple really. All other theories fall short. "Science is the search for truth" and why does a universe designed by intelligence invalidate the truth of it? Science and faith are not opposites, they are complimentary. In many cases, scientists, prominent in their fields of research have admitted that their relationship with an Intelligent Creator, or God, if you will, has been created and strengthened. These are men not given to wild speculations, but the most painstaking research and fact finding.

Consider the words of William Provine of Cornell University, "If Darwinism is true, there are five inescapable conclusions":

1. There is no evidence for God
2. There's no life after death.
3. There's no absolute foundation for right or wrong.
4. There's no ultimmate meaning for life.
5. People don't really have free will.

I don't argue or counter-argue my belief in an Intelligent Creator from the standpoint of some starry eyed, empty-headed Jesus freak. I test my faith and resolve by reading, understanding and questioning the world around me. To be frank, it's taken my a long, long time to reconcile my intelligent self to my spiritual self. And I still have doubts everyday.

BTW, I've found this thread to be a lot of fun and useful in its course. :yep:

As a matter of fact, creationism is no longer an exclusivly american phenomenon, but has become popular in europe, esoecially some of the former soviet satellite nations, and even was able to jump into nthe Muslim world. In turkey, creationism is becoming very popular, in some branches of Islam, creationistic ideas have always been present since Rumi, and this fella here has started a huge and highly successful offensive of adopting the American version of creationism, tailoring and redesigning it according to Islamic demands, and publishing it en masse.

http://www.hyahya.org/
http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darw...reation_01.php
http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darw...tion_II_01.php
http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darw...ion_III_01.php

meanwhile, fundamental sects in Germany have increased their efforts to gain independence from obligatory public school aducation, and the reawakening of orthodox or even fundamentalistic interpretations of christinaity is to be seen and felt throughout the Western world, partially due to the raising uncertainity of the future (economy, job, environment), partially in response to excessive materialism, and partially in response to the perceived intimidatin threat of Islam. At the same time, creatinists have challenged public education and school in america for several time in the Us over the last couple of years.

So, joegrundman, it is not as harmless as you may think when saying that "they allowed the momentum to wither". certain branches of sciences are also still under debate in the US, stem cell research for example, which ics blocked by Bush himself (who also propagated in public that intelligent design should be taught at schools).

Else I agree with you. We do not have a cause in this debate, we have a hobby. and we find it entertaining. ;)