Science Blunders (miracle, scriptures, passages, seven)

[stretch00]

Originally Posted by Malachi

Ok if evolution is so real then please present real proof of a transitional fourm that evolved from another spiecies now you agree lucy was not Human so then we never evolved from a type of spiecies from her other wise more transitional fourms would have been found that came from her or her spiecies like darawin said there must be hundreds of transitional fourms found to proov evolution and not ONE HAS BEEN FOUND.

Dude. Think about capitalization, punctuation, and a few capitals placed in the correct areas. It will make your posts much easier to read.

Now, you say there are no transitional species between Lucy (Homo Afarensis) and modern man (Homo Sapiens). In fact there is a whole series of them. Here is a list (from talkorigins):

# Australopithecus afarensis (late Pliocene, 3.9 Ma) -- Some excellent fossils ("Lucy", etc.) make clear that this was fully bipedal and definitely a hominid. But it was an extremely ape-like hominid; only four feet tall, still had an ape-sized brain of just 375-500 cc (finally answering the question of which came first, large brain or bipedality) and ape-like teeth. This lineage gradually split into a husky large-toothed lineage and a more slender, smaller- toothed lineage. The husky lineage (A. robustus, A. boisei) eventually went extinct.
# Australopithecus africanus (later Pliocene, 3.0 Ma) -- The more slender lineage. Up to five feet tall, with slightly larger brain (430-550 cc) and smaller incisors. Teeth gradually became more and more like Homo teeth. These hominds are almost perfect ape- human intermediates, and it's now pretty clear that the slender australopithecines led to the first Homo species.
# Homo habilis (latest Pliocene/earliest Pleistocene, 2.5 Ma) -- Straddles the boundary between australopithecines and humans, such that it's sometimes lumped with the australopithecines. About five feet tall, face still primitive but projects less, molars smaller. Brain 500-800 cc, overlapping australopithecines at the low end and and early Homo erectus at the high end. Capable of rudimentary speech? First clumsy stone tools.
# Homo erectus (incl. "Java Man", "Peking Man", "Heidelberg Man"; Pleist., 1.8 Ma) -- Looking much more human now with a brain of 775-1225 cc, but still has thick brow ridges & no chin. Spread out of Africa & across Europe and Asia. Good tools, first fire.
# Archaic Homo sapiens (Pleistocene, 500,000 yrs ago) -- These first primitive humans were perfectly intermediate between H. erectus and modern humans, with a brain of 1200 cc and less robust skeleton & teeth. Over the next 300,000 years, brain gradually increased, molars got still smaller, skeleton less muscular. Clearly arose from H erectus, but there are continuing arguments about where this happened.
# One famous offshoot group, the Neandertals, developed in Europe 125,000 years ago. They are considered to be the same species as us, but a different subspecies, H. sapiens neandertalensis. They were more muscular, with a slightly larger brain of 1450 cc, a distinctive brow ridge, and differently shaped throat (possibly limiting their language?). They are known to have buried their dead.
# H. sapiens sapiens (incl. "Cro-magnons"; late Pleist., 40,000 yrs ago) -- All modern humans. Average brain size 1350 cc. In Europe, gradually supplanted the Neanderthals.

[stretch00]

Originally Posted by Malachi

As for no proof for GOD acctually there is a substance called dark matter which is what keeps this world going and functioning properly and scientist cant's seem to find it or get it to be analyized by computer but they know it is there so this must be proof of GOD. It's funny how you say science will never proov the existence of GOD and your wright which prooves the BIBLE to be right.

Split from my previous post for readability.

There are a couple of errors here. First, you do not seem to understand what dark matter is. As I understand it, it is the mass that has not been observed in the universe, but must be present because of the gravitational effect large bodies (like galaxies) have on one another. It has nothing to do with "keeping this world going". It is simply something that we have not yet observed or understood about the composition of the universe.

Which leads to the second error. Simply because we do not understand something, that does not mean that god exists. 150 years ago we did not understand the germ theory of disease. We then discovered bacteria. Does that mean that god did exist, and now does not, as we have an alternative explanation?

I suppose there is a third error inherent in your statement. What if I granted you the argument that dark matter meant god's existence? Then what would the attributes of god be? I would be equally justified in claiming the flying spaghetti monster created the dark matter as you would be in claiming the christian god.

[ian6479]

[quote=Malachi;792467]Ok if evolution is so real then please present real proof of a transitional fourm that evolved from another spiecies now you agree lucy was not Human so then we never evolved from a type of spiecies from her other wise more transitional fourms would have been found that came from her or her spiecies like darawin said there must be hundreds of transitional fourms found to proov evolution and not ONE HAS BEEN FOUND. As for no proof for GOD acctually there is a substance called dark matter which is what keeps this world going and functioning properly and scientist cant's seem to find it or get it to be analyized by computer but they know it is there so this must be proof of GOD. It's funny how you say science will never proov the existence of GOD and your wright which prooves the BIBLE to be right.

I think one of the responses provides certain transitional examples of changes in species. If you look yourself, it is substantial, and overwhelming.

Dark matter is a term astronomers use for matter in the universe they know exist but can't observe. They know it is there from gravitational effects on the visible matter around it. It is not "what makes the world go round". It is simply something we cannot YET explain. The same is true of black holes, which also do not prove the existence of God.

Many atheistic authors refer to your "proof" of Gods existence as the "god of the gaps"... that which we do not understand religous people attribute to God.

[solidsquid]

Hmm, I fail to see how this is a rebuttal to what I posted earlier, nevertheless, I will address the statements presented.

Originally Posted by Malachi

Acctually lucy left palantologists confused because recent study's show lucy may not be human after all. In the June, 11, 1990 issue of time magazine publushed a article explaining how "Geologist show how carbon dating can be way off".

Lucy was never proposed as a human – that is an AMH (anatomically modern human) which is what we are – the species Homo sapiens sapiens. Lucy was a specimen of Australopithecus afarensis. The Australopithecines are the most likely ancestors which gave rise to the Homo genus. I’d be interested in where you obtained your information from on the Lucy specimen.

The article in the issue of Time Magazine is a news story in reference to a research article in the journal Nature which appears in the May 31st issue. The article is by Bard, Hamelin, Fairbanks and Zindler (1990) and offers a comparison of ages from coral derived through the use of C14 dating and Uranium/Thorium dating. The aim of the paper was to provide another precise means of C14 dating calibration. They propose utilizing the U/Th method as a check against C14 dating to arrive at the most accurate dates for samples. Which this research has led to the use of the U/Th and coral calibration (Broecker, 2004) No where in the article do the authors state that C14 dating is unreliable and yields anomalous dates whenever it is used – which is often the claim made by evolution opponents – which technically is more of a slap in the face of geologists and physicists than evolutionary biologists. Also C14 dating, because of the nature of the isotope and the daughter product (through the atmospheric carbon cycle) – only certain materials can be successfully dated.

Also, as I stated before, you will often find more than one dating method being employed. Since this paper was published, 17 years ago – standard protocols for C14 dating have been meticulously refined and shown to work (Long, 1990; Scott, 2003).

Originally Posted by Malachi

This is because evolution is nothing more than a fairy tale for grown ups like i said please present proof that evolution exists you can go to Intelligent Design versus Evolution and if you can present proof you will win 10,000 dolars become famouse and proov GOD to be false.

First, Malachi, I would like to ask you a question. What do you think evolution is? How would you define it? Because I honestly think you hold some distorted idea of what the theory explains. It’s not completely your fault as is evidenced by the websites you reference. Unfortunately for you my friend, these sites lack a footing in solid science, contain brazen distortions and some even outright lies. I would encourage you to seek your knowledge on the subject from actual scientific sources – unless you adhere to the scientist conspiracy idea.

Secondly, this leads into the website you presented. Ray Comfort’s gig - and his arguments against evolution are silly and make anyone who uses them look the fool.

Let’s examine their criteria for “proof” of evolution. Here is what Comfort claims his challenge is (I will address this point by point):

A transitional form (or missing link) is an example of one species “evolving” into another species.

As I stated before in my previous post – the idea of “transitional” is often misunderstood. As stated before, all the lineages of organisms on earth reside on a branching continuum. Unlike Comfort’s ridiculous graphic next to this paragraph, you will not find part duck, part dog. The theory of evolution says no such thing – this is a blatant distortion and spread of misinformation. As I said earlier, when one specimen is presented as being between two other points upon an evolutionary lineage, you will have two more “holes” to fill leading those who are asking for examples to now fill those holes and so on and so forth, leading to a type of Zeno’s paradox to fill an exponentially growing numbers of holes ad infinitum.

Next, is Comfort’s definition of what constitutes a “transitional” specimen. One species “evolving into another” is extremely vague. It carries no operational weight in application – it is a vacuous statement. In a more specific explanation – a “transitional” specimen would show traits that can be seen in a more ancestral specimen and a later specimen within its evolutionary lineage. To further elucidate what I’m explaining, I shall provide some examples.

A recent find in the transition between fish and tetrapods is the fossil Tiktaalik roseae. This fossil is a perfect example of what the concept of a transitional fossil is. The find, reported in 2006, shows the morphological traits predicted by evolution in the fish to tetrapods lineage. As noted by Daeschler, Shubin and Jenkins (2006) the fossil's morphological characteristics show, "the body scales, fin rays, lower jaw and palate are comparable to those in more primitive sarcopterygians, the new species also has a shortened skull roof, a modified ear region, a mobile neck, a functional wrist joint, and other features that presage tetrapod conditions." (pp. 757). The organism most likely resided in shallow water habitats where having the ability to move onto land and over sandbars and the like would be advantageous not only for movement but for finding food and possibly mating as well. This discovery fits neatly in between ancient lobed-finned fish and tetrapods. Many other transitions are know and well represented in the fossil record as is evidence by Kathleen Hunt's article at the Talk Origins website in her Transitional Vertebrate fossil FAQ -(Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ).

Another recent find is that of a new specimen of lizard (Adriosaurus microbrachis) which is about 95 million years old. This specimen shows, “complete loss of the manus and zeugopodium in association with elongation of the axial skeleton” (Palci and Caldwell, 2007). The significance of this find would be that it would fit the laymanistic concept of a “transitional” specimen from “lizard” to “snake”.

A similar find was reported in April of 2006 of an Upper Cretaceous serpent with functional hindlimbs as well as a sacrum supporting its pelvic girdle whereas these have been lacking in other specimens which more closely resemble modern snakes (Apesteguia and Zaher, 2006).

Now, onto the claims surrounding Archaeopteryx.

Excited scientists thought they had found one when they discovered “Archaeopteryx.” The fossil led to the theory that the dinosaurs did not become extinct, but rather all turned into birds.

As I explained earlier, not all dinosaurs – only one class of theropods became what we now call Aves. The examples I gave earlier showed that these dinosaurs already had evolved some avian traits before the K-T boundary. Also, there is more than one specimen of Archaeopteryx – many people, amazingly, don’t know this – apparently Comfort doesn’t either.

The Field Museum in Chicago displayed what was believed to be an archaeopteryx fossil on October 4-19, 1997. It was hailed as “Archaeopteryx: The Bird That Rocked the World.” However, Dr. Alan Feduccia (evolutionary biologist at the University of North Carolina), said, “Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleo-babble’ is going to change that.” [Science, February 5, 1993].

What Feduccia is referring to is putting Archaeopteryx as a purely terrestrial organism – which is wasn’t. It, like modern birds, had the power of flight. Feduccia doesn’t contest that birds arose from a dinosaurian ancestry at all he however, does contest, the direct descent from theropods. In a paper in that very same issue that Comfort references (the actual quote came from a news story within the journal) Feduccia presents an argument that Archaeopteryx was of an arboreal habitat and not of a terrestrial one due to claw geometry (Feduccia, 1993). At no time does Feduccia argue against a dinosaurian ancestry at all. What the specimens do present are definitive traits linking them to ancestral dinosaurs. Maybe if Comfort read the research papers and not just the news stories he would understand what is going on.

So here’s my challenge: I will give $10,000 to the first person who can prove to me that they have found a genuine living transitional form (a lizard that produced a bird, or a dog that produced kittens, or a sheep that produced a chicken, or even as Archaeopteryx—a dinosaur that produced a bird).

Here’s why Comfort will never lose his 10 large – what he’s asking for is an impossibility. It is based upon a distortion of what “transitional” means in an evolutionary context. He’s asking for some odd hybrid – which is not what evolution predicts happens – never has. He also seems to misunderstand how this process works and one of the basic tenets of evolutionary theory – individuals don’t evolve populations do. Comfort has produced a distorted caricature of evolution and subsequently passed on misinformation to people such as yourself Malachi. Just because you may share the same general ideology with Mr. Comfort, it doesn’t mean that what he’s telling you and everyone else is accurate or even the least bit based in science. I’m sorry but you have been led astray by confident ignorance.

Species do not cross, no matter how long you leave them. The whole of creation is proof that evolution is truly “a fairytale for grownups.”

The second to last sentence actually has some accuracy to it. When Comfort says, “species do not cross” (assuming he means successfully breeding to produce viable offspring) – that is correct. It is part of the biological species concept – reproductive isolation. However, the rest of the statement is an unsubstantiated and fallacious claim.

Originally Posted by Malachi

LOL no we havent evolved and what you just explained is "microevolution" which is adaptation with in a species but it is way different then evolution evolution is when one form of species transforms into another species and microevolution is adaptation within a species wich has not changed so the scorpion having eye's is not evolution but it is microevolution the scorpion is still a scorpion not some different species from when it was born and this goes for every thing else we and animals adapt to our enviroment but we do not become a different species.

It looks as though you do not understand what exactly evolution is my friend. And with the websites you reference I can understand why. Microevolution IS evolution and so is macroevolution. The same process are involved in both with the major one, of course, being natural selection. So what is evolution by definition? Well, let’s see.

Audesirk, Audesirk, and Byers (2002) define evolution as, "the descent of modern organisms with modification from preexisting life-forms; strictly speaking, any change in the proportions of different genotypes in a population from one generation to the next." (G-9).

Alters (2000) defines evolution as, "a scientific theory of organismal change over time originally developed by Charles Darwin; it embodies the ideas that species alive today are descendants of species living long ago, and that species have changed and diverged from one another over billions of years; the process of change over time by which existing populations of organisms develop from ancestral form through modification of their characteristics." (G-10).

It appears the definition of evolution you hold is incorrect. I would encourage you, if you are actually interested in learning about evolutionary biology, to grab a decent biology text or evolutionary biology text and take a read through them. You can also look through some peer-reviewed, scientific journals that specialize in evolutionary biology, there are free open source resources such as BioMed Central’s BMC Evolutionary Biology which are easily accessible.

Now, having said that, you need to understand that a species is not the same as the vague idea of a “kind”. Saying “a bird is just a bird” is taxonomically useless and inaccurate. There are thousands of species of birds. As I stated earlier the main criteria for classification as a separate species is reproductive isolation. Morphological change is not necessary to have two distinct species. It is much more complex than simply looking at a creature swimming in the ocean and saying, “oh, that’s a fish because it has fins”. A species (in sexually reproducing organisms) is defined as, “a population or series of populations of organisms that interbreed freely with one another under natural conditions but that do not interbreed with members of other species” (Audesirk et al., 2002, pp. G-23). Even this definition is a simplified one. Species may attempt to or successfully breed with another species to produce a hybrid organism. However, the result of this is an organism which is reproductively inviable. The mule is a perfect example of this – two species breed and produce offspring yet the offspring is sterile, they cannot reproduce. This all goes along with the biological species concept – what the definition of species is based upon. The biological species concept outlines the criteria for determining what constitutes a species. Mayr (2001), comments on the BSC, stating:

(1) species are composed of populations, and (2) populations are conspecific if they successfully interbreed with each other. This reasoning resulted in the so-called biological species concept (BSC): ‘Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.’ In other words, a species is a reproductive community. Its reproductive isolation is effected by so-called isolating mechanisms, that is, by properties of individuals that prevent (or make unsuccessful) the interbreeding with individuals of other speices (167).

With the “kind” taxonomical approach we have a very simplistic and superficial methodology which does not take into consideration any scientific information such as population ecology, genetics, et cetera. The “kind” concept is ambiguous and biologically useless.

Now, while evolution is the same process at both levels, the two distinctions of micro and macro are not what most people think they are. Microevolution is defined by Mayr (2001) as "evolution at or below the species level" (287). And macroevolution is defined as "evolution above the species level" (287). Both macro and microevolution work the same. Both involve change in species due to selection. The event that sets macro apart from micro is the speciation event. Such an event occurs when two groups from a parent population become isolated from each other and change to the point where they can longer interbreed and produce viable offspring.

Originally Posted by Malachi

He also said there needs to be hundreds of transitional forms of animals to proove evolution and ya know what not even one has been found in the history of the earth and he also said if it hasint been prooven with in a hundred years then his theory should be discarded and it's been past a hundred years and not one has been fount so you ponder that.THNX

If you hold the same concept of a transitional form as Ray Comfort, then no, there never will be such as chimera creature found. Why? Because evolutionary theory does not predict such an organism at all – that is not the way in which the process works.

I have, however, given a couple of examples of specimens that are shown to be between two already established specimens in the fossil record – transitional, if you will. Also, the article by Kathleen Hunt is extremely detailed and well written as well as well referenced if you’d like to check out the research material for yourself.

Again, I would encourage you to seek out actual scientific information from those scientists who do the work and not from Comfort and Cameron. Buy a good biology text – I highly recommend Audesirk et al. (2002). You could also read some journals at your local library, or take a biology course at a local university. If taking courses is too financially taxing, you could look into some of the open courseware material available from many universities like MIT and UC-Berkeley. UC-Berkeley has some classes available in their courseware material which has video lectures available if you are interested – UC Berkeley Webcasts | Video and Podcasts: Spring 2007 Courses.

References (In order of appearance):

Bard, E., Hamelin, B., Fairbanks, R. and Zindler, A. (1990). Calibration of the 14C timescale over the past 30,000 years using mass spectrometric U-Th ages from Barbados corals. Nature, 345, 405-410.

Broecker, W. (2004). Radiocarbon. In Holland and Turekian (Eds.), Treatise on Geochemistry Volume 4 (pp. 245-260). New York: Elsevier Science.

Long, A. (1990). A quality assurance protocol for radiocarbon dating laboratories. Radiocarbon, 32, 393-397.

Scott, E. (2003). The fourth international radiocarbon intercomparison. Radiocarbon, 45, 135-150.

Daeschler, E., Shubin, N., and Jenkins, F. (2006). A Devonian tetrapod-like fish and the evolution of the tetrapod body plan. Nature, 440, 757-763.

Palci, A. and Caldwell, M. (2007). Vestigial forelimbs and axial elongation in a 95 million-year-old non-snake squamate. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 27(1), 1-7.

Apesteguia, S. and Zaher, H. (2006). A Cretaceous terrestrial snake with robust hindlimbs and a sacrum. Nature, 440, 1037-1040.

Feduccia, A. (1993). Evidence from claw geometry indicating arboreal habitats of Archaeopteryx. Nature, 259, 790-793.

Audesirk, T., Audesirk, G., & Byers, B. (2002). Biology: Life on earth. (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

Alters, S. (2000). Biology: Understanding life. (3rd ed.). Sudbury: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

Mayr, E. (2001). What Evolution Is. New York: Basic Books.

[Malachi]

OK well since you all are so sure of evolution then go to Intelligent Design versus Evolution and present all this so "called proof and win ten thousand dollars proov all Christians wrong and become famouse and pleas dont make sorry excuses saying its a christian site ok and untill you go and present proof and win the money then come back and reply.THNX

[solidsquid]

Didn't I just explain why there will be no one awarded that money in my previous post? The "challenge" is a sham - a propaganda tool and nothing more - just like Kent Hovind's "challenge". I would encourage you to go back and read what I posted more thoroughly.

[ian6479]

Originally Posted by Malachi

OK well since you all are so sure of evolution then go to Intelligent Design versus Evolution and present all this so "called proof and win ten thousand dollars proov all Christians wrong and become famouse and pleas dont make sorry excuses saying its a christian site ok and untill you go and present proof and win the money then come back and reply.THNX

You are really paying no attention. You are asking questions and ignoring the answers. There are a lot of people who disagree on this forum, but at least most read and respond appropriately.

Christians who believe evolution to be false (and thats not all Christians) have alreay been proven wrong. If you don't understand that then take a biology lesson.

[stretch00]

Originally Posted by Malachi

OK well since you all are so sure of evolution then go to Intelligent Design versus Evolution and present all this so "called proof and win ten thousand dollars proov all Christians wrong and become famouse and pleas dont make sorry excuses saying its a christian site ok and untill you go and present proof and win the money then come back and reply.THNX

This has been posted earlier by somebody, but you obviously missed it. So I will reiterate.

The WotM challenge is impossible to meet. If it was met, it would actually DISPROVE evolution, not prove it. The ToE states gradual change, imperceptible differences from one generation to another. Dogs do not produce kittens, they never have, never will, and evolution does not say that they should.

So WotM is not asking for proof of evolution, but for proof of something else COMPLETELY different from evolution.

[arguy1973]

Originally Posted by ian6479

You are really paying no attention. You are asking questions and ignoring the answers. There are a lot of people who disagree on this forum, but at least most read and respond appropriately.

Christians who believe evolution to be false (and thats not all Christians) have alreay been proven wrong. If you don't understand that then take a biology lesson.

What? When was evolution PROVEN to be true? I havent been proven wrong, you can throw all the biology, chemistry and modern science my way, and yes I understand what you are talking about, but if it doesnt line up with what the word of God says, then you havent proven anyone wrong, Prove God wrong? thats funny

[MontanaGuy]

arguy1973 wrote:

What? When was evolution PROVEN to be true? I havent been proven wrong, you can throw all the biology, chemistry and modern science my way, and yes I understand what you are talking about, but if it doesnt line up with what the word of God says, then you havent proven anyone wrong, Prove God wrong? thats funny

Could you point out where God discusses evolution in the Bible and tells his followers that it's not true? It's not there. There is overwhelming proof that evolution is indeed a scientific fact. It gets back to the question I've asked so many times, why do Christians look to the Bible for answers to scientific questions when it's not a science book? The poetic and metaphorical writing style in much of the Bible has confused Christians for centuries because they must be trying to read it like a textbook and they're missing the overall purpose which is about human ethics and how to treat your fellow man, not a scientific explanation of our universe.