The Origin and Extinction of Species

The American Chronicle ^ | July 25, 2008 | Darrell Williams

[Soliton]

Understanding the origin and extinction of species is of paramount importance to our own existence and survival. Unfortunately, the vast majority of humans understand neither. About 90% of humankind professes to adhere to a religious philosophy that has absolutely no interest or concern in understanding the most fundamental ecological relationships that exist in nature. Human failure to respect this relationship has resulted in human failure in our own stewardship of our own planet.

[Soliton]

Sorry, I conflated a quote from a lecture at Hopkins with his professorship. You are correct, He returned to lecturing as a full professor at Boston in 1979.

[Soliton]

I found this a truly amazing assertion. While this is certainly the way to bet, we have no evidence whatsoever about the skin, hair or eye colors of early hominids. We have a few bones, that is all. For all we know, Australopethicus had long wavy blond hair, pale skin and dark blue eyes. This from a guy who purports to be speaking solely from the evidence.

You are correct in that there is no DNA evidence that I am aware of showing that early hominids had dark skin. There is haowever reams of circumstantial evidence and logic advocating for it. Either way, you can not blame this author for claiming it. Do a google. He could have claimed a hundred sources from peer reviewed papers.

[Soliton]

Most elements on earth were formed in stars or super novae. It is thought that most or all of our water came from comets. It doesn't take too much imagination to consider seriously that some complex organic molecules also arrived from extraterrestrial sources at a time when the environment was conducive to the synthesizing of RNA. It gives them several more billion years to have formed. Also, we have found organic chemicals in interstellar space (vinegar, for instance), and on other planets (methane, ammonia). Organic chemicals were separated from inorganic chemicals for study because it was once thought that only animals (or God) could produce organic chemicals. We now know that was a false assumption

[Cvengr]

Only older scientists believed organic chemicals could only be created in animals. Those who were not as intellectually dishonest understand how to accept the existence of Hod, live by what He provides and reveals, and as good stewards study the chaos and through faith in Him produce good works to place things in order.

[grey_whiskers]

Don't *DO* that. Much as I like Hopkins, don't saddle them with a smug jerk like Asimov.

Full Disclosure: I admire his science fiction, as he seemed to pioneer the sociological implications of technology earlier than others. And his short-stories and punning ability are superb.

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

...and different disciplines rely on the scientific method more or less stringently.

And religious belief relies on it not at all.

Exactly, but the sanctification is in the details.

Why do some intellectual disciplines rely on the scientific method less stringently than others?

What is each discipline or field trying to accomplish, and what do they have at hand to do so?

Why does religious belief eschew the scientific method, and in an attempt to do what?

Cheers!

[Sherman Logan]

Perhaps. I guess I’m just allergic to evolutionists making claims for which there is absolutely no proof other than their own assumptions.

For instance, early hominids are invariably shown with a shaggy pelt of hair. We have no data on how much hair they had.

Massive assumptions are made and presented as fact about the appearance of dinosaurs, despite the absence of evidence about their hide texture and color. For all we know they were bright blue. Some now even think some of the dinosaurs, perhaps most, had feathers. There is even an extended debate about whether all dinosaurs were cold-blooded. Of course, feathers, primarily a temperature control mechanism, would be of little use to a cold-blooded critter.

Those of us who believe God used evolution as a tool of his Creation find the calm assertion of many evolutionists that they know much more about ancient creatures than they actually do irritating.

[Soliton]

Those of us who believe God used evolution as a tool of his Creation find the calm assertion of many evolutionists that they know much more about ancient creatures than they actually do irritating.

It is always safer just to trust in magic. That way you can never be wrong.

[Soliton]

Now, I like you, but if you are going to insult Asimov, we will part ways :). His non-fiction is far better than his fiction! He was a much better popularizer of science than Hawking or Dawkins or even Sagan.

I have his collection of essays “Atom” on my desk. My son is pursuing a science career based on it and another called “Beginnings”. No one should read the Bible or Shakespeare without his guides to help make sense of their language, allusions and historical settings.

As for his fiction, I enjoyed “The foundation Trilogy”, but never got into anything else.

[grey_whiskers]

Try reading his "Buy Jupiter and Other Stories".

Incidentally, for popularization of science, try Feynman's "Six Easy Pieces"
or
"QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter)",
or Kip Thorne's " Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy"
or Lisa Randall (goddess!)'s "Warped Passages"

Cheers!

[Sopater]

...under the right conditions, the right compounds might form to be able to reproduce.

Since the science isn't on your side, keep the faith!

[Soliton]

You wouldn’t recognize science if it bit you in the

[Sopater]

Perhaps the physical evidence for a really old Earth in the fossil record and evidence of evolutions is really a sign of His invisible attributes and His divine nature that has been “clearly” seen and being understood “through what has been made”, that you are the one who is futile and without excuse.

Perhaps. My point was only to show that scripture agrees with you that there is evidence of a creator in the beauty and complexities of nature. I admire your ability to perceive that and willingness to share it with the group. However, for your supposition to be true, we must then accept this scripture as true and reject other scripture as false. Personally, I accept all scripture as truth and believe that all of the scientific evidence supports the truth. I love science.

[Sopater]

You wouldn’t recognize science if it bit you in the

Wow, another powerful rebuttal from the hijackers of science crowd. You must win every debate with such an arsenal of intellect.

[Sopater]

With regard to the theory of evolution, don't you think that those who question it should be required to present some evidence to support their questioning?

The evidence is not what is in question. It is the interpretation of the evidence that is questionable. I don't know any creationists who don't accept the scientific evidence. All of the evidence supports the truth.

[count-your-change]

In any discussion evolutionists want to be arbiters of what is evidence and truth and its admissibility for discussion.
For example, a partial skeleton found in Ethiopia, named “Lucy” by its finders, is said by evolutionists to represent human evolution though not a direct ancestor of humans today. Say what? By that standard everything living represents human evolution.
“Lucy” is said to walk upright not because foot bones were part of the skeleton but because a crushed and fossilized pelvis was reconstructed that showed (hold your breath here) she walked upright! Evidence to the contrary is seldom mentioned such as her curved finger bones which indicate a creature that spent time in the trees climbing around. A life activity where upright human walking ability would be less advantageous than an ape like stance.
No problem! says the evolutionist, she spent part of her time in the trees and part on the ground walking upright. That's how we (the evolutionists) interpret the evidence even though part of the evidence was created in her reconstruction.
But illustrations of the diminutive creature are shown with better upright posture than a finishing school graduate or with her short legs and long arms giving a distinctly chimp like pose. And that funny looking face, dark skin and hair?
Pure fiction. Lucy doesn't have a skull, only a few fragments with lots of filler and there is no way to determine skin color and hair patterns from fossilized bones.
Is this enough evidence for questioning “Lucy in the Sky”?

[Coyoteman]

Lucy” is said to walk upright not because foot bones were part of the skeleton but because a crushed and fossilized pelvis was reconstructed that showed (hold your breath here) she walked upright! Evidence to the contrary is seldom mentioned such as her curved finger bones which indicate a creature that spent time in the trees climbing around. A life activity where upright human walking ability would be less advantageous than an ape like stance.

No problem! says the evolutionist, she spent part of her time in the trees and part on the ground walking upright. That's how we (the evolutionists) interpret the evidence even though part of the evidence was created in her reconstruction.

Sounds like a transitional to me.

[count-your-change]

Does to me too seeing that is what it’s supposed to be but the question is whether it truly is transitional or just a long extinct variety of ape or just a lab creation.
I go with the long gone ape idea.

[Coyoteman]

Does to me too seeing that is what it’s supposed to be but the question is whether it truly is transitional or just a long extinct variety of ape or just a lab creation.

I go with the long gone ape idea.

I think we can dispense with the lab creation idea. Other members of the same species have been found, and the characteristics observed in Lucy are not unique to that one specimen.

As for Lucy being a variety of ape -- That's one interpretation, but even so Lucy is close to halfway between ape and modern humans. Still sounds like a transitional to me.

[count-your-change]

A transition? If so then with all these transitions extinct they must have been unsuitable for life whereas what they were transitioning from was more suitable and with us today.
In short these supposed transitions would be a dead end with all those human characteristics not an improvement but a disadvantage to survival. Jungles, trees and savannas, chimps, o’rangs, apes, humans, etc. all here today but not one “transition”.