In Six Days (A Biology PHD looks at Evolution)

In Six Days ^ | 02/17/05 | Timothy G. Standish, PHD biology

[El Gato]

Only in the microwave band. TV and other stuff at the lower frequencies get attenuated pretty quickly. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending how you see it) "I Love Lucy" is not going to the stars.

Sure it is, as spillover from the satellite uplinks of the reruns, which IIRC are in the microwave band.

[DannyTN]

The problem with that skull chart is that it's a lot like lining up cars and saying they evolved from each other.

"A" is a modern chimpanzee skull. They aren't considered by evolutionists to be human ancestry, so why is it even there?

"B,C,D,E,&F" are all an extinct ape named arithopicenes(sp). They aren't considered ancestral to or from chimpanzees. F is skull 1470 which was originally found in 100 pieces and reconstructed to have a flat face like a human. After Creationist Scientists were allowed to examine it and started pointing out features that were clearly arithopicenes in nature, it was reconstructed with a sloping face and reclassed into the ape category.

Skull G is considered human but looks to be a terrible specimen. I'm not sure you can draw any conclusions fro it.

"H" and "I" are considered early humans.

"M&N" are modern humans. "J,K,L" Are all Neanderthal skulls. Neanderathals aren't considered to be ancestral to modern humans either. They were contemporaries of modern humans and actually lived with modern humans. Their skulls were on average larger than modern humans, but you can't tell that from your chart, making me think they either aren't representative or aren't to scale.

Bottom line is you have a row of ape skulls and a row of human skulls. You don't really have the progression that's intended to portray.

[SalukiLawyer]

I don't agree with the six-day thing, either. But, on the other hand, I am not sure someone who does make that part of his framework of faith deserves to be ridiculed like that, especially here. It's that sort of attitude that makes me suspect there is more to the pro-evolution stance than cold science.

Are you honestly afraid that all the DannyTNs out there are going to plunge us into another Dark Ages? Is that going to be a part of the coming Bush Theocracy I'm always hearing about?

With all due respect, it is disappointing, and does absolutely nothing to help persuade other people to your point of view.

[shubi]

"Doesn't matter. The Bible reiterates Morning and Night. That article can be missing all it wants, you don't get a super long eon, morning and night.'

How can you have morning and night before you have the Sun? The Sun wasn't created until the fourth day. Gen 2:4 defines the six days of creation and the seventh day of rest as an indefinite period of time. These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, (Ge 2:4).

Did God make the earth and the heavens in six days or one as the Bible says here?

Also, God rested on the seventh day and must be still resting because He hasn't started creating anything since. I think that seventh day must be still going on after all these thousands of years or you will have to say the Bible lied.

"What's more evolution as it has been presented to us, includes man. The Bible says God created woman from Adam's rib. So how do you reconcile that with evolution?"

No doubt about it, a literal reading of Adam and Eve makes the Bible wrong again. That is why you must read it as a spiritual metaphor for creation of the Spirit that separates humans from animals and is the image of God in us.

"It says each animal was created from the ground after it's own kind. I suppose that is subject to interpretation, but it's at best an extremely awkward way of saying "each animal was modified from the other animals"?"

This is a confusing passage for literalists. I will make it more confusing for you. Did you know that Adam and the Hebrew word for ground are the same word? So it is all speculation whether Adam came from ground or ground came from ground or animals came from Adam or animals came from ground or what.

I don't think anyone can understand this passage if taken literally, but that is just a theory.

[shubi]

Humor is the best way to point out human foibles.

I happen to be a Christian and a Bible scholar. So, if you don't want to hear about the flaws in literalist interpretation, fine.

I also know that too many people who think they are being good Christians are being duped into ruining science education in this country.

We can't have that. In the 20 years I have tried to teach people the science, not one creationist has ever stopped repeating the scam artist nonsense back to me, after I patiently exposed it as a complete fraud. I now am exposing the literalist Bible view as complete nonsense also.

What is disappointing is people trying to corrupt the Gospel with misinterpretation of Genesis.

[shubi]

If those quotes are actual(I suspect any quotes from creationists since they have been shown to quote out of context and actually alter quotes of scientists), the texts are incorrect. I would tell my students the truth. We don't know how life originated on Earth.

From that origin, I would also tell them it is almost sure that evolution is a fact and the ToE explains the mechanisms for evolution. The ToE is continually updated as new scientific studies come out.

[jwalsh07]

If those quotes are actual(I suspect any quotes from creationists since they have been shown to quote out of context and actually alter quotes of scientists), the texts are incorrect.

The quotes are accurate and you're a Christian, or so you say, which means necessarily you are a creationist. Do you believe anything you say to yourself?

[shubi]

"Bottom line is, once you have proven the regular transformation of one species into a completely different one (and I'm not sure that's been done) you still have to explain why and how that happens."

There are hundreds of observed speciations. There is not that much difference between mother and daughter species. There are only an average of 4 speciations in an organism in nature in a million years. It takes quite a bit of time for allele changes to accumulate enough to designate a new Genus or larger group.

[shubi]

"Science does well when its theories can be verified empirically, and macroevolution cannot."

If you think macroevolution is any different than the process of microevolution, you are a creationist.

[shubi]

I am not a creationist in the creation science ID scam artist sense.

I believe God created the universe when He said "let there be light". I respect God enough to think He would not have to make continual corrections after that.

[Liberal Classic]

1. There is a theory hypothesis on speed of light changing...
2. there are theories conjectures about inflation of the universe and relativistic and temporal effects that may have resulted in the universe aging at a different rate than Earth...
3. There's a theory speculation I have about God and time...
4. There is a theory wild-assed guess that God created the light from the stars in transit...

[jwalsh07]

I believe God created the universe when He said "let there be light".

That makes you a small c creationist. You'll have to live with that.

[shubi]

LOL! Be careful or that lawyer feller maht getcha.

[WildTurkey]

Here's a guy pursuing a PhD ....

at a Seventh-day Adventist institution of higher education

[WildTurkey]

Yeah, everyone once thought for long periods due to deep science that the earth was flat. I just can't imagine how they could be wrong.

Because the Bible said so.

[Liberal Classic]

I found it to be a thoughtful post, but illustrates the misuse of the word 'theory.'

[SalukiLawyer]

We can't have that. In the 20 years I have tried to teach people the science, not one creationist has ever stopped repeating the scam artist nonsense back to me, after I patiently exposed it as a complete fraud. I now am exposing the literalist Bible view as complete nonsense also.

Well, I dunno that it is any of my business if a Christian wants to believe in six days or God with a long beard or whatever. I guess I just don't see what it hurts. I have learned to respect someone's Christian faith as a precious and sometimes delicate thing. There comes a point when winning the argument isn't worth the sick feeling you get later on when you wonder if you caused someone to stumble, and wonder about the role of your own vainglory in the debate. I am not a Bible scholar, nor an evolutionary scientist, and could only call myself a Christian through self-flattery. But I do argue for a living and have learned what a vanity and chasing after the wind that can be.

[RadioAstronomer]

Sure it is, as spillover from the satellite uplinks of the reruns, which IIRC are in the microwave band.

LOL! You got me! :-)

[185JHP]

Thanks.

[Havoc]

Have you looked at a Hebrew Bible, or do you just pick these tidbits from a parallel universe?