Field sold on evolution-Theory solid for scientists, religiously motivated critics have no faith

Chicago Sun-Times ^ | June 25, 2007 | TOM McNAMEE Sun-Times Columnist

[Toddsterpatriot]

you didn't that think that

[Coyoteman]

Wow, teeth samples. I’m impressed. By studying molar enamel, these anthropologists surmised that this hominid belongs in the genus “homo”? So what’s your point?

You wanted to know where the evidence for the theory of evolution is, so I pointed out some journals out of thousands that can be found in libraries. That wasn't good enough for you.

Next I pointed out a few titles of articles. Now that isn't good enough for you.

What do you want, spoon feeding?

I get the impression that you will not see any evidence that supports the theory of evolution no matter what I post.

[muawiyah]

Sure, there are a myriad of examples. Celiac disease involves such a transfer ~ just a single basepair flipped in a single human gene and instead of wheat, barley and rye being nutritious and healthy foods, they became poisonous substances to be avoided at all costs.

However, what I said and what you missed concerned a change in a single control gene ~ not just a gene for a specific characteristic, but a gene that CONTROLS many other genes.

Time for you to catch up on your reading. I'd recommend trying SCIENCE NEWS. Has a variety of articles taken from peer reviewed journals every week.

Anyway, how did you think God made a giraffe? Do you think He wasted His time piddling around with a whole bunch of genes, or just hit the "flip base pair" button on His gene-manipulating machinery, and that Okapi couple over there all at once could breed giraffes.

Remember, God is not only omnipotent, He is omniscient, and by knowing everything He gets to take all the shortcuts, even those not imagined by Creationists.

[muawiyah]

BTW, Darwin hypothesized that there was some sort of way to change critter characteristics. He had no idea what it was, but he thought it took a long time.

He was wrong ~ genes can be changed one at a time, or in wholesale fashion, over long periods of time, or short periods of time.

What Darwin didn't know about we call DNA, and he didn't think in quantized fashion.

Today everybody knows about DNA, and we understand situations where we move from one state, e.g. +, to another state, e.g. -, instantaneously. "Intermediate steps" are not always required ~ and I've been thinking of when they are ever required. Couldn't come up with any.

Come to think of it Darwin couldn't even operate a modern electric light switch, and he'd been reduced to tears if you'd put a video game controller in front of him.

Oh, yes, there's lots of stuff he didn't know.

Now, what part of reversed base pairs in genes is it that is contrary to Darwin?

[webstersII]

change + isolation + time = new species — but only in your mind. You have no test which can show this.

“because of the amount of time involved, direct observation is problematic”

Yep. And the direct observation cannot be done under controlled circumstances, either.

“paleontological and genetic evidence allows us to look into the past and draw conclusions regarding the process of evolution.”

Then it’s not following the scientific method. Looking back into the past and drawing conclusions is not the same as forumulating specific tests to verify aspects of a theory.

IOW, all you have to go on is belief that your equation
change + isolation + time = new species
is correct but you have no actual evidence.

[Coyoteman]

Look up "ring species" and you will find evidence for speciation complete with all intermediate steps.

Here is some basic information:

Ring species provide unusual and valuable situations in which we can observe two species and the intermediate forms connecting them. In a ring species:

• A ring of populations encircles an area of unsuitable habitat.
• At one location in the ring of populations, two distinct forms coexist without interbreeding, and hence are different species.
• Around the rest of the ring, the traits of one of these species change gradually, through intermediate populations, into the traits of the second species.

A ring species, therefore, is a ring of populations in which there is only one place where two distinct species meet. Ernst Mayr called ring species "the perfect demonstration of speciation" because they show a range of intermediate forms between two species. They allow us to use variation in space to infer how changes occurred over time. This approach is especially powerful when we can reconstruct the biogeographical history of a ring species, as has been done in two cases. Source

[Hoodat]

Next I pointed out a few titles of articles. Now that isn't good enough for you. What do you want, spoon feeding?A reasonable argument would suffice. However, showing evidence that by man's classification, two species are categorized in the same genus hardly makes the case that all life evolved from the same ancestor by the slow process of natural selection. You simply offer up some article that 'sounds' scientific, yet has nothing at all to do with Darwin's theory.

[webstersII]

“Look up “ring species” and you will find evidence for speciation complete with all intermediate steps.”

This has already been discussed in this thread, regarding the mosquito example. You are overstating the case; this does not suffice to answer the question of observed speciation.

[From many - one.]

Do you have any background in college level biology?

Yolu’ve been given far more information by Coyoteman than I would have given you, and have clearly not comprehended what you were given.

So, where does one start? College biology for science majors? High school biology? None?

[b_sharp]

Bookmark

Books?

Information?

Entropy?

Enthalpy?

Heat?

Rub two sticks together?

Intelligence?

Design?

ID?

Never Happen!

[Hoodat]

Yolu’ve been given far more information by Coyoteman than I would have given you, and have clearly not comprehended what you were given.

All I have asked for is evidence that supports Darwinism - all life originating from a single species - natural selection over long periods of time. Capesce?

[Greg F]

Both ID and creationism have much scientific evidence

That doesn't make them scientific.

If God created the universe, man, and animals then any theory that does not include God will be incomplete or false. So if God exists then he must ultimately be incorporated into an accurate scientific theory of the origin of man, or the earth, or like theories, or at a minimum the theory will be incomplete.

[Greg F]

Try these for a start:

American Journal of Human Biology

---

C’mon, I looked at the first of these for your proof and this is the article I laid eyes on:

Original Research Articles

BMI, income, and social capital in a native Amazonian society: Interaction between relative and community variables (p 459-474)
Marek Brabec, Ricardo Godoy, Victoria Reyes-García

Why do people believe in something, care enough about it to post on a thread about it, and then not be able to articulate support or evidence for their belief?

[Greg F]

I’m on your side! I have been posting stuff about the total lack of transitional fossils for sometime now. The toe die hards just come up with some fossils that are not clearly transitionals and expect people to buy it. It is really sad to see how brainwashed grown men can be. But it has everyting to do with a denial of their conscience which is alittle piece of God’s light in us and gives us anxiety over the mistakes in life that we make. Much of science has devloved into a complicated darkside denial of the conscience with “knowledge”.

Excellent and impressive . . . I've been on the other side of the coin on this one as a non-believer and I think you are right. It does salve the conscience to declare as poppycock all that "right and wrong" and "God" stuff and to have this hazy idea that "science" shows that God is a fairytale.

[Toddsterpatriot]

If God created the universe, man, and animals then any theory that does not include God will be incomplete or false.

Why couldn't God have created the universe and allowed man to evolve from bacteria?

So if God exists then he must ultimately be incorporated into an accurate scientific theory

How does one incorporate God into a scientific theory? If X falls at 32 feet per second squared then God reaches in and.....

Is that what you had in mind?

[Coyoteman]

C’mon, I looked at the first of these for your proof and this is the article I laid eyes on:

Get a grip!

Science (a subject with which you seem unfamiliar) works broadly and incrementally. And it relies not on "proof" but on evidence.

I posted a list of 30 or more journals as being some of the locations where the scientific evidence is accumulating. And you go to the first journal and expect the first article to "prove" evolution?

As near as I can tell from your posts you are an apologist (defending religious belief), and you are not really interested in science or how it works; you don't seem interested in what the evidence supporting evolution is or how it has been accumulated. It seems from your posts that no matter what the evidence, it won't be enough.

If you wanted to see what the evidence supporting evolution actually is, you would find it. It fills many floors in many libraries, and it's all over the internet.

But if you want a basic summary, try reading some of Darwin's early works. It's a good start, and you have a lot of catching up to do.

[Greg F]

Both of you offer as evidence for your beliefs, sarcasm and hubris. What makes you sure you are right in your belief in Darwin?

[Toddsterpatriot]

What makes you sure you are right in your belief in Darwin?

That's the nice thing about science, when new evidence is found, theories change. If new evidence is found, will that change your belief in creationism?

[From many - one.]

“All I have asked for is evidence that supports Darwinism - all life originating from a single species - natural selection over long periods of time. Capesce?”

The very phrasing of your question shows you don’t understand the subject well enough to understand an answer.

1. All life originating from a single species is meaningless. We don’t know what life originated from or how. If we did, it would be a different subject, not evolution.

2. Natural selection can work relatively quickly so the rate is irrelevant

3 The field is evolution, not Darwinism

[fabian]

thanks...just an observation from my commonsense. Check out fhu.com for a very interesting read.