New Dinosaur Species Found in India

AP ^ | August 13, 2003 | RAMOLA TALWAR BADAM

[DittoJed2]

Evos say that apes and we share a common ancestor? True or false? Through mutations over time man evolved upward from ape-like to man. At some point a radical enough change occurred that he was fully man (unless you just consider all men part apes). He had to have a mate. Unless a suitable female evolved exactly the same way he did, she still had part ape in her. If she did evolve exactly the way he did, why? Each person's genetics are different. A child can inherit a parent's gene, but to have a husband and wife arriving at that same point of fully human at the exact same time seems a little odd. Of course, having an ape turn, over time and mutation, into a higher form of species, namely man, is a bit odd too.

[PatrickHenry]

I believe your assessment of Behe is correct. He sees nature as something more than random chance and postulates that it appears to have a design to it. I believe he probably leans towards theistic evolution. It doesn't mean he doesn't have something valuable to say if he isn't a YEC any more than it doesn't mean that biologists who are evolutionists can't say meaningful things either. I just wish the same professional courtesy were afforded to YEC scientists.

If I understand Behe correctly, he acknowledges that evolution occurs. Even macro-evolution. It's just that he also thinks there are some things that couldn't have evolved, so they seem to him to have been designed.

If Behe ever succeeds in persuading the scientific community, what we would then have is (if I may coin a phrase) "enhanced evolution." But the principles that evolution now works with won't change very much. There will still be mutation and natural selection. The fossil record will still form a "tree of life" showing the inter-relatedness of life on earth.

In other words, it won't be a triumph for Genesis-based creationism. All that young earth, global Flood stuff will still be out in the cold, because (as Behe seems to understand) there's just too much evidence against it. I don't understand why so many creationists seem to see Behe as their champion.

[balrog666]

While you have some valid points, I think the nature of your presentation has escalated into the territory of being abusive.

Wow, how times change. I apologize if I offended you. Or anyone else.

[DittoJed2]

TO infers that it is an open forum for all to discuss evolution/creation. AIG does not. I don't believe True Origins does either. It would be like Free Republic saying that it is a free forum for discussing political issues and actively promoting Ralph Nader type politics to the exclusion of everything else. While TO does allow creationist rebuttals and rebuttals to the rebuttals, etc., they also are not a forum without a deep agenda, namely, the promotion of Darwinism. If it were just an evolution website with the same kind of articles addressing various topics like AIG does I would have more respect for it. The True Origins article that I posted, I believe, has some good points to consider concerning that source. Receiving "proofs" from Talk Origins is only mildly irritating. Receiving proofs in the form of 100 links that I will not have time to read is very irritating.

[PatrickHenry]

Wow, how times change.

The times, they are a-changin'. Welcome to the "kinder, gentler" crevo threads. Science with a velvet glove. A soft answer turneth away wrath. All that.

[DittoJed2]

Fraud is a strong word. People co-author books and works all the time and may concentrate on their portion of the paper. When all the editing is done, the person will get credit for their portion of the paper, but someone else may have written the millions of years part. Considering the level of visibility Baumgartner has had as a creationist, I sincerely doubt that he wrote the portion about the millions of years. Maybe a little sloppy in the final publication, but fraudulent is a bit harsh and would have to be proved.

[BMCDA]

The specific "this is a man" element is missing from his make up.

Huh? What is a "man" element?
The difference between humans and apes (and as well as other mammals) is a difference in degree and not in kind. I'm sure every geneticist you'll ask will confirm this.

Species, being a man-made classification.

Yes, that's what I'm saying all the time. And there are even several species concepts depending on the situation

No matter what variation in human population you see, a pigmy is still as much of a man as a North American scientist. You are not going to get the kind of change you are reaching for.

That's true, we are still pretty similar but you don't know that this can't happen if you keep the pigmies isolated long enough. Of course, since a human life span is pretty long this can take quite some time (my layman estimate would be some hundred thousands of years).

According to the hypothesis which said that they shared reproductive capability before.

Which hypothesis? I think even you will agree that the members of a population should be able to interbreed with each other. I mean these two groups were part of one population in the past.

How long is 'long enough'?

Well, this can be thousands of years or even a few million. It depends a lot on the duration of a reproductive cycle as well as on the environmental stress on that particular population.

Assuming they were genetically fit to reproduce with the comparison species to begin with.

Not sure what you're meaning here.

[BMCDA]

$94! Sheesh!

Well, was just a suggestion ;)
But I'm sure you can also find it at a library so you don't have to buy it.

[VadeRetro]

Guidelines for Posting to VadeRetro

• You don't have to submit your post through a literary agent to get a reply from me, but the "agented submission" line is the line at the head of the line. A word to the wise.
• Please! No phones or faxes. You might want to freepmail in advance to get clearance.
• In fact, you might want to telepath in advance for clearance to freepmail. After all, it's simple courtesy.
• Top margin: 1.677 inches. Right margin: .844 inches. Left margin: -1.1+3i inches.
• Font: 13 point Heiroglyphic courier.
• Please allow 11 months for reply.
• No simultaneous submissions. Who do you think you are putting me on some long ping list with a bunch of peasants?
• Women are encouraged to ... Never mind. I'd better not go there.

[DittoJed2]

You still have to have your vast amounts of time. Scientists today have not observed Macro evolution occuring. They just assume because "micro evolution" or natural variations within a species occurs then macro is possible. If you don't have time, then macro is absolutely out. If you do have time, macro is still a major stretch because it assumes things like personal coming from impersonal, an extremely complex original source out of nothing with the DNA in it to create everything we see, and of course that random chance mutations could somehow organize themselves and form highly complex living beings. I've got a lot of faith, but not that much!

[VadeRetro]

At some point a radical enough change occurred that he was fully man (unless you just consider all men part apes). He had to have a mate.

It's all gradual, all the way. A whole population evolves. They never lose compatibility with each other. You are making gruesomely naive errors here. Gruesomely naive.

[VadeRetro]

TO infers that it is an open forum for all to discuss evolution/creation. AIG does not. I don't believe True Origins does either.

The TO forum and TO_Archives have somewhat different characters. The forum does feature interactive debate between evos and creos. The Archives are overwhelmingly pro-evolution articles.

I've never really hung around on the forum, so I personally don't know what it's like for a creo to try to post there. What I and many evos use as a resource is the "archives" web site. You obviously won't like the articles it hosts, but I suggest you start answering their content and not the site that hosts them. You've plastered AiG all over this thread, so it's ridiculous for you to criticize evolutionary rebuttals as "biased."

[longshadow]

This is a "no poopy-head" placemarker

[VadeRetro]

Scientists today have not observed Macro evolution occuring.

Remember that post of Patrick's you didn't read? The one we're still talking about your cop-out?

[PatrickHenry]

Gone for the evening. Everyone be nice!

[jennyp]

You've got mail.

[VadeRetro]

My bad! Patrick's post did not have the links to Observed Instances of Speciation. Anticipating the usual furor, please disregard the Wood's Hole Nereis acuminata study which has been undermined by further investigation.

[VadeRetro]

More observed instances of speciation.

[goodseedhomeschool (returned)]

I think names and reasons have been thoroughly covered in this thread. Truth is, no matter how many I named or how many GOOD reasons I gave, the results would be the same. Some here could argue with a fence post,....AND WIN!

[goodseedhomeschool (returned)]

LOL now they will post a dozen sites that confirm "speciation". So predictable. Keep up the good work.