What they won't say about Evolution.

What? The birth of a person has nothing to do with his development? It bloody well does. It is correct that abiogenesis and evolution are separate theories. But they depend on eachother. To say Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution is like saying monday has nothing to do with tuesday. Your logics tells me a week consists of an endless line of mondays here.

[Edited on 10-5-2004 by Camelop�rdalis]

amantine, I do not agree.
The very start of macro evolution depends entirely on abiogenesis.

Wether several different organisms were once created and evolved into what we have today, or wether it all started with one organism evolving into everything we have today is very important to the entire discussion about evolution.

In a creationism vs evolution debate, we're not really talking about animal X that changed color and size, we're talking about how science and faith explain the origin of the current set of organisms around us.

Abiogenesis is as important for this as macro evolution.

Look, we discuss say here what you think abiogenesis and evolution should explain or we can look what they actually explain and on what postulates they are based. For some reason creationists want to link abiogenesis and evolution together. As scientists, we have to make distinction between theories. It's the same as linking astrology and cosmology together, and because there is no proof of astrology, cosmology must also be wrong, simply because it they describe somewhat related phenomena.

Evolution has a simple postulate: at a certain moment there was a first organism. Evolution doesn't care how it got there. It doesn't need to know that for its predictions. For evolution there is no difference whether that first organism was created by a natural process (= abiogenesis) or if it was created by God or magical hyperdimensional timetravelling aliens.

Abiogenesis is only about how the first organism got there. It doesn't say anything about this organism changing on a microevolutionairy or a macroevolutionairy scale.

The theories do not imply eachother, do not require eachother and describe different phenomena. They both are required by the same method of explaining: the scientific method. That may make you think they are related, but they are not.

Would you rather have me saying abiogenesis is wrong and using mild terms in respect to the law of probability also impossible, Macro evolution is wrong and using mild terms in respect to the law of probability also impossible, while micro evolution is a sign of good programming instead of just saying Evolution is crap science? I understand that the scientists are afraid of stepping on other scientists' toes, because the consequences of deeming evolution and abiogenesis false is that 80% of all scientists will be turned into laughter on the lips of people they concider fools. I can understand that, but science isnt about people. It's about knowledge. And when that knowledge is untrue, it puts the whole of science in a bad light. I have said it before and Ill say it again and again: Had the Theory of Evolution been introduced today, it would have been under concideration even. Modern genetics and also archaeology etc. knocks the feet under evolution. There is nothing except visual similarities between species. One doesnot become another. They are separately designed lifeforms, with separately designed "ROMs" or genetic codes.

How brilliant scientists can stand there and teach that an obsolete theory with a probability calculation involving numbers in the gogol area, is the Truth, well that both baffles and piss me off. For it's our children who have to walk around believe the stuff these scientists teach.

Originally posted by Camelop�rdalis
As far as Im concerned abiogenesis is the very start of Macroevolution. Abiogenesis is the cornerstone of macro evolution. And it doesn't make sense at all.

u just dont understand it. a very famous experiment was done by stanley miller recently during this century and after using electricity (simulated lightning since chemical reactions need energy to start) and only inorganic materials that were available in early earth, he got organic molecules in a beaker. later, these molecules could've gone through further changes and soon, RNA would develop. then, DNA. then, prions. then viruses. then prokaryotes. then eukaryotes.

o! and to ur posting above, abiogenesis isn't IMPOSSIBLE. it's just improbable. sure there might be 1 in a trillion chances that it could happen, but there is still a chance and after billions of years, the chances of abiogenesis happening increases.

And when that knowledge is untrue, it puts the whole of science in a bad light. I have said it before and Ill say it again and again: Had the Theory of Evolution been introduced today, it would have been under concideration even

and this statement is just ur opinion. there is no way to prove it.

[Edited on 10-5-2004 by silQ]

Originally posted by amantineIt's the same as linking astrology and cosmology together, and because there is no proof of astrology, cosmology must also be wrong, simply because it they describe somewhat related phenomena.

No, it is not the same. What it would be the same as doing is if: (some part of Astrology is purportedly "proven" by the debunked Cosmology), then: (remove those parts on Cosmology) and if: (Astrology no longer holds itself together without Cosmology) then: (rework it to something FEASIBLE) or, (if you REFUSE TO ALTER THAT WHICH IS WRONG, QUIT TEACHING IT ALTOGETHER).


To top things off, Astrology is considered a pseudo-science directed more at determining the state of man based upon when he was born, and Cosmology is the study of the origin, current state, and future of our Universe. These things are obviously a great deal more unrelated than Abiogenesis--a hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter(which is DIRECTLY against the LAW of BIOGENESIS--life comes from like life) and

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

i.e. life arising from unlike life, which is so far subsiting off each other that to have doubt in one leads to serious doubts in another.

When using similarities, it helps to make sure they are similar enough that they actually puport your statements, please. It cuts down on debate.

You really rock, babe!
Go you!
Go you!

That's four, no five lines, plus two or three lines for the edit tag. OK?

Really should have been a shaking the head smiley......

[Edited on 11-5-2004 by Camelop�rdalis]

"Every time one chooses to doubt evolution, they pick some of the problems and choose to ignore all the evidence."

That's because, to the mind of a fundamentalist, something is either completely true or completely false. No room here to allow a theory to grow.

I have heard some say that the fossil evidence was placed in the soil by Satan in order to lead people astray. Now, that is one big helluva stretch.

What fossil evidence. It is infact the lack of fossil evidence which made Evolution crumble in the first place. Of all the thousands of bones they have unearthed, not a single transitional thingy exists. They say yes, there are dinos looking more like birds than other. I ask: Which birds? And what specie did it come from? Show me the massive fossil evidence you refer to. There are proofs of micro evolution, but not macro evolution. Accept it. You are fooling yourselves if you believe in macro evolution. It has no scientific foundation.

Using the technology of today, it is nearly possible to recreate whatever Elohim created back then. Elohim is the first name of God in the Bible, it means Forces or Powers. It was the Creative Forces that created the Universe, designed it's laws and made it inhabitable. The Book of Genesis when held against the Gospel, and draw a timeline using the Hebrew calendar, and the key one day equals 1000 years, Matter and Space was created about 17 billion years ago. A couple of billion years later, God said Let there be Light! That's what you would have called Big Bang. Then, the next day he starts shaping the planets and the billions of suns, the word for firmament suggests a curved or circular shape, broken by a horizon, eg globular, the Earth wasnt yet firm. That happened the next day, when the water gathered in one place. A new level of matter was created. A new dimentional continuum if you like. And so plants come the next day. Then the next day a clear athmosphere, prolly because of the plants. The Sun and the Moon becomes visible. The next day, sea creatures of all kinds. The next, land creatures and flying creatures. Then comes the next day when humans arrive on the scene. Tell me exactly how this story conflicts with science except that it talks of Creative Intelligent Forces instead of pure chance.

We are created, even a doink like myself can understand that.

The fossil records:

That's because, to the mind of a fundamentalist, something is either completely true or completely false. No room here to allow a theory to grow.
I have heard some say that the fossil evidence was placed in the soil by Satan in order to lead people astray. Now, that is one big helluva stretch.

Change the word to Science instead of fundamentalists, sweetie, and you have a more accurate picture. Science is not supposed to PERPETUATE LIES. As to those who say the fossil bed lies, put in the bed by Satan, they are ignorant, for then Satan decided to help the Creationists! Read on, I�ll most certainly explain.
For a theory to BBBEEE a theory, it needs to have consistent proof. I've been saying the whole time, that if they would re-work the theory to support the evidence, I'd leave it alone. BUT THEY HAVEN'T, and on some issues, THEY'VE HAD SINCE BEFORE I WAS BORN, NOT JUST YESTERDAY! There is ABSOLUTELY NO EXCUSE for such UNSCIENTIFIC, LAZY, LYING BEHAVIOR in the EDUCATED POPULATION! If someone kept lying to you, how long before you'd give up on him or her?

Here comes Burt Thompson again, this time, it's MANY articles!

EXTRA-BIBLICAL EVIDENCE
The geologic timetable is an artificial arrangement of certain rock strata (depending upon the type of fossils found therein) according to their supposed formation throughout the Earth�s history. It may come as a shock to many students to learn that it exists nowhere in fact! Noted geologist Thomas Chamberlin acknowledged:

It should be understood that it is not possible to proceed directly downward through the whole succession of bedded rocks, but that the edges of the various beds may be found here and there where they have been brought to the surface by workings and tiltings, or exposed by the wearing away of the beds which once overlay them. The full series of strata is made out only by putting these data gathered throughout all lands; and even when this is done, an absolutely complete series cannot yet be made out, or at least
has not been.

Evolutionist A.M.Winchester acknowledged that the gaps in the geologic record are significant:

Their cord is by no means complete�there are great gaps covering millions of years in which absolutely no records have been found. It is somewhat as if we
are permitted to view isolated individual frames of a gigantic motion picture of the caravan of life through the ages.

Yes, and sometimes these frames are completely out of sequence!
In numerous instances, a stratum from a supposed very ancient period is sitting smack dab on top of very young stratum�and that over vast miles of territory!
Finally, the multiple contradictions characteristic of this geological fabrication would be humorous�if the system were not viewed so seriously by many sincere but credulous students �
... discrepancies:

[paraphrased](a) Human footprints have been found in the Paleozoic age�two hundred fifty million years prior to man�s arrival on this planet!
(b) Coal was formed during the Paleozoic age millions of years before the birth of man? No, near Glasgow, Scotland, under a mass of boulders, an iron instrument was discovered embedded in a coal seam seven feet under the surface.
(c) Although trilobites supposedly perished some 600 million years before man evolved, human sandal prints have been found embedded together with trilobites in Utah.
(d) Evolutionists say trees did not evolve until the Paleozoic period. Conifer spores are found in the ages preceding this era (reputedly millions of years before).Geologist Clifford Burdick: �No self-respecting evolutionist will concede pine trees in the Precambrian (i.e., below the Paleozoic period).�

Let it be said again. The geologic timetable is a hoax that was conceived to buttress the evolutionary view of origins as a substitute for the inspired Genesis record. Those who respect the Mosaic narrative will not endorse this anti-biblical scheme.

This is just one overview of the problems with the fossil record. www.apologeticspress.org...

I�m not done.

Originally posted by jlc163
Let it be said again. The geologic timetable is a hoax that was conceived to buttress the evolutionary view of origins as a substitute for the inspired Genesis record.

I actually find great consistencies between the geologic timetable and the scheme of Genesis. To some extent. As explaine above, in my last post.

The polystrate fossils are of those that are fossilized through MANY layers. I specifically cover polystrate trees here:
Polystrate means �many layers�
Scott Huse, in The Collapse of Evolution:

Polystratic trees are fossil trees that extend through several layers of strata, often twenty feet or more in length. There is no doubt that this type of fossil was formed relatively quickly; otherwise it would have decomposed while waiting for strata to slowly accumulate around it (1997, p. 96).

Ken Ham has observed:

�For example, at the Joggins, in Nova Scotia, there are many erect fossil trees that are scattered throughout 2,500 feet of layers. You can actually see these fossil trees, which are beautifully preserved, penetrate through layers that were supposedly laid down over millions of years� (p. 138).

Rupke on the Joggins polystrate fossils:

�Only a wholly uncommon process of sedimentation can account for conditions like these� (1973, p. 154).

Erect fossil trees need to be covered fast to be fully preserved.
Paul Ackerman :

�constitute a sort of frozen time clock from the past, indicating that terrible things occurred�not over millions of years but very quickly� (1986, p. 84).

Now, if this wasn�t bad enough, he goes on:
Rupke has a photograph of

�a lofty trunk, exposed in a sandstone quarry near Edinburgh [Scotland], which measured no less than 25 meters and, intersecting 10 or 12 different strata, leaned at an angle of about 40�� (1973, p. 154).

George Fairholme, on Rupke�s picture:

...while the latter might be supposed to have been capable of retaining an upright position, in a semi-fluid mass, for a long time, by the mere laws of gravity, the other must, by the very same laws, have fallen, from its inclined to a horizontal position, had it not been retained in its inclined position by the rapid accumulation of its present stony matrix (1837, p. 394).

Polystrates are especially common in coal formations. Apparently, coal is not as old as we like to state. Even animals� bodies form polystrate fossils .
A baleen whale was discovered in 1976. It was fossilized in diatomite and was buried on its back at a 60� with its tail down and head up. These are the same one-cell creatures we use in toothpaste. This supposedly took 100,000 years to build this bed of diatoms, but I�d feel sorry for the poor whale that had to balance like that for this picture. He, poor thing, must have had an aching back after so many years of posturing for that thousands-of-years picture!
Concerning the whale:
Harvey Olney, wrote this in response:

Dr. Helmick, how dare you imply that our geology textbooks and uniformitarian theories could possibly be wrong! Everybody knows that diatomaceous earth beds are built up slowly over millions of years as diatom skeletons slowly settle out on the ocean floor. The baleen whale simply stood on its tail for 100,000 years, its skeleton decomposing, while the diatomaceous snow covered its frame millimeter by millimeter. Certainly you wouldn�t expect intelligent and informed establishment scientists of this modern age to revert to the outmoded views of our forefathers just to explain such finds!

We are should believe that a whale�s carcass stood on its tail, decomposing, as millions of tiny diatoms cover it over a 100,000 years!
I sincerely hope this poor fool was cracking a joke. Some scientists need as much help as those who fuss about Satan making the fossils!
www.apologeticspress.org...&r0012b.htm
www.apologeticspress.org...

Kyle Butt, M.A.

Trees, reeds, catfish, whales, and the other organisms with which the fossil record abounds�and that exist as polystrate fossils�did not die and lie around for hundreds, thousands, or millions of years while slowly being preserved. Truth be told, polystrate fossils testify loudly to a young Earth whose layers formed rapidly�and not very long ago! It is a young Earth after all.

www.apologeticspress.org...
I wouldn't be fussing if there wern't REASONS to fuss about EVOLUTION! Teach the facts, mention the theories, and get on with life, but THEY DON'T! Quit teaching the "millions of years" BULL on things that obviously took seconds to cover and probably 10 years to fossilize (Do realize that the actual fossilization, once covered, couldn't take more than a thousand years)!

Alright, once again evolution (in conjunction with abiogenesis) is only considered a science because it is the only way to explain away a creator. According to the Oxford Dictionary science is "A branch of study which is concerned either with a connected body of demonstrated truths or with observed facts systematically classified and more or less colligated by being brought under general laws, and which includes trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truth within its own domain."

For a postulate to qualify as a scientific theory is must fulfill three basic criteria.

1. The postulate must be observable.

2. The postulate must be capable of repeatable experimental verification.

3. The postulate must withstand a falsifiability test, or an experiment must be conceived the failure of which would disprove the postulate.

Neither evolution nor creation can meet the above three criteria and thus are not theories but postulates. In fact neither are fully capable of becoming theories because of the limits of observing events that happened many years in the past.

No, with exchange I mean crossing-over or insertion. Merging of chromosomes can happen if all the coding DNA of a chromosome is exchanged in a crossing-over with for non-coding DNA. This leaves one entirely non-coding chromosome, which can get lost.
Even if this didn't happen in human evolution, the different chromosome numbers between humans now and chimpanzees now is no problem, a common ancestor might have had a different number than modern chimps or humans.

I do concede this one point to you, with restrictions. Since we do not have the common ancestor, nor it�s DNA, your point, nor my point can be proven. BUT mine shows that there is a lot more to overcome with chimps and humans being related. Oh, and DOWNS SYNDROME is a cross-over/insertion that results, I think in a huge repetition. It is still a defect.

I looked up Britten, 2002, Fujiyama, 2002 and Coglan, 2002. Brittin lists a 95.2% similarity with indels and a 98,8% similarity without. I don't have a subscription to Science, so I couldn't view the results. This site, however, lists the Fujiyama results as a >90% similarity. It also lists Ebersburger, 2002, which gets a 98,76% similarity from a smaller sample. I don't where the author of that article got his 48,6% figure, but he sure didn't get it from any of those articles.
The 98% figure was the result of Britten's hydroxyapatite method for measuring sequence divergence (Hoyer, B. H., De Velde, N. W., Goodman, M., & Roberts, R. B. (1972). J. Hum. Evol. 1, 645-649). It was the best figure we had. The new results are not that different from the old ones.

Ok: One states:

It has long been held that we share 98.5 per cent of our genetic material with our closest relatives. That now appears to be wrong. In fact, we share less than 95 per cent of our genetic material, a three-fold increase in the variation between chimps and us. But the technique only picks up a particular type of variation, called a single base substitution. These occur whenever a single "letter" differs in corresponding strands of DNA from the two species. But there are two other major types of variation that the previous analyses ignored. "Insertions" occur whenever a whole section of DNA appears in one species but not in the corresponding strand of the other. Likewise, "deletions" mean that a piece of DNA is missing from one species. �.
The result is only based on about one million DNA bases out of the three billion which make up the human and chimp genomes, says Britten. "It's just a glance," he says. But the differences were equally split between "junk" regions that do not have any genes, and gene- rich parts of the genome, suggesting they may be evenly distributed.

I�m amused that they decide not to be exact here, and they do not discount his claims, but summarizes. Dropped to 95% with just a glance�hmm. States that there is more, apparently not used in this figure, due to the way this report is laid out�. Very careful to imply it is about 95% without having to directly state that it is ONLY about 95%�.
Oh, and a lot that is stated here is in the article I posted, though I pulled this from your article.
Some, most of us can�t access, so we have no clue who it supports�sigh
One other seems alright, but I�d have to break it down to a level that doesn�t make my head spin�it may take me a few days� Also quoted in his article.
This one is just a headline, and often headlines are falsified or stretched, just to catch the attention. (The reason why I try not to quote headlines�) www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...

Let�s look back at the original document for this argument, for a second�.

REFERENCES:

20 of them, not listing them all.

As to his 45% claim, I�ll have to get into contact with him for the exact reasons it�s in this document. It's been about 2 years since I've talked with him face-to-face and he probably doesn't remember me, so it may take a while...

I find it interresting that in the generation of Peleg, the Earth was divided. That would be twelve or thirteen generations after Adam. Sudden continental movement, as a direct result from the flood?

Originally posted by jlc163
Oh, and DOWNS SYNDROME is a cross-over/insertion that results, I think in a huge repetition. It is still a defect.

In fear of being labeled racist I say this. But it's true. Down's Syndrome. Have you ever seen a guy from Mongolia with Downs? Well, basically he looks like a hansom Caucasian guy. And when a Caucasian guy with Down's looks like a handsome Mongolian. It makes me kinda think.

And take a look at this beauty:
www.angelfire.com...
An albino African woman.

And I have a friend who is half'n'half Norwegian-Philipine. He looks just like Geronimo. A North American native.

And this is prolly gonna be tough for many of you. The Chinese. Their forefather was prolly suffering from some kind of liver disease. Like hepatitis. They have yellow skin, and hepatitis doesn't exist in China. The same with the Innuites or Eskimos. For most of them alcohol can mean the instant death. But still with such visual differencies, we are genetically identical more or less. We are all still the same breed of humans.

[Edited on 11-5-2004 by Camelop�rdalis]

This might shock some of you due to where I was coming from in the past. However, as I said, I'm on the fence on this issue. The information discussed here has been very helpful, but there is still one major drawback to believing either side for me.

I love science, many of my friends are scientists. When you go into a scientific investigation, you're supposed to start with a clean slate. That way all information will be assessed and will be able to fit into the bigger picture because the bigger picture hasn't been decided on yet. Creation science, however, has begun with a conclusion and is trying to work backwards, making things fit into a picture that has already been drawn. That's just not good science.

On the other hand, though, I see the same thing happening with evolution. When the theory was first developed, it was developed with a clean slate. But now, as was evidenced with my Fossil 1470 post, Evolutionists are going along the same track as creationist science. They have a conclusion already, and have to make their discoveries fit. If they don't, they keep testing until they get the results they're looking for.

If someone sees this as a good scientific method, please let me know, because I see it as exactly the opposite. Regardless of which is true, we're (science as a whole) going about finding the answer in the wrong way.

Down Syndrome is trisomy of chromosome 12 and is not related to crossing-over or insertion.

No fossils? Talkorigins to the rescue:
Transtional fossils (this one is huge and describes many different taxa)
Horse evolution
Whale evolution
Human evolution

I think it's think to limit this discussion before it gets out of hand: evolution only. Everyone accepts microevolution. According to scientists microevolution is the progress that leads to macroevolution. After all the things I've answered I think I have the right to ask a question of my own: Why do you think that microevolution in different environments with isolated populations can't lead to two different species (= macroevolution)?

They were prompt! I was on the phone with one of the secretaries to Bert Thompson's "online mag." (not quite a magazine layout...)

Fujiyama, Asao, Hidemi Watanabe, et al., (2002), �Construction and Analysis of a Human-Chimpanzee Comparative Clone Map,� Science, 295:131-134, January 4.
�We found that 48.6% of the whole human genome was covered by Chimpanzee BACs.� [table 2] (Table is more detailed.) BACs--It�s what they use to compare the Chimp genome to our genome.
p. 132, 2nd column, 1 par.

No this is not good science, nor will I ever think so. Before the scientific method was made common, it was supposed that God's Creation was the only way. Some, like Darwin--who was choosing between his theory and becoming a minister in the Anglican church, printed hypothesis without the whole needed proof. (it is suspected that his problem with choosing came more form not wanting to "save" the natives in south America because he thought that they were inferrior to himself. If so, then I pity the world for holding to the "truth" of a bigoted man's beliefs...) did what they did without finishing their work. Now, a lot of things are supposed to be true, without question, in both theories...really it's annoying.
The reason that it gets so out of hand is because the two beliefs don't mix well, and both are faithfully believed in, on the levels they argure on.

[Edited on 11-5-2004 by jlc163]