UK government bans teaching creationism in schools

[HoreTore]

Linky (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/06/19/british-government-bans-creationism-schools_n_5511010.html?utm_hp_ref=uk)

Cameron may be a stinking conservative, but this is definitely a cause for celebration. No longer will private schools offer a safe haven for blissful ignorance in the UK.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Creationism should be taught in theology or comparative religion courses. It has no place in a science classroom. I went to Catholic school for some 12 years not once did I hear a peep about creationism while discussing the scientific method. It wasn't even a controversy.

Personally, I believe that nothing on the planet earth or in the Universe makes real or longterm sense. This is why I have so much appreciation for the scientific method - it provides an evidence based glimpse at logical consistency.

However, because of the fact that all of existence is patently absurd (human beings come out of other human beings, people wear Decorational clothing, we have big wet noisy smelly holes in our faces with odd bones protruding out of them on our faces, etc.) I am a religious person. For some reason that is unexplainable I believe that I will be judged for wrongdoings in this life. Additionally, I believe that God has a plan for me and everyone else and cares about us. These things are all absurd, but at the end of my life when I enter the abyss of darkness for the rest of eternity - the least plausible thing is that there will be some pearly gates where Richard Dawkins will judge me about how logical and scientific I was in life. I just don't think any of that needs to be taught during science class.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Aye, its sad the direction this country is going in. More Christians may look to home-schooling as a result of this, we're effectively being pushed out of society.

[ICantSpellDawg]

It doesn't say that creationism can't be taught in schools, it just says that it can't be taught in science class. Allahu Akbar!

[Rhyfelwyr]

So are we supposed to teach kids one things in the Religious Education class and then tell them that its false when they go to Biology?

[Pannonian]

So are we supposed to teach kids one things in the Religious Education class and then tell them that its false when they go to Biology?

English lit classes make no pretence at scientific truth when they teach about metaphors, allegories and stuff. Why should Biblical lit encroach on science? It's not as though bible-centric science would be useful later in life, as it necessitates disregarding the scientific method.

[Ja'chyra]

So are we supposed to teach kids one things in the Religious Education class and then tell them that its false when they go to Biology?

No, you tell them it's the same as the rest of the fairy tales you read in books.

[Rhyfelwyr]

No, you tell them it's the same as the rest of the fairy tales you read in books.

Well, I believe it. :shrug:

I think if I want to send my kids to a faith school they should be free to teach what they believe. I find Darwinism and the consequences of such thought to be repugnant.

[lars573]

No, you tell them it's the same as the rest of the fairy tales you read in books.
I had a Geology teacher basically tell us that. However he framed it as ancient people who wrote those stories didn't have as, or the (take your pick), advanced understanding of the world and it's workings that we do. And created fairy stories to fill that void. He also went on that science is only about process's and how things happen. The existential why's are questions best left to philosophers, priests, and prophets.

[Greyblades]

Well, I believe it. :shrug:

I think if I want to send my kids to a faith school they should be free to teach what they believe. I find Darwinism and the consequences of such thought to be repugnant.

Really?...*sigh* Honestly dude I expected better of you.

[ICantSpellDawg]

They are free to teach what they believe, but the scientific method is the scientific method. If something doesn't follow that, it shouldn't be in a science class

[Pannonian]

They are free to teach what they believe, but the scientific method is the scientific method. If something doesn't follow that, it shouldn't be in a science class

And Rhyf is free to send his children to a non-government-funded school, who will be free to teach whatever they like. If you take taxpayers' money, you have to follow government guidelines.

[Pannonian]

Its a false division, IMO. The only reason religious types have a problem with evolution is because it contradicts some of the man-made dogma they've been taught. Evolution, as described by the scientific method, merely gives insight into what God is up to. Its a far more objective measure than some raving pastor in a church going off about his specific interpretation of biblical metaphors and parables. God gave us brains so we could use them, IMO.

I wonder if these faith schools encourage their students to stick private investigators on their future spouses as the bible talks about "knowing one's wife".

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, I believe it. :shrug:

I think if I want to send my kids to a faith school they should be free to teach what they believe. I find Darwinism and the consequences of such thought to be repugnant.

That's because you've been radicalised and no longer apply the principles of rational theology.

For instance - if Evolution is a lie then God constructed the world to confuse and deceive man, and therefore God is dishonest. If God is dishonest God is not Good.

As Creationism leads inexorably to a dishonest God it should be repugnant to all religions who believe in a Good (ergo honest) God.

This bit is interesting:

"any doctrine or theory which holds that natural biological processes cannot account for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth and therefore rejects the scientific theory of evolution,"

You could reasonably argue, from the wording, that a Christian school can happily teach that evolution is the process by which God created life and that, due to his infinite wisdom, he was able to predict the outcomes of evolution. Following on from that, one does not have to believe that man is an "accident" in order to believe in evolution.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Don't believe the lie that you have to be an irrational absurdist in order to be a religious person. I feel like that is what extreme religious concepts have fallen into believing "reason is against God, therefore I am against reason". It is the first part that is false, don't believe it.

[Kadagar_AV]

That some people think god created the universe and all should be taught when you teach about religion...

The scientific method and its progress to current date should be taught in science class...


I don't see the problem.

Do even YOU, Rhyf, think it's proper to allow children to learn something based on "this book says so". You probably don't feel that way against, say, belief in the norse gods... Right?

Wouldn't you frown if I in science class wanted to teach children, say, this:

One day Odin, Vili and Ve walked on the beach. There they found two logs; one appeared to be from the Ash tree and the other appeared to come from an Elm tree.

Odin gave the logs spirit and life, Ve gave them movement, mind and intelligence and Vili gave them shape, speech, feelings and the five senses. The first two humans had been created.

The man was given the name Ask, and the woman was given the name Embla. The Aesir decided the humans should live in the place named Midgard.

You probably think it would have a negative impact on the childrens life, had they been taught that as "science", no?

[Tellos Athenaios]

Meh. Consider it good practice in reconciling different diametrically opposed points of view in a safe and respectful environment. Bible-class says X, science-class says Y, for homework do some critical thinking of your own. Yes, this will be on the test called 'life'.

If at the age of ~15 kids still can't cope with receiving fundamentally different theories/points-of-view/opinions and thus need to be protected from ever having to do any critical thinking then whatever education they received has failed them completely anyway.

[Kadagar_AV]

Meh. Consider it good practice in reconciling different diametrically opposed points of view in a safe and respectful environment. Bible-class says X, science-class says Y, for homework do some critical thinking of your own. Yes, this will be on the test called 'life'.

If at the age of ~15 kids still can't cope with receiving fundamentally different theories/points-of-view/opinions and thus need to be protected from ever having to do any critical thinking then whatever education they received has failed them completely anyway.

Dude, it's about people with authority not presenting the two different standpoints as equal.

YES at 15 you should be able to do critical thinking. That's why it's so important to teach kids critical thinking instead of adherence to ancient sand people dogma.

[HopAlongBunny]

Good to hear.
Yes, science and religion are both belief systems. Religion is based on faith: I believe... Science is based on observation and facts. They are in no way equivalent viewpoints and should not be presented as such.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So are we supposed to teach kids one things in the Religious Education class and then tell them that its false when they go to Biology?

Ultimately, I suppose, the answer is "yes."

Resolving such disputes is one of the ways we learn. Thesis versus antithesis yielding synthesis is not exactly a new model for learning.

[Ronin]

Well, I believe it. :shrug:

I think if I want to send my kids to a faith school they should be free to teach what they believe. I find Darwinism and the consequences of such thought to be repugnant.

I know what you mean....reality has a well known liberal bias...you shouldn´t stand for it :rolleyes:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ultimately, I suppose, the answer is "yes."

Resolving such disputes is one of the ways we learn. Thesis versus antithesis yielding synthesis is not exactly a new model for learning.

The answer is "No", we should not teach contradictory things in schools, and we don't have to because theology can reconcile the differences.

You teach what the Bible says and then you explain​ the different ways that can be interpreted.

[Kadagar_AV]

The answer is "No", we should not teach contradictory things in schools, and we don't have to because theology can reconcile the differences.

You teach what the Bible says and then you explain​ the different ways that can be interpreted.

Spot on.

[HoreTore]

I went to Catholic school for some 12 years not once did I hear a peep about creationism while discussing the scientific method. It wasn't even a controversy.

No wonder, since the Catholic church fully accepts evolution. This is a protestant-only problem.


Well, I believe it. :shrug:

I think if I want to send my kids to a faith school they should be free to teach what they believe. I find Darwinism and the consequences of such thought to be repugnant.

Wishful thinking, and little else.

Education should not be credited if they teach creationism. It's like a school teaching the answer to two and two is five; that's not even close to a proper school.

[HoreTore]

The answer is "No", we should not teach contradictory things in schools, and we don't have to because theology can reconcile the differences.

You teach what the Bible says and then you explain​ the different ways that can be interpreted.

What?

Basically all my classes is about a contradiction. The idea is to present two contradictory viewpoints/facts/whatever, and then let the students work on them. A fine method, if you ask me.

I'm not the one to explain, that's the students job.

But I do work in a private school, and the reason for that is the absence of religious classes.

[Tellos Athenaios]

The answer is "No", we should not teach contradictory things in schools, and we don't have to because theology can reconcile the differences.

You teach what the Bible says and then you explain​ the different ways that can be interpreted.

Assuming you have a single frame of a reference in which everything somehow will fit. This is doubtful. Assuming you can get around leaky abstractions. This is impossible. For example cellular level biology is routinely explained in terms of deterministic processes but then you get to the topic of mutation which suddenly implies that all your determinism is a lie. Which it is, incidentally, but at school you will hardly notice the difference and it rather simplifies the job of everyone from student to teacher to text book author to exam committees and accreditation folks.

[Kadagar_AV]

I believe what PVC is saying, is that modern religion can deal with actual truths...

You don't have to "choose" between science and religion. You explain science in science class, and then religion class keep up with how it still would be applicable to their point of view.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What?

Basically all my classes is about a contradiction. The idea is to present two contradictory viewpoints/facts/whatever, and then let the students work on them. A fine method, if you ask me.

I'm not the one to explain, that's the students job.

But I do work in a private school, and the reason for that is the absence of religious classes.

Two contradictory views is fine - contradictory facts are not.

Even so, you need to teach the students the required cultural tools - not only does it accelerate their learning it prevents them from reinventing the wheel or feeling like they've made a major contribution to scholarship by making a basic deduction.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Assuming you have a single frame of a reference in which everything somehow will fit. This is doubtful. Assuming you can get around leaky abstractions. This is impossible. For example cellular level biology is routinely explained in terms of deterministic processes but then you get to the topic of mutation which suddenly implies that all your determinism is a lie. Which it is, incidentally, but at school you will hardly notice the difference and it rather simplifies the job of everyone from student to teacher to text book author to exam committees and accreditation folks.

Actually, given a sufficient amount of time all probabilities will reach 1, so you will always get the required mutation eventually. Also, while mutation appears to be "random" we don't actually understand what "random" is, it's possible that what appears to be random is actually determined by an extremely complex mathematical formula, we can't tell because we struggle to measure the natural world accurately, which results in poor data sets, which may be what gives the impression of "randomness".


I believe what PVC is saying, is that modern religion can deal with actual truths...

You don't have to "choose" between science and religion. You explain science in science class, and then religion class keep up with how it still would be applicable to their point of view.

Pretty much - the Scientific Method is used to gather and interpret that information - the relevence of that information is determined by your metaphysical outlook.

[HoreTore]

Two contradictory views is fine - contradictory facts are not.

Even so, you need to teach the students the required cultural tools - not only does it accelerate their learning it prevents them from reinventing the wheel or feeling like they've made a major contribution to scholarship by making a basic deduction.

There are plenty of contradictory facts, they're always hilarious.

Anyway, I basically teach various forms of explanations, mechanisms and such, and then assess the students on their application of said tools. Reinventing the wheel - sure, the process required to invent a wheel is certainly something they should have.

Conceptual learning ftw. Facts are for weirdos.

[HoreTore]

nwm.

[Tellos Athenaios]

I believe what PVC is saying, is that modern religion can deal with actual truths...

You don't have to "choose" between science and religion. You explain science in science class, and then religion class keep up with how it still would be applicable to their point of view.

Again, that might work if you only have a single religious dogma to consider and if you choose to gloss over the multiple incompatible theories/points-of-view that science and Math come up with.

However, leaky abstractions are a fact of life when trying to teach the basics in science. So at one point or another your meticulous reconciliation efforts simply will come up short trying to reconciling the two.

I think it's much more straightforward and ultimately more rewarding to acknowledge that (study of) religion simply operates in on a completely different paradigm from science and that you should evaluate both in their own context, instead of trying to shoehorn science within some religiously inspired narrative.


Actually, given a sufficient amount of time all probabilities will reach 1, so you will always get the required mutation eventually. Also, while mutation appears to be "random" we don't actually understand what "random" is, it's possible that what appears to be random is actually determined by an extremely complex mathematical formula, we can't tell because we struggle to measure the natural world accurately, which results in poor data sets, which may be what gives the impression of "randomness".

The sum of all probabilities is always 1, if that is what you mean. However, that does not imply that a specific cell A will, with absolute certainty feature a specific mutation X. It might well die before that point, indeed it is vastly more likely to die than to mutate in that way... Anyway the point was that biochemical processes like the creation of enzymes are taught as a deterministic sequence of steps and reactions when, in fact, those are all stochastic processes. Feedback is also not deterministic, but again, stochastic. However, ignoring the stochastic nature of the processes simplifies everything considerably, allows students to develop a systemic understanding first and overall it fits most school curricula much better.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Really?...*sigh* Honestly dude I expected better of you.

Disappointing, frustrating and bemusing the world is what I do best.


And Rhyf is free to send his children to a non-government-funded school, who will be free to teach whatever they like. If you take taxpayers' money, you have to follow government guidelines.

Taxpayers money


Taxpayers money



Taxpayers money




Taxpayers money





Taxpayers money






Taxpayers money






TAXPAYERS MONEY







:balloon::dancinglock::elephant::cheerleader::elephant::dancinglock::balloon: !!!TAXPAYERS MONEY!!!:balloon::dancinglock::elephant::cheerleader::elephant::dancinglock::balloon:


It always comes down to this modern mammon, doesn't it? "Taxpayers money", the calling card for trampling all over the worst off in society, the rallying shout for the moral outrage of the financially stable and socially privileged. It seems to be banded about endlessly these days, its like the ultimate cheap point-scoring trick for politicians.

My tax contributions may be low and sporadic, but as far as I am concerned, truth is not subject to taxpayers money. And for what it's worth, I don't see why my taxes should educate your children, but yours not educate mine.


Its a false division, IMO. The only reason religious types have a problem with evolution is because it contradicts some of the man-made dogma they've been taught.

What man would you say invented the dogma of creationism?


God gave us brains so we could use them, IMO.

He gave us the scriptures as well for the same purpose:

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)


That's because you've been radicalised and no longer apply the principles of rational theology.

For instance - if Evolution is a lie then God constructed the world to confuse and deceive man, and therefore God is dishonest. If God is dishonest God is not Good.

As Creationism leads inexorably to a dishonest God it should be repugnant to all religions who believe in a Good (ergo honest) God.

In saying all this you are presuming that the evidence points to evolution. I disagree with that presumption. Pretty much all the evidence we have shows that mankinds footprint on earth began within a young earth timeframe. The only exceptions to this are a handful of fossils tested with questionable dating methods, from which questionable conclusions were drawn.

A case in point - I was linked to this article a while back: Skull of Homo erectus throws story of human evolution into disarray (http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/17/skull-homo-erectus-human-evolution)

A few months ago, the entire scientific establishment would have berated me for questioning the existence of many types of proto-human species. And yet it takes just ONE isolated discovery to prove their theory wrong. Turns out that what they attributed to evolution is in fact explained by standard genetic variation.

Young earth creationists have always said there were higher levels of genetic variability in earlier humans - looks like they were right.

I realise that this alone does not disprove evolution, but I find it remarkable how easily one of its core tenants was blown out of the water.


This bit is interesting:

"any doctrine or theory which holds that natural biological processes cannot account for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth and therefore rejects the scientific theory of evolution,"

You could reasonably argue, from the wording, that a Christian school can happily teach that evolution is the process by which God created life and that, due to his infinite wisdom, he was able to predict the outcomes of evolution. Following on from that, one does not have to believe that man is an "accident" in order to believe in evolution.

Been there, done that. I know some Christians who are quite active in the intelligent design movement and would be quite happy to agree with you there. But I just don't think that evolution is compatible with the scripture, or indeed the God I worship. You've got to admit, it would be a pretty round-about way of doing things, wouldn't it?

Indeed, I could flip that charge you levelled against me on its head and level it against yourself - if evolution is true, then God is dishonest. Why bring about a supernatural creation by means that can be explained entirely by natural phenomena? Why make us in such a way that it would appear he did not?


Do even YOU, Rhyf, think it's proper to allow children to learn something based on "this book says so". You probably don't feel that way against, say, belief in the norse gods... Right?

I don't see why it matters when common sense ensures that such scenarios remain hypothetical. The silliness of the Norse religion and its obvious inadequacy in meeting the spiritual and philosophical needs of its followers is precisely why it was supplanted by Christianity, and indeed why paganism has been replaced by monotheism across near enough the whole world.

Christianity is much more intellectually robust and generally fulfilling and that is why it remains core to the lives of many people today.

If there are isolated pockets of the world where people still follow primitive religions, then in those cases I have no problem with the children being educated in a way that is compatible with their parents' faith. I cannot envisage a situation where this could not be part of a balanced education.

It is up to parents and not the government to decide what beliefs their children will be raised with, so long as those beliefs do not call for violence or other illegal activity. If we are all going to pool in for a public education system, then everybody should benefit from it and not just those who hold to the 'establishment' beliefs.

[Pannonian]

It always comes down to this modern mammon, doesn't it? "Taxpayers money", the calling card for trampling all over the worst off in society, the rallying shout for the moral outrage of the financially stable and socially privileged. It seems to be banded about endlessly these days, its like the ultimate cheap point-scoring trick for politicians.

My tax contributions may be low and sporadic, but as far as I am concerned, truth is not subject to taxpayers money. And for what it's worth, I don't see why my taxes should educate your children, but yours not educate mine.

Universal education in the UK has historically been to educate workers to get and keep Britain at the front of industrial and economic competition. Biology as understood through evolution is at the heart of a multi-billion pharmaceutical and medical industry, validated again and again through research directed through that understanding. In what way does creationism contribute towards the economy?

Elementary Education Act 1870 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_Education_Act_1870)

[Tellos Athenaios]

Taxpayers money

Sure, it's a not a valid argument. One might say that from the perspective of national finances a school is more or less on par with a charity: as long as no criminal mismanagement occurs there is no reason to get in their way, and there are lots of good reasons to sponsor their efforts at improving our collective lot (be it through education or whatever charitable work they provide).

On the other hand, education is not your run of the mill "noble cause". The outcome actually matters, in much the same way that relief for the poor is not merely a charity but one of the principal responsibilities of society. Since the state is in the best position to act, it should therefore take charge of matters. That's more or less a settled argument since Enlightenment took hold. I expect you are familiar with it (since, it builds on older arguments by the Protestants on the importance of literacy in order to fully appreciate the teachings of the Bible as an individual).

From that argument it follows that the state has not merely the mandate but the duty to ensure school curricula are properly vetted, properly taught, and adequate as well as up to date. From there, striking creationism from science class is nothing but a mundane update to the curricula to update it to modern standards. It simply has no place in modern scientific understanding anymore.

[Beskar]

A case in point - I was linked to this article a while back: Skull of Homo erectus throws story of human evolution into disarray (http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/17/skull-homo-erectus-human-evolution)

A few months ago, the entire scientific establishment would have berated me for questioning the existence of many types of proto-human species. And yet it takes just ONE isolated discovery to prove their theory wrong. Turns out that what they attributed to evolution is in fact explained by standard genetic variation.

Young earth creationists have always said there were higher levels of genetic variability in earlier humans - looks like they were right.

I realise that this alone does not disprove evolution, but I find it remarkable how easily one of its core tenants was blown out of the water.

Sorry to inform you, Rhyfelwyr, but you have completely misread and misrepresented the source you linked.

There is no "disproving evolution" in the slightest, nor is "one of its core tenets was blown out of the water". There isn't a 'whole scientific establishment' berating you for questioning the existence of the many types either, they would have only berated you if you said something in complete and utter ignorance without any evidence or analysis as to where your argument is based upon. There is a clear difference between "This samples are too similar, I think they may be the same species" and "The Bible says otherwise", if you did the first, they would actually take a look at the samples and give you why they might believe otherwise if they do, it is an intellectual discussion.

You have done the intellectual equivalent of pointing out a spelling mistake in the bible and saying this disproves the existence of God.

You clearly do not actually understand the tenets of Science because your source is a very clear example of why Science is actually highly competent, it actually reanalyses and corrects itself to try to be the most accurate source of knowledge. Even then, it doesn't mean Science theory hasn't even radically changed either, as the old fossils would have to be further analysed to justify their relative positions and it is still homo-erectus and still one of our predecessors.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Sorry to inform you, Rhyfelwyr, but you have completely misread and misrepresented the source you linked.

There is no "disproving evolution" in the slightest, nor is "one of its core tenets was blown out of the water". There isn't a 'whole scientific establishment' berating you for questioning the existence of the many types either, they would have only berated you if you said something in complete and utter ignorance without any evidence or analysis as to where your argument is based upon. There is a clear difference between "This samples are too similar, I think they may be the same species" and "The Bible says otherwise", if you did the first, they would actually take a look at the samples and give you why they might believe otherwise if they do, it is an intellectual discussion.

You have done the intellectual equivalent of pointing out a spelling mistake in the bible and saying this disproves the existence of God.

You clearly do not actually understand the tenets of Science because your source is a very clear example of why Science is actually highly competent, it actually reanalyses and corrects itself to try to be the most accurate source of knowledge. Even then, it doesn't mean Science theory hasn't even radically changed either, as the old fossils would have to be further analysed to justify their relative positions and it is still homo-erectus and still one of our predecessors.

Nope, I read it, understood it, and presented it accurately. The article is titled "Skull of Homo erectus throws story of human evolution into disarray" and it is you that is claiming that it says something else, not me.

I think you are papering over the cracks in evolutionary theory much the same way as creationists do when you accuse them of the old 'God of the gaps' trick.

Now you can try to cover this up all you want with the same tired old language about the thoroughness of the scientific method and the concocted dichotomy between science and faith (things which say nothing of relevance or substance, but when used in this way do seem rather reminiscent of religious believers comforting themselves in repeated chants and mantras), but how about we let the article speak for itself:

"But while the skull itself is spectacular, it is the implications of the discovery that have caused scientists in the field to draw breath. Over decades excavating sites in Africa, researchers have named half a dozen different species of early human ancestor, but most, if not all, are now on shaky ground."

So, it says clearly that the very existence of most, if not all, of our supposed proto-human ancestors as a separate species has been called into serious question. Now, could you tell me, is or is not the existence of these proto-humans not a very central part in the supposed story of human evolution? If we were not in fact evolving at what was thought to be such a vital time in our evolutionary history, then IMO that is a gaping hole in your argument, and does much more to challenge your ideas than, as you say, a spelling mistake in the Bible would disprove God.

[Pannonian]

So how does the article show that creationism should be taught in science classes? In what way does it show that creationism offers a better explanation for the biological record than evolution mainly through natural selection?

[Beskar]

Nope, I read it, understood it, and presented it accurately. The article is titled "Skull of Homo erectus throws story of human evolution into disarray" and it is you that is claiming that it says something else, not me.

I am not claiming it is saying something is different, you are not understanding what is actually meant by the statement. You are confusing simple media techniques to make it sound more profound than it actually is to drum up interest in the article than what the actual consequences of the article portray.


"But while the skull itself is spectacular, it is the implications of the discovery that have caused scientists in the field to draw breath. Over decades excavating sites in Africa, researchers have named half a dozen different species of early human ancestor, but most, if not all, are now on shaky ground."

So, it says clearly that the very existence of most, if not all, of our supposed proto-human ancestors as a separate species has been called into serious question. Now, could you tell me, is or is not the existence of these proto-humans not a very central part in the supposed story of human evolution?

There is a difference between "They never existed" and "Some samples appear not to be as unique as we thought they were". Because a few of the findings are actually more related to another particular sample than we thought they were, doesn't really change anything in the 'grand scheme' of things.

Some people get a little zealous as they want to make discoveries, so they find a skeleton which looks different to others, then they try to make out it is a Homo-Rhyfelwyr. All this does is show that the Homo-Rhyfelwyr is just a variation of the Homo-Erectus, thus it doesn't deserve to be uniquely specified species. This is no where near as profound as disputing the entire existence of Homo-erectus itself. What your bolded statement actually means is "We need to go back and ensure our classifications are correct to paint a more accurate picture".


Unfortunately, from the rest of your post, it is clear you have some misunderstandings and prejudices against 'Science' that your statements are overreaching and out of your depth. This is not me saying "Rhy is an idiot", this is me saying "You are not knowing what you are talking about"/ Hindering your own understanding. It is the equal of talking about the Biblical Cannon and the Apocrypha (including differences between Protestant, Catholic and various Orthodox) with someone who believes every word in the bible is written as true since forever by the hand of god. There are barriers which prevent meaningful communication.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Nope, I read it, understood it, and presented it accurately. The article is titled "Skull of Homo erectus throws story of human evolution into disarray" and it is you that is claiming that it says something else, not me.

I think you are papering over the cracks in evolutionary theory much the same way as creationists do when you accuse them of the old 'God of the gaps' trick.

Now you can try to cover this up all you want with the same tired old language about the thoroughness of the scientific method and the concocted dichotomy between science and faith (things which say nothing of relevance or substance, but when used in this way do seem rather reminiscent of religious believers comforting themselves in repeated chants and mantras), but how about we let the article speak for itself:

"But while the skull itself is spectacular, it is the implications of the discovery that have caused scientists in the field to draw breath. Over decades excavating sites in Africa, researchers have named half a dozen different species of early human ancestor, but most, if not all, are now on shaky ground."

So, it says clearly that the very existence of most, if not all, of our supposed proto-human ancestors as a separate species has been called into serious question. Now, could you tell me, is or is not the existence of these proto-humans not a very central part in the supposed story of human evolution? If we were not in fact evolving at what was thought to be such a vital time in our evolutionary history, then IMO that is a gaping hole in your argument, and does much more to challenge your ideas than, as you say, a spelling mistake in the Bible would disprove God.

Ryf, recognizing that there were other species of hominid who may have inter-bred with homo-sapiens does not discredit evolutionary theory. Also, how do you think that they are coming to these theoretical realizations? By finding new pages in the Bible? They are using the scientific method.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Tiaexz its seems like you are willing to do just about everything save actually address the facts presented in the article. At one minute you blame hyperbole, the next you misquote me to fight a strawman, then you blame glory-hunting on the part of scientists, then you dismiss what I say on the grounds that I "don't know what I am talking about". I haven't once seen you actually present a factual argument as to why you think the conclusions of these scientists are not as significant as they say they are.


I am not claiming it is saying something is different, you are not understanding what is actually meant by the statement. You are confusing simple media techniques to make it sound more profound than it actually is to drum up interest in the article than what the actual consequences of the article portray.

From what I read the title seemed to be in-keeping with the content of the article:

"But while the skull itself is spectacular, it is the implications of the discovery that have caused scientists in the field to draw breath."
"The dimensions were so strange that one scientist at the site joked that they should leave it in the ground."
"We are not saying that palaeoanthropologists did things wrong in Africa, but they didn't have the reference we have. Part of the community will like it, but for another part it will be shocking news."


There is a difference between "They never existed" and "Some samples appear not to be as unique as we thought they were". Because a few of the findings are actually more related to another particular sample than we thought they were, doesn't really change anything in the 'grand scheme' of things.

No, I said "they never existed as a separate species", which is not the same as saying "they never existed". The former is related to the scientists comments that "Some samples appear not to be as unique as we thought they were". You seem to be missing the significance of the fact that it is not just an issue of challenging our notions of what is normal genetic variability, it is the fact that it challenges the evolutionary narrative. A chunk of the evolutionary tree has been scythed down - something that was unthinkable just a few months ago.


Some people get a little zealous as they want to make discoveries, so they find a skeleton which looks different to others, then they try to make out it is a Homo-Rhyfelwyr. All this does is show that the Homo-Rhyfelwyr is just a variation of the Homo-Erectus, thus it doesn't deserve to be uniquely specified species. This is no where near as profound as disputing the entire existence of Homo-erectus itself. What your bolded statement actually means is "We need to go back and ensure our classifications are correct to paint a more accurate picture".

Yes, there are many systematic problems like these within the scientific establishment, and it is good to see that more rigorous study has brought them to light. It has now been demonstrated that much of the evidence for evolution during the relevant time period and the concept of "many, if not all" proto-human species is bogus.


Unfortunately, from the rest of your post, it is clear you have some misunderstandings and prejudices against 'Science' that your statements are overreaching and out of your depth. This is not me saying "Rhy is an idiot", this is me saying "You are not knowing what you are talking about"/ Hindering your own understanding. It is the equal of talking about the Biblical Cannon and the Apocrypha (including differences between Protestant, Catholic and various Orthodox) with someone who believes every word in the bible is written as true since forever by the hand of god. There are barriers which prevent meaningful communication.

Dismissing me on the grounds that I "don't know what I am talking about" would seem to be the biggest barrier to meaningful communication here.

[Beskar]

Tiaexz its seems like you are willing to do just about everything save actually address the facts presented in the article.

I haven't addressed them? I am pretty sure I did.


From what I read the title seemed to be in-keeping with the content of the article:
"But while the skull itself is spectacular, it is the implications of the discovery that have caused scientists in the field to draw breath."
"The dimensions were so strange that one scientist at the site joked that they should leave it in the ground."
"We are not saying that palaeoanthropologists did things wrong in Africa, but they didn't have the reference we have. Part of the community will like it, but for another part it will be shocking news."

Again, this is not facts, it is subjective and completely in-keeping with my comments, not contradictory. See the exaggerated usage and emotive writing to appeal to the reader? "caused them to draw breath". It is merely word-play to make it all seem exciting and thrilling, perhaps to readers who don't fully understand what is going on, or draw them to parallel to what some people feel about these things. This is something I recognised and stated and because you are swept up with its usage seeing it proof that creationism maybe the answer to everything doesn't mean anyone else shares it.


The former is related to the scientists comments that "Some samples appear not to be as unique as we thought they were". You seem to be missing the significance of the fact that it is not just an issue of challenging our notions of what is normal genetic variability, it is the fact that it challenges the evolutionary narrative. A chunk of the evolutionary tree has been scythed down - something that was unthinkable just a few months ago.

Again, I painted the situation clearly with my Homo-Rhyfelwyr example but it doesn't challenge the 'evolutionary narrative', it challenges a very specific narrative which even has disputes to its model before this showed up. These things are not written in mythical stone that cannot be changed, it was a broad acceptance/acquiescence by a community. Whilst I found the article interesting, it is pretty clear we took separate things from it. I know what kind of effects this has in practise, and I know for a fact this doesn't throw the evolutionary narrative out of the window, an argument you are proposing this article supports.


the concept of "many, if not all" proto-human species is bogus.

It doesn't mean what you are purporting it is representing.

It means that "many, if not all" the proto-human categories/classifications need to be revisited during the time period. It doesn't mean they are 'bogus', a word that stipulates fabrication and falsehood with negative connotations. The any reclassification will result into something more water-tight and accurate (hopefully) to the genuine picture, so the fundamentals are still in existence and not being questioned. The entire concept is not bogus or thrown out.



Dismissing me on the grounds that I "don't know what I am talking about" would seem to be the biggest barrier to meaningful communication here.

Dismissing you would be simply going "You know nothing, Rhyfelwyr Snow" and leaving it at that. I am attempting to explain why your approach and conclusions about the newspaper article are incorrect.

Explaining things is not my strongest suite, so I apologise if I am doing a bad job of that.

[HoreTore]

lol, young earth creationism. I don't really see any reason to engage in that, except to give this handy list of the branches of science you have to ignore (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Branches_of_science_you_have_to_ignore_to_believe_in_young_Earth_creationism) in order to make YEC work.

Back on topic, I don't really see the 'taxpayer money' as an issue, I'm usually happy to throw money at all sort of crazy stuff. For me, the schtick is that an education which teaches education is not an education at all, and should not be recognized as such. If a course in natural science is required for a degree(at whatever level), and you have included a creationist course in it, it should disqualify you from said degree. Just as if you had spent the time sitting in the couch smoking pot, which is arguably a much better use of ones time.

Kinda like having an 'education' in homeopathy.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I don't believe that Ryf is actually advocating these absurd things. He is merely arguing "10th Man" safeguards. I will continue to believe this irrespective of what he says.

[HoreTore]

He is merely arguing "10th Man" safeguards.

I am unfamiliar with this term....

[Beskar]

I am unfamiliar with this term....

It is from the film, World War Z. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcNK7M2eCI4)


Without giving too much away about the plot, there was a Mossad agent trying to explain to Brad Pitt’s character why Israel was far more prepared for a zombie outbreak than the rest of the world. The reason was the 10th Man Rule.

He explained that Israel’s security council had 10 advisors that looked into big picture issues. If the first 9 dismissed an issue or potential danger to the country, then the 10th man was forced to overrule them on principle and look into the issue no matter how far-fetched the scenario. That way Israel would always be prepared for black swan events. This allowed them to build a large wall to help keep out the zombies.

[Papewaio]

The history of man is rife with interbreeding.

Apparently one theory has that Maori are a mix of Polynesian and New Guinea ancestors. One group made out like Genghis Khan and slaughtered all the males and mated with the woman making for a different mix of genes to most Polynesians.

Europeans interbred apparently with Neanderthals.

Mauritius and other islands have diverse ancestoral backgrounds too.

Essentially human history is essentially if it moves hump it. So no real news story that there might be more mixing in our ancestoral paths.

In Guns, Germs and Steel it is outlined how many more races of human are in Africa then most people realize ie Pygmies etc.

So more a discovery of consistency.

[Greyblades]

Europeans interbred apparently with Neanderthals.
Supposedly that's how we ended up with blond hair and blue eyes being part of our genetics.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Ever since I found out that animals from one species can breed with another, any doubt in my mind that homo-sapiens bred with other species of human really went out the window. It doesn't mean that we aren't all the same species now, it just means that humans from different areas of the planet are not solely from one branch of the hominid tree. Which is pretty cool.

[Brenus]

Kinda like having an 'education' in homeopathy.” Hey, don’t underestimate the placebo effect…

[Pannonian]

The history of man is rife with interbreeding.

Apparently one theory has that Maori are a mix of Polynesian and New Guinea ancestors. One group made out like Genghis Khan and slaughtered all the males and mated with the woman making for a different mix of genes to most Polynesians.

Europeans interbred apparently with Neanderthals.

Mauritius and other islands have diverse ancestoral backgrounds too.

Essentially human history is essentially if it moves hump it. So no real news story that there might be more mixing in our ancestoral paths.

In Guns, Germs and Steel it is outlined how many more races of human are in Africa then most people realize ie Pygmies etc.

So more a discovery of consistency.

Doesn't the genetic evidence also indicate that Australians and New Zealanders interbred with ovis aries?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

In the abstract, it's good to have no creationism being taught in schools. But you are all missing the elephant in the room here. This campaign to ban creationism from school is not part of an "improve schools" initiative:


"The British Humanist Association, which has been advocating for the change since 2011, congratulated the Government on the move.

"[We] believe that... the objectives of the campaign are largely met," noted BHA Head of Public Affairs Pavan Dhaliwal in a statement.

"However, there are other ongoing areas of concern, for example the large number of state financed creationist nurseries, or the inadequate inspection of private creationist schools, and continued vigilance is needed in the state-funded sector."


The whole evolution/creationism in school debate is mired in this disgusting idiocy. If someone actually believes that their side supports science and the other rejects it, I want them as far away from making policy as possible. People, regardless of whether they are religious or atheist, tend to reject science if it conflicts with beliefs that are important to them. Why is creationism singled out?

Feminists are notorious for claiming that mental and behavioral differences between men and women either don't exist or not influenced by genetics. Should that teaching be banned? What about people who blather away about "IQ tests only measure how well you do on IQ tests", should scientifically illiterate statements like that be banned? I would say that blank slate theories are a far more significant denial of evolution than the claim that god set the whole thing in motion. And very ironically our school system is partially based on the pseudo-scientific belief that people are more malleable than they actually are.

Science is objective, about facts, etc, sure. But the decision on what to teach in the science classroom, what to emphasize as important, is not scientific. Even the claim that it is good to know the truth is not at all scientific, it is moral/philosophical. The claim that science should be taught at all is not scientific or objective. Maybe we should focus much more on history for normal schools and have only a few special schools for training scientists. It's all has to be argued for--pointing out that it's true is not sufficient for saying it should be taught. Science and math are overrated as far as getting a real education is concerned. Should we go through every religion and holy book and specifically teach that the errors they make are wrong? What if the claim that it is important to do so is wrong? Is "continued vigilance" on this issue really what's needed? What's the functional literacy rate in Britain compared to other countries?

And what about history anyway? It's not like historical myths are better than religious myths. Should it be illegal to repeat silly myths about Galileo and the inquisition? Should we go through the campaign speeches of one political party and pick out the most egregious historical errors and make it illegal to teach them?

Everyone wants their children to be taught the truth in school, but who wants to let other people decide what the truth is and enforce their vision? It's obvious that there are tremendous differences in what people think is true and what people think is important. There is no real solution to the problem. Banning creationism is a fake solution for idiots who are marginally less scientifically illiterate than the creationists they despise.

[Montmorency]

There is no real solution to the problem.

Did you ever consider that there doesn't need to be a 'final solution'? Of course, with creationism the issue is not just that it is blatantly wrong, but that it forces a specific religious doctrine from a select few sects to be the basis of children's entire conceptual understanding of the world.

Not all "myths" are created equal. It obviously doesn't hurt very much to have children learn, say, that Vikings were violent barbarians who pillaged the world while wearing horned helmets.


What about people who blather away about "IQ tests only measure how well you do on IQ tests", should scientifically illiterate statements like that be banned?

That "scientifically-illiterate" position is actually quite useful.


Feminists are notorious for claiming that mental and behavioral differences between men and women either don't exist or not influenced by genetics.

Not all feminists. :sneaky:


Maybe we should focus much more on history for normal schools and have only a few special schools for training scientists.

Maybe we should do the opposite. Oh, whoops, the problems with that are obvious. Hmmm...


Science and math are overrated as far as getting a real education is concerned.

Just because history is poorly taught as a rule doesn't mean science and math have encroached upon it.


People, regardless of whether they are religious or atheist, tend to reject science if it conflicts with beliefs that are important to them.

Note also that there's a difference between rejecting "science" and rejecting specific findings for various methodological reasons, and so on.

[Pannonian]

In the abstract, it's good to have no creationism being taught in schools. But you are all missing the elephant in the room here. This campaign to ban creationism from school is not part of an "improve schools" initiative:

The whole evolution/creationism in school debate is mired in this disgusting idiocy. If someone actually believes that their side supports science and the other rejects it, I want them as far away from making policy as possible. People, regardless of whether they are religious or atheist, tend to reject science if it conflicts with beliefs that are important to them. Why is creationism singled out?

Feminists are notorious for claiming that mental and behavioral differences between men and women either don't exist or not influenced by genetics. Should that teaching be banned? What about people who blather away about "IQ tests only measure how well you do on IQ tests", should scientifically illiterate statements like that be banned? I would say that blank slate theories are a far more significant denial of evolution than the claim that god set the whole thing in motion. And very ironically our school system is partially based on the pseudo-scientific belief that people are more malleable than they actually are.

Science is objective, about facts, etc, sure. But the decision on what to teach in the science classroom, what to emphasize as important, is not scientific. Even the claim that it is good to know the truth is not at all scientific, it is moral/philosophical. The claim that science should be taught at all is not scientific or objective. Maybe we should focus much more on history for normal schools and have only a few special schools for training scientists. It's all has to be argued for--pointing out that it's true is not sufficient for saying it should be taught. Science and math are overrated as far as getting a real education is concerned. Should we go through every religion and holy book and specifically teach that the errors they make are wrong? What if the claim that it is important to do so is wrong? Is "continued vigilance" on this issue really what's needed? What's the functional literacy rate in Britain compared to other countries?

And what about history anyway? It's not like historical myths are better than religious myths. Should it be illegal to repeat silly myths about Galileo and the inquisition? Should we go through the campaign speeches of one political party and pick out the most egregious historical errors and make it illegal to teach them?

Everyone wants their children to be taught the truth in school, but who wants to let other people decide what the truth is and enforce their vision? It's obvious that there are tremendous differences in what people think is true and what people think is important. There is no real solution to the problem. Banning creationism is a fake solution for idiots who are marginally less scientifically illiterate than the creationists they despise.

See the origins of universal education in the UK. State-funded education has been utilitarian from its beginning, and creationism lost the argument on these grounds even back in the 19th century. This is not a campaign to oust one view with another in the education field. That campaign was over even before the 20th century began. This is the re-assertion of standards that have been long set, that are generally agreed to the correct standards, and certainly which have not been superseded by the creationism which has been re-barred. Literacy and numeracy have been greater areas of concern, but there are no calls to teach in Latin and in Roman numerals. In these areas, the English language and Arabic numerals have similarly won their arguments long ago.

[Beskar]

What about people who blather away about "IQ tests only measure how well you do on IQ tests", should scientifically illiterate statements like that be banned?

That is actually the opposite, it is the common-consensus within the Psychological community that IQ-Testing only reliability test IQ, it is more accurately "Intelligence quotient is a score from several standardized tests which measure Intelligence Quotient".

Whilst IQ-testing can be used in several ways to make informed choices and study trends, it is a imperfect way to measure intelligence and suffers from some fatal-flaws if abused as it is commonly is done by the general public, especially those 'measure your IQ' websites. Examples such as the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale are far more accurate in their ability to measure a representation of intelligence and involve a one-to-one session(s) with an educational psychologist. Wechsler is the main assessment used within the UK for diagnosis of Learning Disabilities, as Dyslexia/Dyspraxia/Aspergers/etc show up due to their characteristic patterns.

Edit: For an amusement, I just took one of those Free online tests (https://i.imgur.com/nsEvsMt.jpg). Apparently 20 questions is all it takes to work out I should be in Mensa. For the record, anything over 140 is highly unreliable.

[Papewaio]

Kinda like having an 'education' in homeopathy.” Hey, don’t underestimate the placebo effect…

Oh you're just sugaring the argument ;)

[Papewaio]

Doesn't the genetic evidence also indicate that Australians and New Zealanders interbred with ovis aries?

Hmm as a dual national Kiwi-Aussie, a West Islander if you will... I'm not helped much by having a Welsh mum for these jokes.

What is the leading flavoured version of KY Jelly in New Zealand?

Mint

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Tiarex, you are an intellectual snob and a terrible ambassador for rationalism.

Rhyf - you're barking up the wrong tree.

Consider, if you will, that we used to believe that Wolves were a seperate species from modern dogs, Canines and Lupines. We now know that, in fact, dogs are nothing more than infantile wolves - there is no species difference.

All the discovery in Georgia did was demonstrate that our evolutionary path was much smoother than previously believed, but all those "sub species" were really just variations in one species. That's not that big of a deal even, because most of those species were posited as "dead ends" that died out.

Basically, the find was embarrassing for all those people who claimed to "discover" new species, but that's it - it certainly does nothing to alter the narrative, or the timeline, in a meaningful way because all those species were group closely together in time, relatively speaking.

[Kadagar_AV]

Tiarex, you are an intellectual snob and a terrible ambassador for rationalism.

Rhyf - you're barking up the wrong tree.

Consider, if you will, that we used to believe that Wolves were a seperate species from modern dogs, Canines and Lupines. We now know that, in fact, dogs are nothing more than infantile wolves - there is no species difference.

All the discovery in Georgia did was demonstrate that our evolutionary path was much smoother than previously believed, but all those "sub species" were really just variations in one species. That's not that big of a deal even, because most of those species were posited as "dead ends" that died out.

Basically, the find was embarrassing for all those people who claimed to "discover" new species, but that's it - it certainly does nothing to alter the narrative, or the timeline, in a meaningful way because all those species were group closely together in time, relatively speaking.

A very good explanation.

An important thing to add though, is that even IF, say, evolution was proved wrong (which it wont be)... That still says absolutely nothing about there being a christian god, even less the version of christian god one happens to believe in.

So should creationism be taught in schools? OF COURSE NOT... Not even in private schools.

Every single school, and every subject, should have a thought out base model of what to teach the children. This should be based on the latest accepted science of the day...

[Sir Moody]

So should creationism be taught in schools? OF COURSE NOT... Not even in private schools.

Every single school, and every subject, should have a thought out base model of what to teach the children. This should be based on the latest accepted science of the day...

slightly too far there - Creationism has its place in school - that place is the Religious Education classes (or Humanities depending on the school) - it should be broached there as it is a cornerstone of Christian faith - they should also be introduced to other creation myths as well from the other prevalent faiths - understanding a persons faith is important even if you disagree with them.

[Fragony]

I don't like this, as long as it doesn't replace biology-lessons it should be allowed. And if it does, as long as the actual exams are the same ones other schools make, what's the problem then? I kinda agree with the Scot, not directly quoted in word but it starts to look a bit like bullying.

[Kadagar_AV]

slightly too far there - Creationism has its place in school - that place is the Religious Education classes (or Humanities depending on the school) - it should be broached there as it is a cornerstone of Christian faith - they should also be introduced to other creation myths as well from the other prevalent faiths - understanding a persons faith is important even if you disagree with them.

Sorry, I meant in science class...

When studying religion, this should of course be brought up.

[Pannonian]

I don't like this, as long as it doesn't replace biology-lessons it should be allowed. And if it does, as long as the actual exams are the same ones other schools make, what's the problem then? I kinda agree with the Scot, not directly quoted in word but it starts to look a bit like bullying.

What's your opinion on government money being used to fund schools to teach Islam?

[Beskar]

Consider, if you will, that we used to believe that Wolves were a seperate species from modern dogs, Canines and Lupines. We now know that, in fact, dogs are nothing more than infantile wolves - there is no species difference.

All the discovery in Georgia did was demonstrate that our evolutionary path was much smoother than previously believed, but all those "sub species" were really just variations in one species. That's not that big of a deal even, because most of those species were posited as "dead ends" that died out.

Basically, the find was embarrassing for all those people who claimed to "discover" new species, but that's it - it certainly does nothing to alter the narrative, or the timeline, in a meaningful way because all those species were group closely together in time, relatively speaking.

You pretty much summed up what I was trying to say but better. :bow:

[HoreTore]

it should be broached there as it is a cornerstone of Christian faith

Creationism is "a cornerstone of the Christian faith"?

Say what?

[Sir Moody]

Your trying to claim that a "benevolent creator" isn't a cornerstone of the Christian faith?

[HoreTore]

Your trying to claim that a "benevolent creator" isn't a cornerstone of the Christian faith?

There's a pacific ocean between that and creationism.

Creationism is biblical literalism. And fundies are rare, thankfully.

[Sir Moody]

There's a pacific ocean between that and creationism.

Creationism is biblical literalism. And fundies are rare, thankfully.

You are falling for a common trap and trying to group all creationists under one banner which unfortunately isn't the case

Young Earth Creationists are the Biblical literalists and yes they are Fundamentalists but they are not even the biggest group that slots into the Creationist movement.

There's the Old Earth Creationists which accept "most" science but reject Evolution, the Theist Evolutionists who accept Evolution but only as the tool used by God and the Intelligent Design groups which believe the complexities of the world are proof of a creator - ID is probably the biggest faction right now.

to equate them all with Young Earth creationists is to wildly underestimate the movement...

[Rhyfelwyr]

Rhyf - you're barking up the wrong tree.

Well, beyond the scientific argument, I think that the scriptural and the philosophical questions surrounding the issue should matter to us as Christians. What about that charge I levelled against you earlier?


Consider, if you will, that we used to believe that Wolves were a seperate species from modern dogs, Canines and Lupines. We now know that, in fact, dogs are nothing more than infantile wolves - there is no species difference.

Right, but peoples erroneous views in the past on this matter were due to the very visible differences between dogs and wolves that had come about as a result of highly artificial breeding programmes - that doesn't happen with evolution through natural selection.


All the discovery in Georgia did was demonstrate that our evolutionary path was much smoother than previously believed, but all those "sub species" were really just variations in one species. That's not that big of a deal even, because most of those species were posited as "dead ends" that died out.

We've always had a lack of transitional fossils. Now, I understand why this is, but it doesn't change the fact that ultimately, the evidence isn't there. We don't have that many ancient human/proto-human fossils in general:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils

If a chunk of what we did have is shown to be no longer part of an evolutionary narrative, then that is significant. It by no means disproves evolutionary theory, but is does deliver it a blow in one of its more vulnerable areas.


Basically, the find was embarrassing for all those people who claimed to "discover" new species, but that's it - it certainly does nothing to alter the narrative, or the timeline, in a meaningful way because all those species were group closely together in time, relatively speaking.

It's once piece of the puzzle. A few months back it would have been unthinkable that one discovery could disprove the conclusions on so many others. You would have been using these discredited sub-species against me in a similar thread as proof I was wrong.

[HoreTore]

You are falling for a common trap and trying to group all creationists under one banner which unfortunately isn't the case

Young Earth Creationists are the Biblical literalists and yes they are Fundamentalists but they are not even the biggest group that slots into the Creationist movement.

There's the Old Earth Creationists which accept "most" science but reject Evolution, the Theist Evolutionists who accept Evolution but only as the tool used by God and the Intelligent Design groups which believe the complexities of the world are proof of a creator - ID is probably the biggest faction right now.

to equate them all with Young Earth creationists is to wildly underestimate the movement...

The Catholic Church fully accepts evolution. That accounts for the vast majority of the Christians today.

While they are good for the occasional laugh, I really can't be very bothered to check what the remaining few loonies believe in.

[HoreTore]

We've always had a lack of transitional fossils.

lol! No no no Rhy, please stop now.

Every fossil is a transitional fossil. You are a transitional form.

There's no lack of it - everything we have is a transitional fossil.

[drone]

You are falling for a common trap and trying to group all creationists under one banner which unfortunately isn't the case

Young Earth Creationists are the Biblical literalists and yes they are Fundamentalists but they are not even the biggest group that slots into the Creationist movement.

There's the Old Earth Creationists which accept "most" science but reject Evolution, the Theist Evolutionists who accept Evolution but only as the tool used by God and the Intelligent Design groups which believe the complexities of the world are proof of a creator - ID is probably the biggest faction right now.

to equate them all with Young Earth creationists is to wildly underestimate the movement...

This is the main reason to ban teaching creationism in science classes. Teach the "wrong" kind and the PTA meetings become sectarian fistfights. :yes:

[Kadagar_AV]

Right, but peoples erroneous views in the past on this matter were due to the very visible differences between dogs and wolves that had come about as a result of highly artificial breeding programmes - that doesn't happen with evolution through natural selection.

directed breeding differs from nature... How?

I agree that you can make evolution work faster with focused breeding, but surely you mus agree that there are the same principles at work here? It's just the time span that is different. No?




We've always had a lack of transitional fossils. Now, I understand why this is,

Let me stop you right there. You obviously do NOT understand why that is. You actually pretty damn clearly with that sentence alone illustrate just how misguided you are here...

EVERY single fossil is from a organism that is a work in progress. Heck, YOU are a work in progress, or did you somehow think we humans stopped evolving now? You don't think we will look rather different in, say, a few million years? Or a few hundred billion years.


There is a longer time span between a Stegosaurus and a T-Rex, than it is between YOU and a T-Rex. That is the time spans we talk about here, to put things in perspective.




but it doesn't change the fact that ultimately, the evidence isn't there. We don't have that many ancient human/proto-human fossils in general:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils

If a chunk of what we did have is shown to be no longer part of an evolutionary narrative, then that is significant. It by no means disproves evolutionary theory, but is does deliver it a blow in one of its more vulnerable areas.

No it doesn't...

As an example, science now believe there are fewer different Dinosaur types than before... As they changed quite some while growing up, and what we before thought was two different types of dinosaurs, now has been proven to be the same type, only one younger and one older.

Did this new info lead to "OMG scientists were WRONG about dinosaurs"?

Of course not. It's just another part of the puzzle, and the scientific view is now more more complete and better off than before.




It's once piece of the puzzle. A few months back it would have been unthinkable that one discovery could disprove the conclusions on so many others. You would have been using these discredited sub-species against me in a similar thread as proof I was wrong.

My dinosaur example is spot on... When a fossile was found that showed that two different types were in fact the same type, it meant it disproved surely tens or hundreds of findings or so...

Did it change the narrative? Nope, not at all. In fact, science is stronger after this, than before.

So you really seem to lack a point here.

[Kadagar_AV]

I don't even see anything particularly controversial about the lighter types like ID. Obviously you wouldn't teach it in a science class, but to attack it on metaphysical grounds would be silly and vindictive.

The problems with ID isn't that the universe can't have been intelligently designed...

The problem comes when you say it is intelligently designed, and you know why, and people should cut off their foreskin and not work every 7 days.



See the problem?

[Beskar]

The problems with ID isn't that the universe can't have been intelligently designed...

The problem comes when you say it is intelligently designed, and you know why, and people should cut off their foreskin and not work every 7 days.

If I was going to intelligently design a world, I wouldn't have included Malaria.

Or given men nipples.

If you really think about the ID route, you have to wonder what kind of person did what they did and you will find yourself disappointed.

[Pannonian]

Well, beyond the scientific argument, I think that the scriptural and the philosophical questions surrounding the issue should matter to us as Christians. What about that charge I levelled against you earlier?

What about that question I posed to you earlier, concerning the 1870 Education Act ensuring compulsory primary education for all children? How do your scriptural concerns square with the utilitarian nature of the Act? How does creationism in science classes contribute towards Britain's industry and economy?

[Pannonian]

If I was going to intelligently design a world, I wouldn't have included Malaria.

Or given men nipples.

If you really think about the ID route, you have to wonder what kind of person did what they did and you will find yourself disappointed.

Or the David Attenborough question of what kind of benevolent creator would create a parasitic worm that lays eggs in the eyes of a little girl and makes her incurably blind. And on the intelligent design issue, one of his programmes mentioned eyes as the classical example of a complex structure that could not have evolved by itself, as it need many things put together to work. Except, of course, he gives examples of every stage of eye evolution, from the simplest sensory organs that can only distinguish between light and dark, through to the eyes that we have, and every stage in between, with examples in currently living species as well as in the fossil records. Similarly with other transitional forms between different branches of the animal groups (eg. the platypus, which is a rudimentary proto-mammal with vestiges of a reptilian past). Even the most famous missing link of all, archaeopteryx, has a living equivalent in the hoatzin.

[Montmorency]

This always confuses me when people talk about benevolent creators.

If we're entertaining the notion of an omnipotent and omniscient God, we have several options when it comes to 'evils' or 'imperfections' in life:

1. Assume that our values do not match up with the God's, whose values are superior.
2. Assume that the God knows what he's bloody doing.
3. Assume that the human perspective (or more precisely one's personal perspective) is the ultimate rule against which a putative God must be held.

Frankly, the third is just as delusional as the belief itself in a benevolent creator...

[Papewaio]

Kadagar AV and HoreTore in agreement! End world now.

=][=

As for fossils they are like road markers. They are useful and reveal a lot of information but we also have access to the road itself for information. DNA is the road and it explains handily the relationship between flora and fauna around the world and over time.

We share the same DNA with a lot of the life forms around us, not just apes but much more exotic forms of life. DNA corroborates, reinforces and explains the mechanisms of Evolution and the fossil record to such a high degree.

=][=

There might be a dozen different flavours of Creationism. Intelligent Design certainly is a large faction with funding and political clout. They influence in the US the Texas textbook purchasing which then dominos out to other states.

Problem with intelligent design is that the premise is that it takes intelligence to create complex systems. Yet surely every government is a working example of this not being the case. Burecracy is not designed, it forms without an overarching plan, yet virtually every older government has more and more layers of it forming over time with redundancies and contradictions building up over time.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, beyond the scientific argument, I think that the scriptural and the philosophical questions surrounding the issue should matter to us as Christians. What about that charge I levelled against you earlier?

Apply Ockham's Razor -

Which is more likely?

That the scribes who compiled Genesis (and we know it was a disparate group) were mistaken, or that the body of evidence compiled over the last several centuries (evolution is much older than Darwinism as an idea) is entirely falsified.

More likely we misunderstand God than we misunderstand the physical world, I think.


Right, but peoples erroneous views in the past on this matter were due to the very visible differences between dogs and wolves that had come about as a result of highly artificial breeding programmes - that doesn't happen with evolution through natural selection.

Traditional dog breeds, or working dogs (like Collies) closely resemble wolves, they were classified separately due to the tendency to over-classify, and due to relatively limited interbreeding observed by scientists (but regularly practised otherwise).

It was always an idiotic distinction.


We've always had a lack of transitional fossils. Now, I understand why this is, but it doesn't change the fact that ultimately, the evidence isn't there. We don't have that many ancient human/proto-human fossils in general:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils

If a chunk of what we did have is shown to be no longer part of an evolutionary narrative, then that is significant. It by no means disproves evolutionary theory, but is does deliver it a blow in one of its more vulnerable areas.

OK, well the variation within H. Erectus accounts for the gap previously bridged by multiple "species" so there are no new "gaps". As far as "transitional" fossils go - we don't have every generation from our earliest ancestors to us - but we can still see both the physical and genetic progression from one to another. The "missing links" simply indicate that there are temporal gaps between fossils.

If you killed both my parents and erased all trace of them, you'd be less inclined to believe I was related to my great grandfather, but I am, and the genetic progression from him to fa fa, to my father, to me is very obvious.


It's once piece of the puzzle. A few months back it would have been unthinkable that one discovery could disprove the conclusions on so many others. You would have been using these discredited sub-species against me in a similar thread as proof I was wrong.

Hardly unthinkable - it happens all the time.

And I wouldn't have been "using them against you" because I don't need them to demonstrate the progression from H. Erectus to H. Sapiens, to us.

[HoreTore]

I don't even see anything particularly controversial about the lighter types like ID. Obviously you wouldn't teach it in a science class, but to attack it on metaphysical grounds would be silly and vindictive.

1. It lacks any kind of evidence.
2. It makes non-falsifiable claims.

Teach it along with homeopathy and other nonsense, but keep it away from schools.

[Kadagar_AV]

Kadagar AV and HoreTore in agreement! End world now.



Actually, as both are Scandinavian we agree on a whole lot of issues (being unbearable european smugg to name one).

It's purely coincidal when we agree though, as I stopped bothering to read his posts.

Now, get me, HoreTore, Rhyfelwyr and rvg to agree on a post... And you can go for the presidency... In pretty much any country on the globe...

[HoreTore]

Just because history is poorly taught as a rule doesn't mean science and math have encroached upon it.

Sorry I missed this earlier, but:

History is poorly taught? What? History is taught in every single subject with the possible exception of mathematics. It forms an integral part of every class trip, and nearly all school activities. In addition to that, the subject also have its own class!

If, however, you mean the skills needed to make sense of history(ie. the scientific method for humanities/history) rather than the actual history itself, then yeah, you're probably right.

[Papewaio]

Actually, as both are Scandinavian we agree on a whole lot of issues (being unbearable european smugg to name one).

...

Now, get me, HoreTore, Rhyfelwyr and rvg to agree on a post... And you can go for the presidency... In pretty much any country on the globe...

Simple I'm sure all three can agree you can be a particualarly smug ski instructor about you sexual exploits. :smoking:

[Rhyfelwyr]

Sorry only have time to reply to some things...

Oh look its the usual outrage and blustering based on technicalities that they don't even understand.


lol! No no no Rhy, please stop now.

Every fossil is a transitional fossil. You are a transitional form.

There's no lack of it - everything we have is a transitional fossil.

Let me stop you right there. You obviously do NOT understand why that is. You actually pretty damn clearly with that sentence alone illustrate just how misguided you are here...

EVERY single fossil is from a organism that is a work in progress. Heck, YOU are a work in progress, or did you somehow think we humans stopped evolving now? You don't think we will look rather different in, say, a few million years? Or a few hundred billion years.

Ho hum, yes everything is a transitional fossil. Categorizations are fluid, we are dealing with a continuum, bla bla I get it.

The term 'transitional fossil' is used much more specifically than it could be interpreted in a more literal sense. Please note that Charles Darwin himself spoke of transitional fossils in this way and conceded that it was a major weakness in his theory (and please don't bother telling me what discoveries we have made since his time).

Why not do some basic reading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil) on the topic instead of obfuscating and corrupting terms?


No it doesn't...

As an example, science now believe there are fewer different Dinosaur types than before... As they changed quite some while growing up, and what we before thought was two different types of dinosaurs, now has been proven to be the same type, only one younger and one older.

Did this new info lead to "OMG scientists were WRONG about dinosaurs"?

Of course not. It's just another part of the puzzle, and the scientific view is now more more complete and better off than before.

We have hundreds to thousands times as many dinosaur fossils as we do fossils of ancient humans/proto-humans. The existence of dinosaur species is indisputable, but the transition from common ancestor to ape and man still has extremely limited evidence in the archeological record.

At the end of the day guys, it comes down to this - you don't have the evidence to conclusively show that transition from common ancestor to human. There is no definitive missing link.

And now, I await several responses of the usual nitpicking, dismissive mocking and faux intellectualism over my use of the term 'missing link'.

inb4 "Rhy doesn't know what missing link means".

[Pannonian]

We have hundreds to thousands times as many dinosaur fossils as we do fossils of ancient humans/proto-humans. The existence of dinosaur species is indisputable, but the transition from common ancestor to ape and man still has extremely limited evidence in the archeological record.

At the end of the day guys, it comes down to this - you don't have the evidence to conclusively show that transition from common ancestor to human. There is no definitive missing link.

And now, I await several responses of the usual nitpicking, dismissive mocking and faux intellectualism over my use of the term 'missing link'.

inb4 "Rhy doesn't know what missing link means".

Why should there be conclusive fossil records of the development of homo sapiens? Archaeopteryx was important as a "missing link" because it showed characteristics of 2 major branches, ie. reptiles and birds. Biologically, proto-humans and humans are virtually the same, when seen from the same perspective that we look at dinosaurs. To demand that we find full records of the change from proto-human to human, is like demanding that we find full records of the change from archaeopteryx to a slightly more birdlike but genetically definitely related version of archaeopteryx. It might interest you more because homo sapiens is your own species, but there is no particular reason to expect there to be an especially detailed fossil record for the ancestry of this one species.

[Ironside]

Nah, I'm going to give you a harder one Rhyf.

In your own words, define what you require for a fossil to be a "missing link". And don't be vague on it.


This always confuses me when people talk about benevolent creators.

If we're entertaining the notion of an omnipotent and omniscient God, we have several options when it comes to 'evils' or 'imperfections' in life:

1. Assume that our values do not match up with the God's, whose values are superior.
2. Assume that the God knows what he's bloody doing.
3. Assume that the human perspective (or more precisely one's personal perspective) is the ultimate rule against which a putative God must be held.

Frankly, the third is just as delusional as the belief itself in a benevolent creator...

We do have the concept of "worthy of worship". That's basically what we humans gains on worshipping the god in question. An absent god gives nothing. A benevolent god might reward you for your good actions, but aren't that big into punishment simply for disobidience. An evil god might reward you for evil actions and are usually more into punishing disobidience for itself. A cruel god might not torment you if you bribe him.

Those parts are from your own perspective and is thus falling into alternative 3.

[Sir Moody]

I don't even see anything particularly controversial about the lighter types like ID. Obviously you wouldn't teach it in a science class, but to attack it on metaphysical grounds would be silly and vindictive.

thats the thing - ID isnt "lighter" it is actually rebranded Old Earth Creationism in reverse - they still reject Evolution and demand it not be taught or that their particular brand should be taught alongside in Science classes.

To make it worse as the latest group on the scene they have plenty of backing which means they are well funded and politically connected...

Now as i said before I have no problem with ID or classic creationism in Religious Studies or Humanities since that is where they should be taught - that isnt however what ID groups want...

[Sir Moody]

Sorry I missed this earlier, but:

History is poorly taught? What? History is taught in every single subject with the possible exception of mathematics. It forms an integral part of every class trip, and nearly all school activities. In addition to that, the subject also have its own class!

If, however, you mean the skills needed to make sense of history(ie. the scientific method for humanities/history) rather than the actual history itself, then yeah, you're probably right.

We in the UK have a terrible track record when it comes to teaching history - generally you are taught 3 "periods" and nothing else unless you continue to A Level - in my case this was 1930's Germany, the Irish conflict and the Tudors - If it wasnt for the Totalwar games I would never have had the "will" to look into the massive gaps on my own...

[Pannonian]

We in the UK have a terrible track record when it comes to teaching history - generally you are taught 3 "periods" and nothing else unless you continue to A Level - in my case this was 1930's Germany, the Irish conflict and the Tudors - If it wasnt for the Totalwar games I would never have had the "will" to look into the massive gaps on my own...

1066 and all that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1066_and_All_That).

[Papewaio]

Well from the Wikipedia link:
""Missing link" is still a popular term, well recognized by the public and often used in the popular media. It is, however, avoided in the scientific press, as it relates to the concept of the great chain of being and to the notion of simple organisms being primitive versions of complex ones, both of which have been discarded in biology.[59] In any case, the term itself is misleading, as any known transitional fossil, like Java Man, is no longer missing. While each find will give rise to new gaps in the evolutionary story on each side, the discovery of more and more transitional fossils continues to add to our knowledge of evolutionary transitions.[4][60]"

So in short the missing link was found. The term isn't used in science anymore. And the search for a new missing link occurs everytime a new transitional fossil is found. So as the evidence piles up the requirements do as well.

Add DNA into the equation and it gets difficult to refute Evolution.

[HoreTore]

We in the UK have a terrible track record when it comes to teaching history - generally you are taught 3 "periods" and nothing else unless you continue to A Level - in my case this was 1930's Germany, the Irish conflict and the Tudors - If it wasnt for the Totalwar games I would never have had the "will" to look into the massive gaps on my own...

Yes, that was what you learned in the specific history lessons.

You learned the rest in the other subjects.

[Kadagar_AV]

Well from the Wikipedia link:
""Missing link" is still a popular term, well recognized by the public and often used in the popular media. It is, however, avoided in the scientific press, as it relates to the concept of the great chain of being and to the notion of simple organisms being primitive versions of complex ones, both of which have been discarded in biology.[59] In any case, the term itself is misleading, as any known transitional fossil, like Java Man, is no longer missing. While each find will give rise to new gaps in the evolutionary story on each side, the discovery of more and more transitional fossils continues to add to our knowledge of evolutionary transitions.[4][60]"

So in short the missing link was found. The term isn't used in science anymore. And the search for a new missing link occurs everytime a new transitional fossil is found. So as the evidence piles up the requirements do as well.

Add DNA into the equation and it gets difficult to refute Evolution.

I of course agree with you.. I just want to emphasize that each new missing link found, gives birth to TWO new missing links, not a new missing link...

I guess that, from a creationist standpoint, means that science gets weaker with every missing link found... :clown:

[Beskar]

What? History is taught in every single subject with the possible exception of mathematics.

We were taught about Pythagoras, Babylonian Sexagesimal system, Roman Numerals, the Hindu–Arabic numeral system and the concept of Zero. Not a lot of History but we covered briefed bits.

[HoreTore]

We were taught about Pythagoras, Babylonian Sexagesimal system, Roman Numerals, the Hindu–Arabic numeral system and the concept of Zero. Not a lot of History but we covered briefed bits.

Hence possible exception.

[Beskar]

Hence possible exception.

Indeed, I was more referring to the interesting side of history in mathematics.

[Slyspy]

When I went to school we learnt about science in science lessons and religions in religious studies. The purpose of the latter was to inform us about world religions, not to preach to us or to proselytise. It was more of a culture lesson, and this IMO is how it should be.

[Kadagar_AV]

Ho hum, yes everything is a transitional fossil. Categorizations are fluid, we are dealing with a continuum, bla bla I get it.

The term 'transitional fossil' is used much more specifically than it could be interpreted in a more literal sense. Please note that Charles Darwin himself spoke of transitional fossils in this way and conceded that it was a major weakness in his theory (and please don't bother telling me what discoveries we have made since his time).

Why not do some basic reading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil) on the topic instead of obfuscating and corrupting terms?



We have hundreds to thousands times as many dinosaur fossils as we do fossils of ancient humans/proto-humans. The existence of dinosaur species is indisputable, but the transition from common ancestor to ape and man still has extremely limited evidence in the archeological record.

At the end of the day guys, it comes down to this - you don't have the evidence to conclusively show that transition from common ancestor to human. There is no definitive missing link.

And now, I await several responses of the usual nitpicking, dismissive mocking and faux intellectualism over my use of the term 'missing link'.

inb4 "Rhy doesn't know what missing link means".



I will try to keep this very short and basic.


If anyone found a human fossil in the, say, Permian period... I for one would :bow: to pretty much anyone saying he has an inkling of understanding of why.

If we found dog fossils in the Cambrian period, I'd pretty much worship my dog.

As is, we have a narrative.

Paleozoic, Mesozoic, Paleozoic eras...

Each era breaks down into periods... This is all well documented, heck, I dare say it's one of those things science have absolutely NAILED. Sure, the absolute finest points of argument are still up for grabs, but to dismiss the idea at large... Simply unthinkable.

Unless, of course, your god made a joke of all of it, and for some reason built up a completely clear narrative for us to ignore.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

Further to Kadagar's point, according to the evolutionary narrative, homo sapiens has existed for the merest blink of an eye. Of course there are hundreds of thousands more dinosaur fossils than (proto-)human fossils, because those periods lasted hundreds times longer. The earliest proto-humans are dated to 2.4 million years ago. By contrast the traditional era of the dinosaurs stretches approximately 170 million years. Moreover, if you were to attempt to trace one specific species, through that period, the narrative would be incomplete by its very nature.

The other point to be made is that fossilisation requires very specific conditions, an insignificant proportion of the record will survive already, and then only in specific regions. The geological record may now have been compiled, but those eons, periods, epochs, ages etc. only appear in a select number of places throughout the world. In the grand scheme of things, it is more surprising that any proto-human remains have been found, rather than the fact that so few have...

[a completely inoffensive name]

You haven't found the missing link between 1 and 2. Oh, you found 1.5? Well now you've only doubled your problems! Now tell me how 1 became 1.5 and 1.5 became 2. Silly evolutionists, the more evidence you give, the more gaps appear in your "theory".

[Kadagar_AV]

I of course agree with you.. I just want to emphasize that each new missing link found, gives birth to TWO new missing links, not a new missing link...

I guess that that, from a creationist standpoint, means that science gets weaker with every missing link found... :clown:


You haven't found the missing link between 1 and 2. Oh, you found 1.5? Well now you've only doubled your problems! Now tell me how 1 became 1.5 and 1.5 became 2. Silly evolutionists, the more evidence you give, the more gaps appear in your "theory".

Brilliant post, it's almost like something I could have written... :creep:

[Papewaio]

Brilliant post, it's almost like something I could have written... :creep:

Yes but he uses mathematics which minimizes the need for history. ~;)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Brilliant post, it's almost like something I could have written... :creep:

Careful, he'll ask to have it deleted.

But seriously, Rhyf, there is SO much about the evolution of mammals, multiple extinction events...

Just tons and tons of data, more than can fit in six or seven thousand years by any order of magnitude.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Brilliant post, it's almost like something I could have written... :creep:

Sorry Kad, I will admit that I have not read every individual reply in this thread. I must have skipped yours.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Apologies for me being slow to reply.


Nah, I'm going to give you a harder one Rhyf.

In your own words, define what you require for a fossil to be a "missing link". And don't be vague on it.

I would say that it had to proven with near enough certainty to be some sort of intermediary species between a modern species and a ancient ancestor considered to be a different species. This would be proved by showing an indisputable transition from the traits of the ancient ancestor to its modern form. As far as I am aware, no such creature exists for humans, and those for the animal world are extremely limited.


So in short the missing link [Java man] was found. The term isn't used in science anymore. And the search for a new missing link occurs everytime a new transitional fossil is found. So as the evidence piles up the requirements do as well.

Humans are not thought to be descended from Java man. From the wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_Man):

"The current consensus of anthropologists is that the direct ancestors of modern humans were African populations of Homo erectus (possibly Homo ergaster), rather than the Asian populations exemplified by Java Man and Peking Man."


I will try to keep this very short and basic.


If anyone found a human fossil in the, say, Permian period... I for one would :bow: to pretty much anyone saying he has an inkling of understanding of why.

If we found dog fossils in the Cambrian period, I'd pretty much worship my dog.

As is, we have a narrative.

Paleozoic, Mesozoic, Paleozoic eras...

Each era breaks down into periods... This is all well documented, heck, I dare say it's one of those things science have absolutely NAILED. Sure, the absolute finest points of argument are still up for grabs, but to dismiss the idea at large... Simply unthinkable.

Unless, of course, your god made a joke of all of it, and for some reason built up a completely clear narrative for us to ignore.

Creationists have their own answers for the ordering of fossils in geological strata. Firstly, I would say, that while scientists are of course fully aware of the distinctions in the following link, the situation is nowhere near as clear cut as you suggest it is. There are plenty of fossils in the 'wrong place' (http://creation.com/fossils-wrong-place). Another source (https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/fossil-record/the-fossil-record/) (if people don't like it then they can just deal with it) shows that we are tending to see a lot more overlap than was previously thought:

"So how common are stratigraphic-range extensions? Two recent comprehensive databases of the stratigraphic occurrence of fossils give a clear answer to this question. Maxwell and Benton19 have compared the stratigraphic ranges of all of the fossil vertebrate families (excluding Aves, which have a spotty fossil record) as perceived in 1966–1967, and again in 1987. For 96 families, there was no change in stratigraphic range. Another 87 fossil families went through a decrease in their accepted stratigraphic range. Yet considerably more families (150) underwent an increase in the amount of strata which they overlap. This trend is even more evident in fossil marine families. In just ten years (1982–1992), Sepkoski20 reports that 513 fossil families underwent a decline in their stratigraphic range. A decline in range may mean that the first and/or last occurrence had been misidentified. But whatever the cause, the number of fossil-range declines is dwarfed by the 1026 families that enjoyed an increase in either their first occurrence, or their last occurrence, or both.

Clearly, then, extension of stratigraphic ranges is the rule and not the exception. This is even more remarkable when we remember that there is the ever-present evolutionary bias which tends to cause overemphasis of minute differences in fossils located in different horizons of strata, and hence the proliferation of questionable taxonomic names for essentially the same organism found at different stratigraphic horizons."


You haven't found the missing link between 1 and 2. Oh, you found 1.5? Well now you've only doubled your problems! Now tell me how 1 became 1.5 and 1.5 became 2. Silly evolutionists, the more evidence you give, the more gaps appear in your "theory".

You haven't found 1.5, you have found maybe 1.02 or 1.98 and are trying to use normal genetic variation as proof of some sort of evolutionary narrative.

PVC I don't have time now but I'll get back to you later...

[a completely inoffensive name]

You haven't found 1.5, you have found maybe 1.02 or 1.98 and are trying to use normal genetic variation as proof of some sort of evolutionary narrative.

I think point many people are making is that we have indeed found 1.5

[Pannonian]

You haven't found 1.5, you have found maybe 1.02 or 1.98 and are trying to use normal genetic variation as proof of some sort of evolutionary narrative.


Evolution is a process, not a narrative. Natural genetic variation and the nature of DNA is the underlying explanation of how evolution works. Darwin's explanation is the layman's explanation, and as far as the big picture goes, is as good an explanation as you'll get without getting into specifics of chance and extinction events. It's like how Newton's explanation of gravity is, for most purposes, as good an explanation as you'll get without going into excruciatingly obscure detail. Just because it's been superseded in some cases doesn't mean that, for most practical purposes, his explanation of gravity works. And just as Newton's ideas on gravity have allowed us to send probes into outer space, so Darwin's ideas on evolution have allowed us to greatly progress in medical and pharmaceutical fields, not least by explaining why many antibiotics aren't as effective as they used to be.

Let me turn things around by asking you a question. In what ways has creationism benefited society? If, instead of teaching evolution and natural selection, we teach children that God made it all: how would the world be better off?

[Ironside]

Apologies for me being slow to reply.



I would say that it had to proven with near enough certainty to be some sort of intermediary species between a modern species and a ancient ancestor considered to be a different species. This would be proved by showing an indisputable transition from the traits of the ancient ancestor to its modern form. As far as I am aware, no such creature exists for humans, and those for the animal world are extremely limited.


That would be Homo Heidelbergensis, as an inbetween Homo Erectus and Homo Sapiens. Whetever Homo Habilis are a distinct specie from Homo Erectus could possibly be debated from those new fossils, it's also clear that Homo Erectus evolved with time. The brain size are generally larger on the later fossils.

Then we're dealing with the pre-homo humaniods and their offshoots. None is going to mistaken a Paranthropus robustus for a Homo Eretus, even if they were living at the same time for 100.000:s of years. Australopithecus afarensis are generally seen as the potential ancestor here. And then you can go even further back.

From the top of my head. We can see that brain size increases. Body size increases, then become about ours. Adoptation to walking becomes more prominent. The hyoid bone has become adopted to be able to make more variated sounds (aka speech). Jaw bones becomes less prominent.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

Creationists have their own answers for the ordering of fossils in geological strata. Firstly, I would say, that while scientists are of course fully aware of the distinctions in the following link, the situation is nowhere near as clear cut as you suggest it is. There are plenty of fossils in the 'wrong place' (http://creation.com/fossils-wrong-place). Another source (https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/fossil-record/the-fossil-record/) (if people don't like it then they can just deal with it) shows that we are tending to see a lot more overlap than was previously thought:

"So how common are stratigraphic-range extensions? Two recent comprehensive databases of the stratigraphic occurrence of fossils give a clear answer to this question. Maxwell and Benton19 have compared the stratigraphic ranges of all of the fossil vertebrate families (excluding Aves, which have a spotty fossil record) as perceived in 1966–1967, and again in 1987. For 96 families, there was no change in stratigraphic range. Another 87 fossil families went through a decrease in their accepted stratigraphic range. Yet considerably more families (150) underwent an increase in the amount of strata which they overlap. This trend is even more evident in fossil marine families. In just ten years (1982–1992), Sepkoski20 reports that 513 fossil families underwent a decline in their stratigraphic range. A decline in range may mean that the first and/or last occurrence had been misidentified. But whatever the cause, the number of fossil-range declines is dwarfed by the 1026 families that enjoyed an increase in either their first occurrence, or their last occurrence, or both.

Clearly, then, extension of stratigraphic ranges is the rule and not the exception. This is even more remarkable when we remember that there is the ever-present evolutionary bias which tends to cause overemphasis of minute differences in fossils located in different horizons of strata, and hence the proliferation of questionable taxonomic names for essentially the same organism found at different stratigraphic horizons."

I asked my partner, a geologist, about geological strata and fossil discoveries. She started spouting a lot of words that I didn't necessarily understand fully (eg. 'every stratum must end in uplift and displacement, otherwise you would not see it as a stratum...'), but I have absorbed enough over the years that I understood the general point.

Firstly, Rhyf, the article you linked to is every non-specific about what it means by the 'wrong place'. I took it to mean the wrong geological stratum, but then the article suggests that there are also geographical inconsistencies? Assuming that it is the former point that needs addressing, the key point here is that, yes, natural geological processes do sometimes cause apparently contradictory results. As with everything, the most important aspect is context.

The statistics presented seem prima facie worthy of closer inspection, but the key data here is withheld. While the explanation of decreasing range is provided: 'misidentification of the start/end point'; the corresponding explanation for increasing range is not provided. Usually, this would be due to an increasing sample size, resulting from the dramatic fossil finds over the last few decades. Logically, if you possess only a small sample of a dataset of unknown size, and the evidence you have increases dramatically, the chances of having data points (ie. fossils) from outside your original range is high. This would result in the revisions that we see.

More importantly, for me, however, in response to the claim that:

This is even more remarkable when we remember that there is the ever-present evolutionary
bias which tends to cause overemphasis of minute differences in fossils located in different horizons of strata, and hence the proliferation of questionable taxonomic names for essentially the same organism found at different stratigraphic horizons...
...is that, yes, due to a variety of factors, there is (or at least certainly was) an acknowledged bias towards overemphasis of differences and the naming of new species. The fundamental point, however, is that these minute differences are there, and are consistent, as you would expect in an evolutionary model.

As others have stated, evolution is a continuum: the point at which a 'new species' is identified is arbitrary, but small, coherent differences between different species, which seem to accumulate over time are clear in the surviving fossil record.

[HoreTore]

I think point many people are making is that we have indeed found 1.5

With regards to whales, we have found 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9 and 2.0 (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03).

A complete transformation from land to sea.


Still Rhy, you do not make any positive claims in this thread; why is that? All you do is attempt to point out flaws in another theory, you have not said anything in favour of the one you actually believe in...

After all, you can poke all the holes you want in evolution; divine creation in 6 days will still be just as unlikely.

[ICantSpellDawg]

With regards to whales, we have found 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9 and 2.0 (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03).

A complete transformation from land to sea.


Still Rhy, you do not make any positive claims in this thread; why is that? All you do is attempt to point out flaws in another theory, you have not said anything in favour of the one you actually believe in...

After all, you can poke all the holes you want in evolution; divine creation in 6 days will still be just as unlikely.

I am convinced as much as a layman can be convinced by evolutionary process as scientific law. I'm frankly surprised that Ryf has chosen this topic to make a stand in.

I'm on the fence about "climate change" as it is considerably less compelling than evolutionary theory while demanding specific massive political and economic action by everyone everywhere without a realistic expectation of positive outcome. Evolutionary theory doesn't ask anything of you.

"Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, But he who hates reproof is stupid."
Proverbs 12:1

[Pannonian]

I am convinced as much as a layman can be convinced by evolutionary process as scientific law. I'm frankly surprised that Ryf has chosen this topic to make a stand in.

I'm on the fence about "climate change" as it is considerably less compelling than evolutionary theory while demanding specific massive political and economic action by everyone everywhere without a realistic expectation of positive outcome. Evolutionary theory doesn't ask anything of you.

"Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, But he who hates reproof is stupid."
Proverbs 12:1

I think climate change isn't going to result in uniform change in any one direction as perceived locally (globally is another matter). However, my reading is that there will be changing climates which local areas aren't used to, as they've developed to deal with climates that are either hotter, colder, drier, or wetter than they'll start seeing. Eg. a rise of 2-3 degrees celsius might seem pleasant to British people used to colder temperatures, and may not seem such a big change. However, if that change means we become a hospitable habitat for mosquitoes, then it means a fairly massive change in life style.

Right now, for the present moment, I'd put the climate change argument to US conservatives in this form: if you can wean yourself from having to support countries like Saudi Arabia and gain greater independence in foreign policy, would you think this is a good thing? I put that argument forward even before the recent events in Ukraine, and I'd say that they've made this argument even more pressing than ever for Europeans. Americans have more choice as they have greater unexploited natural resources and less population. But for both peoples, and for all liberal democracies around the world, greater fuel efficiency means less dependence on countries like Saudi Arabia and Russia. It seems to me to be crippling oneself to place ourselves at their mercy simply because one does not agree with some scientists.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I think climate change isn't going to result in uniform change in any one direction as perceived locally (globally is another matter). However, my reading is that there will be changing climates which local areas aren't used to, as they've developed to deal with climates that are either hotter, colder, drier, or wetter than they'll start seeing. Eg. a rise of 2-3 degrees celsius might seem pleasant to British people used to colder temperatures, and may not seem such a big change. However, if that change means we become a hospitable habitat for mosquitoes, then it means a fairly massive change in life style.

Right now, for the present moment, I'd put the climate change argument to US conservatives in this form: if you can wean yourself from having to support countries like Saudi Arabia and gain greater independence in foreign policy, would you think this is a good thing? I put that argument forward even before the recent events in Ukraine, and I'd say that they've made this argument even more pressing than ever for Europeans. Americans have more choice as they have greater unexploited natural resources and less population. But for both peoples, and for all liberal democracies around the world, greater fuel efficiency means less dependence on countries like Saudi Arabia and Russia. It seems to me to be crippling oneself to place ourselves at their mercy simply because one does not agree with some scientists.

Sure, I tend to do the same thing. If environmentalist's will join me in pushing renewable resources, we can both do well. Personally, I don't particularly care about climate change, even if it is true and even if we cause it. I do care about independent living and breaking the backs of power companies and those who would control our lives, so we have common ground. And good stewardship yadayadayada

Either way, evolutionary theory is good and It forms our understanding of all of this cool genetic stuff we are figuring out. Thank you science and thank you God for the blueprints and creation.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

You haven't found the missing link between 1 and 2. Oh, you found 1.5? Well now you've only doubled your problems! Now tell me how 1 became 1.5 and 1.5 became 2. Silly evolutionists, the more evidence you give, the more gaps appear in your "theory".

Gaps in theory are vital to the production of new Ph.D.'s -- almost as basic to science as Popperism.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I think point many people are making is that we have indeed found 1.5

The Arkansas electorate?

[Pannonian]

Gaps in theory are vital to the production of new Ph.D.'s -- almost as basic to science as Popperism.

Someone collecting evidence for a geology phd and puzzling over an exception to a rule eventually came up with the answer to one of the great geological questions of our time. Admittedly though, his dad helped him with the homework.

[Greyblades]

The Arkansas electorate?

No that's 1.6. 1.5 is rick perry.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Someone collecting evidence for a geology phd and puzzling over an exception to a rule eventually came up with the answer to one of the great geological questions of our time. Admittedly though, his dad helped him with the homework.

PH.D.'s Pfffffft, drown the lot of them.

[Sigurd]

No TR follow up with biblical proof of Creationism? Its been a while since he announced this topic being the next in the series.

[Kadagar_AV]

No TR follow up with biblical proof of Creationism? Its been a while since he announced this topic being the next in the series.

Hug-sweater and padded walls....

[Papewaio]

Hug-sweater and padded walls....

Oh the irony.

You do realize that Evolution is the science and vaccination is one of its applications.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Will respond to various people later tonight, but meantime...


You do realize that Evolution is the science and vaccination is one of its applications.

The mechanisms behind vaccinations do not prove that some wolf-like creature became dolphins, or that some ape-like creature became humans.

[Sarmatian]

With regards to whales, we have found 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9 and 2.0 (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03).


Exactly. Now the real question is why God put them there.

[Papewaio]

Will respond to various people later tonight, but meantime...



The mechanisms behind vaccinations do not prove that some wolf-like creature became dolphins, or that some ape-like creature became humans.

Actually they do and even more so for antibody resistance and HIV therapy (why they have to cycle the different meds to combat the different evolved strains).

However the dig was at K_AV for his stance in the vaccine thread.

[Kadagar_AV]

Oh the irony.

You do realize that Evolution is the science and vaccination is one of its applications.

You do realize I have nothing against vaccinations?

[Papewaio]

You do realize I have nothing against vaccinations?

We are familiar with you proclivity for "injecting" others...