UK government bans teaching creationism in schools

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Moody

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Hence possible exception.

---

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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 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.

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...

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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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".

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

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.

Apologies for me being slow to reply.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

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:

"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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

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'. Another source (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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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".

---

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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'. Another source (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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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".

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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

---

The Arkansas electorate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

The Arkansas electorate?

---

No that's 1.6. 1.5 is rick perry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Hug-sweater and padded walls....