Evolution v Creationism

[Sigurd]

So the hierarchical trees need to be adjusted again like so many times before.
Does this prove that humans descended from monkeys? No it doesn't. This is the problem with this theory. Yes there have been found countless remains of hominid creatures that are very similar looking to humans. The fact that they are similar or appear logically connected does not prove that one is ancestor to the other. Similarity does not prove decent.
If so we could conclude that a '92 Volvo 240 descended from the '75 Volvo 144.

[Fixiwee]

But it doesn't prove it to be wrong either.

[Askthepizzaguy]

So the hierarchical trees need to be adjusted again like so many times before.
Does this prove that humans descended from monkeys? No it doesn't. This is the problem with this theory. Yes there have been found countless remains of hominid creatures that are very similar looking to humans. The fact that they are similar or appear logically connected does not prove that one is ancestor to the other. Similarity does not prove decent.
If so we could conclude that a '92 Volvo 240 descended from the '75 Volvo 144.

But one can conclude that a 92 Volvo and the 75 Volvo both come from the same original design; an vehicle powered by an internal combustion engine. Without the one, you could not have the other two. We can conclude that all domesticated dogs came from the same root animal, the wolf. We can conclude that all bunny rabbits came from the same common ancestor rabbit. We can conclude that many different mutations of a virus came from the same strand.

My question is; if one is to be called a scientist, or if one is to enter into a scientific discussion, one has to agree that it is possible that the theory is correct. And, if one were to be impartial, one would understand that there is overwhelming evidence that this theory is closer to being the truth than all other theories, especially ones with little or no scientific basis.

While the theory isn't 100% proven, it is a valid theory, and there is no reason to simply disbelieve it because it isn't 100% proven. Most scientific theories aren't 100% by such standards of proof. But to just dismiss it as unproven and therefore unreasonable is wrong. We will make no scientific progress if we simply brush aside mountains of evidence and reasonable conclusions as being wrong because it doesn't necessarily lead to those conclusions... what other conclusions could it lead to?

If new species don't evolve from older ones, then why have there been multiple mass extinctions, yet there's an extreme diversity of life on this planet? Why do species die out at a rate of hundreds or thousands per year, yet there are still millions of differing species on this planet? Why do we detect new species all the time, and how have we ourselves created new species using various natural methods?

Why do new species appear at times in the fossil record? Where did they come from? Why did they suddenly appear and disappear? If they were all "created" at once, where did the new ones come from and why did it take so long for them to get here?

Why did human beings only arrive in the fossil record recently? Why do they look very similar to many other forms of hominids? Why do they resemble various species on this planet genetically and physically in a pattern which matches the arrival of those species in the fossil record, according to present theories of evolution? How do we explain all of those coincidences if we are to assume that creatures do not evolve or that humans have not?

There is no other scientific explanation that I can see. We weren't beamed here by aliens, or at least there is zero evidence of that, and we are not significantly different in terms of biology from other animals, and we are part of nature and part of the fossil record as well.

If one is to seriously challenge this theory, one must bring more to the table than mere skepticism and/or religious texts. There needs to be contrary theories based in science, and right now, there aren't any. Until then, perhaps we should consider this our best working theory.

[Banquo's Ghost]

So the hierarchical trees need to be adjusted again like so many times before.
Does this prove that humans descended from monkeys? No it doesn't. This is the problem with this theory. Yes there have been found countless remains of hominid creatures that are very similar looking to humans. The fact that they are similar or appear logically connected does not prove that one is ancestor to the other. Similarity does not prove decent.
If so we could conclude that a '92 Volvo 240 descended from the '75 Volvo 144.

You have one massive problem with that position. DNA.

Since extant primates share substantial DNA, one can track the branching very easily. Thus creatures that have similar skeletal structures in the fossil record can be fitted quite neatly into a taxonomy.

This may not be proof in the mathematical sense, but it is a huge weight of evidence - evidence that no other theory comes close to explaining. Again, few dispute this clear taxonomic relationship when it applies to bivalves, but get terribly wound up when it comes to hominid ancestry.

BTW chaps, Lemur is not the daddy. Adapids are clearly not lemurs, which is why they are so exciting. (Not to say that prosimians are unexciting, but in a different way).

[Sigurd]

The DNA evidence is a stretch.
How do you tell one descended from the other? The can't even tell if Neanderthals is the forefather of humans because the DNA evidence is ambiguous. They can't tell if The Neanderthals, our supposedly closest ancestor is related to us or is a completely different species

As to my Volvo analogy, it should be clear that cars don't reproduce. That was the whole point.
BTW, I do not offer any alternative theory. I am just stating the problem with hominid descent theory trough putting bones from different strata into hierarchy trees and conclude that this one is a descendent from that one. Similarities do not equate decent.

[CBR]

The DNA evidence is a stretch.
How do you tell one descended from the other? The can't even tell if Neanderthals is the forefather of humans because the DNA evidence is ambiguous. They can't tell if The Neanderthals, our supposedly closest ancestor is related to us or is a completely different species

The debate about Neanderthals is whether it should be Homo neanderthalensis or Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. It is really just details as to when the split happened because either way we share a common ancestor.


CBR

[Tribesman]

the 47 million-year-old fossil

Well there you go , its obviously another hoax by the so called "scientists" .
Everyone knows the world was only created 6000 years ago on a tuesday afternoon and fossils like this are a result of the big flood 4400 years ago .

[Sigurd]

The debate about Neanderthals is whether it should be Homo neanderthalensis or Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. It is really just details as to when the split happened because either way we share a common ancestor.


CBR

There you go - and what is the current status in this debate? And we have DNA samples of this common ancestor which proves that both Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens are descendants of this common ancestor?

Well there you go , its obviously another hoax by the so called "scientists" .
Everyone knows the world was only created 6000 years ago on a tuesday afternoon and fossils like this are a result of the big flood 4400 years ago .

The Creationists can't deny the fact that there are fossils in the stratas of this earth. IF most of the creatures including dinosaurs and evil men died in the great deluge, it would follow natually that their bones would be found in the same strata. Is this so?
And the Bible does not really support any of what the young earth creationists have to say about the matter anyway.

I could postulate that God created the earth and withdrew Deist style and then let the clockwork earth run its due. Multimillion years later he revisits and finds mr. and ms homo sapien evolved from life in clay and blows spirits into their frames. I could do this and back it up with scriptures from the KJV Bible.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well I agree you don't have to believe the earth is just 6,000 years, I don't believe that anyway. But it is stretching it to say God created us through evolution. IMO God created quite a lot of people out of dust/whatever and Adam was the patriarch of them.

[CBR]

There you go - and what is the current status in this debate? And we have DNA samples of this common ancestor which proves that both Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens are descendants of this common ancestor?

I think some of the latest would be from March this year:

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/gene...enome_released

Analysis of the genome reveals that humans and Neandertals share genetic roots stretching back at least 830,000 years.

And since the article use the term Homo neanderthalensis I guess they are considered a separate species.


CBR

[Adrian II]

The DNA evidence is a stretch.

The Bible is a bigger stretch.

Radiocarbon technique allows dating back to 45.000 years ago, which should put a definite lid on the 6000 years old earth crap.

As for DNA: it proves kinship between species, not descendance. DNA specimens prove that the dodo was a close cousin of the pigeon, not that the dodo was the pigeon's predecessor or that the dodo and the pigeon have a common ancestor. DNA also proves that humans are related more closely to chimps than to mice, even though we share about 95% of our genome with both species - the difference being in the kinds of genes we share with either.

Hence phylogenetic trees do not flawlessly represent species evolution. However, other forms of tracing and sequencing (proteins, molecules, morphology, physiology) plus dating methods like radiocarbon have enabled scientists to come up with more a than tentative picture of historic speciation. New research (such as the recent massive sequencing of bird dna across a large range of bird species) constantly produces new insights on phylogenetics. Even so, every phylogenetic tree remains a hypothesis. That's how science works.

Do you have a better hypothesis? Bring it on.

For reference, I point the honourable gentleman from Norway (whose independent thinking I have always respected and welcomed) to a brilliant essay by Stephen Jay Gould. One quote deserves to be highlighted:

Evolution lies exposed in the imperfections that record a history of descent. Why should a rat run, a bat fly, a porpoise swim, and I type this essay with structures built of the same bones unless we all inherited them from a common ancestor? An engineer, starting from scratch, could design better limbs in each case. Why should all the large native mammals of Australia be marsupials, unless they descended from a common ancestor isolated on this island continent? Marsupials are not "better," or ideally suited for Australia; many have been wiped out by placental mammals imported by man from other continents. This principle of imperfection extends to all historical sciences. When we recognize the etymology of September, October, November, and December (seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth), we know that the year once started in March, or that two additional months must have been added to an original calendar of ten months.

The third argument is more direct: transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common—and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. The lower jaw of reptiles contains several bones, that of mammals only one. The non-mammalian jawbones are reduced, step by step, in mammalian ancestors until they become tiny nubbins located at the back of the jaw. The "hammer" and "anvil" bones of the mammalian ear are descendants of these nubbins. How could such a transition be accomplished? the creationists ask. Surely a bone is either entirely in the jaw or in the ear. Yet paleontologists have discovered two transitional lineages of therapsids (the so-called mammal-like reptiles) with a double jaw joint—one composed of the old quadrate and articular bones (soon to become the hammer and anvil), the other of the squamosal and dentary bones (as in modern mammals). For that matter, what better transitional form could we expect to find than the oldest human, Australopithecus afarensis, with its apelike palate, its human upright stance, and a cranial capacity larger than any ape’s of the same body size but a full 1,000 cubic centimeters below ours? If God made each of the half-dozen human species discovered in ancient rocks, why did he create in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features—increasing cranial capacity, reduced face and teeth, larger body size? Did he create to mimic evolution and test our faith thereby?