talkmagic.co.uk

Has it not occurred to anyone that creationist argument has evolved radically to try to counter real and growing evidence of evolution? I find it hilarious!

I definitely believe in evolution. So much mutually supportive evidence.

Creationism claims that everything (not just life) was created in 6 days. Evolution is only about life on earth and doesn't claim to know about the origins of the universe.

Doesn't mean there is a god, doesn't mean there isn't one. But I'm an atheist in the meantime.

saxmad is right about the wording of the question IMO.

Tomo wrote:Has it not occurred to anyone that creationist argument has evolved radically to try to counter real and growing evidence of evolution? I find it hilarious!

Yeah thats pretty funny... or scary ....

Alightly off topic but...

saxmad wrote:
My concern is that the Creos want to have their nonsense taught in schools instead of real science.
How do you fancy having someone else's religion stuffed down your kids' throats?

"Stuffing" other peoples religions "down kids' throats" is ,IMO, a rather good idea. Ok, so maybe creationalism doesn't have a place in a science classroom, but what's wrong with things like that being taught in RE. Why not encourage open mindedness and understanding about other peoples beliefs and religions?

mistress of magic wrote:Alightly off topic but...

saxmad wrote:
My concern is that the Creos want to have their nonsense taught in schools instead of real science.
How do you fancy having someone else's religion stuffed down your kids' throats?

"Stuffing" other peoples religions "down kids' throats" is ,IMO, a rather good idea. Ok, so maybe creationalism doesn't have a place in a science classroom, but what's wrong with things like that being taught in RE. Why not encourage open mindedness and understanding about other peoples beliefs and religions?

If they do teach religion, its should cover many of them not just one or two. but many people just want the one they believe taught in the school or none. Or people should be able to choose if they want to take a religious course or not, and if they want to take one, they should be able to choose out of a few. [hope that made sense]

mistress of magic wrote:Alightly off topic but...

saxmad wrote:
My concern is that the Creos want to have their nonsense taught in schools instead of real science.
How do you fancy having someone else's religion stuffed down your kids' throats?

"Stuffing" other peoples religions "down kids' throats" is ,IMO, a rather good idea. Ok, so maybe creationalism doesn't have a place in a science classroom, but what's wrong with things like that being taught in RE. Why not encourage open mindedness and understanding about other peoples beliefs and religions?

I agree, Mistress.
Teaching about religions in an appropriate RE class is a good idea.

As long as religion isn't taught as Science which is what the fanatics want.
That would undermine the basis of Science - no evidence, no theorising, no evaluation etc.

My sentiments exactly.
Despite going to a "non denominational" primary school and high school, we had regular services at local protestant churches. However, in both schools, we were taugh about other religions and beliefs including Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, Creationalism, Utilitarianism, Rationalism, Empiricism and Evolution. Mind you, given we had problems regarding sectarianism, maybe Catholicism should've been focused on a bit more. Anyhow, I feel that that's the sort of education I would want my (future) kids to have.
Back to the point, for matters like this, I doubt anyone will ever be able to agree on this. No one who's around today was there when everything came about. Even with stuff like evolution and the big bang, people will believe what they want (or mostly, what they're told...). That will never change. And for those of us who believe in God, well, we're never going to be able to prove it. While I'm not a Christian, I do believe in God, and it's mainly for my own selfish reasons; if there's a God, we're not entirely alone and also when I die there's a good chance that wont be "it". Essentially, everyone's entitled to their own beliefs (as long as they're not hurting anyone that is).

.... Have just realised the time, there goes my early night then...

i personally cant wait until we blow each other to tiny pieces...then we'll see whose laughing...nobody...

believe what you want, unfortunately, us all being atheists or any other belief will not end poverty, bombings, or any other bad things...a change in our human nature will...but that wont ever happen as far as im concerned...

there will always be people who want just a bit more than everyone else for no good reason...

so....let's drop the big one, and see what happens...thank you mr. newman...

saxmad wrote:My concern is that the Creos want to have their nonsense taught in schools instead of real science.
How do you fancy having someone else's religion stuffed down your kids' throats?

What aboutpeople that believe in creation. Why should they have the nonsense idea of evolution crammed down their kids throat. It workds both ways..

AsI said, in the grand scheme of things we know nothing.. You either put faith in the idea of creation or in the idea of evolution but you cant say that one or the other is fact as there is not enough supporting evidence other than what you choose to believe

I would say creation asI believe in God and I think science disproves itsself in many areas all the time. Though I believe the studyof science has done many things for us... to try and trace back the origin of life.. millions of years before we existed is pointless and there is just notenough evidene to support it.

On the other hand, someone believing in evolutionwould just turn around a say there is no proof of God so why believ in that.

It comes down to what we WANT tobeliev and what makes us happy. If we are happy to go throughlife believing in either I guess that is fine, so why argue about it..??!!

I am some one who was brought up as a christian, and went to a church school, but then became interested in Science, studied Chemistry, and ended up with a PhD and a member of the Royal Soc of Chem.
So I have looked at this from both sides of the fence so to speak, and I have concluded that Evolution is the only theory that stands up under serious examination. My philosophy is why jump to a supernatural explanation for any physical phenomonen, when there is a perfectly reasonable scientific and logical explanation?
If the scientific explanation doesn't fully satisfy, then it needs to be revised with more research, not replaced by a supernatural one.

I am some one who was brought up as a christian, and went to a church school, but then became interested in Science, studied Chemistry, and ended up with a PhD and a member of the Royal Soc of Chem.
So I have looked at this from both sides of the fence so to speak, and I have concluded that Evolution is the only theory that stands up under serious examination. My philosophy is why jump to a supernatural explanation for any physical phenomonen, when there is a perfectly reasonable scientific and logical explanation?
If the scientific explanation doesn't fully satisfy, then it needs to be revised with more research, not replaced by a supernatural one.

Couldn't have put it better myself. I agree completely! If science doesn't know the answer then it strives to understand and find out how it works.
Just because science doesn't know doesn't mean the fairies down the bottom of the garden are behind it. The drive for knowledge and understanding is the reason humans came down from the trees (they did you know), the reason we discovered the use of fire, tools, the invention of the wheel, maths etc. Religion has offered us explainations of our universe and our presence in the uinverse but these theories have always been on the back step.
As civilisations evolve, collapse and rebuilt the religions of the time have always died and then new myths take their place. The religion of the aztecs for example, evidence wise, is just as vaild as any of the major religions of today.
Religion is a rejection of rationality by definition (Anything that requires faith over evidence aka scientfic method(

I find it interesting that religion dismisses evolution. To me it's obvious that evolution is happening, kind of a natural selective breeding where only those cretures with the attributes best suited to the environment survive and breed.

I don't understand why religion doesn't look at it and say, but hey what's causing those little changes to occur. There must be some driving force behind it.

As I said in my rather negative post, I firmly believe that science is an evolutionary process itself, and whatever the 'universe' is, it does follow rules.

It's only as we discover new or better rules that we understand more about what makes it all tick.

Religion is based on justification for not understanding these rules, and seeking guidance.

I don't want to open a can of worms there, but that's simply what I believe.

Lady of Mystery wrote:I find it interesting that religion dismisses evolution. To me it's obvious that evolution is happening, kind of a natural selective breeding where only those cretures with the attributes best suited to the environment survive and breed.

I don't understand why religion doesn't look at it and say, but hey what's causing those little changes to occur. There must be some driving force behind it.

I think you will find that "religion" does look at the subject sensibly. It is extreme religion that doesn't. A level headed middle of the road Christian would say thet yes, there is scientific evidence that life has evolved, he / she would then go on to say that this is how God created us. That is faith.

The "teach them creation not evolutiuon" school of thought seems to have eminated from the "fundementalist" born again Christian sects in the USA, a country that seems to breed a particular type of extemism

Not always true Seige although it does seem all to common for moden religions to be stuck in the past and reject anything that challenges them, rather than adapt and grow and encompass those new ideas. It really doesn't have to be that way and I don't understand why it is, the druids for example were the scientists of their day. They looked for explainations and bent and adapted their religion around the new ideas.

I'm quite busy today, so I thought I'd pre-empt "where's the evidence of evolution in the fossil record" type arguments with some real references. I think what this gives more than anything is an insight into the sheer amount of painstakingly detailed work done by countless researchers to find out what, why and who we are and where it all really came from:

TI: Osteolepiformes and the ancestry of tetrapods.
AU: Ahlberg-Per-E {a}; Johanson-Zerina
SO: Nature-London. Oct. 22, 1998; 395 (6704) 792-794..
AB: Fossil discoveries and improved phylogenies have greatly improved
our understanding of the origin of tetrapods, making it possible to
reconstruct sequences of character change leading to tetrapod
morphologies, and to tentatively identify the genetic basis for some
of these changes. However, progress has centered on the upper part of
the Tetrapodomorpha which is occupied by Devonian tetrapods such as
Acanthostega and Ichthyostega. Few advances have been made in
improving our understanding of the lower, 'fish' part of the group,
beyond establishing Elpistostegalia, Osteolepiformes and Rhizodontida
as progressively more primitive constituents. It has not been
convincingly confirmed or disproved that the Osteolepiformes, a
diverse but structurally uniform group that is central to the debate
about tetrapod origins, is monophyletic relative to tetrapods (that
is, a single side branch on the tetrapod lineage). The earliest steps
of the fish-tetrapod transition have thus remained poorly resolved.
Here we present the first detailed analysis of the lower part of the
Tetrapodomorpha, based on 99 characters scored for 29 taxa. We show
that both the Osteolepiformes as a whole and their constituent group
Osteolepididae are paraphyletic to tetrapods (that is, each comprises
a section of the tetrapod lineage with several side branches), a that
their 'uniting characters' are attributes of the tetrapodomorph stem
lineage. The supposedly discredited idea of osteolepiforms as tetrapod
ancestors is, in effect, supported by our analysis. Tetrapod-like
character complexes evolved three times in parallel within the
Tetrapodomorpha.

Or

TI: Ankle morphology of the earliest cetaceans and its implications
for the phylogenetic relations among ungulates.
AU: Thewissen-J-G-M {a}; Madar-S-I
SO: Systematic-Biology. March, 1999; 48 (1): 21-30.
AB: Recent molecular studies are inconsistent with ungulate
phylogenetic trees that are based on morphological traits. These
inconsistencies especially relate to the position of cetaceans and
perissodactyls. Evaluation of the close phylogenetic ties between
artiodactyls and cetaceans has been hampered by the absence of tarsal
bones of primitive cetaceans, as artiodactyls are often diagnosed on
the basis of their tarsus. We here describe newly discovered tarsal
bones that are the oldest cetacean tarsals known. We present a
character analysis for primitive ungulate tarsals and evaluate their
impact on the ungulate phylogenetic tree. Tarsal data are consistent
with some molecular studies in suggesting that the extant sister group
of Cetacea is Artiodactyla or that Cetacea should be included within
the latter order. Tarsal data do not support Cete (Mesonychia plus
Cetacea) and are consistent with the exclusion of perissodactyls from
paenungulates as suggested by some molecular studies.


TI: Locomotor evolution in the earliest cetaceans: Functional model,
modern analogues, and paleontological evidence.
AU: Thewissen-J-G-M {a}; Fish-F-E
SO: Paleobiology-. Fall, 1997; 23 (4) 482-490.


TI: Anatomy and systematics of the Confuciusornithidae (Theropoda:
Aves) from the late mesozoic of northeastern China.
AU: Chiappe-Luis-M {a}; Shu'-an-Ji; Qiang-Ji; Norell-Mark-A
SO: Bulletin-of-the-American-Museum-of-Natural-History. Nov. 10, 1999;
0 (242): 3-89..


TI: On the origins of birds: The sequence of character acquisition in
the evolution of avian flight.
AU: Garner-Joseph-P; Taylor-Graham-K; Thomas-Adrian-L-R {a}
SO: Proceedings-of-the-Royal-Society-Biological-Sciences-Series-B.
June 22, 1999; 266 (1425): 1259-1266.


TI: Postcranial pneumatization in Archaeopteryx.
AU: Britt-Brooks-B {a}; Makovicky-Peter-J; Gauthier-Jacques;
Bonde-Niels
SO: Nature-London. Sept. 24, 1998; 395 (6700) 374-376..
AB: Pneumatization of the postcranial skeleton by the lungs is thought
to be a hallmark of the avian skeleton, and to be an adaptation for
flight by reducing weight. Pneumatic features have, however, remained
elusive in the primitive avialan Archaeopteryx lithographica. The
hollow long bones of Archaeopteryx were first interpreted to be
pneumatized, but this interpretation was later rejected because of an
absence of pneumatic foramina in these bones that connect their
interiors with the respiratory system. Pneumatic features have also
been recognized in the axial skeleton of many non-avialan theropod
dinosaurs (and some other archosaurs of the bird clade). The purported
lack of postcranial pneumatic features in Archaeopteryx has been
interpreted as a primitive condition of avialans; this raises doubts
about the homology between postcranial pneumatic features of birds and
non-avialan theropod. Here we re-examine two specimens of
Archaeopteryx. These specimens show evidence of vertebral pneumaticity
in the cervical and anterior thoracic vertebrae, thus confirming the
phylogenetic continuity between the pneumatic systems of non-avialan
theropods and living birds.


TI: Two feathered dinosaurs from northeastern China.
AU: Qiang-Ji; Currie-Philip-J {a}; Norell-Mark-A; Ji-Shu-An
SO: Nature-London. June 25, 1998; 393 (6687) 753-761..
AB: Current controversy over the origin and early evolution of birds
centers on whether or not they are derived from coelurosaurian
theropod dinosaurs. Here we describe two theropods from the Upper
Jurassic/Lower Cretaceous Chaomidianzi Formation of Liaoning province,
China. Although both theropods have feathers, it is likely that
neither was able to fly. Phylogenetic analysis indicates that they are
both more primitive than the earliest known avialan (bird),
Archaeopteryx. These new fossils represent stages in the evolution of
birds from feathered, ground-living, bipedal dinosaurs.


TI: Ghost lineages and "mammalness": Assessing the temporal pattern of
character acquisition in the Synapsida.
AU: Sidor-Christian-A; Hopson-James-A
SO: Paleobiology-. Spring, 1998; 24 (2) 254-273..
AB: The origin of mammals has been characterized as a gradual process,
a claim based primarily on a well-preserved series of extinct
nonmammalian synapsids ("mammal-like reptiles") that span some 200
million years. In contrast to the origin of many other higher taxa,
the origin of mammals from within cynodont-grade therapsids is not
considered to coincide with a major morphological change, but rather
to be simply the culmination of a series of more and more mammal-like
transitional forms. To test these assertions, an asymmetrical
cladogram extending from primitive "pelycosaurs" to morganucodontid
mammaliaforms was created. Three different methodologies were then
used to compare the amount of morphological change between nodes on
this cladogram with the minimum missing time interval between each
node, as inferred from sister taxon-based ghost lineages. In general,
a statistically significant positive relationship was found,
indicating that greater numbers of derived features tend to be
correlated with longer ghost lineages. A significant correlation
between the number of accumulated apomorphies and branching events
was also found. Although the rate of character change was variable, in
no case was a long ghost lineage associated with few apomorphies.
These correlations are consistent with the hypothesis that rapid
accumulation of derived features occurred relatively infrequently
within the synapsid lineage leading toward mammals and that gradual
character evolution predominated.


TI: Evolutionary and functional morphology of the knee in fossil and
extant horses (Equidae).
AU: Hermanson-John-W {a}; Macfadden-Bruce-J
SO: Journal-of-Vertebrate-Paleontology. 1996; 16 (2) 349-357..
PY: 1996
AB: The hindlimb of modem Equus caballus is distinguished by the
presence of a passive stay-apparatus, i.e., a system of bones,
muscles, and ligaments that facilitate long periods of standing with
reduced muscular activity. Gravitational forces normally collapse
(flex) the knee (stifle) joint. Thus, either muscular activity in the
knee extensors must counter this action, or there must be a passive
"locking" of the knee in extension. The latter situation has evolved
through a complex arrangement of patellar ligaments, medial
enlargement of the patella, and significant enlargement of the medial
trochlear ridge (MTR) of the femur. Together, these elements
facilitate a passive "lock" of the knee joint in an extended Position
without continued high levels of muscular activity. Primitive horses,
such as Mesohippus from about 25 to 35 Ma, have a distal femoral
morphology similar to that seen in outgroups, including tapirs,
primitive rhinoceroses, and most artiodactyls. Specimens of
Protohippus from about 12 Ma represent the first equid clade in which
there is an enlarged MTR. This derived condition of the MTR is
observed thereafter in the family Equidae, despite evolutionary
experiments that included dwarfing or the tendency towards
monodactyly. The enlarged MTR may be used as an indicator of the
existence of a passive knee locking mechanism in the evolution of
horses. Thus, morphologic characters correlated with the knee locking
mechanism were present early (about 11-12 Ma) relative to an analogous
locking mechanism proposed in the shoulder region of the Equidae
(about 3-5 Ma). We propose that biomechanical differences in the
weight-bearing of forelimbs versus hindlimbs may account for the
earlier appearance of a "locking mechanism" of the equid hindlimb.


TI: Morphological transformation and cladogenesis at the base of the
adaptive radiation of Miocene hypsodont horses.
AU: HULBERT-R-C-JR; MACFADDEN-B-J
SO: AMERICAN MUSEUM NOVITATES 0(3000): 2-61.
PY: 1991


The above represents a tiny fraction of what's been found out - not theorised or supposed but actually found out and backed by evidence.

Not only that, but we can also see evolution in action in the form of the response to changes we make consciously in other species such as viruses and bacteria and in the morphology and behaviour of animals as we change and shape the environment.

The underlying concept to all of this is change. Evolution is just random internal change that helps lucky individuals in the next generation cope a little better with random external changes. It runs blindly, and that frightens people. Don't be frightened. Accept your place in the universe, use it as a fulcrum and work to make changes that benefit us all for the time we have left.