PZ Myers. 2005 Apr 01. Has there ever been an imaginative creationist?. <http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/has_there_ever_been_an_imaginative_creationist/>. Accessed 2008 Dec 01.
Posted on M00o93H7pQ09L8X1t49cHY01Z5j4TT91fGfr on Friday, April 01, 2005
Has there ever been an imaginative creationist?
A creationist asks an off-topic question in the comments, so I'm going to move it up here. Behold.
But, since you and your boys (and gals) represent, I'm assuming, some of the brightest minds in the field of Evolution, I would like to discuss it a bit, if you would do me the honor.
First off - I'm not especially knowledgable in Evolution, Creationism, or ID. So do me a favor and try to respond in such a manner that I do not need a PhD or dictionary to understand. But I do have a Masters from a top-teir university, so you aren't talking to a moron. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
My arguements are simple and obvious, but the best ones always are. I would like to know:
1. Why can't we find the Missing Link? Not one complete skeleton. We have thousands of specimens of trillion-year old Trilobytes, but not one complete skeleton of the missing link. Seems like we should be able to find hundreds of them, yet we cannot find a single one.
2. How can Life spontaneously generate from nothing? I am willing to believe, with caveats, that evolution or natural selection is possible. But Life appearing from nothing? I'm not buying it. Remember Entropy, anyone?
Evolution requires just as much Faith in Science as Creationism does in God.
Any reasonable responses from this bright crowd? We can degenerate into a flame war, if that becomes necessary to keep this endevor interesting. Thanks.
Jebus, but that's boring. Same ol', same ol'…first we get the defensive protestation that he is too a smart guy with a degree, then we get the string of creationist cliches, every one answered a thousand times, every one totally bogus, and every one revealing just how little our questioner knows.
Here's my answer to him.
See the Index to Creationist Claims, especially CC200, transitional fossils, CB00, spontaneous generation, CF001, second law of thermodynamics, and CA612, "Evolution requires as much faith as creationism". After you've read those, if you have specific questions, then we can talk.
If those are your best questions, you're in trouble; they are standard creationist errors, stuff that's so old and moldy that you bore me just asking them. They're so tiresome that we just address them by number.
If he ever comes back, he can try to redeem himself by asking intelligent questions in the comments to this article, and I'll let the "bright crowd" chew him over.
Anyone want to take bets that if he does come back, he just regurgitates creationist spew again?
-
PZ - Thanks for the Frontpage!
I'll research and get back to you. I'll ignore your condescending, elitist attitude, 'cause if it wasn't you then you wouldn't be PZ!
The following is a response to "Troy", whose entire post is in the thread below.
Troy
>>early humans lived on the savannah and became buzzard bait when they died
Ok. That's a bit simplistic, don't you think? You're saying that not a single 'Missing Link' died in any concievable fashion such that their remains would be preserved? (ie None drowned in a river and were deposited in a flood plain?).
Again, I don't buy it.
>>If there WEREN'T the rock-solid appearance of naturalistic origin of mankind
You're going to have to earn that assumption. I am arguing that there IS NOT rock-solid appearance of naturalistic origin. Again, no Missing Link. Again, the assumption that something (Life) must generate from nothing; a logical fallacy. That's not quite Rock-Solid.
>>Life is localized reversals of entropy.
Thats interesting and true. We know how life propogates, but not how it began... Life from nothing? There is no evidence of that.
I can tacitly agree with just about everything else you posted. Thanks.#: Posted by on 04/01 at 10:28 PM -
Define "missing link".
Just to warn you...every time you use that stupid phrase, your credibility goes down another notch.
You're also going to have to define it in such a way to exclude the thousands of hominid fossils that have been found. You are aware that there are many hominid fossils that have been preserved, correct? - This guy should start in the children's section of the library.
-
Life from nothing? There is no evidence of that.
Sure there is. According to the red-shift of the universe, the evidence suggests that there was, at least from what we can observe, once nothing. Now there's something, plus life. Hence, life from nothing. If you're referring to the mechanism which gave rise to the first replicating organisms from primordial material, evolution has nothing to say about that, and nor do we because the science hasn't yet advanced that far. Your argument is erroneous anyway, since the theistic explanation for the existence of life is exactly the same as "Life From Nothing", only with an assumed, non-falsifiable, non-evidenced third party waving a magic wand.
Like PZ said, read the articles. THEN come back. -
>That's a bit simplistic, don't you think?
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
>None drowned in a river and were deposited in a flood plain?
drowning in a river isn't conducive to being deposited anywhere in one piece after the fishies and scavengers are through with you.
At any rate, you asked why we have lots of trilobites in the fossil record and not a comparable number of humanoid apes.
Lacking a time machine, we are left with postulating theories as to why this is the case. One reason, of course, is that trilobites were around for hundreds of millions of years all over the world and "transitional" humanoids existed in a comparitively brief timespan, and, so several accepted evolutionary hypotheses go, in a limited and/or isolated geographic range.
>I am arguing that there IS NOT rock-solid appearance of naturalistic origin.
There's many levels of this debate, so we need to define our terms.
By naturalistic origin I mean from dust to mankind.
One is the theory of "macroevolution", or speciation of animals over time. ALL the data we have leads us to infer that humans share common ancestors with the apes, and the apes share common ancestors with mammals, etc etc down to some far horizon of slime or what have you. If you wish to debate that we can, though I don't see much point in it since the evidence of macroevolution happening for this is overwhelming in many cases, so you would be left arguing why macroevolution could occur in eg. mammals -> whales and NOT occur for apes -> humans.
On the theological side, it appears to me by denying this simplest interpretation of the evidence of natural origins of mankind you are LIMITING the extent of your God's creative abilities.
Why couldn't your creator have created our human ancestors from apes? From all appearances we ARE apes, sharing so much of our DNA/physiology with them. Why would your creator go to the trouble of making us look so much like apes?
From my above, I argue that if we DIDN'T look so much like apes a Creator would have a lot of explaining to do. People would be DRIVEN by the need to find a Creator, any Creator, since there could be no possible explanation for our appearance ex nihilo.
That science can build possible explanations for the non-supernatural origin of mankind, and life, removes this mortal threat of FAITH from belief.
Again, if it were so clear that we were made by a Creator, faith in the same would thereby be cheapened. cf. the apostle Thomas. Some man of faith he was.
>Life from nothing? There is no evidence of that.
Your misstating the case. If you wish to understand science you must be more precise with your thoughts and statements.
Current science postulates that life arose, not from nothing, but from an existing biochemical organic conditions, and the assumption is that these organic conditions obtained naturally.
Science has been testing this assumption by searching for (and finding)evidence of organic chemicals in such things as meteorites and other worlds in this solar system.
In addition, in science we can attempt to rerun abiogenesis in the laboratory. This would provide more evidentiary support for the hypotheses surrounding abiogenesis.
But at some point, lacking a time machine, even science will have to leave of the theorizing at leave our understanding up to Occam's Razor.
For all we can know life on earth was seeded by space aliens. Or some Creator, even if we are able to reverse-engineer abiogenesis in a laboratory.#: Posted by on 04/01 at 10:56 PM -
PZ - You'll have to help me along if we are to debate in good faith. You know what I mean by "Missing Link", although my definition may be technically incorrect. But allow me to humor you -
From my understanding, the progenitor of homo sapien's DNA has been examined and it could not have mated with homo sapien. Hence the need for the "Missing Link".
Yes, there are preserved hominid fossils, but I have yet to see them arranged in a row such that the "evolution" from one to another is almost imperceivable yet the first is clearly seen morphing into the last.
We could expand the definition of "Missing Link" to include other non-existent specimens that, if they existed, would prove macroevolution, but for the purpose of tonight why don't we stick with the homo sapien variety.#: Posted by on 04/01 at 10:57 PM -
It looks like we may be about to play the game "Multiplying Missing Links" wherein the creationist says there is no transitional form between fossil A and Fossil D. The scientiest points out fossils B and C. The Creationist then responds 'Yea, but you don't have a transitional fossil between A and B or between B and C or between C and D. Every time the scientist sticks another transitional form into the sequence the creationist just claims there are more 'missing' transitional forms.
#: Posted by on 04/01 at 11:12 PM
-
If you insist on having things lined up just-so for you then you're going to be in for a very long wait, until the time machine is invented.
Science has been working on other angles of the evidence linking humans to the apes. I find the evidence of common ancestry that exists within present-day genomes simply compelling, obliterating this so-called unscientific "faith" you are accusing those who believe in the naturalistic origin of mankind.
Arguments against 'macro-evolution' strike me as very similar to arguments against continental drift, in that they focus on appeals to disbelief/incredulity and do address the actual evidence science has obtained.#: Posted by on 04/01 at 11:16 PM -
In response to Ben, who said
>>If you're referring to the mechanism which gave rise to the first replicating organisms from primordial material, evolution has nothing to say about that, and nor do we because the science hasn't yet advanced that far.
Yes, I am, and I will point out to you that your argument requires as much FAITH in science (in that it will eventually explain said mechanism) as the Creationist does in God.
In response to "Troy"
>>drowning in a river isn't conducive to being deposited anywhere in one piece after the fishies and scavengers are through with you.
Ok, but you're missing the argument. I'm saying that AT LEAST ONE "Missing Link" must have died in a fashion in which to be preserved. We have many fossils much older and more delicate than the “Missing Link” should be. Surely there must be at least ONE well-preserved “Missing Link”.
>>I don't see much point in it since the evidence of macroevolution happening for this is overwhelming in many cases
Again, you'll have to earn that assumption. As I noted to PZ, I don't believe there are identified "missing links" that prove extra-species evolution.
>>For all we can know life on earth was seeded by space aliens. Or some Creator, even if we are able to reverse-engineer abiogenesis in a laboratory.
Well, you're honest. Thanks. I can tacitly agree with most everything else you had to say.
I'll do my best to respond to everyone, but in the interest of time I'll try to catch only the salient points. If I miss something important, then point it out. I intend to read the articles PZ has suggested. This may be my last post of the night, but I'll be back tomorrow.#: Posted by on 04/01 at 11:16 PM -
Troy said
>> I find the evidence of common ancestry that exists within present-day genomes simply compelling
Sure. My argument, however, is against macro-evolution. As I noted earlier, I might agree with micro-evolution, with caveats.
>>Arguments against 'macro-evolution' strike me as very similar to arguments against continental drift
Continental Drift, is, to my knowledge, verifiable because we can measure finite differences in distance measured over time. Macro-Evolution is like saying that Japan was attached to California and then instantaneously moved to the other side of the world. No, macro-evolution is an argument even worse than that, but for the sake of Occam’s Razor it will do for now.#: Posted by on 04/01 at 11:26 PM -
Yes, I am, and I will point out to you that your argument requires as much FAITH in science (in that it will eventually explain said mechanism) as the Creationist does in God.
Indeed? I find your position fascinating, I must say. Would you be so kind as to explain to me how I require as much FAITH (defined as belief without evidence) in a body of investigation which predicates its advancement upon nothing BUT evidence as you do in a magic sky pixie who doesn't like us masturbating? I mean, pretend I'm a five-year old here. Thrall me with your acumen. -
Why /do/ creationists have so little faith in their creator, anyway? Why do they close their mind to the evidence of the power of natural processes aka materialism? Oops, I think I just answered my own question.
I don't really mind the IDers like Behe, they're more just being a PITA like Gould really, even though the 'irreducibly complex' argument has been shown to be crap time and again. Behe is just manning their last line of defense I guess, or serving as the thin edge of the wedge. If people want to believe in a god of the gaps, it's their loss not mine.
It is true that those who believe in the natural origin of the species have taken an inductive leap wrt the formative powers of mutation and selection. If this worldview is limited to those willing to see thru the creationist BS then I think this will be a good thing over time. As it stands now the lying and misrepresentation Christian creationists commit on a daily basis greatly poisons radical Christianity on the whole; I can't believe /anything/ a radical Christian says about anything now (eg. about the Schiavo case), they're all a bunch of proven liars AFAIAC.#: Posted by on 04/01 at 11:27 PM -
The initial comment from the poster says everything I need to know - half a dozen spelling errors, incorrect and absent punctuation, superfluous capitalization, fragmentary sentences - everything simply screams "yes, I AM talking to a moron!" If this is what comes from top "teir" universities, it's no wonder creationism is gaining a foothold.
#: Posted by Milo Johnson on 04/01 at 11:29 PM
-
Now now, Milo. Ignorance isn't the crime, it's the refusal to discard ignorance in light of evidence. Let's give him a chance. Be open-minded, my friend, and perhaps he'll be more willing to reciprocate.
*downs another Valium* -
Ok, but you're missing the argument. I'm saying that AT LEAST ONE "Missing Link" must have died in a fashion in which to be preserved. We have many fossils much older and more delicate than the “Missing Link” should be. Surely there must be at least ONE well-preserved “Missing Link”.
Preservation is one thing, exposure is another. There might be a whole family of these "missing links" a hundred meters under your feet. How would you find out?
We have a hard enough time exposing much larger underground entities like fault traces, even when seismic data tells us they're there. An enormous amount of money goes into finding really _big_ things like oil fields, that turn out to be damned hard to find.
For a shoestring-budget paleontologist to find a hominid fossil of any sort requires that she has to go where erosion is exposing fossiliferous strata (usually in some thinly-inhabited desert or semi-desert, where lack of plants assists erosion), and then manage to find a significant fossil that is exposed at the surface, and dig it out before the next violent rain washes it away. And she probably has to do this in a 6- or 8- week window ('cause that's all the field expenses her grant will cover) or wait another year.
We're damned lucky to have the fossils that we do.#: Posted by on 04/01 at 11:35 PM -
This is a guess from a nonbiologist, but just how many trilobites were there to fossilize?
Let's play some quick order of magnitude games. According to Biology (4th ed.), by Campbell, the estimated worldwide population of arthropods is 10^18 (1 billion billion). Since about one million (10^6) species of arthropods have been identified, that gives us on order 10^12 (literally a million million!) per species.
By contrast, estimates of the world population of humans in Roman times are in the low 10^8 range; in 10,000BC estimates are about 10^6. Let's take that as our "transitional hominid" population (even though it's probably considerably too high). If these hominids were every bit as likely to do something leading to fossilization as trilobites (which is absurd), you'd expect to find one million trilobite fossils for every hominid fossil.
Of course, even simians (which are not nearly as bright as hominids) think circles around modern arthropods, so you should probably throw another few orders of magnitude in to account for the lower relative likelihood of fossilization.
As for your "life from nothing" quip--please define what you mean by "nothing"? Do you mean a pre-life Earth, or the dawn of time? If the former, you can't make entropy arguments; entropy arguements only apply in a closed system, and we've got an external power source. If the latter, you _still_ can't make entropy arguments, since the earliest states of the universe that we can directly argue about (according to current models) were certainly not nothing. (Actually, your entropy argument is backwards--nothing has one state, and so -k logZ=0. Absolutely anything has more entropy than nothing!)#: Posted by on 04/01 at 11:42 PM -
Oh, and as for why we have so many invertebrate, plant, and other fossils, some of them quite delicate: there were a whole lot more of them. Your chances of being fossilized are a whole lot better if you're close to the bottom of the food chain, so you're abundant, and (even better) if you live under the sea away from areas that get churned up by storms or in some swampy backwater, where sediment can collect on top of you in a gradual, nonviolent fashion. Your family is a whole lot more likely to have at least one individual get fossilized if your species continues over many millions of years, as opposed to us flash-in-the-pan hominids.
#: Posted by on 04/01 at 11:44 PM
-
>Surely there must be at least ONE well-preserved “Missing Link”.
You asked why we have so many well-preserved trilobites and not one intact ape. A quick comparison of their skeletons provides some of the answer.
Trilobites, being compact and tough little bastards preserve (relatively) well. Hominids with their gangly limbs and hostile dry environs, not so well. Every fossil we do find is something of a "miracle".
And your focus on one "missing link" is of course specious, as MalumRegnat explained above.
Like an acorn grows into an oak, there are thousands of 'missing links' required to smoothly move from hominid to modern-day human.
To expect science to lay these out for you is asking for a superabundance of evidence. Science doesn't work that way, nor need it to. All that is necessary is construct a theory that withstands all the current evidence at hand BEST. It also helps if this theory has predictive powers.
Continental Drift, is, to my knowledge, verifiable because we can measure finite differences in distance measured over time.
Common ancestry, is, to my knowledge, verifiable because we can measure finite differences in present-day genomes that correlate to predicted ages of species divergence.
Macro-Evolution is like saying that Japan was attached to California and then instantaneously moved to the other side of the world.
No, it's precisely like saying a lot of small "micro" changes add up to "macro" changes over thousands and thousands of generations and millions of years; much like India can move from antarctica to asia not in one day but over eons, species drift along, changing over time.
Scientists don't need any "faith" to believe that present-day whales had mammalian ancestors that walked on land. We've got sufficient evidence in the fossil record, backed by genetic comparisons, to make that inductive leap safely. Is that not macro evolution?
If macro evolution can exist for whales I see no reason why similar naturalistic forces would not operate on mankind's forebears.#: Posted by on 04/01 at 11:45 PM -
Ben asked
>>explain to me how I require as much FAITH (defined as belief without evidence) in a body of investigation which predicates its advancement upon nothing BUT evidence as you do in a magic sky pixie who doesn't like us masturbating?
Because we both have FAITH, which is to say, we both believe - without observable evidence, that our separate interpretations are correct. You say Science may someday prove the spontaneous generation of life. I say Science may someday prove that there is a God.
Troy - I've enjoyed talking with you, but it appears you've hit an impasse in your arguments. Instead of a flame war, why don't we agree to disagree this time? Remember, I have already agreed with much of what you had to say.
Milo - Your initial comment says everything I need to know about you. Elitist, Condescending, and Remarkably Unfriendly. You serve PZ well, but your cause you do not.
Karen said
>>We're damned lucky to have the fossils that we do.
I agree. You are no doubt under-funded and at the mercy of the elements. But despite the inherent hardships, you folks do amazing work; and although many might find it unglamorous, I tend to think it would likely be pretty exciting and rewarding.
That being said... Shouldn't we be able to find at least ONE "Missing Link"? Just ONE? Shouldn't the Scientific Community ‘go for broke’ in this effort, given the HUGE IMPLICATIONS of the find? Seems to me like they should.#: Posted by on 04/01 at 11:54 PM -
So many new posts, so little time! I'm going to call it a night, I'll be back tomorrow. Thanks everyone for the thoughtful commentary.
#: Posted by on 04/01 at 11:58 PM
-
Because we both have FAITH, which is to say, we both believe - without observable evidence, that our separate interpretations are correct.
I don't believe in anything without observable evidence. And if I ever decided to break my cardinal rule, I'd make up all sorts of zany stuff and not the mouldy old, boring, well-trod zany stuff which any world religion past or present has come up with. Nine-headed cats. Which breathe fire. No, bees! No, they shoot bees at you when they meow!
You say Science may someday prove the spontaneous generation of life.
No I didn't. I said that science presently has nothing to say about the spontaneous generation of life, so hypothesising is a fruitless exercise without the evidentiary framework upon which to base it. Will it ever? I dunno. Maybe, maybe not.
I say Science may someday prove that there is a God.
Oh, ye of little faith. I thought religion was all about belief without proof, now you're going off half-cocked about "proving God's existence" and thereby undermining the very theism to which you cling. Have you ever read Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy? You might find Douglas Adams' arguments regarding proof and God quite stimulating. -
why don't we agree to disagree this time?
LOL. cue
Shouldn't the Scientific Community ‘go for broke’ in this effort, given the
HUGE IMPLICATIONS of the find?
We have more than enough evidence to prove common ancestry. That you are unwilling to accept these basic facts of life is your problem, not ours.
Seems to me like they should.
After the DNA evidence linking chimps and humans came in, that's all she wrote as far as special creation was concerned.
The Creator of Judaic mythology would be pretty perverse making man out of a monkey like that, then telling us we're created in his image. Hmm, mebbe HE'S a monkey, too?#: Posted by on 04/02 at 12:04 AM -
Actually, my order of magnitude calculations above only relate to fossilization rate. Trilobites existed for 300 million years; hominids emerged at most 6 million years ago. That's two more orders of magnitude. I also treated "trilobites" as a species (like I said, I'm a nonbiologist); trilobites were apparently (according to an interesting Web site) around 15,000 species of trilobites. As you can see, it really, really isn't surprising that we've got more trilobites than hominids in the fossil record.
You really should answer Troy's comment--given a low fossilization rate, how is your demand for an ever increasing number of missing links even plausible? That isn't something you can "agree to disagree" on, it's a fundamental hole in your argument.#: Posted by on 04/02 at 12:10 AM -
That being said... Shouldn't we be able to find at least ONE "Missing Link"? Just ONE? Shouldn't the Scientific Community ‘go for broke’ in this effort, given the HUGE IMPLICATIONS of the find? Seems to me like they should.
Does anyone else notice he is a bit disingenuous? Here he asks for 'Just ONE' "Missing Link" when else where he asked for an entire series set up like a kids flip book so he could rifle the corners and magicaly see 'ape' become 'man' with no breaks or jumps.#: Posted by on 04/02 at 12:17 AM -
That isn't something you can "agree to disagree" on, it's a fundamental hole in your argument.
I think he's trying to argue that scientists require "faith" to believe humans came from hominids, since we don't have all the bones lined up just-so from 15 MYA to the stone age.
This is, of course, ignoring the genetic evidence of common ancestry. Analogies are weak, but our DNA is a stamped passport that says we shared a long trip in the same common species with chimps, and the great many other so-called "macro-evolutions" we have rock-solid evidence for provide us with sufficient evidentiary bases to infer the transition from hominid to human just wasn't that big a deal.
Even lacking DNA evidence, from comparative anatomy it's clear we are a monkey's uncle. Man is a monkey, a hominid, a mammal, and an animal, and only religious nutcases and those they have fooled have any problem with these propositions.
These facts are of course very deleterous to the fragile human psyche. We've been given the lordship of the earth in the Old Testamenent and eternal life in the New.
Tough for scientific materialism to compete with that, really. How much cooler to believe a Creator breathed life into you, metaphorically speaking, rather than, at best, just wounding up the watch and watching it go.#: Posted by on 04/02 at 12:28 AM -
Here's a simple, but interesting site: about human evolution - found it while doing a short bio on Mr. Darwin. Lots of pretty colours.
Any why the flip are some people so hostile to the idea of human evolution? So annoying sometimes.#: Posted by on 04/02 at 12:58 AM -
why the flip are some people so hostile to the idea of human evolution?
either they've been indoctrinated into creationism by their parents growing up, are playing biblical power games for thought control (cf. the religious right), or are engaged in a conscious socio-political campaign to dumb down the proletariat.
As for the latter, this is very, very political:
"Religion will no longer have to fight scientific atheism with unsupported faith. The presumption has shifted, and naturalist atheism and secular humanism are on the defensive." -- Robert Bork
This is what they're fighting for, the projection of political power of organized religion into secular affairs like state education and governmental limitations of individual liberty (sex, drugs, rock & roll, abortion, etc etc).
I had a myriad of reasons to vote against Bush last year, but this was #1. This Shiavo mess was an interesting evolution, for once it looks like the religious right have over-extended themselves. It's not at all clear how this is going to pan out over the next 4 years, seems there's a kind of standoff between light & darkness right now.#: Posted by on 04/02 at 01:26 AM -
PC, as PZ demanded earlier, please properly define what you mean by "Missing Link." The problem here is that "Missing Link" isn't a technical term, so its definition is usually left to float. This leads to one of two entertainingly illogical arguments:
(1) Endless bisection. MalumRegnant described this above. We're discussing proconsul as a hominid precursor. You demand a missing link. We point to Australopithecines. Now you demand two "missing links"--one between proconsul and australopithecines, and one between australopithecines and humans. Eventually we run out of fossils (as we must--there are finitely many!) and you declare victory, even though you've simply proven that there are infinitely many dyadic numbers.
(2) Demand for a coin on edge. You have some criterion for humanness (say, ability to interbreed with modern humans). Every fossil we point to either meets the criterion, and so is just an "early human" and so not a "missing link", or fails the criterion, upon which you demand the missing link between that fossil and humans.
So, before endlessly repeating a demand for a missing link, define the term "Missing Link" formally. You didn't in your response to PZ above--you simply reiterated that finding one was necessary.
Defining terms isn't needlessly pedantic, it's absolutely necessary if you want to carry on a scientific discussion. You're using a nonstandard term. Define it. Don't worry about not getting the term "technically correct"--there isn't a technical definition of "missing link"!#: Posted by on 04/02 at 02:06 AM -
PC -
have you looked at the links PZ posted?
If you actually care, y'know, don't just rely on us. Go to the library and get out some good non-technical books on the subject.
And please, for the love of Mike, give us a definitive answer re: how many 'missing links' you want to see!
"From my understanding, the progenitor of homo sapien's DNA has been examined and it could not have mated with homo sapien. Hence the need for the "Missing Link"."
Not exactly, but you have the general idea; ie
http://www.psu.edu/ur/NEWS/news/Neandertal.html
This finding would seem to show that Neandertals weren't our ancestors (although of course it's more complicated), coming down firmly on one side of a debate that had been going on about whether Neandertals were our ancestors, our 'brothers,' or what. But we have other fossils, y'know . . . It hasn't been just us and that poor old guy from the Neander Valley for quite some time now . ..
In regard to Milo Johnson's post - I wrote and then didn't post a comment saying something similar, albeit more polite. I think this goes for anyone - if you're going to write about your post-secondary educational achievements, you want to be careful about conventions like spelling or grammar. Mistakes may only indicate hurried typing, lack of interest in conventions, etc., but it's like showing up for an interview unshaven and in ripped jeans . . -
Any why the flip are some people so hostile to the idea of human evolution?
Troy outlined the political aspects very well, but it's my opinion that there are more fundamental psychological aspects. One is denial of the role of death in the development of life. Religion is all about death-denial, as evidenced by the notions of souls, heaven, resurrection, etc. Evolution via Natural Selection is an elegant, yet vicious and bloody, process. This, they suspect, is a chink in the mental armour which they must fight tooth and nail to deride at all costs.
Second is plain old anthropocentric conceit. -
Why the flip are some people so hostile to the idea of human evolution?
ABCNews.com: CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa Apr 1, 2005 — Two men traveling on Interstate 380 ended up in jail because the hood of their car popped open. The men were heading south of I-380 on Tuesday when the hood opened and covered the windshield, the Linn County sheriff's office said.
Instead of pulling over to fix the problem, the men stuck their heads out the windows so they could see the road and kept going at about 55 mph, officials said.
Two Linn County deputies on patrol took note, and pulled them over. They arrested the driver, Travis Williams, 25, of Cedar Rapids, on suspicion of driving under suspension, and no proof of insurance. The passenger, Brandon Calmese, 27, of Cedar Rapids, was arrested on a parole violation warrant from Illinois.
Both men were taken to jail.
( http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=634171 )
Some people are so hostile to the idea of human evolution because they feel like they’re on the road, they feel like they’re getting somewhere, and they don’t want to keep driving.
They’re stoooooooooopid. -
Summary of "questions" so far:
Q) Man couldn't possibly have spontaneously evolved from dirt without a supernatural creator.
A) Who said man evolved from dirt? Nobody. That's a straw man argument. Weak. Evolution is not "Adam was created from nothing, but God wasn't there that day to do it."
Q) There's a missing link, by which I mean there isn't a museum where I can go and see every single intact skeleton from the first vertebrates down to my grandpa. So, I don't buy it.
A) Since the world is really, really old and geological processes actually happen, bones don't last in that sort of condition forever. Just because you can't find your great great great great grandpa's skeleton,that doesn't mean you were created from dirt just a few generations ago, or that you descended from a geranium twelve generations ago. Even a kindergartener knows how to play connect the dots.
Q) Science fans have faith in science. That's just like creationists!
A) We trust the process, because it's the best thing we have. The process is basically this: if it doesn't work in the real world, it's wrong and the real world is right. We trust the results, because the process forces them to be the best ones we have. If real world data disagrees with our model of the universe, the real world data wins.
Most old books that tried to explain how the world works are wrong. In some cases they are laughably wrong. Some folks can't get that through their heads. That's the difference between faith and science. New data = exciting new knowledge and replacements for old inaccuracies, vs. new data = LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!
Q) I was never taught about evolution, I've never taken an anthropology class, and my primary source of evolution information is anti-evolution activist groups. I haven't even tried to research this on my own via Google to come to my own conclusion based on the arguments from both sides. Still, I feel very strongly that creation makes more sense than evolution, so I'm going to start arguing with people about it.
A) RTFM. You are a newbie. You are the AOL user who always types in all caps and refuses to use the internet because you know that AOL is way way better.
You are somewhere in the neighborhood of 300-3000 years behind in your reading. Go take a philosophy class, and maybe an anthropology class, and maybe a biology class. Learn what a species is. Learn how taxonomy works. Learn how cellular biology works. Question how you know what you know. Question how you can identify and define intelligence, language, emotion, and consciousness.
Then, start picking fights that haven't been settled for hundreds of years. Argue about whether orangutans belong in genus homo. Argue about whether viruses are alive. Argue about whether chimps, or dogs, or rats, or bees have any sort of consciousness or feelings.
Or, just keep flogging the fossil of a dead horse, and look like a jackass when you whine that nobody wants to flog with you because they're not open minded enough. ("Let's debate geocentricism! I'm just not quite convinced that the earth revolves around the sun. Rise above your heliocentric dogma, OK?")#: Posted by Jamie Flournoy on 04/02 at 06:35 AM - amen.
-
Here's some worrying news - I thought us Europeans had settled the whole creationism/evolution debate decades ago, but apparently not.
I must admit I hadn't heard of this:There is a creationist museum in Portsmouth called Genesis Expo, run by the Creation Science Movement (CSM). Children can play with Boris the dinosaur and learn why evolution is scientifically impossible.
It's not that far from where I live, so I'm almost tempted to go for a laugh. Almost.#: Posted by on 04/02 at 07:03 AM -
Here's their website, if PZ wants to ridicule it in more detail.
#: Posted by on 04/02 at 07:05 AM
-
Speaking of good faith, I told you to go read a few short articles before coming back. You did not.
I told you to read CA612, yet you are still making the same ignorant argument that evolution requires faith. Evolution is based on evidence.
I told you to read CC200, yet you are still making the bogus argument about "missing links" (your definition, by the way, is BS. No wonder you can't find any). And this is just galling:
That being said... Shouldn't we be able to find at least ONE "Missing Link"? Just ONE? Shouldn't the Scientific Community ‘go for broke’ in this effort, given the HUGE IMPLICATIONS of the find? Seems to me like they should.
If you'd read CC200, it would have led you straight to the transitional vertebrate fossils FAQ and Fossil Hominids: the evidence for human evolution, where you'd find those "missing links" (gah, I hate that term) illustrated.
This is one reason must scientists won't bother arguing with creationists. It's extremely annoying to wave the evidence in front of their eyes and see them deny its existence, while flibbertygibbeting about from one stupid point to another. Stop. Focus on one thing. Actually look at the data that's shown to you. Otherwise, talking to you is like arguing with Terri Schiavo. -
Possible Creationist writes: "Why can't we find the Missing Link? Not one complete skeleton...seems like we should be able to find hundreds of them, yet we cannot find a single one."
Where are the 'great' relics of Judeo-Xtian theology, the discovery of which might lend some credibility to your creationist position? The original Bible manuscripts, Noah's Ark, the Covenant, the Ark of the Covenant, the cross Jesus died on, remnants of the tower of Babel, the silver chalice, the Holy Grail, etc.. WE CANNOT FIND A SINGLE ONE. NOT ONE. And we're talking about relics 2000 - 5000 years years old, all in contact with humans who 'knew' their significance. Evolutionary fossils, on the other hand, are MILLIONS of years old and NEVER in contact with humans who knew their significance. You demand as proof that we produce relics that are much older and more degraded than your Xtian relics - sounds like a double standard to me.#: Posted by on 04/02 at 08:09 AM -
I'm confused. Possible Creationist says DNA evidence shows humans aren't linked to human ancestors, which is completely preposterous.
What link do you suppose is "missing?" There are about 20 species known between modern humans the ancestor we last shared with other surviving great ape groups today. How many more do you predict we should find?
How can you, with a straight face and no training in paleontology, archaeology or anthropology, dismiss all of those 20 species as not the link you claim as missing?#: Posted by on 04/02 at 08:13 AM -
We have several dozen complete skeletons of ancient hominids -- PC doesn't acknowledge them. We have several hundred almost complete specimens, and several thousands of individuals of no fewer than 17 species, perhaps aas many as 24 species. PC doesn't appear to know about them, nor wish to acknowledge they exist.
PC, were you to ask me to do business with you, I'd have to refuse. I can't see that you deal with information in an honest and straightforward fashion. In short, I don't find your dealings to be those of a trustworthy person.
What sort of moral code do you subscribe to which calls for you to be contrary, cranky, obstinate in error, rudely ignorant, and generally a pain in the butt?
Might I suggest that the fellowship of knowledge and honest dealings that science offers is superior? I don't know your religious bent, but I think your issues are not those of the facts of science, but instead those of whether you can be a trustworthy person.#: Posted by on 04/02 at 08:24 AM -
PC: You say you believe in microevolution--and it's hard to not believe in microevolution given that it's been documented over historical time. Heck, it can be reproduced in the laboratory. But you still find macroevolution questionable? How can it be prevented? How does the DNA know when it's about to cross forbidden line of speciation? And even if it "knew", how could it stop itself? DNA is quite mutable, as anyone who's ever worked with it knows. And selective pressure is quite efficient in producing new adaptations, as anyone who's ever wrestled with the problem of antibiotic resistance knows. So what is preventing macroevolution?
#: Posted by on 04/02 at 08:29 AM
-
@STEVER double amen with a walloping halleluia to your line of logic. very good point.
the whole argument which plays out here daily is starting to get a bit boring though isn't it? or more accurately bothersome. i feel as if we commenters have essentially taking on the role of pharyngula's white blood cells. it's just a constant repelling of foreign bodies as it were. but at the end of each day no one is convincing anyone else of anything. nothing is accomplished.
my question is this: why do "possible creationists" bother to comment here? isn't there some voodoo, demon fearing, self flagellating, free will hating, curiosity destroying forum out there better suited? i get the feeling these commenters are foot soldiers of irritation. contrary to every claim they have no interest in discourse (and frankly on this subject neither do i, there's nothing to discuss beyond the flawed mechanics of the discussion itself) but neither do they have a hope in their much ballyhooed hell of converting anyone here to their point of view. do they? same stands true in reverse. so what's the point? just to make sure no forum is free of their view? it's like missionary work among the "web savages." just to irritate? enough already.
how about some discussion of things which are mind-ticklingly interesting rather than things which are mind-bendingly irritating? - Let me again recommend the children's library. I've found it an excellent place to begin when my starting knowledge is at the level of "moron".
-
Definitely boring and bothersome, I'm starting to feel, but that comment goes a long way towards making up for it. "Pharyngula's white blood cells," "foot soldiers of irritations" . . . that's wonderful . . .
I don't understand it, though. What are we doing here, repeating the same patterns?
PC is, in regard to science, fairly ignorant. That's no crime. After all, the brightest and most knowledgeable person here is only marginally less so, in terms of the vastness of everything. The question is, does he want to change his condition? It's a very difficult thing to do, despite being incredibly easy to carry out . . . The comments suggest that the answer is "no." PC, is that the case? I hope not. -
In the dioramas a wide range of topics is examined and some of the displays are animated. The topics covered include -
*The impossibility of life forming from chemicals.
*Chinese calligraphy refers back to Genesis.
*The present day forms remain unchanged from their fossil counterparts.
*Geological sediments are laid down rapidly.
*A study of genetics shows that all humanity came from one man and one woman.
*- and many other subjects.
--from the Genesis Expo
Ha ha! Chinese calligraphy refers to Genesis? WTF does that mean? And why is that relevant to anything? Don't the Chinese have their own creation myths, that have nothing to do with the Judaic ones? If the Chinese were so all-fired impressed by Jehovah flooding the world, why aren't all Chinese some variant of Judeo-Christian?
And rapid sedimention? When has that ever been observed in the degree necessary for Noachian interpretation? And it's not as though rapid sedimentation is sufficient; to reproduce the geological record on a biblical timescale, God'd need to move the continental plates around like air-hockey bats.
But the last one takes the biscuit. Pretending that science is worthless, and then stealing a white lab coat to make these fancies seem more credible.... Sure, mtDNA and Y-chromosome analysis shows descent from one man and one woman, but they lived thousands of years apart. Morons.
Really, if that's the best they've got to offer against evolution, I can't see it catching on in the UK. After all, we have Darwin buried next to Newton and Herschel in Westminster Abbey, which is as bold a statement made in support of science and evolution as you're ever likely to see in a state religion.#: Posted by on 04/02 at 09:54 AM -
Where does the phrase "Missing Link" come from, anyway? Was it ever used by scientists, or is it a journalistic invention? Or a fictional or creationist one? (Not to say that creationism isn't fiction.... you know what I mean.)
#: Posted by on 04/02 at 09:57 AM
-
Somewhat off topic and this has probably been raised before, but I would like to see God-of-the-Gaps creationism added to the end of every phrase that mentions Intelligent Design. It seems like there has been some progress in having creationism added after ID, but I think this is not specific enough. Most (if not all) of the people that say they are open to the idea of ID are saying so because it is a form of creationism, so adding creationism actually enhances the popular appeal for the concept. However, these creationists would not be open to the idea the that the "science" behind ID implies their God would simply be a God-of-the-Gaps (especially considering that it implies that their God is getting progressly smaller with each new datum, i.e. the new molecular machines versus the old Paley "eye" arguments). If ID can be defined in popular society as, ID God-of-the-Gaps creationism (ID-GGC) then it will quickly lose the vast majority of its most outspoken advocates.
For example, the AIG crowd is flush with money, hence the $25 million museum and the "Creation Mega Conference" http://www.answersingenesis.org/events/megaconference , yet AIG is all about YEC. At times they try to mix in bits from the ID-GGC movement to try to add what they think is scientific credibility, but the donors don't want to hear anything about how the Behe types accept the idea that the Earth is most likely to be much more than 6000 years old.
We need to separate the ID-GGC people, who are trying to fool the courts, from their money source, Biblical Literalists.
If someone has a better abbreviation than ID-GGC, I'd would be more than happy to use the alternate.#: Posted by on 04/02 at 10:04 AM -
Where are the 'great' relics of Judeo-Xtian theology, the discovery of which might lend some credibility to your creationist position? The original Bible manuscripts, Noah's Ark, the Covenant, the Ark of the Covenant, the cross Jesus died on, remnants of the tower of Babel, the silver chalice, the Holy Grail, etc.. WE CANNOT FIND A SINGLE ONE.
Quite the contrary. According to Mark Twain, while touring, he was offered so many pieces of the True Cross that one must imagine it must have been huge!#: Posted by on 04/02 at 10:07 AM -
Ok guys and gals. There are something like 25 new posts up since I last replied; I’ve read them all, but I can’t possibly take the time to respond to everyone. So let me try to sum things up thus far.
Q.I asked for proof of the “Missing Link”. I defined “Missing Link” as the fossil that would be able to mate with both the progenitor of homo sapien and homo sapien. I also opined that it would be compelling to have a fossil record of hominids such that when arranged the ‘evolution’ from one to another is undeniable.
A.According to you folks, finding this “Missing Link” is unlikely, due to exposure, probable short time of existence, etc… Ok, I can live with that. But it occurs to me that unless the existence of this “Missing Link” can be proved objectively, there is no proof (only theory) for macroevolution. Evolution of one species to another has never been duplicated; and has never been observed. The current observable data seems to indicate that every species on this planet appeared instantaneously, fully formed, and relatively stable (within the species). I have said numerous times that I might believe microevolution within a species, with caveats. Still, some people insist on obfuscating my position.
Q.I asked how life could spontaneously generate from nothing.
A.According to you folks, we do not know. I can live with this as well. But it begs the question; how did we get here? I’m surprised everyone is so willing to chalk this up as “Oh well, we don’t know, maybe someday Science will tell us, maybe not”. The DNA in even the simplest one-cell organism is amazingly complex – yet we are to believe, without evidence or reproducible theory, that it just spontaneously generated from nothing? I reject that premise; DNA is simply too complex, too ordered to have magically appeared from nothing.
Some people here have implied that I have been hostile to your collective ideas. I couldn’t disagree more! I came here in good faith to have a mature (or as much as can be, given my limited background in the area) discussion, and for the most part you people have generously obliged. But some have not. And I have ignored the insults, with the exception of the one person who just showed up to troll. If anyone should complain about intolerant views, that person ought to be me!
As far as the “Christian Right” goes; I’m just a curious individual who is attempting to quickly discern where the Sciences stand on the two questions I’ve asked. And you folks have answered my questions to my satisfaction; my thanks to everyone.
Just a couple more things need to be said…
Troy – RE: Argument Impasse; was directed at your 11:27 post. By the time I had finished composing and posting, you had replied again and indicated you had clearly not taken your head out of the game. My apologies, I would have erased that from my post if I had seen yours first
PZ – I told you I’d read the articles and get back to you. But some people here were willing to have a discussion first, and that was fine with me.
Let me sum up our discussion thus far. If we can agree on the following, no further discussion is necessary (for now). I’m going to be busy this weekend, so I may not be posting here again. But I will read PZ’s articles, and come back if I have any questions.
1.The “Missing Link” that was the reproductive link between homo sapien and homo sapien’s progenitor, has not been found. Nor is it likely to be found. Furthermore, the hominid fossil record is incomplete and does not allow for them to be lined up in a fashion in which evolution is clearly evident.
2.Science has no proof as to how the first form of life was spontaneously generated. There are theories; but none are reproducible or observable.
I originally stated that evolution required as much FAITH as creationism. I have not been dissuaded from this position. Thanks again everyone, have a great weekend. Flame away…#: Posted by on 04/02 at 10:31 AM -
Really, if that's the best they've got to offer against evolution, I can't see it catching on in the UK. After all, we have Darwin buried next to Newton and Herschel in Westminster Abbey, which is as bold a statement made in support of science and evolution as you're ever likely to see in a state religion.
I agree - the UK is comfortably the most secular state in Europe, so the chances of creationism catching on in even a small way are next to zero.
I rang an ex-girlfriend who lives in Portsmouth, and she was thrilled to hear about Genesis Expo. Not because she's a closet creationist, but because admission is free and, to quote her directly, "it sounds like a hoot". I've sent her the URL, and will report back if she actually carries out her threat of visiting it.#: Posted by on 04/02 at 10:35 AM -
Just for fun, lets take a different tack on why it is so hard to find the fossils.
Working backwards with current knowledge we see that populaton density was quite low even in the recent past. I currently live in the inland western US where I could easily walk for many hours without encountering another human, even today. This territory prior to the migration of Europeans was far less populous than it is today. On top of that the climate changes in the area over just the last 50000 years have been tremendous. At one time, as recently as 15 -20000 years ago ice glaciers extended into the northwest and as they receeded triggered massive floods. (That gravatar by my name is a shot of the eastern WA scablands). Kennewick Man, and intact hominid found here is estimated to have lived a couple millenia after those floods.
Areas that are now vast deserts were once lush forests and jungles. Millions of tons of soil were moved in those floods and glacier floes and a world class agricultural systems depends on that 30 feet of topsoil. Boulders from Canada have been found near Portland. And you expect findable fossils in this mess. Good luck.
The earth is a very big place, subject to macro changes over time and hominids > humans are were a very sparse population for virtually all of the earth's existence. It is amazing that we find anything.
Now imagine that if the money and time spent justifying an unprovable proposition (eg religion) was instead spent studying natural history. Progress would be a little quicker, no doubt.#: Posted by on 04/02 at 10:43 AM -
but at the end of each day no one is convincing anyone else of anything. nothing is accomplished.
Yes and no - we don't convince the person asking, but it might lead other people to the answers through the provided links.#: Posted by on 04/02 at 10:44 AM -
I have come to the conclusion that with creationsists of any form (young earth, old earth, ID, etc.) we are dealing with a desire for extreme over simplification. Either they cannot, or for some reason will not tolerate any explanation more complicated than 'god did it'. Even the IDers who claim some things are 'too complicated' to have evovled are in the end over simplifying to 'god did it'.
The fact that 'god did it' explains nothing does not seem to bother them.#: Posted by on 04/02 at 10:45 AM -
The Chinese calligraphy nonsense is an old creationist canard. Everything on that list from the British creationist museum is bogus: "A study of genetics shows that all humanity came from one man and one woman", for instance, is a lie.
Possible Creationist:I told you I’d read the articles and get back to you. But some people here were willing to have a discussion first, and that was fine with me.
The fact that people are willing to shoot down your stupid beliefs is not an excuse for continuing to argue from ignorance. Let's all be clear on that: you have no substance to present. You are making shit up.
Most of us consider that to be damning. You've lost the argument from your first word. - Wetherby: I'm about to put something up about the BBC article. Pass on anything your old friend sends you about the Portsmouth "museum" and I'll put it up top.
-
PZ says
>>You are making shit up.
Review my posts; I have made nothing up, and have been nothing less than cordial with you. Apparently, asking you to return the favor is asking too much.
It is you who is insisting that the "Missing Link" must have existed despite no observable evidence to that end. You are the one arguing macroevolution with no evidence. I might suggest that YOU are the one making sh*t up.
Thank you Sir, good day.#: Posted by on 04/02 at 11:06 AM -
No, I am arguing that your whole concept of a "missing link" is bogus, a goofy straw man you've invented to justify your religious dogma. Your definition is absurd:
I defined “Missing Link” as the fossil that would be able to mate with both the progenitor of homo sapien and homo sapien.
Assuming that the unfortunate phrasing is merely a reflection of your poor English skills and not an indicator of some bizarre necrophilia, this is nonsense. We've got lots of "missing links" by this definition. We are part of a long term interbreeding population; if we had a time machine, do you think that a modern human would be unable to breed with someone from 1600, or 3000 BC?
Species and especially chronospecies are not going to be as discrete as you imagine them to be. That's something we know from biology, that boundaries are very, very blurry.
Now, please, run away. You've admitted you haven't read a thing on this topic, something your comments have also demonstrated. You can take offense at the fact that your ignorance is mocked, but it doesn't change the fact of your ignorance. -
The uncanny ability for creationists to breathe with their head lodged so far into their own colon indicates that they might be a different species. I think Possible Creationist is himself the missing link he is looking for.
#: Posted by on 04/02 at 11:19 AM
-
Come on, everyone... "Possible Creationist"'s email is . Someone's been April-fooled.
#: Posted by Jim Anderson on 04/02 at 11:22 AM
- No -- because no self-respecting member of our intellectual species would interbreed with him. No missing link!
- ...and everyone lived happily ever after. the end.
-
OH, great. You make this comment on somebody else's blog late one night and you feel all good about it, and then you sign on the next morning and find out you made a mistake that makes you sound dumber than usual. Argh.
Worse, it's 30 comments later, and the moment for correcting yourself has long passed.
Some people are so hostile to the idea of human evolution because they feel like they’re on the road, they feel like they’re getting somewhere, and they don’t want to STOP driving. -
'tis okay, Hank. didn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out that's what you actually meant. it was implied in the context.
#: Posted by on 04/02 at 12:28 PM
-
Possible Creationist, you want to avoid learning the language of science and that is a big part of your problem. Without knowing the language of the subject you can not make yourself understood and you can not understand the answers given. When you are in a foreign country you either learn the language or you stick to the guidebook and only are able to ask the location of the WC. If you want meaningful conversation you will have to learn the language.
You ask for a “missing link” but you would have a better understanding if you used a term from science, “most recent common ancestor”. The MRCA is a single point in time and space. We may indeed already have a fossil of the MRCA and would not know it since it is very, very similar to fossils of animals coming thousands of years before and after the speciation event. A sequence of fossils allows scientists to point to the MRCA. For species that have existing individuals, certain pieces of non-coding DNA can establish the date of the MRCA. For the hundreds of species of trilobite there are hundreds of MRCA that are not identified so it is no different than the case of hominids. Entropy is not violated since there is a constant input of energy driving the surface of the earth far from equilibrium.
PC, you don’t seem able to understand what evolution is and is not. Abiogensis is the study of self-reproducing life coming from basic matter and energy. Evolution only can start when there is such life. Keep the two scientific disciplines separate. Evolution is backed up by 150 years of evidence from many fields of study. Your rejection of the basis of biology is your problem but does not affect the reality of evolution.
The difference between religious faith and science is evidence, evidence and evidence. Science follows where evidence leads. When you have read the talkorigins files you may better understand this. Add this file on God and Evolution to your reading list. http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html#: Posted by on 04/02 at 12:47 PM -
>>My argument, however, is against macro-evolution. As I noted earlier, I might agree with micro-evolution, with caveats.<<
There you go again, making up terms and applying nonsensical definitions to your made-up terms such that nobody else in the universe outside of the space between your ears can possibly address them.
There is no such thing as "macroevolution" or "microevolution." Show me someone who argued that a horse evolved straight into a whale and I'll show you a creationist liar.
The concept that there could be such huge and mutually-exclusive differences between an alleged two branches or types of evolution is a creationist myth. They invented it and *only* they believe it--so of course when they talk to others, when they talk to scientists, they are unable to find proof. It's a combined projection fallacy and straw-man fallacy.
If you believe in evolution at all, then you believe in evolution.#: Posted by on 04/02 at 12:59 PM -
I honestly don't know how the biologists and other scientists stand this crap. The arrogance of some people is amazing. Here's my response:
Read the goddamn references that PZ gave you, you twat! Then you can open your mouth. So you have a graduate degree from a top-tier school? How did you get that degree, you nitwit, by blowing off the seminar readings and arguing with the professors, you lazy shit?
Would you give a major league baseball player batting tips? Tell a cardiac surgeon how to perform a quadruple bypass? Well, you're coming in here, telling everyone how smart you are, and then, shamelessly, arguing with them about their field of expertise! Elitism my ass -- do your goddamn homework, boy genius (or girl genius).
So, go do the reading, and more if you need to.
Sorry, but the arrogance of some of these creeps...#: Posted by on 04/02 at 12:59 PM -
Good Lord in Heaven! Missing Links? That concept went out of date around the time of Piltdown. In addition to the sites PZ recommended I would suggest Museum of Natural History, Teach Evolution and A Look at Modern Human Origins to name a few. The reality is we have more fossil hominids than you can shaake a stick at, including an adaptive radiation of australopithicines and what is beggining to look like an adaptive radition of Homo erectus. Missing lins? THHTHPTHPTHPTHP (that's a Bronx cheer). They can be laid in in a fashion that clearly demonstrates evolution. Somwehere on this sight PZ has a picture of just that, It came from <a href="www.talkorigins.org/ faqs/comdesc/hominids.html"> Talk Origins </a> which several people pointed you towards. So either you saw it and are ignoring it because it disproves your pint or you really didn't go read it like you said you would. I would also suggest you check out Conroy's Primate Evolution (simply the best book on the subject) and Wolpoff's Paleoanthropology.
It seems to me this just shows the problem with arguing with creationists. They show up - head filled full of Gish and AIG - and want to argue. Yet they have not read anything whatsoever, written by people actually doing the research they are criticizing. They end up arguing against a wierdly distorted, pop culturish caricature of evolution that has nothing to do, usually, with what evolution is all about.#: Posted by on 04/02 at 01:48 PM -
Hmmm....you know, if you apply the logic of Zeno's paradox to the whole "infinitely regressing missing link" argument, I think you can prove that it's impossible to have sex at all.
Sheesh - it's an even more dreadful argument, upon closer inspection, than it appears on the surface.
(and, ironically enough, the verification word for this post is "mating".)#: Posted by on 04/02 at 01:49 PM -
Possible Creationist,
Have you ever wondered that the reason PZ Myers --- in your words --- seems "elitist", "condesending" or "arrogant" to you may perhaps be because:
1. The questions you have raised have been answered a million times.
2. These answers are present in the links he provided
CA612 which says:
The theory of evolution is based on evidence that has been observed.
The article then goes and links to several such pieces of evidences (CA202). As many as 15+ points are provided in this article. This article also links to another one that discusses speciazation (which lists a sample of research that proves, amongst other things, formation of new species such as Culex molestus).
3. You state that you couldn't read these articles because of a deluge of replies. Lets say you were a teacher, as Dr. Myers is, and a student comes to you without doing his homework. This student is arguing on something he would perhaps already know if he bothered to do the homework. What would a good teacher do? Shouldn't the student be responsible for doing his homework in the first place?
4. What makes it more irritating to the teacher is that there are a million students who haven't done this homework and who still insist on their line of argument.
You state that you are not a biologist or anthropologist. If that is the case, should you not keep an open mind about biology? How did you reach the conclusion that biologists hold a dogmatic faith when you don't know anything about the subject?
Are you willing to keep an open mind that the biologist do not have a dogmatic faith, but that the current evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the conclusions that you term a faith? From what you have written so far, you don't seem like someone willing to accept this fact. -
Good Lord in Heaven! Missing Links? That concept went out of date around the time of Piltdown. In addition to the sites PZ recommended I would suggest Museum of Natural History, and
Teach Evolution and A Look at Modern Human Origins to name a few. The reality is we have more fossil hominids than you can shake a stick at, including an adaptive radiation of australopithicines and what is beggining to look like an adaptive radition of Homo erectus. Missing links? THHTHPTHPTHPTHP (that's a Bronx cheer). They can be laid out in a fashion that clearly demonstrates evolution (since that is the kind of proof you asked for). Somwehere on this sight PZ has a picture of just that, It came from Talk Origins,which several people pointed you towards. So either you saw it and are ignoring it because it disproves your point or you really didn't go read it like you said you would. I would also suggest you check out Conroy's Primate Evolution (simply the best book on the subject) and Wolpoff's Paleoanthropology.
It seems to me this just shows the problem with arguing with creationists. They show up - head filled full of Gish and AIG - and want to argue. Yet they have not read anything whatsoever, written by people actually doing the research they are criticizing. They end up arguing against a wierdly distorted, pop culturish caricature of evolution that has nothing to do, usually, with what evolution is all about.#: Posted by on 04/02 at 01:55 PM -
Must I repeat myself? Look at PC's email address. Notice his too-perfect creationist tropes. Look closely at his unusual familiarity with PZ.
I'll research and get back to you. I'll ignore your condescending, elitist attitude, 'cause if it wasn't you then you wouldn't be PZ!
It's a hoax, dear people, an April Fools hoax. Now, who's the culprit?#: Posted by Jim Anderson on 04/02 at 02:15 PM -
>It's a hoax, dear people, an April Fools hoax. Now, who's the culprit?
yeah but every day is April 1 for the creationists. When Gallup says 68% of the US believes in creationism to some extent, we've got our work cut out for us.
Plus it's always useful developing one's argument, even if it is just a punching bag. That's why its best leaving off the insults in debate. Venting feels good, but does not improve your thinking.#: Posted by on 04/02 at 02:28 PM - Plausible, Jim, and that would explain PZ putting PC on the front page (I have yet to find where the original "off topic" comments are located). Is it possible that this is a devious test by PZ - he is a teacher, after all - checking to see