evolution sticker in textbook ruled unconstitutional

[vidcc]

I am amazed that nobody has suggested the "God created life.... then it evolved" theory...My appologise if someone has and i just missed it.

I have started a poll in the serious poll section

[manker]

I am amazed that nobody has suggested the "God created life.... then it evolved" theory

I think most people who've posted at length in this thread, save Manny, have kinda discounted magic.

[UKResident]

However, I think UKResident is about to provide proof of the missing link so you'll have to update it later.

Do you ever make a post without first trying to belittle the person you are attempting to answer? You are, without doubt, a good example of the worse aspects of this board. Your four or so answers to my posts have all started with an insult, it is your modus operendi. Well it won't work with me, you will not run me off the board with your ridicule so you may as well stop trying, l'm not one of your lounge bunnies.


This is part of an article you should read, it is a response to one of the main Creationist's arguments.

----------------------------------------------------

"There are no transitional fossils."

A transitional fossil is one that looks like it's from an organism intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some characteristics part way between the two. Transitional fossils can occur between groups of any taxonomic level, such as between species, between orders, etc. Ideally, the transitional fossil should be found stratigraphically between the first occurrence of the ancestral lineage and the first occurrence of the descendent lineage, but evolution also predicts the occurrence of some fossils with transitional morphology that occur after both lineages. There's nothing in the theory of evolution which says an intermediate form (or any organism, for that matter) can have only one line of descendents, or that the intermediate form itself has to go extinct when a line of descendents evolves.

To say there are no transitional fossils is simply false. Paleontology has progressed a bit since Origin of Species was published, uncovering thousands of transitional fossils, by both the temporally restrictive and the less restrictive definitions. The fossil record is still spotty and always will be; erosion and the rarity of conditions favorable to fossilization make that inevitable. Also, transitions may occur in a small population, in a small area, and/or in a relatively short amount of time; when any of these conditions hold, the chances of finding the transitional fossils goes down. Still, there are still many instances where excellent sequences of transitional fossils exist. Some notable examples are the transitions from reptile to mammal, from land animal to early whale, and from early ape to human. For many more examples, see the transitional fossils FAQ in the talk.origins archive, and see http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/talk_origins.html for sample images for some invertebrate groups.

The misconception about the lack of transitional fossils is perpetuated in part by a common way of thinking about categories. When people think about a category like "dog" or "ant," they often subconsciously believe that there is a well-defined boundary around the category, or that there is some eternal ideal form (for philosophers, the Platonic idea) which defines the category. This kind of thinking leads people to declare that Archaeopteryx is "100% bird," when it is clearly a mix of bird and reptile features (with more reptile than bird features, in fact). In truth, categories are man-made and artificial. Nature is not constrained to follow them, and it doesn't.

Some Creationists claim that the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium was proposed (by Eldredge and Gould) to explain gaps in the fossil record. Actually, it was proposed to explain the relative rarity of transitional forms, not their total absence, and to explain why speciation appears to happen relatively quickly in some cases, gradually in others, and not at all during some periods for some species. In no way does it deny that transitional sequences exist. In fact, both Gould and Eldredge are outspoken opponents of Creationism.


"But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy." - Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, May 1994

Source

----------------------------------------------

You really should read more.

[Barbarossa]

I'm finding this whole subject fascinating!

This BBC article makes good reading:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/genes/d...ve/index.shtml

[Busyman]

I am amazed that nobody has suggested the "God created life.... then it evolved" theory...My appologise if someone has and i just missed it.

I have started a poll in the serious poll section

I have suggested that but not in this thread.

I have always maintained that it takes an intelligent to set life in motion.

1.It's convenient that we breathe out C02 and plants breathe it in and vice-versa isn't it? I've also maintained that if there was a Big Bang, something intelligent started it. One argument is...Who created God then?

2.May I remind everyone that manny's version of creationism being pushed is not ALL creationism......it's CHRISTIAN CREATIONISM....another flaw in creationists argument of it being taught in schools.

3. If we came from apes then why are apes still around?

4. @vid - I do believe that all the continents were together at one time. Some sort of fit together like a puzzle even now.

[manker]

This is part of an article you should read, it is a response to one of the main Creationist's arguments.

Well done, you've posted in answer to a creationist argument. Not my argument. I'm picking holes at evolution, not extolling the virtues of creationism.

My premis is to refute your assertion that macro evolution and micro evolution don't exist. I've been quite succesful in that since you've neglected to mention it since.

I also asked you to prove your assertion that the shrew/homo sapiens sapiens evolutionary path can be traced. You've not done so.

I've refuted your suggestion that the micro/macro evolution theory is merely a creationists trick. Again ... nothing.

Now you've copied and pasted something. Oh joy, it doesn't back up your points in the slightest but some of the language is similar:

Lack of proof isn't a weakness

Really. I'd say that without proof, you can't prove anything beyond irrefutable doubt. You may lap up rhetoric if it fits your agenda, I don't.

Sure, evolutionary theory is the most likely explanation of why we're typing instead of grunting, by a million miles. However, it's not perfect and it hasn't been proven irrefutably.

=========

Do you ever make a post without first trying to belittle the person you are attempting to answer? You are, without doubt, a good example of the worse aspects of this board. Your four or so answers to my posts have all started with an insult, it is your modus operendi. Well it won't work with me, you will not run me off the board with your ridicule so you may as well stop trying, l'm not one of your lounge bunnies.

Rattled? Stop whinging. You've hardly endeared yourself to the board with attacks on mods, members and now my good self.

Actually, I think I'm being quite polite given the rubbish you're spouting at me (not the on topic stuff, the 'read more','you're showing your ignorence' -spelled wrongly- 'get back to the lounge' stuff). You must be a rather sensitive soul, sorry if you felt all teary.

[Barbarossa]

1.It's convenient that we breathe out C02 and plants breathe it in and vice-versa isn't it? I've also maintained that if there was a Big Bang, something intelligent started it. One argument is...Who created God then?

2.May I remind everyone that manny's version of creationism being pushed is not ALL creationism......it's CHRISTIAN CREATIONISM....another flaw in creationists argument of it being taught in schools.

3. If we came from apes then why are apes still around?

4. @vid - I do believe that all the continents were together at one time. Some sort of fit together like a puzzle even now.

1. This is actually an argument FOR evolution!!!! life has adapted perfectly to take advantage of its immediate environment through the process of evolution and natural selection.

2. Good point.

3. We ARE still apes too, just a type of ape that has adapted in a rather unorthodox way to the challenges of survival. Our ancestor-apes were probably weaker and less agile than other apes, so the adaptation that worked for us was to become intelligent, and discover the ability to learn and make tools, and pass on our knowledge to our descendents. Other apes adapted differently, and because of our success, they are on the way out.. In terms of timescales, you are still seeing only a snapshot of the bigger picture...

4. Plate tectonics is tomorrows subject..

[Busyman]

1. This is actually an argument FOR evolution!!!! life has adapted perfectly to take advantage of its immediate environment through the process of evolution and natural selection.

2. Good point.

3. We ARE still apes too, just a type of ape that has adapted in a rather unorthodox way to the challenges of survival. Our ancestor-apes were probably weaker and less agile than other apes, so the adaptation that worked for us was to become intelligent, and discover the ability to learn and make tools, and pass on our knowledge to our descendents. Other apes adapted differently, and because of our success, they are on the way out.. In terms of timescales, you are still seeing only a snapshot of the bigger picture...

4. Plate tectonics is tomorrows subject..

1. Well, I believe it's an agrument for creation as well. Legislative law is made by man and the laws of nature were made by God. The difference is that the laws of nature don't change.

3. We are not apes. Everything else you said is PURE speculation. The use of probably denotes that.
If we adapted differently then why don't we have the advantages of apes and humans.
Please, there is no need to answer because I know what the answer is.....there isn't an answer..... only speculation and theory that looks good on paper but it's the best we got.

I believe in some sort of evolution but I don't believe it started on it's own.

[TheDave]

out of all the billions of billions of planets why is it so hard to believe in all the millions of years primordial soup came about

[TheDave]

If we adapted differently then why don't we have the advantages of apes and humans.
Please, there is no need to answer because I know what the answer is.....there isn't an answer..... only speculation and theory that looks good on paper but it's the best we got.

we lost the need for the strength and coat as we evolved to be smarter and rely on tools