Evidence for God from Science

BobSmith wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Neanderthal man, Heidelberg man, and Cro-Magnon man are now considered completely human.

Cro-magnon man is an ancient homo-sapien - our recent ancestors, so is Heidelberg man. They were *never* said to be old ape-like ancestors. They are very slightly different to man today - very slightly. The only real difference is that they were found in old rock (a few hundred thousand years ago perhaps). Neandertal is comparitively very different. Neandertal is not an anceestor - it is a cousin. It might have even lived alongside cro-magnon man I can't remember. Neandertal man as I have already covered, is a sub-species of homo-sapien. The distortion in this article sure is thick.

Indeed. mtDNA analyses show that Neanderthal was not 'fully human', rather, as you said, a 'cousin', unless the definition of 'human' is changed to encompass all hominids

SLP wrote:And just what is the 'standard' evolutionisty theory about how the first life began?

My perception:

Felgar wrote:a living thing, complete with DNA and the means to replicate must have spontaneously formed in a brew of amino acids.

SLP wrote:You do realize, do you not, that how the first life began is not even part of the Theory of Evolution?

Yes I realize that, but typically one who turns to evolution as the origin of life will adopt something like the theory above to fill the giant whole in the TOE that does not actually address the start of life.

If I'm wrong about that, please enlighten me.

Modern animals in the Cambrian....

Chengjiang: It was believed that the first vertebrate animals evolved during the Ordovician Period (443-490 mya) or possible late in the Cambrian Period (490 mya). Two fossils were recently discovered in Chengjiang China by Chinese paleontologists of fish species similar to the modern day hagfish and lampreys. The rock these fish were found are dated at 530 million years old, very early in the Cambrian Period and about 50 million years before it was believed fish had evolved. This discovery has caused scientists to rethink the evolution of vertebrates. These fish actually predate the assumed ancestors of the fish.

Modern animals in the Cambrian....

Okay a jawless fish exists in the Cambrian and jawless fish also still exist today. I suppose you could have picked algae too - they are also found in the cambrian.

But where are all the mammals, birds and reptiles? Where are the whales and sharks? Doesn't it seem odd that life in the cambrian is so small and simple?

http://www.phschool.com/science/science ... rates.html

The fossil finds, while not totally unexpected, thrill paleontologists who despaired of ever uncovering such evidence from Earth's dim past. "It's important because up to now the vertebrates were absent from the big bang of life, as we call it—that is, the great early Cambrian explosion, where all the major animal groups appeared suddenly in the fossil record," comments Philippe Janvier, a paleontologist at the National Museum of Natural History in Paris.
....
Although the ancient Chinese animals qualify as vertebrates, they lack the bony skeleton and teeth seen in most, but not all, members of this subphylum today. Instead, these early jawless fish appear to have had skulls and other skeletal structures made of cartilage, says Simon Conway Morris of the University of Cambridge in England, who collaborated with the Chinese team.

Okay a jawless fish exists in the Cambrian and jawless fish also still exist today.

If evolution is a constant process....run with this thought Bob Smith, run with it....

Felgar wrote:

BobSmith wrote:

Felgar wrote:Too much of a coincidence? This is hillarious coming from someone who can accept that a living thing, complete with DNA and the means to replicate must have spontaneously formed in a brew of amino acids.

No I don't accept that actually. Do you have another crazy analogy you would like to accuse me of believing?

Ok then; I assumed you adhere to what I perceive to be the standard evolutionist theory about how the first life began - my mistake.

The point is that at some time in the past, something that was inert matter must necessarily have started living. Living entails reproduction (no mechanism for evolution to work if there is no reproduction) and it also entails functional DNA (most likely) because every living thing we know of has DNA. So then, what is you own personal belief about how that inert matter became alive for the very first time?

Please address BobSmith.

But where are all the mammals, birds and reptiles? Where are the whales and sharks? Doesn't it seem odd that life in the cambrian is so small and simple?

The question is really then where are the transitional fossils between chordates to invertabrates during the Cambrian period? If the Chordata phylum emerged during the Cambrian, as these fossils now show, where are the transitional forms between them and their predecessors during the Cambrian? This is a pretty big evolutionary step in a short time with no transitional fossil evidence, or do you know of some?

I read the Science news article, and it rightly seems to contain a lot of excitement. Personally, I don't believe in macro-evolution, but I am as excited as the next guy when new fossils are discovered. However, every time a new fossil discovery is made, we are lead to believe that it fits the evolutionary prediction, but as we can see from this example sometimes it does not.

So modern animal fossils were found that dated back to the Cambrian, is this sufficient proof for you to no longer believe in evolution, as you earlier stated?

Felgar wrote:Ok then; I assumed you adhere to what I perceive to be the standard evolutionist theory about how the first life began - my mistake.

Sponaneous formation of life from amino acids isn't what any standard evolutionist theory says.

The point is that at some time in the past, something that was inert matter must necessarily have started living. Living entails reproduction (no mechanism for evolution to work if there is no reproduction) and it also entails functional DNA (most likely) because every living thing we know of has DNA. So then, what is you own personal belief about how that inert matter became alive for the very first time?

You have a good understanding of this. I simply don't know where the first reproducing life came from. There is not enough evidence to show it formed naturally. There is no known natural mechanism to do it.

Felgar wrote:

SLP wrote:And just what is the 'standard' evolutionisty theory about how the first life began?

My perception:

Felgar wrote:a living thing, complete with DNA and the means to replicate must have spontaneously formed in a brew of amino acids.

SLP wrote:You do realize, do you not, that how the first life began is not even part of the Theory of Evolution?

Yes I realize that, but typically one who turns to evolution as the origin of life will adopt something like the theory above to fill the giant whole in the TOE that does not actually address the start of life.

If I'm wrong about that, please enlighten me.

Thanks for admitting your error.

The question is really then where are the transitional fossils between chordates to invertabrates during the Cambrian period? If the Chordata phylum emerged during the Cambrian, as these fossils now show, where are the transitional forms between them and their predecessors during the Cambrian?

Do you mean invertibrae to vertibrae evolution? Many invertabrates are chordates.
The cambrian explosion took about 40 millions years, it was only sudden geologically speaking. It marked a radiation of diversity in the oceans. There are many possible explainations for why there are not many pre-cambrian fossils. One is that the cambrian explosion marks a point where life became able to mineralise its body to create hard parts that would easily fossilise. Another is that the environment on earth before that time was damaging to fossils. Of course none of these explainations are considered fact and there is lots of debate over this by scientists.

The cambrian explosion is a mystery and a problem that science seeks to explain, but it is not something that disproves evolution. Tigers and bats suddenly appearing in the cambrian would be a disproof as there would not be enough time for these to evolve. But small sea creatures aren't. So the cambrian explosion is an unsolved problem for evolution, but not a huge problem.

However, every time a new fossil discovery is made, we are lead to believe that it fits the evolutionary prediction, but as we can see from this example sometimes it does not.

I agree. When darwin was around there were no known pre-cambrian fossils at all and he saw it as a problem even then.

Lots of fossil finds are predicted by evolution only in that they appear in the same places similar fossils have been found previously. Really good wow predictions are quite rare. The best fossil finds which are the ones that hit the news are always the ones that are totally unexpected and unpredicted - like those dwarf people fossils, or a type of creature not seen before.

So modern animal fossils were found that dated back to the Cambrian, is this sufficient proof for you to no longer believe in evolution, as you earlier stated?

Well done for pointing out my mistake of asking for "modern animals". what I really should have emphasised is that I was wanting something like rabbits, or other mammals. Jawless fish are very ancient (none of the earliest fish had jaws) so finding out that there were jawless fish in the cambrian (which I didn't know before) doesn't really ring alarm bells for me. I am sure a lot of other small cambrian sea life still exists in similar forms today as well.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

Okay a jawless fish exists in the Cambrian and jawless fish also still exist today.

If evolution is a constant process....run with this thought Bob Smith, run with it....

What do you mean constant?

one of the great misiunderstandings is that evolution must always proceed.

It only proceeds when there is sufficient pressures to do so.
What major changes have occurred in the environemnt occupied by jawless fish that would have waranted major evolutionary adaptations?

BobSmith wrote: The cambrian explosion is a mystery and a problem that science seeks to explain, but it is not something that disproves evolution.

I amnot sure that I agree with this. First, the Cambrian explosion lasted millions of years, and was preceeding by a lengthy pre-Cambrian period in which there is evidence of radiations occurring. The 'explosion' is more likely the result of the fact that hard body parts became more prevalent in the period and so fossilization is more likely.
I think it is an important period, but I do not think that it is a 'problem.'

BobSmith wrote:

Felgar wrote:Ok then; I assumed you adhere to what I perceive to be the standard evolutionist theory about how the first life began - my mistake.

Sponaneous formation of life from amino acids isn't what any standard evolutionist theory says.

Ok, my impression may have been incorrect. For clarity, by standard evolutionist theory, I mean the "typical concept that is accepted by a majority of those who believe in the Theory of Evolution as it relates to the origin of species." In other words, I'm not saying that the TOE actually states the origin of the first life, but that most people who believe in the TOE it will try to make that leap.

BobSmith wrote:You have a good understanding of this. I simply don't know where the first reproducing life came from. There is not enough evidence to show it formed naturally. There is no known natural mechanism to do it.

Ok, fair enough - so you're simply undecided on the start of life...

SLP wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

Okay a jawless fish exists in the Cambrian and jawless fish also still exist today.

If evolution is a constant process....run with this thought Bob Smith, run with it....

What do you mean constant?

one of the great misiunderstandings is that evolution must always proceed.

It only proceeds when there is sufficient pressures to do so.
What major changes have occurred in the environemnt occupied by jawless fish that would have waranted major evolutionary adaptations?

Oh, I'm loving this, we finally come into, PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM, the new excuse which has been made up to explain why no transition fossils exist. The exist-"well, it just happenned so fast, for some reason the transtionining buggers just never had time to fossilize, though they were transitioning for around 1000 years." What is the evidene for it? No evidence of what Darwin said-continual gradual change. Bigger, and bigger excuses, and if anyone is smart enough to see, more and more religious beliefs replacing more and more science.

And what I really enjoy is everyone ignores a very simple fact. The analogy is this-before a building is built, there has to be blue prints. In the same way, before something evolutionary pops up, the DNA has to be there, since it is the blue print of the organism. And, here's the clencher, mutations don't add information (there are mutations that add more nucleotides, and the weird one in plants where the DNA is doubled, but no new information is made). So, before a fish evolved a jaw, the jaw had to exist in the DNA already.

You are switching the topic. SLP asks "What major changes have occurred in the environemnt occupied by jawless fish that would have waranted major evolutionary adaptations?" and you change the subject to "information" and "punctuated equillibrium"

Oh, I'm loving this, we finally come into, PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM, the new excuse which has been made up to explain why no transition fossils exist.

There is documented fossil evidence of punctuated equillibrium that you obviously haven't heard of:

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/horner.html

Horner, J.R., D.J. Varrichio, and M.B. Goodwin. 1992. Marine transgressions and the evolution of Cretaceous dinosaurs. Nature 358:59-61.

The paper describes some new fossils from Montana:

* transitional ceratopsids between Styracosaurus and Pachyrhinosaurus
* 50 specimens of lambeosaurids, transitional between Lambeosaurus and Hypacrosaurus.
* a transitional pachycephalosaurid between Stegoceras and Pachycephalosaurus.
* a transitional tyrannosaurid between Tyrannosaurus and Daspletosaurus

Until these transitional fossils were found, these dinosaur groups were known only from the large Judith River Formation. There, the fossils showed 5 million years of evolutionary stasis, followed by the apparently abrupt appearance of the new forms.

It is now known that the sea level rose, drowning the Judith River Formation for 500,000 years. The dinosaurs were forced to move to smaller areas such the place in Montana. Being under pressure, all of these species evolved fairly rapidly, as shown by the transitional fossils in Montana. When the sea level fell again, the new forms spread back to the Judith River area.

So, the new forms appear "suddenly" in the Judith River fossils.

And what I really enjoy is everyone ignores a very simple fact. The analogy is this-before a building is built, there has to be blue prints. In the same way, before something evolutionary pops up, the DNA has to be there, since it is the blue print of the organism.

I think everyone is well aware of the simple fact that the genome expresses the organism. What is your point?

And, here's the clencher, mutations don't add information (there are mutations that add more nucleotides, and the weird one in plants where the DNA is doubled, but no new information is made)

Mutations don't add information if you define information as something mutations can't add (an old piece of anti-evolutionist circular reasoning)