Creationism was dealt a blow today after the release of a fossil disvoverd more than 7 months ago destroys the creationists main arguement against ID.
One of the main arguements "against" evolution was:
Absolutely no transitional forms either in the fossil record or in modern animal and plant life have been found. All appear fully formed and complete. The fossil record amply supplies us with representation of almost all species of animals and plants but none of the supposed links of plant to animal, fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, or reptile to birds and mammals are represented nor any transitional forms at all. There are essentially the same gaps between all the basic kinds in the fossil record as exists in plant and animal life today. There are literally a host of missing links in the fossil record and the modern world.
Scientists have discovered fossils of a 375 million-year-old fish, a large scaly creature not seen before, that they say is a long-sought "missing link" in the evolution of some fishes from water to a life walking on four limbs on land.
In addition to confirming elements of a major transition in evolution, the fossils are widely seen by scientists as a powerful rebuttal to religious creationists, who hold a literal biblical view on the origins and development of life.
Several well-preserved skeletons of the fossil fish were uncovered in sediments of former stream beds in the Canadian Arctic, 600 miles from the North Pole, it is being reported on Thursday in the journal Nature. The skeletons have the fins and scales and other attributes of a giant fish, four to nine feet long.
But on closer examination, scientists found telling anatomical traits of a transitional creature, a fish that is still a fish but exhibiting changes that anticipate the emergence of land animals — a predecessor thus of amphibians, reptiles and dinosaurs, mammals and eventually humans.
The scientists described evidence in the forward fins of limbs in the making. There are the beginnings of digits, proto-wrists, elbows and shoulders. The fish also had a flat skull resembling a crocodile's, a neck, ribs and other parts that were similar to four-legged land animals known as tetrapods.
The discovering scientists called the fossils the most compelling examples yet of an animal that was at the cusp of the fish-tetrapod transition. The fish has been named Tiktaalik roseae, at the suggestion of elders of Canada's Nunavut Territory. Tiktaalik (pronounced tic-TAH-lick) means "large shallow water fish."
I really don't like the use of the term "Intermediate" species however, it looks like the creationists are going to have to remove a very large piece of thier accusations leveled at Evolution. As of now the creationist statement as noted above is (as we all suspected) utter BS.
This is a major find that fills in the gap
Other scientists said that in addition to confirming elements of a major transition in evolution, the fossils were a powerful rebuttal to religious creationists, who have long argued that the absence of such transitional creatures are a serious weakness in Darwin's theory.
Embedded in the pectoral fins were bones that compare to the upper arm, forearm and primitive parts of the hand of land-living animals. The joints of the fins appeared to be capable of functioning for movement on land, a case of a fish improvising with its evolved anatomy. In all likelihood, the scientists said, Tiktaalik flexed its proto-limbs mainly on the floor of streams and might have pulled itself up on the shore for brief stretches.
Yh but how did the "Monkeys" get on earth in the first place?
Who created them?
Why heated? Monkeys evolved from earlier proto-simians. In fact the simian family (the correct term for monkeys, apes and humans and all out relatives) shows evolution very well in that there are surviving species that have not changed that much from earliest times.
ORDER PRIMATES
* Suborder Strepsirrhini: non-tarsier prosimians
* Suborder Haplorrhini: tarsiers, monkeys and apes
o Infraorder Tarsiiformes
+ Family Tarsiidae: tarsiers
o Infraorder Simiiformes: simians
+ Platyrrhini: New World monkeys
# Family Cebidae: marmosets, tamarins, capuchins and squirrel monkeys
# Family Aotidae: night monkeys, owl monkeys, douroucoulis
# Family Pitheciidae: titis, sakis and uakaris
# Family Atelidae: howler, spider and woolly monkeys
+ Catarrhini
# Superfamily Cercopithecoidea
* Family Cercopithecidae: Old World monkeys
# Superfamily Hominoidea: apes
* Family Hylobatidae: gibbons ("lesser apes")
* Family Hominidae: humans and other great apes
Le coeur a ses raisons, que la raison ne connait pas. - Blaise Pascal
you talk of evolution from a prejudiced point of view. let go of your prejudices and then lets discuss things intelligently instead of emotionally. so lets talk of evolution.
lets talk of the beginning. now go to before the beginning when there was nothing. and out of nothing, everything came. from where does everything originate? everything is an effect of its preceding cause, which itself is an effect of another cause. follow the causal chain far back in time. either there is a cause who is not an effect, or there is no beginning of time. we discard the latter choice in light of the big bang theory, which shows that the universe- and thus, time- had a beginning. this Ultimate Cause who is not the effect of any other is whom we call God.
if you have studied science, even at a very elementary level, you must have heard of the second law of thermodynamics. in layman's terms, 'all systems tend to move from order to disorder unless enery is expended to keep them in order'. apply it to evolution. how did life start? how did ordered lifeforms come from disorder, chaos? if order came from disorder4 only one conclusion can be reached- that energy was used. this energy could not have come from the sun or from lightening (these are mere excuses from evolutionists). put whatever you desire in a swimming pool. whatever you think necessary for the origin of life. sterilize it. then heat it . treat it with any form of energy that you wish. keep doing it for as long as you want. then tell me if you got even a single, perfectly-functioning living cell out of it. try it and tell me if it works. i assure you it wont. if you (using your brain) are not able to do it, what makes you think trillions of species, all with an uncounted number of members, totalling up to only-God-knows how many cells, came about by mere Chance. if chance is able to do so, it must be more intelligent than you. if you can accept chance as an intelligent Being, why do you have trouble accepting God?
i am sorry, but i have to go now. will continue this tomorrow.
Last edited by Muslim Soldier; 04-10-2006 at 05:14 PM.
No one. The Coder is the Almighty and Omniscient and Omnipotent.
From the philosophical or logical point of view then, your argument goes, "The Universe is so big and complex that it must have been created by an even Bigger and More Complex Deity". To which the obvious question is, Who created the even bigger and more complex Diety? No one is not a proper answer because if the Universe is too complex, then God and the Universe is even more complex. Why not simplify it and remove God? If God does not need a Creator, why does the Universe?
Of course from a religious point of view you could say that the Quran tells you and I won't complain. But if you want to make an argument based on logic it has to explain why God should exist logically.
Le coeur a ses raisons, que la raison ne connait pas. - Blaise Pascal
you talk of evolution from a prejudiced point of view. let go of your prejudices and then lets discuss things intelligently instead of emotionally. so lets talk of evolution.
Why prejudices am I showing?
lets talk of the beginning. now go to before the beginning when there was nothing. and out of nothing, everything came. from where does everything originate? everything is an effect of its preceding cause, which itself is an effect of another cause. follow the causal chain far back in time. either there is a cause who is not an effect, or there is no beginning of time. we discard the latter choice in light of the big bang theory, which shows that the universe- and thus, time- had a beginning. this Ultimate Cause who is not the effect of any other is whom we call God.
Ahh, an oldie but a goodie - Aristotle used this argument. If everything had a Cause, what Caused God? You can define God as the Ultimate Cause but that leaves you with several problems. How do you know this Ultimate Cause is your God as opposed to, say, the Invisible Pink Unicorn? It is not enough for you to prove a God, yo need to prove your God. Second, why make it all so complicated? If there is an Ultimate Cause, why not assume the least complex Ultimate Cause and say it was the Big Bang? After the Big Bang do you need God in any sense to shape the Universe as we know it until, say, Abraham?
if you have studied science, even at a very elementary level, you must have heard of the second law of thermodynamics. in layman's terms, 'all systems tend to move from order to disorder unless enery is expended to keep them in order'.
Oh excellent. Entropy. I do admire someone who can cover all the major bad arguments against evolution. OK. Let's go with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
apply it to evolution. how did life start? how did ordered lifeforms come from disorder, chaos? if order came from disorder4 only one conclusion can be reached- that energy was used. this energy could not have come from the sun or from lightening (these are mere excuses from evolutionists). put whatever you desire in a swimming pool.
Why couldn't it have come from the Sun? Evolution would claim not to reduce entropy, in the sense of reducing chaos, in the Universe as a whole, just locally. So energy comes from the Sun, builds organisms here, but the over-all impact to the Solar System is an increase in disorder even though the local effect might be an increase in order.
whatever you think necessary for the origin of life. sterilize it. then heat it . treat it with any form of energy that you wish. keep doing it for as long as you want. then tell me if you got even a single, perfectly-functioning living cell out of it. try it and tell me if it works. i assure you it wont.
The Earth took a laboratory the size of the Earth about a billion years to come up with the first living celled creatures. Of course we can't do that in an afternoon. But the Miller experiment proved we can get some of the way and we can build semi-plausible models of how the process worked.
if you (using your brain) are not able to do it, what makes you think trillions of species, all with an uncounted number of species totalling up to only-God-knows how many cells came about by chance. if chance is able to do so, it must be more intelligent than you. if you can accept chance as an intelligent Being, why do you have trouble accepting God?
Again you are misusing the word chance. Evolution is not a random process. The "strong" survive, the "weak" die. On average. Evolution does not need intelligence at all. And the problem would remain - who designed the intelligent Being you need for your theory? If He could have arisen without a designer, why not the inifinitely less complex and more simple Universe?
Last edited by HeiGou; 04-11-2006 at 08:26 AM.
Le coeur a ses raisons, que la raison ne connait pas. - Blaise Pascal
lets talk of the beginning. now go to before the beginning when there was nothing. and out of nothing, everything came. from where does everything originate?
We grind to a halt already. What has this to do with evolution?
Looks to me you want to discuss the "Theory of Abiogenesis" and not the "Theory of Evolution"
No one is not a proper answer because if the Universe is too complex, then God and the Universe is even more complex. Why not simplify it and remove God? If God does not need a Creator, why does the Universe?
I still contend that evolution isn't as proved as atheists claim it to be! Supression of alternative theories point to that.
And I know that evolution doesn't deal with how life first occured, but for evolution to be valid its proponents have to show how it happened. Else it is simply invalid. Let's take a parable.
Consider the pagan Arabs' belief that the sky rested on mountains. Now lets say that someone works out a theory about exactly how they rest on mountains. Then someone points out "Do you have any evidence that the sky rests on mountains?". Is it a valid answer to say "My theory doesn't deals with that, it deals with how the sky rests on mountains!".
Obviously if the foundation of the theory is lacking, then it is invalid.
I still contend that evolution isn't as proved as atheists claim it to be! Supression of alternative theories point to that.
Supression of which theories do you refer to?
And I know that evolution doesn't deal with how life first occured, but for evolution to be valid its proponents have to show how it happened. Else it is simply invalid. Let's take a parable.
Here is the dictionary explanation of "Evolution":
Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
Here is the scientific interpretation of "Evolution":
The change in allele frequency in a population over time
I think the problem you have is that creationists consider Evolution
Evolution is the process whereby humans came from nothingness, without the aid of a god.
No disrespect, but I think the "average" person would consider the dictionary or scientific term for "Evolution". Perhaps, some could say that evolution must explain the creation of the universe to fully validate evolution which clearly is nonsense
I still contend that evolution isn't as proved as atheists claim it to be! Supression of alternative theories point to that.
Evolution is supported by more people than atheists. But it is a scientific theory. Which means that no one ought to accept it as Truth in the sense that religions teach Truths. It needs to be tested. It needs to be able to explain the evidence. It needs to provide a logical and coherent explanation of the process. It has and still is. It does. Which alternative do you think works better? What do you think has been "suppressed"?
And I know that evolution doesn't deal with how life first occured, but for evolution to be valid its proponents have to show how it happened.
Which they do. Evolution provides a pretty good explanation. Again evolution rests on three basic premises
1. Deep Time - the Earth is very old
2. Hereditary - children inherit characteristics from their parents
3. Selection - those "better" adapted at any one time have more offspring than those that are not.
Which of these do you think is wrong? If you do not think any of them are wrong, why don't you believe in Evolution?
Le coeur a ses raisons, que la raison ne connait pas. - Blaise Pascal
If these three points brought up by the Evolution-worshippers were correct, why aren't all creatures human?
Why on Earth would they be? The smart question would be why any creatures human at all but perhaps not. Think about it - some animal can make a neat living by eating grass on the plains of Africa, and another can by hunting krill in the Antartic Ocean, and another by sucking up ants in Argentina. Why would they evolve to look like us?
Le coeur a ses raisons, que la raison ne connait pas. - Blaise Pascal
Because human beings are the pinnacle of all creatures in the known universe, all evolution should lead to creatures becoming human-like.
What on Earth makes you think that? God can create creatures as He likes, but evolution has to work with what it has - both in terms of creatures that exist already and the environment they fit into. Even if humans were somehow so very special, and there is no evidence for it I can see, evolution can only produce what is better locally - so a better ant-eater, not a better pinnacle of all creatures.
And why have some species not "evolved themselves out of existence" in the few millenia we have kept track of them?
Some species have evolved themselves out of existence. Extinction, usually with the help of a lot of humans, is well documented.
Le coeur a ses raisons, que la raison ne connait pas. - Blaise Pascal
Originally Posted by Muslim Soldier
How about God as a cause?
Yes, what about God, A great hypothosis.
The theory of Evolution is not concerned about how the very first cells came to be, this is still a great scientific mystery. Evolution only describes how life evolved from the first primitive cells.
If you want to use the hypothosis that "God" created the first living cells then that would be for yourself. The fact that "God" created the first cells hypothosis has no bearing on evolution. Thus belief in creation (of the first cells) and Evolution can and does not conflict with God. This is why many religous people aspire to evolution and retain faith.
By being dogmatic in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence and if you don't mind me saying "ignorant" to the theory of evolution & science itself we as man risk being held in the dark ages controlled by myth and superstition and ultimately turning a blind eye to what we know to be the truth.
Evolution does not disprove God or religions, it forces us to face the truth in regard to how "man" came to be...............
And why have some species not "evolved themselves out of existence" in the few millenia we have kept track of them?
I don't quite get that. Evolutionary forces acting upon any species is survival of the fittest/luckiest and adaptive. Many species have simply died out because they could not adapt or were not lucky enough, this is why so many gaps exist in transitional forms.
Some species don't change at all over long time because they don't need to, evolution predicted that such life exists remained unchanged from the dawn of origins because thioer environment will hardy change, thus the evolutionary forces don't act strongly against such species.
Because human beings are the pinnacle of all creatures in the known universe, all evolution should lead to creatures becoming human-like.
Hardly the universe. Our planet is all we know about currently, however the Dinasaurs were far more succesful than us currently since the lifespan that these guys dominated the planet is considerably longer than ours. Survival of the luckiest (their luck ran out when the comet that created the KT Boundary smashed into the planet). This changed the course of evolutionary history and mammals were able to exploit new niche markets and quickly mammals became the next dominant force that ultimately lead to "man". Again, mass extinctions (of which the earth has had several) can easily put an end to the human being the "Pinnacle" of evolution.
Evolution is the process whereby humans came from nothingness, without the aid of a god.
The bit that makes any sense in that... please point it out to me.
Little in that makes sense. Evolution does not deal with Ultimate Questions. Although it does provide a coherent possible explanation for the origins of life, it does not insist on the lack of any aid from God. Nor does it start from nothing. It works with what is available in small steps.
Le coeur a ses raisons, que la raison ne connait pas. - Blaise Pascal
Evolution does not deal with Ultimate Questions. Although it does provide a coherent possible explanation for the origins of life, it does not insist on the lack of any aid from God. Nor does it start from nothing. It works with what is available in small steps.
which makes no logical sense whatsoever!
Correct me if I am wrong, but from what you’re saying, the evolution theory does not eliminate God-
It does not insist on the lack of any aid from God?
So from what you are saying that believers of evolution cannot eliminate God, hence chance that God might exists-
Which gives you two solutions?
A = God Doesn’t exists
B = God Exists
A
If God exists = what revelations has be sent to mankind- is the revelation consistent with what your saying? I.e. that he created the primitive cell, and then humans evolved from it-
B
If he doesn’t exists then you’re unable to solve the great scientific mystery – how the first primitive cell came into existence?
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Updated 24/7
to the Muslims
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks