A Question which Atheists could not answer

[Independent]

This may or may not be relevant to this thread.......In 1912 Piltdown Man hit the headlines

It has been mentioned in this thread. Piltdown Man is a famous historical hoax, quite entertaining and very well known. It gets Creationists excited, although it plays no role role in evolutionary science.

It's as irrelevant to modern evolutionary studies as alchemy is to modern chemistry.

 

[جوري]

evolutionary science

there's no 'science' in any of what you've described thus far. There is data and numbers and proof from experiments which are controlled tests or investigations that yield the desired outcome. The methods you tote should be applied here don't you think? that is if we're indeed speaking of 'science' not empiricism!

best,

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Independent;

"Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong." (The US National Academy of Science)

If the evidence is so strong, where is the fossil evidence, that shows evolution taking place from the time the first bone came into a species. Where is the evidence that shows three percent of a skull, five percent of a skull and all the stages up to a complete skull.

If there is so much evidence, why do scientists like Dawkins have to fudge the evidence to explain the evolution of the eye?

Once you have a complete skeletal system, adaption is a fairly easy concept to accept, just supply some science to show the early stages.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

 

[Muhaba]

The discovery of a living coelacanth is exciting but it is in no way a challenge to TOE because it doesn't break the pattern. Everything is still in the right order. The modern coelacanth is actually not entirely identical to the fossilised specimens, but it is certainly of the same family.

The order of origin is more important for TOE than the time of extinction because TOE predicts that species can only evolve within the limitations prescribed by their immediate ancestors. TOE predicts only that many species will go extinct, and sometimes how, but not necessarily when.

As I have stressed throughout, TOE does not necessarily mean that simple forms disappear as more sophisticated creatures move in. If the simple lifeform has an environmental niche and can compete successfully, it will continue. (Possibly this is what happened with the coelacanth as it lives very deep in the ocean.)

Whereas an ape, for instance, has fewer places to hide. Of the estimated 8.7 millions species still living on this planet, only about 1.2 million have been described. However, most of those are insects and plants, it would be a big surprise to find a new large mammal.

As for the accuracy of fossil dating....specific fossils are always found in specific geological strata. eg a fossil may first appear in a layer of Devonian sandstone and never in an earlier stratum. Geologists have built up an accurate picture of the layers of rock through the ages by cross referencing samples from all over the world. Fossils are a valuable contributor to this record - and in fact they play a big role in oil industry prospecting, because they are such a reliable indicator.

Fossil evidence is cross referenced with evidence from other disciplines including geology, radiometrics and molecular clock estimations. (In fact, one of the convincing aspects of TOE is the way it supports and is supported by other sciences).

My point was that the fossil record can't be trusted if fossils of animals thought to be extinct but not really extinct do not appear in the fossil record. If later fossils did not appear in the fossil record then it's possible that earlier fossils also are missing and the order of origin is not correct. You may think that a fossil first appeared at a certain time but actually it wasn't the first occurrence of the animal in nature. If the fossil record didn't account for millions of years since the time the coelacanth was believed to be extinct, then it's very possible that it didn't account for animals that may have been alive millions of years before their fossils appeared in the record. The order of origin is not trustable because the fossil record is not accurate.

 

[Muhaba]

The video is a long, expensively produced, glossy advert for Intelligent Design. It does not explain why the historical phylogenetic pattern of species fits TOE, which is a challenge they really need to face. Instead it takes the familiar negative Creationist tactic of trying to find specific details which are difficult to explain.

Creationists and scientists such as in the video observe the complex and intelligently designed nature of the cell, organs, etc and deduce that they must have been intelligently designed. Evolutionists observe fossil records and deduce that the organisms evolved from each other because less complex organisms appear earlier and more complex ones later in the fossil record. The pattern in the fossil record is about the stupidest reason why anyone would believe theory of evolution. Like I stated previously, there are various faults with it. There may be other reasons why more complex organisms appear later, such a the conditions on the earth and atmosphere. The fossil records may not accurately account for fossils of creatures. etc. etc.

 

[Muhaba]

It has been mentioned in this thread. Piltdown Man is a famous historical hoax, quite entertaining and very well known. It gets Creationists excited, although it plays no role role in evolutionary science.

It's as irrelevant to modern evolutionary studies as alchemy is to modern chemistry.

Just like the Archaeopteryx, the coelacanth, and so many other intermediate fossils!

 

[observer]

If the evidence is so strong, where is the fossil evidence, that shows evolution taking place from the time the first bone came into a species. Where is the evidence that shows three percent of a skull, five percent of a skull and all the stages up to a complete skull.

Hi Eric,

your focus on bones got me reading and actually there's a lot of evidence for how bones evolved, and it's surprisingly simple:

Following the violent moves of tectonic plates about 1.5 billion (1.5 × 109) years ago, huge amounts of minerals, including CaCO3, were washed into the oceans. This created the possibility for its inhabitants of developing hard body parts, such as shells or spines. At first, this helped unicellular organisms to cope with excessive amounts of minerals and to prevent over-crusting. It also led to the sharp increase in the diversity of multicellular organisms (and their fossils!) a little more than 0.5 billion years ago, known as the “Cambrian explosion” (Schopf 1994, Kawasaki et al. 2004). Furthermore, the appearance of a rigid outside skeleton extended the effective length of limbs, thus permitting more rapid locomotion in many organisms. The appearance of mineralized body parts is seen by many scientists as one of the forces that generally increased the pace of animal evolution (Kumar and Hedges 1998,Kutschera and Niklas 2004).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3237026/

see also http://neurodojo.blogspot.com.es/2010/05/beginnings-of-bone.html for a quick summary and links to other relevant papers.

If we discover the complete process of skeletal formation, would you accept evolution? Or are there other points you reject?

 

[M.I.A.]

what if adam pbuh was the first man given reasoning, intellect and knowledge.

although it would be hard to document such a thing.

just speculating.. although its implications are circular.

how on earth would anybody know?

 

[جوري]

This created the possibility for its inhabitants of developing hard body parts, such as shells or spines

'created'
'the possibility'
inhabitants developing ... hmm interesting, again do you care to elaborate on said 'creation' per your articles ... a little bit of sunshine and sprinkle of water and a magic wand or what?
How about some details not words strung together to look the part?

best,

 

[observer]

a little bit of sunshine and sprinkle of water and a magic wand or what?

Ah, now that sounds more like creationism doesn't it?

 

[جوري]

Ah, now that sounds more like creationism doesn't it?

Not at all, in fact if you did minor reading to this thread or any other thread you'd have come across:

[FONT=Verdana,arial]

---

Al-Kahf [18:51]

[SIZE=+2]مَا أَشْهَدتُّهُمْ خَلْقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ وَلَا خَلْقَ أَنفُسِهِمْ وَمَا كُنتُ مُتَّخِذَ الْمُضِلِّينَ عَضُدًا http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/arabicscript/Ayat/18/18_51.gif
​

​

Ma ashhadtuhum khalqa alssamawati waalardi wala khalqa anfusihim wama kuntu muttakhitha almudilleena AAadudan​

18:51 I called them not to witness the creation of the heavens and the earth, nor (even) their own creation: nor is it for Me to take as helpers such as lead (men) astray!


_________________________________


What do you know, the answer is we actually don't know how it happened. Now, do you care to elaborate from your end? You're the ones who claim to know, so how about the details without meandering into really cheesy jabs- it doesn't hold for long and is actually quite sad!​

[/SIZE][/FONT]

 

[observer]

What do you know, the answer is we actually don't know how it happened. Now, do you care to elaborate from your end? You're the ones who claim to know, so how about the details without meandering into really cheesy jabs- it doesn't hold for long and is actually quite sad!

Oh, sweet, sweet irony!

We don't know everything - that's been stated again. And again. And again.

However, scientists are unanimous that evolution is real. You don't believe it - ok. But your repeated attacks on it as "not science" are just ridiculous.

 

[جوري]

However, scientists are unanimous that evolution is real.

I need details not adverbs or fallacies. I'll be waiting!

best,

 

[Independent]

My point was that the fossil record can't be trusted if fossils of animals thought to be extinct but not really extinct do not appear in the fossil record. If later fossils did not appear in the fossil record then it's possible that earlier fossils also are missing and the order of origin is not correct.

Yes - but you need to look at whether any new fossil discovery actually contradicts the overall TOE model, not just specific details within it. The coelacanth is an amazing story but just because it was mistakenly believed to be extinct doesn't challenge TOE.

New fossil discoveries continuously reveal previously unknown species, or extend the proven range of known species either forwards or backwards. But they don't break the predicted phylogenetic pattern (we don't find Homo sapiens in the Jurassic etc).

In recent decades scientists have cross referenced the fossil and geological record with 'molecular clock' estimations. These use the average rate of mutation over millennia to calculate when ancestral species 'should' have existed. Usually, it shows that a species 'should' have already evolved before it appears in the fossil record. This is what you would expect because it is unlikely a representative fossil would formed immediately.

The way these information sources across different scientific disciplines cross reference is powerful corroborative evidence. No Creationist account even begins to explain why the phylogenetic pattern happens to match TOE, when there is no logical reason for it in a system of continuous speciation by divine fiat.

 

[Independent]

what if adam pbuh was the first man given reasoning, intellect and knowledge.

although it would be hard to document such a thing.

just speculating.. although its implications are circular.

how on earth would anybody know?

This is unknowable and untestable. But if Adam was the first human, I'm wondering when he lived and who all these other hominids are wandering around through the ages. (And also how he can be 90ft tall which is not physically possible without major changes to the human body.)

 

[Independent]

There may be other reasons why more complex organisms appear later, such a the conditions on the earth and atmosphere.

You could argue this about the very early stages of life evolution but not all the later changes (bipedalism etc) which occurred long after the planet had stabilised to something like today's environment.

 

[Independent]

If the evidence is so strong, where is the fossil evidence, that shows evolution taking place from the time the first bone came into a species. Where is the evidence that shows three percent of a skull, five percent of a skull and all the stages up to a complete skull.

Greetings Eric

Observer has quoted a couple of interesting articles about bone origin. Personally i feel you can only go so far with this type of specific question, because it's going to get very technical, very quickly. As a non specialist, how can you realistically judge?

Better simply to acknowledge that this a question that is under current scientific debate and to say that, for now, you simply 'don't know' or you're 'not convinced'. On the basis of the science alone, as relating to bone evolution, i don't see how you can possibly claim the idea has been refuted and is actually impossible unless you enjoy reading sentences like this one with your breakfast:

The appearance of epithelial-mesenchymal interactions and the origin of the skeletogenic/odontogenic neural crest at the outset of vertebrate evolution provided the developmental basis for the evolutionary origin of vertebrate skeletogenic and odontogenic tissues and for the appearance and evolution of the vertebrate skeleton.
.

 

[جوري]

but you need to look at whether any new fossil discovery actually contradicts the overall TOE model, not just specific details within it.

On what basis should it be accepted exactly? Neither the proposed species have evolved per predicted nor the method scientifically elucidated or do you mean folks should subscribe on faith?

 

[CosmicPathos]

 

[Independent]

^^
At least in this video Dr Wells admits that abiogenesis is not part of TOE and was barely mentioned by Darwin. However, he then goes on to treat it as an 'icon of evolution' anyway.

The Miller Urey experiment was interesting because it proved that amino acids could be created by nature, if the conditions were right. Whether they chose the right conditions for the early Earth remains a subject for debate. But the case is far more nuanced than Dr Wells suggests:

1. The composition of the early earth atmosphere is still controversial. Dr Wells is wrong to suggest that it's an accepted fact that it contained oxygen (which would have spoiled the Miller Urey experiment). Other studies have argued that it may after all have been hydrogen rich (See Early Earth Atmosphere favorable to life' University of Waterloo). It's not possible to state for certain one way or the other and in any case there are other permutations possible.

2. Some samples of the Miller Urey experiment were retested more recently and found to contain many more amino acids than they identified. So the experiment was far more successful than realised.

3. Other possibilities are being considered, especially deep sea volcanic vents, which also provide possible environments for amino acid development under different conditions and producing a wider range of amino acids.

4. It has recently been confirmed that amino acids exist in comets. This in itself confirms that amino acids can be created by natural means. It's also believed that comet impact on earth is a credible source of amino acid deposit and creation. This is interesting because, increasingly, it's being argued that much of the water in Earth's oceans comes not from the origins of the earth, but from much later comet impact not long before the first signs of life on the planet.

5. The set of amino acids produced by Miller Urey are well matched to the acids most commonly found in archaic dna (ie that part of the dna in the genome which is believed to be oldest) - which is interesting corroborative evidence.

There are other issues too that mean the debate remains wide open. It's simply not possible to state, as Dr Wells does, that natural amino acid creation is 'impossible'.