Creationist that wants to learn about evolution.

[Modus]

BTW, Someone made the claim that there have been thousands of transitional fossils found. I still havent heard a clear answer and I think I've read all the links about transitional fossils that have been posted here and still havent found anything that backs that up. Do you guys agree with this? Does anyone know where I can read about this?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

I definitely recommending talk.origins as a starting point. They have a vast collection of articles relating to evolution that you could probably spend weeks pouring over.

Start with the list of "must reads" and go from there.

For books, I'd recommend What Evolution Is by Ernst Mayr. It mainly discusses the mechanisms behind evolution. I'd also recommend reading Origin of the Species. Darwin is often misquoted and misunderstood, so it's a good idea to actually read first-hand the ideas he put forth (Talk.origins has an online version of Origin you can read for free).

Now, a word of caution. Evolution is a *big* topic (which in turn, covers lots of other topics), that can require a lot of research to even acquire a basic understanding. Some creationists come in and ask for a "magic bullet" piece of evidence that "proves" evolution once and for all. The reality is there is no magic bullet. It's the cumulation of the evidence for evolution that validates the theory, not any single piece of evidence. So, be prepared to plow through quite a bit of information.

 

[notto]

BTW, Someone made the claim that there have been thousands of transitional fossils found. I still havent heard a clear answer and I think I've read all the links about transitional fossils that have been posted here and still havent found anything that backs that up. Do you guys agree with this? Does anyone know where I can read about this?

The Talk Origins page discusses over 300 specific fossils that show the transitional nature of the fossil record. What problems do you have with it? Do you have any specific questions about it? What are you looking for as far as something that 'backs it up'? The page gives a summary of scientific findings and studies. It would take you year to read about all of them from the primary sources.

Not sure what you are looking for that has not already been provided.

 

[platzapS]

It's cool that you're taking time to learn the other side. Others have already given great links, and I'm not an expert, but here are some of the major points suggesting evolution:

Natural Selection: You already know that micro-evolution occurs. Just imagine, that if given enough time, those small changes add up to major differences.

The Fossil Record: Why aren't modern elephant bones found in the same layer as dinosaurs? The layers of fossils show that life has changed dramatically over time.

Homology: Many vertebrates, including reptiles, birds, and mammals, tend to have the same basic bone structure, suggesting that all animals (and if you go back far enough--plants, fungi, bacteria...) share a common ancestor.

Vestigial Organs: "Vestigial" does NOT mean that a part of the body is no longer used, it just mean that the body part has lost its ORIGINAL use. For example, the whale's leg bone is vestigial. Even though it now aids in reproduction, it originally helped the whale's ancestors to walk on land.

I know I just gave a simple outline, so please orrect me if I'm wrong. Keep searching, and use the mind that God gave you.

 

[Cantuar]

I don't really see what's being requested here. As long as Modus has decided that scientific evidence contradicts God's word and is therefore wrong, why is he bothering to ask for details? Just so he has yet more stuff to refute on his website?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

I don't really see what's being requested here. As long as Modus has decided that scientific evidence contradicts God's word and is therefore wrong, why is he bothering to ask for details? Just so he has yet more stuff to refute on his website?

I'd give him the benefit of the doubt for now. Really, how many times do you actually see creationists openly wanting to learn about evolution, rather than simply reguritating PRATTs from their favorite creationist web sites?

I say we should be encouraging his quest for information, rather than putting up road blocks.

 

[Mike Flynn]

What I mean by rejecting evolution to begin with is; if it goes against what has been proven to me about God, then its going to be impossible for you to give me enough evidence for me to believe science over God.

Just so we're clear. Evolution does not say anything about God as a being. It could tell us something about how he has formed the man from the dust.

At this point, I don't even know if evolution does contradict my faith. There are people that claim that evolution works with the bible and there are those who say it doesn't. Well, guess what, I want to see for myself.

Then you will need to be willing to take a close look at the scriptures...and you will also need a good philosophical background. Read C.S. Lewis and Brian Maclaren...excellent theological works.

You believe what you believe becuase you have seen enough evidence for your beliefs to be proven to you. The same goes for me. If I were to ask you to believe something that didn't have as good of evidence as what you currently believed, would you change your mind? Probably not.

The point is this: what exactly has been proven to you through your faith experiences? A literal reading of Genesis? Or has your faith convinced you that the God of the Bible is a real and loving God who has saved the world in the person of Jesus? If it is the latter, then you must understand that all Christians believe that through their experiences. If it is the former (a literal reading), then there are many Christians who have had experiences with God who completely disagree with you on that (and have come to accept evolution). Not to mention the fact that throughout the Bible, God makes it clear that He is not in the business of teaching history or Science. He is in the business of saving human lives.

So the question remains: what exactly has been proven to you in your experiences?

Now would it be fair for me to call you closed minded becuase you didn't accept my evidence. No it wouldn't. So please respect that.

If my evidence says that the earth is the center of the universe. Should we all accept it as such. If you tell us that God told you the earth was the center of the solar system...then what would that say about God? IOW, as believers we need to be able to discern what part of our faith is based on human understanding and what part is based on trust in the Lord.

The part that is based on human understanding (our theology, etc) is not perfect...and must not be confused with the trust we have in the Lord. If it is obvious that you are confusing those principles, then I think that it would be beneficial for you to hear about that. Christians need to encourage each other to hold on to the truth.

So I respect that you have a right to have your own beliefs on these matters. But we also have the right to call your evidence into question if it is not sound.

I believe you are taking an honest approach to all this. And I commend you for that. At the same time, you must realize that if you are unwilling to look objectively at your own assumptions...then this is the first step we take away from putting our trust in the Lord.

 

[Modus]

I don't really see what's being requested here. As long as Modus has decided that scientific evidence contradicts God's word and is therefore wrong, why is he bothering to ask for details? Just so he has yet more stuff to refute on his website?

At this point, I don't even know if evolution does contradict my faith. There are people that claim that evolution works with the bible and there are those who say it doesn't. Well, guess what, I want to see for myself.

Now, a word of caution. Evolution is a *big* topic (which in turn, covers lots of other topics), that can require a lot of research to even acquire a basic understanding. Some creationists come in and ask for a "magic bullet" piece of evidence that "proves" evolution once and for all. The reality is there is no magic bullet. It's the cumulation of the evidence for evolution that validates the theory, not any single piece of evidence. So, be prepared to plow through quite a bit of information.

I'm with you there. Ive studied enough things to know what it takes, and it looks like evolution is going to be the monster of all subjects. You have to start somewhere you know!

The Talk Origins page discusses over 300 specific fossils that show the transitional nature of the fossil record. What problems do you have with it? Do you have any specific questions about it? What are you looking for as far as something that 'backs it up'? The page gives a summary of scientific findings and studies. It would take you year to read about all of them from the primary sources.

Not sure what you are looking for that has not already been provided.

Someone made a claim that there have been thousands of transitional fossils found. I had no idea there were that many found, I was just trying to get some information to back up the "thousands" claim. Basically I want to know if there really has been thousands found to see if the person who claimed that is exaggerating or not. I am really serious about learning this stuff and I want to see who is going to be trustworthy and just deal with facts. I'm just being carefull here.

I say we should be encouraging his quest for information, rather than putting up road blocks.

Thanks Pete.

Then you will need to be willing to take a close look at the scriptures...and you will also need a good philosophical background. Read C.S. Lewis and Brian Maclaren...excellent theological works.

I'm in the Bible everyday for sure and I read on philosophy at least 30 minutes a day if not hours. I like philosophy a lot and it gets me into trouble when I debate evidence of evolution. Thats sort of why I'm here, to learn the evidence so that I can see weather or not it needs to be debated. I've read a lot of C.S. Lewis but have yet to check out Maclaren. Thanks for the heads up.

So the question remains: what exactly has been proven to you in your experiences?

I promise I will get into this at a later time. Right now I really want to focus on learning this stuff and I'm certain that this is going to cause debate which it looks like I'm not going to be having much time for for a while.

 

[revolutio]

Someone made a claim that there have been thousands of transitional fossils found. I had no idea there were that many found, I was just trying to get some information to back up the "thousands" claim. Basically I want to know if there really has been thousands found to see if the person who claimed that is exaggerating or not. I am really serious about learning this stuff and I want to see who is going to be trustworthy and just deal with facts. I'm just being carefull here.

From my understanding the concept of "transitional fossil" is something that only exists in writing. In reality every fossil can be considered a transitional fossil. Species are not rigid orders they are fluid and ever changing things. We just label them for our own convenience.

All that is required for something to be transitional is another fossil at a different date to compare it to. As for the numbers I don't know the exact number of fossils that can be considered 'transitional' but you might want to read Meatros's post to get an idea. There have been many many found.

 

[pureone]

Not every fossil, rev. Remember the ones that lead or belong to an extinct species with no other cladistic branches are dead ends and do not represent transitions.

 

[Modus]

From my understanding the concept of "transitional fossil" is something that only exists in writing. In reality every fossil can be considered a transitional fossil.

there seems to be a contradiction in what you are saying and what I have been reading about. Arent there some species that are under "stabalizing selection" instead of trying to get bigger and badder. So the fossils wont really be transitioning into anything (at least fossil wise). Am I correct on this or am I missunderstanding something here.

If I am correct, what would you say we as a species are doing right now. Are we directional in our selection or are we stabalizing? It seems to me like we are stablizing. Heres something and evolutionist pointed out on my website:

I believe that the reason why we are seeing more disease and problems is that pure health is no longer important for the survival of the species. Nearly everyone I know wears glasses, several hundred years ago this would not have been the case, bad eyesight would have been a signficant problem. Also, by being able to treat and cure diseases we are allowing people with the disposition towards those diseases to pass on their disposition to their children. I am asthmatic. 200 or even 100 years ago I probably would have died as a child, but now i have the opportunity to pass on my disposition towards asthma to my children.

 

[pureone]

there seems to be a contradiction in what you are saying and what I have been reading about. Arent there some species that are under "stabalizing selection" instead of trying to get bigger and badder.

Yes, modus, some species have found their niche and are not evolving at the particular time. If the environmental pressurs were to change, perhaps some mutations would allow for the species to change as well, and evolve into a new species.
Also, evolution is not about becoming "bigger and badder". It is about species becoming specialized to their niche.

So the fossils wont really be transitioning into anything (at least fossil wise). Am I correct on this or am I missunderstanding something here.

Fossild do not transition. Species transition. If there are species on either side of the cladistic branch of a species, then it can be considered a T.S.

We as humans have learned to adapt though other mechanisms to our environment. Can't see well? no longer eaten by tiger. Got glasses or corrective surgery. We are learning how to deal with the mutations at all levels.

 

[revolutio]

Not every fossil, rev. Remember the ones that lead or belong to an extinct species with no other cladistic branches are dead ends and do not represent transitions.

However even then only the very last animals would be considered non-transitional since nothing proceeded them. As for the so called dead end species, even they still undergo changes however they are much more slight given how well adapted they are to the environment.

The point is that the processes of evolution are omnipresent.

 

[MySavior]

Modus-I used to reject evoloution also. I spoent several weeks doing little else except studying evolution and still am studying it every day. I fully accept it and not know it is the method of how God created. Study it before you say you reject it. It is pretty obvious and is happening everyday all around us-without much notice on our part!! God bless you.

 

[JVAC]

I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but "The Science of God" contains some very interesting data and a very good theory about how Creation and Evolution is one in the same. Keep in mind this is a theory, not fact yet it seems to be the best one I have seen. For those not big on science he even tells you what parts to skip, and for those big on science he goes into great depth of how things just start coming together.

I have seen it stated above in this chat and others, that many christians accept evolution as a means, I would like to encourage people not to think of the two as contradictory but complementary. The bible gives us purpose and science can give us how. With as much study that has gone into this field alone, I don't see how people can continue to use Evolution to attack christians. Through a deep reading of the text, we can understand Jews/Christians to be the first Evolutionists.

 

[lucaspa]

but the main reason I reject evolution is because of what has been proven to me outside of science.
If evolution conflicts with something God says in the bible, I would definately go with God.

The problem is that what is outside the Bible is also God. After all, didn't God create? That means that what science studies is God's Creation, and all the evidence in it was put there by God.

What you are doing is pitting God vs God. See the first quote in my signature.

No amount of empirical testing can outwiegh the word of God.

Ah, but what is the "word of God"? Don't you mean your interpretation of Genesis 1-8? What about Luke 2:1? Didn't empirical testing show that not all the world was enrolled? Doesn't that outweigh the "word of God" such that you now interpret Luke 2:1 to mean the Roman world?

Science is not always 100%. Nobody can argue with that (well, they can't argue the latter at least)

Science is 100% correct when it falsifies. The earth is not flat. 100%. The earth is not the center of the solar system. 100%. The earth is not less than 20,000 years old. 100%. Each species was not created in its present form. 100%.

Once I reached out and touched the heater bar of God's love and forgiveness, I went from believing to knowing.

Fine. And how does the fact that God created by what you call "evolution" affect that in any way?

And I suspect you could say something similar about your beliefs in evolution.

No, because evolution is not a belief. It is us touching the heater bar. We know what it is because we experience it. We accept evolution because the data gives us no choice. But then, evolution is not atheism.

So before we start a flame war of insults before we start the website referencing wars, please, I am willing to actually study some material on evolution to get a better understanding of it. So now you know where I stand, and I really would'nt like to debate why I believe what I do here.

Look, no one here is trying to change your belief in God. If you want to know why creationism is falsified and evolution is supported, I'll do that. But it is under the understanding that you will not change your belief in God.

Deal?

From what I have read, fossil evidence supporting evolution has had a bad history of producing frauds and just plain mistakes, however I do know there are some contenders up for possible missing link finds. Does anybody have any info on fossils of species in a transitional period. (i have read a bit on the archeoptryx, so Im pretty familiar with that stuff) or any fossil records relating to missing link stuff.

I'm sure someone pointed you to the transitional fossils thread. In the hominid line, let me give you a lot of transitional individuals that link species within our own lineage.

F. Clark Howell, Early Man Time Life Library, 1980
Francis M Clapham, Our Human Ancestors, 1976
Afarensis to habilis: OH 24 is in between A. afarensis and habilis
B Asfaw, T White, O Lovejoy, B Latimer, S Simpson, G Suwa, Australopithecus garhi: a new species of early hominid from Ethiopia. Science 284: 622-629, 1999. All individuals are intermediate between A. afarensis and H. habilis.
Habilis to erectus:
Oldovai: Bed I has Habilis at bottom, then fossils with perfect mixture of characteristics of habilis and erectus, and erectus at top. At bottom of Bed II (top of Bed I) have fossils resemble H. erectus but brain case smaller than later H. erectus that lies immediately above them. pg 81
OH 13, 14 was classified by some anthropologists as H. habilis but others as early H. erectus. 650 cc
D2700 from Dmasi has features of both hablis and erectus. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/d2700.html
Koobi Fora: Another succession with several habilis up to 2 Mya, then transitionals, and then erectus at 1.5 Mya.
Erectus to sapiens: Omo valley. Omo-2 "remarkable mixture of Homo erectus and Homo sapiens characteristics" pg. 70.
Omo-1: another mix of erectus and sapiens
Omo Valley, Ethiopia: ~ 500,000 ya. mixture erectus and sapiens features
Sale in Morrocco: skull discovered in 1971, ~300,000 ya. also shows erectus and sapiens features.
Broken Hill skull: another skull with mixtures of erectus and sapiens features
Tautavel, 200Kya: large brow ridges and small cranium but rest of face looks like H. sapiens.
"We shall see the problem of drawing up a dividing line between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens is not easy." pg 65.
Ngaloba Beds of Laetoli, 120 Kya: ~1200 cc and suite of archaic (erectus) features.
Guamde in Turkana Basin, 180 Kya: more modern features than Ngaloba but in-between erectus and sapiens.
Skhul, Israel "posed a puzzle to paleoanthropologists, appearing to be almost but not quite modern humans"
Skhul and Jebel Qafza caves: "robust" H. sapiens at 120 Kya that have brow ridges like erectus but brain case like sapiens.
Bouri http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/06/0611_030611_earliesthuman.html
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/06/11_bones-background.shtml
actual paper: http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v423/n6941/full/nature01669_r.html

 

[lucaspa]

there seems to be a contradiction in what you are saying and what I have been reading about. Arent there some species that are under "stabalizing selection" instead of trying to get bigger and badder. So the fossils wont really be transitioning into anything (at least fossil wise). Am I correct on this or am I missunderstanding something here.

If I am correct, what would you say we as a species are doing right now. Are we directional in our selection or are we stabalizing? It seems to me like we are stablizing. Heres something and evolutionist pointed out on my website:

There are three "flavors" of natural selection:

1. Directional.
2. Stabilizing or purifying.
3. Disruptive.

Not all fossils are transitional. Species do go extinct, and species, once formed, seem to be relatively stable thruout their lifetime. This is because 1. large populations are resistant to having new alleles "fixed" because they are large and 2. the population is large because it is well-adapted to its niche and is therefore at a "fitness peak". Thus it is under stabilizing selection.

Disruptive selection happens when a species covers a wide range and thus different populations face different environments. Thus two or more populations will be under different directional selection pressures. Whether the population splits into 2 or more species depends on the strength of the selection and the amount of gene flow between populations.

This is where humans are now -- disruptive selection. The !Kung face a different environment than Himalayan highlanders or the pygmies.

What is confusing the human situation is that our technology removes many (most?) selection pressures of the environment.

 

[lucaspa]

I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but "The Science of God" contains some very interesting data and a very good theory about how Creation and Evolution is one in the same. Keep in mind this is a theory, not fact yet it seems to be the best one I have seen.

Isn't this Schroeder?

What books of this type do is try to preserve a literal interpretation of Genesis 1. They are doomed from the start since a literal interpretation of Genesis 2 already shows a literal reading of Genesis 1 to be wrong.

Remember, Creation is different from Creationism. Creation is simply the idea that God created. All forms of creationism, including The Science of God, are a specific how that God created. Forget a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-8 and let evolution be the how that God created. You can get much more of the original meaning if you discard a literal Genesis 1-8 anyway. It's a win-win situation.

 

[lucaspa]

BTW, Someone made the claim that there have been thousands of transitional fossils found. I still havent heard a clear answer and I think I've read all the links about transitional fossils that have been posted here and still havent found anything that backs that up. Do you guys agree with this? Does anyone know where I can read about this?

Gould found thousands of transitional individuals just between two species of the snail Cerion.
3. "Unscrambling Time in the Fossil Record" Science vol 274, pg 1842, Dec 13, 1996. The primary article is by GA Goodfriend and SJ Gould "Paleontolgy and Chronolgy of Two evolutionary Transitions by Hybridization in the Bahamian Land Snail Cerion", pgs 1894-1897.

There's a couple of thousand more in this article looking at several species of molluscs.
1. Williamson, PG, Paleontological documentation of speciation in cenozoic molluscs from Turkana basin. Nature 293:437-443, 1981.

Finally, there is this study:
5. PR Sheldon, Parallel gradualistic evolution of Ordovician trilobites. Nature 330: 561-563, 1987. Rigourous biometric study of the pygidial ribs of 3458 specimens of 8 generic lineages in 7 stratgraphic layers covering about 3 million years. Gradual evolution where at any given time the population was intermediate between the samples before it and after it.

That's 3,458 transitional fossils in this one study!

 

[JVAC]

Isn't this Schroeder?

What books of this type do is try to preserve a literal interpretation of Genesis 1. They are doomed from the start since a literal interpretation of Genesis 2 already shows a literal reading of Genesis 1 to be wrong.

Remember, Creation is different from Creationism. Creation is simply the idea that God created. All forms of creationism, including The Science of God, are a specific how that God created. Forget a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-8 and let evolution be the how that God created. You can get much more of the original meaning if you discard a literal Genesis 1-8 anyway. It's a win-win situation.

Yes it is Schroeder, and I think it is enough to say that the Genesis one deals with time in "Aeon" and in Genesis two and thus on it deals with more human terms, such as generations, years, days, so on. I don't see how the 'literal' reading of the two do not support eachother. This part of the bible seems to be quite clear.

And yes Creation and Creationism are different, however, completely refuse the notion that if you believe in evolution you cannot believe in creation, which the word 'Creationism' tends to reflect. It tends to give the 'Creationist' a religous point and the 'Evolutionist' a scientific point, yet there is nothing stopping such a person from believing Genesis one and evolution. These terms can be ambiguous.