Lines of Evidence

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

If I may offer my two cents . . .

The Berkeley website is pretty good. Of course, by simplifying things down for the general public they may not get the details right. That applies to just about every theory.

Just to give the readers and yourself a tiny background to my own struggles in this regard.

Whereas a few of those posting here, have the sort of credentials that place them either far out ahead of learners ( i.e. Junior and High School students), there are many such as myself who finished school so long ago that the only thing we remembers is that the subject was called BIOLOGY ( certainly in my day, Science was more like Physics is now ).

Biology for us was the sort of stuff you might find in Professor Richard Dawkins' very helpful book entitled THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH. Though some of his books are laden with the sort angry anti-religious barbs and hook lines to promote his Secular agenda, they're highly recommended for sheer content. Of course the video lectures are well know in the UK, where I first started really getting into learning all about this stuff that Biologists seemed to have an eternal fascination with.

So, yeah, Loudmouth, Berkeley is okay. Perhaps it is a little on the sub-standard side, but it was a good one to get me going.

I learned more by open discussions with people, that were not hostile to Christians. The greatest hostility seemed to come from ex-so-called Christians who'd sort of bought into the whole anti-thing -- sort of exchanging one anti- for another.

Anyhow, I really enjoy the subject now -- and have a learned a little bit more through this thread. Still much too learn.

My greatest inspiration is John Hawks, who seems to be a very warm and uncomplicated person. His course was very helpful and the Copenhagen University course has also helped me understand the movement of population groups etc. etc. Closer to my own passion: Anthropology.

Another good website with "lines of evidence" is the talkorigins site.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

The talkorigins site is a bit more descriptive and in depth, but may not be as approachable as the Berkeley site.

I don't mind Talk Origins, but I find a lot of the articles are out-of-date, and thus I prefer reading God & Nature Magazine (an extension of ASA now online) and my recent find GSA TODAY
Obviously the best online resource is DARWIN ONLINE

I've had some fun here, but I think the FLOOD GEOLOGY thread has finally become one to engage, as RickG chats with OldWiseGuy (who apparently has a flood model)

I'd have contributed a lot more here, but the truth is that there's too much deviating into unrelated stuff (I'm guilty too) -- Bible chats abound, and I'd probably be better off hanging around Cambridge*, or somewhere North of there.

Have fun, I did. Thanks.

Anados

---
* New Faraday Lecture: Identity, Self-Esteem and the Image of God -Prof. Glynn Harrison

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't mind Talk Origins, but I find a lot of the articles are out-of-date, and thus I prefer reading God & Nature Magazine (and extension of ASA now online) and my recent find GSA TODAY
Obviously the best online resource is DARWIN ONLINE

I guess I don't follow your reasoning. G&NM isn't even scientific. I don't see how it is a replacement. Can you explain? It's a bit like getting your science from Harry Potter books because your biology textbook is too old.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

I guess I don't follow your reasoning. G&NM isn't even scientific. I don't see how it is a replacement. Can you explain? It's a bit like getting your science from Harry Potter books because your biology textbook is too old.

Perhaps it's like that for you, but I enjoy ASA (not to be confused with NASA) : American Scientific Affiliation --- which is the primary site out which the online magazine has grown.
I'm actually find John Hawks' site, and of course good Faraday Institute of Science and Religion a better place to be (though it'll be a little to far to travel, so I'm going to see if I can get into one of the programs for senior citizens at Edinburgh, which will be a mere 20 minutes by train)
Pity there aren't any Harry Potter books which cover the subject, it'd sure make engaging reading -- but then I've always got Margaret Atwood for company.

Oh, how could I forget NCSE

 

[Loudmouth]

Perhaps it's like that for you, but I enjoy ASA (not to be confused with NASA) : American Scientific Affiliation --- which is the primary site out which the online magazine has grown.
I'm actually find John Hawks' site, and of course good Faraday Institute of Science and Religion a better place to be (though it'll be a little to far to travel, so I'm going to see if I can get into one of the programs for adult at Edinburgh, which will be a mere 20 minutes by train)
Pity there aren't any Harry Potter books which over the subject, it'd sure make engaging reading -- but then I've always got Margaret Atwood for company.

If you enjoy those articles, then by all means you should continue to read them. I was just a bit confused by the comparison to the science based articles on the talkorigins website. I like biology more than geology, so I tend to stick to biology journals. A good way to search the primary literature is to use pubmed.com or scholar.google.com . Over time, Google Scholar has won me over.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

If you enjoy those articles, then by all means you should continue to read them. I was just a bit confused by the comparison to the science based articles on the talkorigins website. I like biology more than geology, so I tend to stick to biology journals. A good way to search the primary literature is to use pubmed.com or scholar.google.com . Over time, Google Scholar has won me over.

I guess I didn't sit back and properly think out my reply, just winging it and trying to remember the many useful sites. In the end, if you want to learn how to fix a watch you don't go to a shoemaker (unless his wife fixes clocks)

I must say the I enjoy reading JOHN HAWKS and DARWIN ONLINE, the most, but my best times are at FARADAY -- One gets a nice cross-section of topics, and it's normally quite current.

Have you considered the work of Dr. David Lahti? He did a couple of lectures there. I also enjoyed lectures by MIT Robotics spec. Prof. Rosalind Picard, plus a lecture by Dr. Jennifer Wiseman -- I remember sitting in the car reading THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH (Nofolk coast) while listening to her lectures on Exo-Planets etc. What a magical day it was.
In the end, I enjoy reading a lot -- so, whatever you recommend I take note of and shall definitely explore those links. Nothing beats a proper peer-reviewed article, by an actual Biologist.

Oh, how could I forget NCSE

 

[Loudmouth]

I guess I didn't sit back and properly think out my reply, just winging it and trying to remember the many useful sites. In the end, if you want to learn how to fix a watch you don't go to a shoemaker (unless his wife fixes clocks)
I must say the I enjoy reading JOHN HAWKS and DARWIN ONLINE, the most, but my best times are at FARADAY -- One gets a nice cross-section of topics, and it's normally quite current.
Have you considered the work of Dr. David Lahti? He did a couple of lectures there. I also enjoyed lectures by MIT Robotics spec. Prof. Rosalind Picard, plus a lecture by Dr. Jennifer Wiseman -- I remember sitting in the car reading THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH (Nofolk coast) while listening to her lectures on Exo-Planets etc. What a magical day it was.
In the end, I enjoy reading a lot -- so, whatever you recommend I take note of and shall definitely explore those links. Nothing beats a proper peer-reviewed article, by an actual Biologist.

As to Darwin Online, this is the coolest page on the whole site (IMHO).

http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=CUL-DAR121.-&viewtype=side&pageseq=38

That page is from his personal notebooks. That picture represents the moment that the whole theory coalesced on paper. It was Darwin's "Eureka!" moment captured on paper. The little dendrogram at the top is evolution, and it explains the distribution of characteristics, descent with modificiation, and everything. All in one simple picture. Cool stuff.

 

[Davian]

Your dime-store psycho-babble may impress Davian and some of the Moderators, but too most of us it's just what it is psycho-babble.



How did I know you'd follow your psycho-babble with a double dose of more psycho-babble.

It's a pity that you've haven't got much more than some old crotchety psycho-babble nothings to present as an argument, but that's just the way your psycho-babble ilk manifest after turning there backs on "religion" <-- thinking it to be God. Nothing new.

That there exists religion and religionists is not in dispute. That the "God" of the bible is more than a character in a book has yet to be established, your protestations notwithstanding.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

As to Darwin Online, this is the coolest page on the whole site (IMHO).

http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=CUL-DAR121.-&viewtype=side&pageseq=38

That page is from his personal notebooks. That picture represents the moment that the whole theory coalesced on paper. It was Darwin's "Eureka!" moment captured on paper. The little dendrogram at the top is evolution, and it explains the distribution of characteristics, descent with modificiation, and everything. All in one simple picture. Cool stuff.

I know it's cool.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

That <edit>. That <edit>

That is all fine and dandy, but it's off-topic.

 

[Gracchus]

That there exists religion and religionists is not in dispute. That the "God" of the bible is more than a character in a book has yet to be established, your protestations notwithstanding.

That is all fine and dandy, but it's off-topic.

And, as lewiscalledhimmaster started the thread, he will, if pressed too hard, in his retreat, have the mods close it. He has abandoned the outer works of his intellectual fortification, KJO YEC, and retreated to the inner keep. This is, I suspect, his Masada, his Alamo, and he will burn his position rather than abandon it.

 

[bhsmte]

And, as lewiscalledhimmaster started the thread, he will, if pressed too hard, in his retreat, have the mods close it. He has abandoned the outer works of his intellectual fortification, KJO YEC, and retreated to the inner keep. This is, I suspect, his Masada, his Alamo, and he will burn his position rather than abandon it.

That seems to be the trend.

 

[Davian]

That there exists religion and religionists is not in dispute. That the "God" of the bible is more than a character in a book has yet to be established, your protestations notwithstanding.

That is all fine and dandy, but it's off-topic.

Actually, it was you that was off-topic. Better lock this thread and try again.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

And, as lewiscalledhimmaster started the thread, he will, if pressed too hard, in his retreat, have the mods close it. He has abandoned the outer works of his intellectual fortification, KJO YEC, and retreated to the inner keep. This is, I suspect, his Masada, his Alamo, and he will burn his position rather than abandon it.

As I potentially only bothered with this forum to discuss Evolution (particularly this thread, and Flood Geology), which have been running since I returned, I will grant that I allowed myself to be fully drawn in and engaged in Bible-speak but I have seen the error of my ways and shall leave all psycho-babble to bhmste, Davian & yourself, as y'all seem to enjoy it more than evolutionary Biology, Geology and my passion Anthropology.
If you plan to engage the topic, rather than your prognostications, then I look forward to your knowledge.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Actually, it was you that was off-topic. Better lock this thread and try again.

I am not dancing alone. Fair enough, I will stay on topic.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

I guess I don't follow your reasoning. G&NM isn't even scientific. I don't see how it is a replacement. Can you explain? It's a bit like getting your science from Harry Potter books because your biology textbook is too old.

It is rather like that but, for an ex-many-things-to-hard-to-explain-in-a-sentence-or-two-maybe-a-book-will-do-person, I find it serves up a better pedigree of Christian essay than one might find at AIG (which btw, I don't bother with, preferring rather to read @ Talk Origins / Pandas Thumb / NSCE and mainly FIOSAR) -- I especially enjoyed this recent essay : Essay: "Is There Anything Historical About Adam and Eve?" by Mike Beidler - God and Nature Magazine -- esp. enjoyed:

'.... So where do I stand today on Adam? Given the scientific evidence, I no longer believe that Adam and Eve as described in Genesis 2-3 actually existed. Just as I don&#8217;t believe certain elements of &#8220;biblical&#8221; cosmology actually exist (e.g., the firmament of Gen 1:6-8), I believe a well-reasoned case can be made using both science and biblical hermeneutics that &#8220;biblical&#8221; anthropology is also inaccurate from a modern, scientific perspective. That being said, I still embrace the concept of an &#8220;historical&#8221; Adam. ....'

How fossils and HGP help with establishing strong lines of evidence which relate to human evolution and origins gets me excited enough to read anything by Christians (because I am one) and others who are trying to deal honestly with all the most up-to-date stuff. Obviously not being a degreed specialist (peer-reviewed) means I am at the mercy of pseudoscience and folks with a strictly secular-evangelical agenda. So I try to read widely and wisely, as I grow in my knowledge of God's other books.*

---
* --- Sciences

 

[FredVB]

You just don't see what I have been saying, or don't want to believe what my position would really be. I did not say at all that fossils are all, or even mostly, fake. I can recognize the fossil skulls too, I have been in classes showing those too. I can see fossil humans which I can say includes Neanderthal people are with what you displayed shown from the skull identified with the designation F and onward from that, including babies' skulls, the other skulls are representing other hominid and ape creatures. I see no actual transition in that.
Yes I can see there would be organization from the Creator by design into groups according to feature, this is not from being limited, but with being orderly for the Creator's own purposes, there is logic to that thinking, the evidence is just what there is that is interpreted one way by you and others and this way by me and others seeing the same way. So we don't have something conclusive just with that.
The monotremes, for your example, are their own category of mammals,their features are their own with being mammal, they are not reptilian, what they have would be recognized being distinct from reptiles.
There is no falsification of the Creator.

What features would a real transitional have that these skulls are missing?
What logic is there? Human designs do not fall into a nested hierarchy. Why can't there be groups with a mixture of mammal and bird features, just as there are groups with a mixture of fish and amphibian features?
What they have is a mixture of mammal and reptile features. If God would mix mammal and reptile features, why not bird and mammal?
IOW, no evidence will change your mind. Thanks for playing.

Your creator is unfalsifiable.
So is virtually any God concept.

Both of you should know better, the context of the dialogue I had with you, Loudmouth, was showing what I meant with there is no falsification of the Creator, and it should have been seen anyway, it was in response to this previously posted:

Evolution explains this quite easily, but it seems that it falsifies a Creator by your own admission.

This is like the pot calling the kettle black. It doesn't show either that any evidence will change your minds. There is plenty more evidence to me of my God, but it would be meaningless to you or other atheists, because it comes with relationship with praying to God, and I find it through Christ. So for you I see that only speaking of the inadequacy of what there should be for evidence might be pursued. Showing that you have no answer for the necessary being which must be just gets disregarded, and it is God that is the adequate answer for that, your communication then is with just your further pursuit of showing points that you think are strong enough to convince others that development of all there is goes on with processes without any involvement from God.

What features would really be transitional? This issue of inadequacy is with constructing links between groups of creatures in the presumed sequences of evolution in all cases, not just that of humans with their presumed ancestors. And there are whole skeletons relevant to that, not just skulls as were shown. But to speak of just the skulls as was asked, notice apes all have muzzles, humans do not. Apes do not have foreheads or the shape of their skulls anywhere in the range of human skulls. The various human skulls have foreheads, even if with some sloping more than others, the skull shapes are close to be grouped within a common range, to be considered human. And there are many other points that could be considered. There aren't any transitional forms for any of those things making evolution between any ape and human definite.

There cannot be reasonable argument about design from the unlimited absolute being which is the Creator with using what is expected from design from any humans. No humans can equal the design in anything they make. And there is God's own orderliness.

That you would think monotremes have any reptile characteristics that are not mammalian which are distinct is your own opinion not backed with science. The monotremes are creatures with their own characteristics, as mammals.

 

[Loudmouth]

This is like the pot calling the kettle black. It doesn't show either that any evidence will change your minds. There is plenty more evidence to me of my God, but it would be meaningless to you or other atheists, because it comes with relationship with praying to God, and I find it through Christ.

How is it evidence of God? Why are transitional fossils evidence of God?

How does "God did it" explain why we can find fossils with a mixture of reptile and mammal features, but not bird and mammal features? How does "God did it" explain why humans and mice are genetically equidistant from lizards?

Explain how this is evidence for God.

What features would really be transitional? This issue of inadequacy is with constructing links between groups of creatures in the presumed sequences of evolution in all cases, not just that of humans with their presumed ancestors. And there are whole skeletons relevant to that, not just skulls as were shown. But to speak of just the skulls as was asked, notice apes all have muzzles, humans do not.

Early Homo species are intermediate, with more of a prognathous (i.e. muzzle) than modern humans, but less than other apes. Why isn't this transitional?

Apes do not have foreheads or the shape of their skulls anywhere in the range of human skulls. The various human skulls have foreheads, even if with some sloping more than others, the skull shapes are close to be grouped within a common range, to be considered human.

H. erectus does not have the high forehead found in modern humans. It has a sloping forehead like that found in other apes.

Why isn't this considered transitional?

There aren't any transitional forms for any of those things making evolution between any ape and human definite.

That is false. There are transitionals for all of the ones you have mentioned.

There cannot be reasonable argument about design from the unlimited absolute being which is the Creator with using what is expected from design from any humans. No humans can equal the design in anything they make. And there is God's own orderliness.

Why would "God's own orderliness" just happen to exactly mimic the orderliness that evolution would produce?

That you would think monotremes have any reptile characteristics that are not mammalian which are distinct is your own opinion not backed with science. The monotremes are creatures with their own characteristics, as mammals.

Show me a placental mammal that lays leathery eggs like a reptile does. Show me a rodent that has a cloaca like reptiles do.

 

[Doveaman]

Doveman,
[FONT=&quot]
Just so we're on the same page here, would you regard the LINES OF EVIDENCE related to EVOLUTION as presented on the Berkeley website good/bad science? (read here: [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Lines of evidence: The science of evolution )
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
If your think it's BAD SCIENCE, would you please tell me why you think so[/FONT]

Does good science contradict the biblical record of history?

*The LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground...From one man He made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and He determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.* -- (Gen 2:7, Acts 17:26).

If the science contradicts history, the science is bad. It's that simple.

 

[Loudmouth]

Does good science contradict the biblical record of history?

The map is not the territory. If the evidence contradicts the biblical record, then the biblical record is wrong. Stories in books do not trump physical evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

Here is Turkana Boy, a nearly complete H. erectus specimen. This is the skull.

Notice the lack of a forehead, as in other apes. Notice the big brow ridges, again like other apes. Notice the forward jutting lower jaw. Again, like other apes. How is this not transitional?