Is Michael Shermer a Disciple of Satan?

  • Thread starter Moridin
  • Start date
In summary: Shermer (and other skeptics I've seen debate) should understand what Hovind clearly does about debate: he is not there to preach to the choir; he is there to gracefully defeat an opponent. For every one of his opponent's attacks, he must reciprocate with an offensive defense.— there's no point in bringing in more men into the battlefield if you're not using them to kill off your enemy's; all you get is more dead soldiers.
  • #36
Anyways, back to the video at hand. This bozo, Hovind, said "evolution is not part of science".

:bugeye: Wow, does this guy even TALK to any scientists? And then quotes the bible.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
No, he COULDN'T read this book, its like 1200 pages long and size 12 font. I should be reading chapters 1-5, but I'll leave that for later this summer.
 
  • #38
binzing said:
No, he COULDN'T read this book, its like 1200 pages long and size 12 font. I should be reading chapters 1-5, but I'll leave that for later this summer.

Plus, it has something called facts. Which he'd never be able to wrap his head around. I don't know if he'd even believe the guys name on the cover really wrote it!
 
  • #39
Wow, he goes on: "It is absolutely impossible that everything was NOT created by a designer!"

ABSOLUTELY, 100%! Why, 'because that's just the way things are!'

This is amazingly insightful. Evolution must be wrong, because ...it just is.
 
  • #40
Mama, mia. Now he's rewritting the second law of thermodynamics to suit his own definition!

Hes CLEARLY contradicting what the second law states, and using stupid examples of an woman getting old. I am glad they locked this nut up.

Also, did anyone notice how he always has EXACTLY the right slides to answer the questions? It seems fairly obvious to me that he's planting people to ask these questions so he can look smart.

Now he just said "NO fossils can count for evolution". What an f'in moron.

OH BOY. Now he's saying evolution does not allow you to do open heart surgery. (1) Evolution and surgery have nothing to do with each other. (2) It was the CHURCH that prevented medical science in the middle ages. This guy really is a jackass.

It gets better, he says dragons exist!

Now my side hurts from laughing, and my jaw hurts from hitting the floor so many times.
 
Last edited:
  • #41
I stand by my statement that Hovind is no moron. In fact, he is clearly quite bright and an extremely gifted public speaker and debater.

That said, he is just as clearly either
  1. mentally ill
  2. in denial
  3. well aware that he is wrong, and doing this purely for celebrity, money, being seen as a leader/martyr, or simply the thrill of making his sheep jump through invisible hoops

It is hard not to laugh at his arguments if you know the science behind his claims, but let's not forget that most people (sadly) don't. In fact, many people believe in evolution without knowing anything about it! are they any better just because they happened to have randomly picked the right side?
 
Last edited:
  • #42
I'm totally in your camp on this one Moe. It's like the moon-landing-conspiracy-hoax hoax. I cringe when hearing a bad argument that's trying to support the side of truth .
 
  • #43
moe darklight said:
I stand by my statement that Hovind is no moron. In fact, he is clearly quite bright and an extremely gifted public speaker and debater.

That said, he is just as clearly either
  1. mentally ill
  2. in denial
  3. well aware that he is wrong, and doing this purely for celebrity, money, being seen as a leader/martyr, or simply the thrill of making his sheep jump through invisible hoops

It is hard not to laugh at his arguments if you know the science behind his claims, but let's not forget that most people (sadly) don't. In fact, many people believe in evolution without knowing anything about it! are they any better just because they happened to have randomly picked the right side?

Hes gifted how? He talks fast, throws in wrong facts, and misses the point. He does this all at once so he seems like, "wow this guy must be smart." Well, no. Exactly how you deduce he is a gifted debater when he MISSES the point, is beyond me. Also, shermer is sitting there next to him telling the audience the flaws, spot on. Now, if they want to ignore him, which you can see they do as they clap and shout for Hovind when he's done talking, they too are a bunch of stupid morons. No matter what you tell them, there going to clap for Hovnid like a bunch of trained monkeys.

To the left, we have a real scientist explaining science to you in very simple terms. Ok, let's ignore him and believe what the guy on the right is saying about science. I mean, he did teach HIGH school biology. Oh yeah, and he runs Geriatric Park.

The guy is a self deluded scam artist. I hope they have fun with him in prison, if you know what I mean.

He said, "you can't prove that fossil ever gave birth or had a kid". I would have said, well we digged up your dead father. Sadly we can't prove he's your dead father either; therefore, you're a bastard.
 
Last edited:
  • #44
Cyrus said:
Hes gifted how? He talks fast, throws in wrong facts, and misses the point.

If the art of public speaking and debating were the same as the art of formulating a cogent argument, then the world's dictatorships would be free and prosperous nations.

As a speaker he is engaging, funny, charismatic, and very quick... while Shermer often ran out of time and fumbled, Hovind was able to present all of his points within the given time frames and in an organized fashion; even when his answered required more time than is needed, he managed to direct the audience as to where they should look for reference.

Again, I'm not saying his claims are in any way based on reality; I'm just saying he's very good at what he does.
 
Last edited:
  • #45
moe darklight said:
If the art of public speaking and debating were the same as the art of formulating a cogent argument, then the world's dictatorships would be free and prosperous nations.

As a speaker he is engaging, funny, charismatic, and very quick... while Shermer often ran out of time and fumbled, Hovind was able to present all of his points within the given time frames and in an organized fashion; even when his answered required more time than is needed, he managed to direct the audience as to where they should look for reference.

Again, I'm not saying his claims are in any way based on reality; I'm just saying he's very good at what he does.

You'll really have to point out where shermer 'fumbled'. IMO he answered them all head on.

He said, basically, its all in my cd up there on the table. Go buy it! ...:rolleyes:

Its real easy to stay within the time frame when all you have to do is make up a BS answer.
 
  • #46
Cyrus said:
You'll really have to point out where shermer 'fumbled'.

Shermer's answers were not always spot on. Or at least, they were only spot on if you know the scientific background, but for someone who knows little or nothing about biology or chemistry, talking about nucleotide formation is like talking Chinese.
 
  • #47
moe darklight said:
Shermer's answers were not always spot on. Or at least, they were only spot on if you know the scientific background, but for someone who knows little or nothing about biology or chemistry, talking about nucleotide formation is like talking Chinese.

Thats why they were spot on. They were exactly as technical as they could have been. He can't EDUCATE them on a question like the ones that were being asked in two mins. Its the job of the people in that audience to do some researach and gain some knowledge. IMO, there were many STUPID question by that STUPID audience.

DA, how do you prove man came from dat dere rock? Daaaaaaaaa hyuck.

Well bubba....just forget it. Questions that showed they didnt do ANY background research into the subject matter.

If I attend a lecture from a different department on campus that I know nothing about, I keep my mouth shut so others can ask questions who know what they are talking about.
 
Last edited:
  • #48
Cyrus said:
Thats why they were spot on. They were exactly as technical as they could have been. He can't EDUCATE them on a question like the ones that were being asked in two mins. Its the job of the people in that audience to do some researach and gain some knowledge. IMO, there were many STUPID question by that STUPID audience.

DA, how do you prove man came from dat dere rock? Daaaaaaaaa hyuck.

Well bubba....just forget it. Questions that showed they didnt do ANY background research into the subject matter.

If I attend a lecture from a different department on campus that I know nothing about, I keep my mouth shut so others can ask questions who know what they are talking about.

Exactly Cyrus. It is a sad day when giving concise scientific answers in a debate is considered fumbling... Unless the point of the debate is something besides coming to an understanding about the subject at hand, science should be the ultimate argument; if not the only argument!

I wonder what Hitchens would have to say about this lowlife Hovind... :rolleyes:
 
  • #49
robertm said:
Exactly Cyrus. It is a sad day when giving concise scientific answers in a debate is considered fumbling... Unless the point of the debate is something besides coming to an understanding about the subject at hand, science should be the ultimate argument; if not the only argument!

I wonder what Hitchens would have to say about this lowlife Hovind... :rolleyes:

Man, I love hitchens. That guy has wit.
 
  • #51
grunger said:
http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw_pepmothshort.htm


please discuss this science paper and decide if the peppered moth is proof of evolution.

Thanks...


Where do all you people with zero post counts come from?

First of all, the peppered moth is not the be all end all 'proof' of evolution. NO where near it.

Also, I have not read the paper, but the last line is very interesting:

Jonathan Wells (JonWells1@compuserve.com) is a postdoctoral biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, and a fellow of the Discovery Institute, Seattle

Hmmmmmm...
 
  • #52
grunger said:
http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw_pepmothshort.htm


please discuss this science paper and decide if the peppered moth is proof of evolution.

Thanks...

It isn't a science paper. It is a creationist paper. Real scientists respond to the claim:

"Pictures of peppered moths are not used as evidence of natural selection, but to illustrate the camouflage differences between the pale and dark forms of the peppered moth on various backgrounds. While some pictures are staged many are not. The staged photographs are representative of what is actually seen in the wild, which is their purpose as an illustration."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html#moths
http://www.ncseweb.org/icons/icon6moths.html
http://www.nmsr.org/text.htm#moth

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html

Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty. However, high degrees of certainty can be reached. In the case of evolution, we have huge amounts of data from diverse fields. Extensive evidence exists in all of the following different forms (Theobald 2004). Each new piece of evidence tests the rest.

* All life shows a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism.
* Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life.
* Different lines of evidence give the same arrangement of the tree of life. We get essentially the same results whether we look at morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits.
* Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record.
* The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation.
* Many organisms show rudimentary, vestigial characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight.
* Atavisms sometimes occur. An atavism is the reappearance of a character present in a distant ancestor but lost in the organism's immediate ancestors. We only see atavisms consistent with organisms' evolutionary histories.
* Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution. For example, as embryos whales and many snakes develop hind limbs that are reabsorbed before birth.
* The distribution of species is consistent with their evolutionary history. For example, marsupials are mostly limited to Australia, and the exceptions are explained by continental drift. Remote islands often have species groups that are highly diverse in habits and general appearance but closely related genetically. Squirrel diversity coincides with tectonic and sea level changes (Mercer and Roth 2003). Such consistency still holds when the distribution of fossil species is included.
* Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions.
* The same principle applies on a molecular level. Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm.
* When two organisms evolve the same function independently, different structures are often recruited. For example, wings of birds, bats, pterosaurs, and insects all have different structures. Gliding has been implemented in many additional ways. Again, this applies on a molecular level, too.
* The constraints of evolutionary history sometimes lead to suboptimal structures and functions. For example, the human throat and respiratory system make it impossible to breathe and swallow at the same time and make us susceptible to choking.
* Suboptimality appears also on the molecular level. For example, much DNA is nonfunctional.
* Some nonfunctional DNA, such as certain transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous viruses, show a pattern of inheritance indicating common ancestry.
* Speciation has been observed.
* The day-to-day aspects of evolution -- heritable genetic change, morphological variation and change, functional change, and natural selection -- are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent.

Furthermore, the different lines of evidence are consistent; they all point to the same big picture. For example, evidence from gene duplications in the yeast genome shows that its ability to ferment glucose evolved about eighty million years ago. Fossil evidence shows that fermentable fruits became prominent about the same time. Genetic evidence for major change around that time also is found in fruiting plants and fruit flies (Benner et al. 2002).

The evidence is extensive and consistent, and it points unambiguously to evolution, including common descent, change over time, and adaptation influenced by natural selection. It would be preposterous to refer to these as anything other than facts.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #53
Moridin said:
It isn't a science paper. It is a creationist paper. Real scientists respond to the claim:

"Pictures of peppered moths are not used as evidence of natural selection, but to illustrate the camouflage differences between the pale and dark forms of the peppered moth on various backgrounds. While some pictures are staged many are not. The staged photographs are representative of what is actually seen in the wild, which is their purpose as an illustration."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html#moths
http://www.ncseweb.org/icons/icon6moths.html
http://www.nmsr.org/text.htm#moth

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html

Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty. However, high degrees of certainty can be reached. In the case of evolution, we have huge amounts of data from diverse fields. Extensive evidence exists in all of the following different forms (Theobald 2004). Each new piece of evidence tests the rest.

* All life shows a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism.
* Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life.
* Different lines of evidence give the same arrangement of the tree of life. We get essentially the same results whether we look at morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits.
* Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record.
* The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation.
* Many organisms show rudimentary, vestigial characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight.
* Atavisms sometimes occur. An atavism is the reappearance of a character present in a distant ancestor but lost in the organism's immediate ancestors. We only see atavisms consistent with organisms' evolutionary histories.
* Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution. For example, as embryos whales and many snakes develop hind limbs that are reabsorbed before birth.
* The distribution of species is consistent with their evolutionary history. For example, marsupials are mostly limited to Australia, and the exceptions are explained by continental drift. Remote islands often have species groups that are highly diverse in habits and general appearance but closely related genetically. Squirrel diversity coincides with tectonic and sea level changes (Mercer and Roth 2003). Such consistency still holds when the distribution of fossil species is included.
* Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions.
* The same principle applies on a molecular level. Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm.
* When two organisms evolve the same function independently, different structures are often recruited. For example, wings of birds, bats, pterosaurs, and insects all have different structures. Gliding has been implemented in many additional ways. Again, this applies on a molecular level, too.
* The constraints of evolutionary history sometimes lead to suboptimal structures and functions. For example, the human throat and respiratory system make it impossible to breathe and swallow at the same time and make us susceptible to choking.
* Suboptimality appears also on the molecular level. For example, much DNA is nonfunctional.
* Some nonfunctional DNA, such as certain transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous viruses, show a pattern of inheritance indicating common ancestry.
* Speciation has been observed.
* The day-to-day aspects of evolution -- heritable genetic change, morphological variation and change, functional change, and natural selection -- are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent.

Furthermore, the different lines of evidence are consistent; they all point to the same big picture. For example, evidence from gene duplications in the yeast genome shows that its ability to ferment glucose evolved about eighty million years ago. Fossil evidence shows that fermentable fruits became prominent about the same time. Genetic evidence for major change around that time also is found in fruiting plants and fruit flies (Benner et al. 2002).

The evidence is extensive and consistent, and it points unambiguously to evolution, including common descent, change over time, and adaptation influenced by natural selection. It would be preposterous to refer to these as anything other than facts.

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

Even though 'grunger' will probably never respond to your answer, I would like to personally thank you for actually taking the time to write such a concise and thoughtful post. Maybe it might actually do some good...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #54
robertm said:
Even though 'grunger' will probably never respond to your answer, I would like to personally thank you for actually taking the time to write such a concise and thoughtful post. Maybe it might actually do some good...

I offered to buy him a drink, but the SOB doesn't drink! We must teach him the ways...wwhs (what would hitchens say?)
 
  • #55
Thanks for the excellent post by robertm:-)

I just have some questions about acouple of your points Robert.

1-can you give me some examples of transitional fossils?

2-also,do you have any sources for speciation?

Many thanks..
 
  • #56
grunger said:
Thanks for the excellent post by robertm:-)

I just have some questions about acouple of your points Robert.

1-can you give me some examples of transitional fossils?

2-also,do you have any sources for speciation?

Many thanks..

1. Transitional fossils

Many creationists assert that the fossils record does not support evolution. They could not be more wrong. In fact, the fossils record show an enormous amount of evidence for evolution.

Transitional fossils, or more precisely, fossils with transitional features is what we would expect if universal common descent is true.

Transitional fossils from primitive jawless fish, sharks and rays to amphibians include, among others, Cladoselache, Tristychius, Ctenacanthus, Paleospinax, Spathobatis, Protospinax, Acanthodians, Canobius, Aeduella, Parasemionotus, Oreochima, Leptolepis, Cheirolepis, Osteolepis, Eusthenopteron, Sterropterygion, Eusthenopteron, Panderichthys, Elpistostege, Eusthenopteron, Obruchevichthys, Hynerpeton, Acanthostega, Ichthyostega, Pholidogaster, Pteroplax, Dendrerpeton acadianum, Archegosaurus decheni, Eryops megacephalus, Trematops, Amphibamus lyelli, Doleserpeton annectens, Triadobatrachus, Vieraella, Tiktaalik, Karaurus etc.

Transitional fossils from amphibians to the first reptiles include, among others, Proterogyrinus, Limnoscelis, Tseajaia, Solenodonsaurus, Hylonomus, Paleothyris, Captorhinus, Scutosaurus, Deltavjatia vjatkensis, Proganochelys, Hylonomus, Paleothyris, Petrolacosaurus, Araeoscelis, Apsisaurus, Claudiosaurus, Planocephalosaurus, Protorosaurus, Prolacerta, Proterosuchus, Hyperodapedon, Trilophosaurus, Captorhinus, Protocaptorhinus, Eocaptorhinus, Romeria etc.

Transitional fossils from synapsids to primitive mammals include, among others, Paleothyris, Protoclepsydrops haplous, Clepsydrops, Archaeothyris, Varanops, Haptodus, Dimetrodon, Sphenacodon, Biarmosuchia, Procynosuchus, Dvinia, Thrinaxodon, Cynognathus, Diademodon, Probelesodon, Probainognathus, Exaeretodon, Oligokyphus, Kayentatherium, Pachygenelus, Diarthrognathus, Adelobasileus cromptoni, Sinoconodon, Kuehneotherium, Eozostrodon, Morganucodon, Haldanodon, Peramus, Endotherium, Kielantherium, Aegialodon, Steropodon galmani, Vincelestes neuquenianus, Pariadens kirklandi, Kennalestes, Asioryctes, Cimolestes, Procerberus, Gypsonictops etc.

Transitional fossils between earlier primates and humans include, among others, Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus ramidus, Australopithecus garhi, Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus robustus, Australopithecus boisei, Australopithecus aethiopicus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo georgicus, Homo florensis, Homo rudolfensis, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo ergaster, Homo neandertalensis, Homo spaiens idaltu, Homo sapiens sapiens etc.

These are just few of the vertebrates. There are many more vertebrate transitional fossils as well as mountains of transitional fossils for invertebrates.

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
Videos Detailing Transitional Fossils
Ken Miller on Whale Evolution

The National Academies of Science states that:

So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along the primate lines of descent that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to another particular species. Actually, nearly all fossils can be regarded as intermediates in some sense; they are life forms that come between the forms that preceded them and those that followed. The fossil record thus provides consistent evidence of systematic change through time--of descent with modification. From this huge body of evidence, it can be predicted that no reversals will be found in future paleontological studies.

2. Speciation

Multiple speciation events have been observed in real time.

Observed Instances of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation Events

Many, many more have been observed indirectly.
 
  • #57
Some questions for our resident creationist.

3. The Cambrian Radiation

If universal common descent is false, then why does the fossils record for the Cambrian period show a logical sequence of gradual transition from more primitive organisms to more complex?

http://pandasthumb.org/Cambrian%20Explosion%20Marshall%202006.png​
[/URL]

"It takes from 600 to 520 million years ago before the typical Cambrian fauna of large shelly organisms (especially trilobites) finally develops. Eighty million years is not explosive by any stretch of the imagination. Now only is the explosion a slow fuse, but it follows a series of logical stages from simple and small to larger and complex and mineralized. First, of course, we have microfossils of cyanobacteria and other eukaryotes going back to as far as 3.5 billion years ago and spanning the entire fossils record since that ancient time. Then, about 600 million years ago, we get the first good evidence of multicellular animals, the Ediacara fauna. They are larger and multicellular, but did not have hard shells. The earliest stages of the Cambrian, the Nemakit-Daldynian and Tommotian stages, are dominated not by the little shellies, which were just beginning to develop small mineralized skeletons. Only after several more steps do we see the full Cambrian fauna. In short, the fossil record shows a gradual buildup from single-celled prokaryotes and then eukaryotes to multicellular soft-bodies animals to animals with tiny shells, and finally, by the middle Cambrian, the full range of large shelled invertebrates. This gradual transformation by logical advances in body size and skeletonization bears no resemblance to an instantaneous Cambrian explosion" (Prothero, Donald R., "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters, 2007 p. 169).

4. The Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve

If universal common descent is false, then why do living organisms show suboptimal features that indicates both that natural processes has shaped the organism and common ancestry, since the features are shared between many species?

[PLAIN]http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/images/ency/fullsize/19721.jpg[/center][/URL]

"Even more peculiar is the course of the recurrent laryngeal nerve, which corrects the brain to the larynx and allows us to speak. In mammals, this nerve avoids the direct route between brain and throat and instead descends into the chest, loops around the aorta near the heart, then returns to the larynx. That makes it seven times longer than it needs to be! For an animal like the giraffe, it traverses the entire neck twice, so it is fifteen feet long (fourteen feet of which are unnecessary). Not only is this design wasteful, but it also makes an animal more susceptible to injury. Of course, the bizarre pathway of this makes perfect sense in evolutionary terms. In fish and early mammal embryos, the precursor of the recurrent laryngeal nerve attached to the sixth gill arch, deep in the neck and body region. Fish still retain this pattern, but during late human embryology, the gill arches are modified into the tissues of our throat region and pharynx. Parts of the old fish-like circulatory system were rearranged, so the aorta (also part of the sixth gill arch) moved back into the chest, taking the recurrent laryngeal nerve (looped around it) backward as well." (Prothero, Donal R. "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters", 2007, pp. 37-38.)

5. The Chromosomal Fusion in H. sapiens

Humans have 46 chromosomes, yet the rest of the great apes have 48. We seem to be
missing a pair of chromosomes. It is likely that the common ancestor of humans and the great apes had 48 chromosomes, since most of the great apes have 48 rather than 46. Could the chromosome have gotten lost in our lineage? Nope. An entire chromosome getting lost would be fatal. So what must have happened is that our chromosomes must have gotten fused. So if common ancestry between humans and the great apes is correct, then we must necessarily find a fused chromosome in the human DNA. If we do not find it, evolution is wrong and we do not share a common ancestor with the great apes. A chromosome has special segments of DNA at the ends called telomeres and special segments in the middle called centromeres. Now, if it is the case that a chromosomal fusion event has taken place, then we should find one of our chromosomes having two centromeres and telomeric sequences out of place. The chimp genome was sequence a couple of years ago, and a striking confirmation of the evolutionary prediction was found. It turns out that the human chromosome 2 is the result of the head-to-head fusion between primate chromosome 12 and 13, that has multiple sub-telomere duplications and an inactivated centromere. The fusion site has been identified between bases 114455823-114455838.

Ken Miller on Human Evolution

If common ancestry between humans and the great apes is wrong, why does the empirical data strikingly confirm the bold evolutionary prediction?

I can continue to go on and on about the evidence for evolution and universal common ancestry, but there seems to be little point in doing so at this moment.​
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #58
Welcome back grunger glad to see you are actually interested. We get a lot of 1 posters who don't really want a discussion. I am pretty sure your thanks was meant for Moridin, as you can see he is full of great post. Give his information a chance! Maybe he can bring you around to logic and away from the ill-logic.

Edit: Grunger i am going to assume you are religious and that is why you are questioning evolution. Please correct me if I am wrong. Just remember there is nothing to be afraid of if you start to see why evolution is considered to be a fact of life. You will not burn or be tortured or be cast aside. You will only be better for it. Science will never order you to believe in anything, unlike some systems of belief, as Mordin is doing it will simply offer information for interpretation.

No one here will crucify you for applying logic to your world. :smile:
 
Last edited:
  • #60
Discussions are much harder to follow if a poster is banned and their posts deleted...
 
  • #61
NeoDevin said:
Discussions are much harder to follow if a poster is banned and their posts deleted...

The poster is not banned and none of his posts are deleted. The reason his post count is zero is that the posts he makes in general discussion does not increase your post count.
 
  • #62
Moridin said:
The poster is not banned and none of his posts are deleted. The reason his post count is zero is that the posts he makes in general discussion does not increase your post count.

I was referring to the poster `tourettes', from earlier in the thread.
 
  • #63
NeoDevin said:
Discussions are much harder to follow if a poster is banned and their posts deleted...
If their posts are deleted, then you shouldn't be following their discussion! :-p
 
  • #64
I have some time over, so I can spend some time on the claims of tourettes that can be found quotes in this post.

1. The entire geological column does not exist?

This is one of the more bizarre claims that creationists have put forward, but I guess it is understandable with their rather strange presuppositions. After all, the fossil record and geological column is filled with evidence for evolution and an old Earth in abundance. The fact that the geological column does not exist in its entirety is completely irrelevant, since there are more than enough overlap that the full column can be reconstructed from those parts. Furthermore, this is hardly surprising -- it is entirely consistent with an old earth. The column can be found in sedimentary environments, that is, where the environmental conditions favor the accumulation of sediments. We would expect that various geological changes over time would shift areas back and forth between sedimentary environments and other types of environments.

In addition, there are many places on our planet where you can observe strata for all geological periods in the same place, such as the Bonaparte Basin of Australia.

2. Is the geological column out of order?

This claim is also surprising, since it is inconsistent with the first claim. The geological column cannot both exist and be out of order. The geologic column is never out of order in areas that have not been greatly disturbed resulting in minor folds and faults.

3. Fossilized Trees

Sudden flood deposition is not a problem for modern geology. Local floods and mudslides can deposit sediments up to several feet thick. Furthermore, trees buried in such sediments do not die and decay immediately since they can remain there for years or even decades. No tree goes through multiple strata layers. We know this because we can see that the top of the trees have been rotten, but other parts of the fossils to not show this. What creationists also forget to mention is that these trees are in many, many layers, further indicating sequential local floods.

4. Abiogenesis and evolution

Evolution is not abiogenesis and abiogenesis is not spontaneous generation. Evolution has to do with the cause of the diversity of life, whereas abiogenesis has to do with the origin of life. Modern abiogenesis research does not claim that life popped out of nowhere. Any prebiotic soup of chemicals did not give rise to single-celled organisms directly.

5. Darwin on his death bed

This has been discussed earlier in this topic.
 
  • #65
  • #66
Chi Meson said:
I'm totally in your camp on this one Moe. It's like the moon-landing-conspiracy-hoax hoax. I cringe when hearing a bad argument that's trying to support the side of truth .

What makes the moon conspiracy believers IMPOSSIBLE to believe is the fact that none of them have any sort of scientific or otherwise, qualifications. I watched a thing on this, and seriously, more than half of the proponents of it were sitting there, blathering away (in their horrendous hick speech), in their rocking chairs on their porches. Seriously, they need to get access to a good telescope and inspect the surface of the moon itself.
 
  • #67
Here's a couple of fairly new articles I came across which seem to be quite interesting and relevant to the discussion on abiogenesis and evolution.

The first one is about possible evidence of extra-terrestrial amino acids, and the second is an example of http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php .

1) Extraterrestrial nucleobases in the Murchison meteorite

Abstract: Carbon-rich meteorites, carbonaceous chondrites, contain many biologically relevant organic molecules and delivered prebiotic material to the young Earth. We present compound-specific carbon isotope data indicating that measured purine and pyrimidine compounds are indigenous components of the Murchison meteorite. Carbon isotope ratios for uracil and xanthine of delta13C=+44.5per mil and +37.7per mil, respectively, indicate a non-terrestrial origin for these compounds. These new results demonstrate that organic compounds, which are components of the genetic code in modern biochemistry, were already present in the early solar system and may have played a key role in life's origin.

2) http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0803151105

Abstract: The role of historical contingency in evolution has been much debated, but rarely tested. Twelve initially identical populations of Escherichia coli were founded in 1988 to investigate this issue. They have since evolved in a glucose-limited medium that also contains citrate, which E. coli cannot use as a carbon source under oxic conditions. No population evolved the capacity to exploit citrate for >30,000 generations, although each population tested billions of mutations. A citrate-using (Cit+) variant finally evolved in one population by 31,500 generations, causing an increase in population size and diversity. The long-delayed and unique evolution of this function might indicate the involvement of some extremely rare mutation. Alternately, it may involve an ordinary mutation, but one whose physical occurrence or phenotypic expression is contingent on prior mutations in that population. We tested these hypotheses in experiments that "replayed" evolution from different points in that population's history. We observed no Cit+ mutants among 8.4 x 1012 ancestral cells, nor among 9 x 1012 cells from 60 clones sampled in the first 15,000 generations. However, we observed a significantly greater tendency for later clones to evolve Cit+, indicating that some potentiating mutation arose by 20,000 generations. This potentiating change increased the mutation rate to Cit+ but did not cause generalized hypermutability. Thus, the evolution of this phenotype was contingent on the particular history of that population. More generally, we suggest that historical contingency is especially important when it facilitates the evolution of key innovations that are not easily evolved by gradual, cumulative selection.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

How (not) to discuss evolution/sciene vs. religion/creationsim
Replies
33
Views
8K
Is Evolutionary Theory Undermined by Creationist Claims?
8
Replies
266
Views
28K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top