Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
"Fishapod" Confounds Creationists
Just kidding. Nothing confounds creationists, neither the old-fashioned young earth types nor the newfangled intelligent designers. As I heard one creationist explain it when I was covering the Creation Mega-Conference last year, "God said it. That settles it."
Science doesn't work that way. Paleontogists are reporting the exciting discovery of a fossilized 375 million year old fish with the beginnings of digits, elbows, wrists and shoulders. In other words, it's a fish with leglets, or a fishapod. Dubbed Tiktaalik roseae the fossil fits nicely between eusthenopteron fishes and the amphibious ichthyostega.
Look for creationists of all stripes to demand, "So where's the transition between eusthenopteron and tiktaalik, not to mention the transiton between tiktaalik and ichthyostega?" Essentially what they are requiring for proof of evolution are the fossils for every creature that ever lived because without them, there will always be a "missing link." Nevertheless, the discovery of tiktaalik forces their God into ever smaller gaps.
|4.6.06 @ 11:47AM|#
Why does anyone need to see transitional *fossils* to know
there's some wacky process at work?
Have no creationists ever seen a friggin' dolphin? How about a Sea
Lion?
Helloooo? Is this thing on?
VM|4.6.06 @ 11:52AM|#
hokae. i had expected the usual, known wackjob assholes to come
crawling out of the woodwork, but the "playtech casino" 'bot
spamming this thread (above, maybe removed already) came out of
left field.
wow. since we can't prove that an imaginary friend did that, i
guess it did. it's settled, then
|4.6.06 @ 11:54AM|#
Whoa! The squirrels are taking bribes now?
Anyway, I want a fishapod! They're cute!
Sandy|4.6.06 @ 11:55AM|#
I like how science has to show ever-increasing amounts of proof,
but they've yet to arrange an interview on 60 Minutes with this God
person to settle the matter once and for all.
Or maybe even a nice dramatic miracle--perhaps on 34th street?
|4.6.06 @ 11:56AM|#
I sure would like to learn to play a slot machine. Now who could I turn to for this?
|4.6.06 @ 11:57AM|#
This is undoubtedly a fraud perpetrated by the folks at National
Geographic, working in conjunction with those corrupt scientists
who take evolution as an article of faith. They're coming after
your children. They want to make them into godless heathens. The
devil walks among us.
Or something like that.
|4.6.06 @ 11:57AM|#
And here, after reading the headline, I expected the content to follow with something about a company that made fish-shaped iPod cases getting sued by Christians over the fair use of the "jesus fish" icon. Dang. That woulda been funny.
|4.6.06 @ 11:59AM|#
So spam gets through, while I have to try literally a half-dozen times or more to get my posts in. Et tu, server squirrels?
|4.6.06 @ 12:02PM|#
Sandy,
Yeah, yeah, it goes like this: Unless you can put together a
foolproof case with absolutely no gaps whatsoever, then your
"theory" is no more scientifically valid than our "theory" (aka
fair-tale). Creationists/intelligent design-ers crack me up.
"Give me proof! More proof! MOOOOORRRE PROOOOOOF! I'm still not
satisfied. Sorry. What? You want proof of my theory? Um, here's
this storybook that various humans wrote a few thousand years ago.
There's yer proof." It writes like an SNL sketch...but it's
real.
VM|4.6.06 @ 12:05PM|#
Evan: while that side requires no proof. just something "us
crazy humans wrote" (who sang that, again, XTC?) about some really
powerful dude.
and that the crackpot side has allies among those who "side with
them to get the liberals riled up".
yar.
Server Squirrels|4.6.06 @ 12:05PM|#
We require nuts and cocaine.
Playtech Casino was there for us! Where were you?
tomWright|4.6.06 @ 12:17PM|#
Evan:
It writes like an SNL sketch...but it's real.
SNL was never that funny. Monty Python maybe.
I am so glad one of these self-lobotomized ID'ers is not in front
of me when they spew this idiocy.
I do not want to get sued for hurting their feelings when I laugh,
spraying spittle, directly in their face, nor do I wish to do the
jail time should I give in to temptation and slap them silly.
Captain Holly|4.6.06 @ 12:17PM|#
I'm not a creationist, but I will point out this isn't that dramatic a discovery: The Ceolocanth had similar characteristics, and what's more, it's still alive today. You can catch them off the coast of South Africa.
fyodor|4.6.06 @ 12:22PM|#
Very good post, Ron. I've always been a bit perplexed by this "missing link" idea since every living creature is a link from what came before to what came (or is to come) after. Nothing's really "missing".
|4.6.06 @ 12:26PM|#
To merge this with another popular topic of discussion...
If the only way to prove that a species is descended from an early
species (rather than divinely created) is to show every
transitional form, does it not follow that the only way to know you
are indeed descended from your parents is to track down both of
them?
So, what if your father skips town and refuses to pay child
support? Without his DNA, how do you know that your mother didn't
conceive miraculously, like the Virgin Mary did? Oh, sure, your
mother had sex with somebody, but how do we know that having sex is
what got her pregnant? Without the father's DNA to compare, we
can't be sure that the pregnancy didn't result from a
miracle.
Sorry, just felt like stirring things up.
|4.6.06 @ 12:33PM|#
no cause i was playing WoW and i wanted to get past the part with the eggs and i kept dieing and gramma said to pray about so i prayed and then i got past it so theres definitely a god no matter if drs and phds find some fucken fish with feet or whatever and how come theres still monkeys if we came from monkeys
Timothy|4.6.06 @ 12:33PM|#
Moreover, without difinitive proof, how do you know we're not all just brains in vats, man? Brains! In! VATS!
fyodor|4.6.06 @ 12:35PM|#
Take it to its logical extreme, thoreau, and you'd need direct evidence of your parents' role in your conception as well as evidence that links said conception directly to your earliest memories of being you. No gaps in the historical record!!
Joe Carter|4.6.06 @ 12:39PM|#
Nevertheless, the discovery of tiktaalik forces their God
into ever smaller gaps.
I take it that Mr. Bailey didn't read the post of mine that he
linked. While some "creationists" (i.e., deists) might espouse such
a view, no thoughtful Christian should ever embrace a "God of the
gaps" position. It goes against everything will believe about the
role of the Creator in creation.
Also, who are these newfangled intelligent designers that do not
accept transitional fossils?
But even if his claim was aimed at anti-evolutionis neo-deists, the
connecting of two species does not close but rather broadens the
explanatory gap. Science rarely closes any "gaps" without new ones
being created. This is what makes science an endless and exciting
series of discoveries.
So not only does he build a strawman by implying that most
"creationists" fall back on GOTG explanations, Mr. Bailey shows
that he doesn't even understand what a GOTG position
is.
The Wine Commonsewer|4.6.06 @ 12:41PM|#
With all due respect, it seems contrary to the basic theory of
evolution that a fish would somehow enhance the long term survival
of the species by further adapting to a watery environment by
growing legs, elbows, and digits.
Truth is we don't know, but I suspect that at some point along the
human continuum that we will have an answer. I doubt if Jesus
Freaks or Taoists are going to be happy with it. But there's also a
good chance that hard core evolutionists will not be happy
either.
Or maybe the answer will evolve so slowly that the evolutionists
will evolve past evolution.
|4.6.06 @ 12:46PM|#
Alright science lesson for Kwais time.
If there is no missing link, what is the monkey that we descended
from? I mean what are a few of the things between fishes and
us?
When I was a kid, it was supposed to be Neanderthals, but then I
learn that we never descended from them.
So are there any bones of anything that we actually descended from,
and does it have a name?
(I know this may be amateur science time. But I am not necessarily
assumed to have read up on this for this website, where the JMJ's
you would think would have read up a little more about libertarian
stuff)
|4.6.06 @ 12:52PM|#
Or maybe the answer will evolve so slowly that the
evolutionists will evolve past evolution.
They'll evolve to what, exactly?
And there are fish right now whose environments demand that they
travel across land briefly, between water holes, propelling
themselves over the ground using--at least in part--their fins.
Those whose fins happen to be slightly stronger, better suited for
this type of "walking," are more likely to survive. Give it a few
million years and see what results from that situation.
Timothy|4.6.06 @ 12:54PM|#
Steve Verdon has been at Joe Carter's statistical ignorance for
quite some time. Search his site for a lot of pretty good posts on
ID.
I know, I know, don't feed the trolls, but I can't resist.
|4.6.06 @ 12:56PM|#
To clarify: fins that are "better suited" to walking aren't just stronger. They could be more flexible, a joint could gradually move outward to change movement, etc. Any change that "helps" will, on average, be favored by selection. That process plus a shitload of time equals legs, if the environment demands it.
|4.6.06 @ 12:59PM|#
"...you'd need direct evidence of your parents' role in your
conception...."
What? You mean, like videotape?
GAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
|4.6.06 @ 1:02PM|#
Kwais,
You can start here and follow the
links.
I don't pretend to be an expert on the subject but some of the key
findings are in there.
|4.6.06 @ 1:02PM|#
TWC,
Obviously, the ability to raise itself out the water gives the
creature all sorts of benefits. It could better see what's on the
surface. It could get at prey on land or in shallow water. Like a
snakehead, it could move to a better, less crowded water
body.
kwais,
We didn't evolve from monkeys. We and monkeys evolved from a common
ancestor. Ditto with apes and great apes - we broke off from common
ancestors at different points in pre-history.
|4.6.06 @ 1:06PM|#
Kwais,
Australopithicus is one that could be an ancestor. Google that word
with "Eve" or "Lucy".
However, any talk of "missing links" is actually misleading, since
the relationships between branches are very much up in the air. For
instance, it's still not been wholly decided where Neanderthals
fall in relation to us. And likewise, this fishapod may not have
had anything to do with current animals that dwell on land, it
could have been just one species that evolved foot-like things and
promptly died out. Then another fishapod could have come along and
also evolved foot-like things, and given rise to land-dwelling
creatures.
None of this is closed-book stuff.
|4.6.06 @ 1:08PM|#
Wino,
"With all due respect, it seems contrary to the basic theory of
evolution that a fish would somehow enhance the long term survival
of the species by further adapting to a watery environment by
growing legs, elbows, and digits."
Evolution theory does not espouse some subjective continuum toward
some subjective perfection. Evolution is simply another word for
"change over time." Perhaps the creatures that were developing legs
were reacting to lowering water tables in there environment.
Perhaps they became trapped in a landlocked, lowering-water-table
situation. Perhaps gravity was greater and it was a way of dealing
with the bottom of the sea. Who knows? Evolution doesn't have all
the answers - just the best way of asking the questions.
Kwais,
"So are there any bones of anything that we actually descended
from, and does it have a name?
(I know this may be amateur science time. But I am not necessarily
assumed to have read up on this for this website, where the JMJ's
you would think would have read up a little more about libertarian
stuff)"
The trouble with tracking the ancestry of certain creatures, like
ourselves, is that we did not all live in environments conducive to
generating fossils from our remains. Think of oil here. If all the
organic matter on the Earth had existed in places conducive to the
generation of oil, we could never run out - think about it. But
that's not the case. Our relatively recent ancestors, if our own
behavior is any clue, probably lived near bodies of water, and
bodies of water have a way of moving their borders about. That's
why the Mississippi culture, though thought to be the grandest of
pre-Columbian North America, has left little clues for us today.
The Mississippi moved around a lot.
Also, human ancestors, if our modern relatives are considered,
probably did not exist in very large numbers until very, very
recently. There are plenty of fossils representing schooling and
herding and flocking animals that lived in huge numbers and mass
bred, but humans are not like that.
That all said, there are plenty of bones and such that take our
ancestry back quite a ways. Look it up.
JMJ
fyodor|4.6.06 @ 1:10PM|#
P Brooks,
Preferably videotape, but more importantly, not just of you know
what. You'd need to see the sperm fertilizing the egg, and then a
continuous record that connects this ferilization to your earliest
memories!
kwais,
As a rank layman, I would say the point is that just because we
don't have every bit of information theoretically possible about
the past does not mean there is information that is "missing" in
the same sense that a puzzle cannot be completed without a missing
piece. If we do not know the exact species of primate preceding
modern human, then sure, that information is "missing" in the sense
that it would be nice to know that bit of information. But it is
not "missing" in the sense that we cannot put together the big
puzzle of evolution without it. We already have plenty of evidence
that life has evolved on this planet.
fyodor|4.6.06 @ 1:12PM|#
P Brooks,
Preferably videotape, but more importantly, not just of you know
what. You'd need to see the sperm fertilizing the egg, and then a
continuous record that connects this ferilization to your earliest
memories!
kwais,
As a rank layman, I would say the point is that just because we
don't have every bit of information theoretically possible about
the past does not mean there is information that is "missing" in
the same sense that a puzzle cannot be completed without a missing
piece. If we do not know the exact species of primate preceding
modern human, then sure, that information is "missing" in the sense
that it would be nice to know that bit of information. But it is
not "missing" in the sense that we cannot put together the big
puzzle of evolution without it. We already have plenty of evidence
that life has evolved on this planet.
|4.6.06 @ 1:13PM|#
Anyone remember the educational film, "The Miracle of Life"?
They actually did film the conception, development, and
birth.
I always wondered how traumatized that kid ended up.
|4.6.06 @ 1:36PM|#
375 million year old fish with the beginnings of digits,
elbows, wrists and shoulders.
God brought the last living specimen over last night and we ate it
for dinner.
|4.6.06 @ 1:41PM|#
Kwais -
The scientific method involves asking questions, gathering
evidence, and then proposing an answer that best fits the available
evidence. Rinse and repeat ad infinitum.
So, asking questions, like "what about the gaps?" is part of the
scientific process. The problem, scientifically speaking, comes in
a) proposing an answer that doesn't fit the available evidence, b)
dismissing an answer that does fit the available evidence outright,
or c) proposing an answer that is not subject to empiricism. In
that light, there is nothing wrong with creationists of any stripe
asking the questions. The problem comes from failing to consider
the evidence presented to answer the questions.
|4.6.06 @ 2:18PM|#
Linguist and MK,
Thanks, I can't believe I didn't know that. Why isn't there a movie
about it or something?
I saw a show on the discovery channel where they were talking about
the varios branches of human tree. But it was a tad confusing. And
the way I understood it, it was entirely hypothitical, and they
didn't have any bones for any of it.
Now that I think about it they had to have some kind of bones to
justify those ideas.
Joe;
I know that. I use monkey as term to describe, apes, our ancestors,
hairy people, and people with few skills, or people who do things I
don't understand. Over simplification being my favorite way to
understand things.
JMJ,
I figured the whole "there aren't that many bones. I had heard that
one before. I was addressing the whole "is it possible to find the
fossils", not the "how come I don't trip over them every day"
Quasibil,
I'm going to read your post more slowly to see if I understand
it.
tomWright|4.6.06 @ 2:21PM|#
thoreau
"So, what if your father skips town and refuses to pay child
support? Without his DNA, how do you know that your mother didn't
conceive miraculously, like the Virgin Mary did? Oh, sure, your
mother had sex with somebody, but how do we know that having sex is
what got her pregnant? Without the father's DNA to compare, we
can't be sure that the pregnancy didn't result from a
miracle."
So in order to gain knowledge of god, all we need to do is examine
and compare the DNA of every bastard child on the planet?
I'm in for $20.
|4.6.06 @ 2:24PM|#
Cartman - "fishes" is perfectly valid, especially for "more than one kind of fish".
|4.6.06 @ 2:29PM|#
I've just spent a retarded amount of time reading up on the
evolutionary origins of humans on Wikipedia.
Holy cow, there's a lot of really interesting information out
there. The most fascinating thing about it is that the development
of modern humans is so fundamentally non-linear.
"Anyone remember the educational film, "The Miracle of Life"?
They actually did film the conception, development, and
birth."
Nothing that gooey and aesthetically displeasing can possibly be a
miracle.
|4.6.06 @ 2:30PM|#
Quasibill-
Your post, which may or may not appear directly above, is all the
excuse I need to hop on one of my most favoritest hobbyhorses, to
wit:
Assertion is not the same as Fact. What distinguishes a fact from
an assertion, is that a fact may be verified independently, by
examining the evidence brought forth to support it (additional
corroborative assertions do not qualify as evidence).
It pleases me to know that I am not the only person aware of this
distinction.
lunchstealer|4.6.06 @ 2:42PM|#
JMJ
Perhaps gravity was greater and it was a way of dealing with
the bottom of the sea. Who knows? Evolution doesn't have all the
answers - just the best way of asking the questions.
The mass of the Earth has been sufficiently constant to rule any
real gravitational changes out. However, you're right that there
are any number of reasonable explanations for why leggish/finny
things might be useful without actually walking on land. Certainly
if they were in swamps with rapidly fluctuating water levels,
they'd have some reason to use these kinds of appendages.
Certainly we'd conjectured that the Ceolacanth style lobe-fin
fishes were using them as legs, but once we observed coelacanths*
in their natural environment, we realized they just use them like
normal fins, despite seeming leg-like.
*no I don't know how to spell it, and I'm too lazy to wikipedia
it.
|4.6.06 @ 2:44PM|#
I really, really wish that evidence, like this fossil,
would cause Creationists and Intelligent Designers to question
their dogma. Unfortunately, they are
ignorant:
Maggie
Witlin, Seed Magazine
Evolution operates too slowly to be measured. To actually observe
the transmutation of one organism to a higher form would presumably
take millions of years. No team of scientists could ever make
measurements on such an experiment, and, therefore, the matter is
beyond the realm of empirical science. Although there is some
evidence of small variations in organisms today, there is no way to
conclusively prove the changes within the present kinds can
eventually metamorphose or actually change into different and
higher kinds.
What is more, the Second Law of Thermodynamics constitutes an
incredible difficulty for evolutionists ... In order for an
organism to advance or evolve, energy must in some way be
introduced, gained or increased. The Second Law, however, says this
will not happen in any natural process unless external factors
enter in to produce it. This, in effect, acknowledges the validity
of the creationist approach and not that of evolution.
Fennec|4.6.06 @ 2:44PM|#
On another side of the issue, I suppose that I qualify as a
Creationist of sorts, believing that God is responsible for the
creation the universe- but that the exact specific way doesn't
matter; I furthermore am pretty sure that you can't prove that, or
God's existance in general, one way or another. Still, I think it's
a fine-and-dandy thing to do to study the evolution, and silly to
attack it... but at the same time, it's silly to attack the concept
of a created universe in the other direction.
My point, I guess, is just to ask you to make sure that you're not
lumping all Christians together, and to make sure that you keep
your issues with "creationism" and "intellegent design", rather
than with Christianity in general. At least as far as this
particular topic is concerned.
|4.6.06 @ 2:55PM|#
There's also the generally accepted idea that whales evolved from creatures that left the water, then returned. So none of this should really be surprising.
|4.6.06 @ 3:41PM|#
Fennac,
I never quite understood why it is that God was restricted in his
methods and couldn't possibly have used evolution as a means of
creation. Evolution does not say anything about God one way or
another. Evolutionists seem to be pretty ignorent about religion in
that they seem to believe that the existence of God can only mean
creation that looks like something out of a Cecil B. DeMill
movie.
|4.6.06 @ 3:47PM|#
"What is more, the Second Law of Thermodynamics constitutes
an incredible difficulty for evolutionists ... In order for an
organism to advance or evolve, energy must in some way be
introduced, gained or increased. The Second Law, however, says this
will not happen in any natural process unless external factors
enter in to produce it."
Like, oh, say, THE FUCKING SUN!
The Wine Commonsewer|4.6.06 @ 3:49PM|#
Nothing that gooey and aesthetically displeasing can
possibly be a miracle
TWC can attest to exactly how messy giving birth really is. That's
why in all the old movies they sent the men out for lots of towels
and pails of hot water.
Regardless of the mess, being present when your kids are born is
waaaayyyy better than chain smoking while pacing the waiting
room.
The Wine Commonsewer|4.6.06 @ 3:59PM|#
Jersey, change over time is what happens, but the underpinnings
of evolutionary theory is that creatures that adapt best ensure the
survival of the species.
I am not against the theory of adaptation of species per se, but
IMO subtle changes in left-handed amino acids multiplied over
millenia will not give rise to liberal Democrats in America.
|4.6.06 @ 4:09PM|#
mediageek-
Exactly! The sun is the key to understanding how life can exist
despite the second law.
I hate the second law strawman! I hate it!
The Wine Commonsewer|4.6.06 @ 4:12PM|#
Elli,
They'll evolve to what, exactly?
In my ever-so-clever (to me) little ditty I meant that as science
progresses and evolves and the answer slowly comes closer that the
evolutionists will also evolve their thinking away from what we now
think of as eveolutionary thinking. The change will be subtle and
evolve over time until such point that nobody actually is an
evolutionist any more.
I'm all for scientific inquiry but I tend to be routinely skeptical
of the latest and/or trendiest pronouncements. Keep in mind that
we're only a couple of decades out from the days when TRANS FATS
were destined to save our clogged arteries from the scourge of
animal fat. We're only a century out from having enough sense to
wash our hands before eating or surgically removing bullets. We're
only two centuries out from blood letting. Point being that
state-of the-art scientific knowledge is sometimes dead wrong.
|4.6.06 @ 4:20PM|#
On another side of the issue, I suppose that I qualify as a
Creationist of sorts, believing that God is responsible for the
creation the universe-
Then who or what is responsible for the creation of God?
|4.6.06 @ 4:23PM|#
I'm all for scientific inquiry but I tend to be routinely
skeptical of the latest and/or trendiest pronouncements.
If evolution were some new thing I'd agree with you. It isn't. It's
an idea with a long pedigree, and over time the accumulation of
evidence has overwhelmingly favored natural selection acting on
genetic mutations as the mechanism by which new species emerge. The
accumulation of evidence has also overwhelmingly favored an old
earth populated by a progression of different life forms over the
course of more than a billion years.
This isn't cold fusion. This is more like the Second Law of
Thermodynamics (which, despite what the creationists say, is
perfectly compatible with every study ever conducted in
biochemistry and biophysics).
|4.6.06 @ 4:35PM|#
An even more important announcement was released today:
Using new techniques for resurrecting ancient genes, scientists have for the first time reconstructed the Darwinian evolution of an apparently "irreducibly complex" molecular system. The research was led by Joe Thornton, assistant professor of biology at the University of Oregon's Center for Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, and will be published in the April 7 issue of SCIENCE. "We found that complexity evolved piecemeal through a process of Molecular Exploitation -- old genes, constrained by selection for entirely different functions, have been recruited by evolution to participate in new interactions and new functions."
|4.6.06 @ 4:39PM|#
I never quite understood why it is that God was restricted
in his methods and couldn't possibly have used evolution as a means
of creation.
For Creationists, IDers, and Fundies in general, their problem with
evolution boils down to Adam, Eve, and Jesus.
If evolution is true, then there where no first humans (Adam and
Eve). If Adam and Eve didn't exist, then the story in Genesis about
Original Sin is false.
Then, if there where no Original Sin, what was the reason Jesus was
crucified??
|4.6.06 @ 4:49PM|#
you're not a creationist in the sense meant by most evolutionists discussing the topic, if you just believe that a god or gods or Flying Spaghetti Monster or Great Green Arkleseizure created the universe. "Creationist" is short for "young-Earth creationist/ 6 - 24 - hour days creationists/ Biblical literalist/ strict creationist/ Genesis literalist".
The Wine Commonsewer|4.6.06 @ 4:53PM|#
Thow-row, I'm guessing that Evolutionary thought originated
sometime between blood letting and hand washing. So, no, it isn't
particularly new unless you cast it in geological time.
However, new discoveries that are as significant as fossilized fish
elbows, may upon diligent inquiry prove to be something altogether
different. That was my point.
Brian,
Then who or what is responsible for the creation of
God?
Great question. I once asked my bio prof a similar question about
the then-popular Big Bang theory. You know, something from nothing?
Or near nothing. And what was there before? Like the space the Big
Bang was filling up.
Got a similar answer as to what you might expect from a Creationist
Christian to your question.
Come on, it was a pretty cool Straw Man.
|4.6.06 @ 4:53PM|#
biologist-
I don't mean to get too semantical here, but I thought that
"creationist" can also be used to refer to the "old earth ID"
people: The ones who believe that the earth is billions of years
old, but the progression of life forms has required active
intervention to overcome issues of "irreducible complexity."
These people are much more creationists than those who believe in a
Watchmaker God that set up the initial conditions of the universe
in such a way that life would emerge via the natural processes of
this universe.
fyodor|4.6.06 @ 4:58PM|#
John,
When you say, "I never quite understood why it is that God was
restricted in his methods and couldn't possibly have used evolution
as a means of creation. Evolution does not say anything about God
one way or another," you're dead on.
But when you say, "Evolutionists seem to be pretty ignorent about
religion in that they seem to believe that the existence of God can
only mean creation that looks like something out of a Cecil B.
DeMill movie," you seem to have your sites pointed the wrong way.
Are scientists demanding "equal time" in religious schools? I don't
think so. The ruckus is being caused by creationists wanting equal
time in science classes.
Of course, even this is just a problem due to the institution of
public education, which I admit makes the whole problem intractible
to a large degree. Still, we have what we have, and creationism has
no place in a public school's science class. And that's the crux of
the issue.
|4.6.06 @ 5:03PM|#
Thow-row, I'm guessing that Evolutionary thought originated
sometime between blood letting and hand washing. So, no, it isn't
particularly new unless you cast it in geological time.
you'd be incorrect. evolutionary ideas have been around since the
Greek philosophers. our modern understanding of evolution begins
with Darwin in 1859, and was renewed with the evolutionary
synthesis in the early 20th century, which resolved discrepancies
between newly-discovered Mendelian particulate inheritance and the
gradations in characters actually observed in organisms.
also, why would you ask a bio prof about Big Bang theory? that
would be a more appropriate question for a physicist.
thoreau - that could also be the case, depending on context. I was
probably overgeneralizing again.
The Wine Commonsewer|4.6.06 @ 5:06PM|#
I have relatives that grew up in strict fundie environments of
the 1930's and 1940's who were taught by the church that the
one day in Genesis was not literal. Interesting because
apparently there was cognitive dissonance even then. Interesting to
me because although strict fundie (I mean so strict that sex was
forbidden because it might lead to dancing), there was no strict
interpretation of the six day theory of creation.
They cited some passage in Psalms as I recall, about a day being as
a thousand years to God. Even in that, they held that this was
still not literal but a way of showing that the passage of time in
human terms was very different than eternal time on God's
clock.
For What It's Worth Regards, TWC
The Wine Commonsewer|4.6.06 @ 5:14PM|#
bio,
also, why would you ask a bio prof about Big Bang theory? that
would be a more appropriate question for a physicist.
Because it was Bonehead Biology for non-majors and it was part of
class discussion. Great class too, we spent at least half of the
term on genetics which was way over my head but interesting as
could be none-the-less.
you'd be incorrect. evolutionary ideas have been around since
the Greek philosophers. our modern understanding of evolution
begins with Darwin in 1859
I don't think I'd be too incorrect since there is a huge difference
between ideas floating around for centuries and a modern scientific
understanding of evolution beginning with Darwin in 1859.
|4.6.06 @ 5:15PM|#
good point. from what I've been told, in the Hebrew that Genesis was originally recorded in, the word that was translated as day was "yom", which could mean a 24-hour time period, or an indeterminate period of time.
|4.6.06 @ 5:15PM|#
Come on, it was a pretty cool Straw Man.
Hardly, TWC but nice try. That something must at some
level just come to exist (or has always existed, whether it's God,
or whatever created God, or whatever created whatever created
God... etc. etc.) was the point. Once you accept that, then a
universe that just comes to exist is a much simpler explanation
than some chain of creators that you chose to insert for no reason
but personal whim (or perhaps the whim of others). At least we have
evidence that the universe exists.
The big-bang is totally irrelevant here. That we don't know the
exact processes that this thing we call the universe goes through
is rather obvious but completely beside my main point which you
totally missed in your rush to mislabel it.
lunchstealer|4.6.06 @ 5:16PM|#
the Second Law of Thermodynamics constitutes an incredible
difficulty for evolutionists ... In order for an organism to
advance or evolve, energy must in some way be introduced, gained or
increased. The Second Law, however, says this will not happen in
any natural process unless external factors enter in to produce
it.
First of all, LoTII specifically relates to ENTROPY. Entropy is
typically described as 'disorder' but it isn't disorder in the
traditional sense. This does not preclude self-organization under
some circumstances. Secondly, it refers to a closed system. The
biosphere is NOT a closed system. There is a constant introduction
of material from both space and from the earth (via volcanoes and
black-smokers and the like). There is also a constant input and
output of energy. Minimal energy introduced from below as the earth
cools, plus some tiny energy input from lunar tides, but of course
the sun inputs massive amounts of energy, and huge amounts of
energy are radiated out to space.
So no, the 2nd law is not particularly informative on the grand
scale.
The Wine Commonsewer|4.6.06 @ 5:20PM|#
Brian,
The big-bang is totally irrelevant here.
Exactly, which is why I was admiring my Straw Man handiwork.
:-)
And, BTW, I got your point. Actually have made that argument a time
or two myself.
|4.6.06 @ 5:24PM|#
They cited some passage in Psalms as I recall, about a day
being as a thousand years to God. Even in that, they held that this
was still not literal but a way of showing that the passage of time
in human terms was very different than eternal time on God's
clock.
A few years ago, I read a book titled The Science of God
by Gerald Schroeder that used relativity to explain how 15 billion
years could be perceived as six days. I don't remember anything
really specific about the argument though.
|4.6.06 @ 5:27PM|#
Next time some moe-ron tries that 2nd Law bullshit, ask him to
state the 2nd Law. If you hear something about the integral of
dq-sub-rev over T, shake his hand.
In my experience, you'll never shake his hand.
|4.6.06 @ 5:41PM|#
I never quite understood why it is that God was restricted
in his methods and couldn't possibly have used evolution as a means
of creation. Evolution does not say anything about God one way or
another. Evolutionists seem to be pretty ignorent about religion in
that they seem to believe that the existence of God can only mean
creation that looks like something out of a Cecil B.
DeMill[sic] movie.
It is the creationists who are saying that "creation that
looks like something out of a Cecil B. DeMill[sic] movie." I
realize that a lot of christians (possibly a majority) do not take
the biblical fables so literally but the folks we are seeing
referred to here do.
Frankly it is really strange to observe. The fact of the matter is
that it is only in North America that evolution is the slightest
bit controversial (and it is much less so in Canada). And the
controversy is stoked by fundamentalist literalists, who are simply
more numerous here.
Despite much lower church attendance and declaration of belief it
is still accurate to describe Europe (and Australia and New
Zealand) as Christian countries (or perhaps Judeo-Christian).
However the majority attend (or don't attend but claim affiliation
with) mainline religions which have long since reconciled and
rationalized the biblical fables with modern science. Science and
evolution don't conflict with the church's teachings since the
church is not dealing with physical reality. It is only the
biblical literalists who believe in a physically real god,
hence they must believe in a physically real
creation.
Hell, I was listening to an NPR report a while ago where they were
interviewing some rabbis about how Judaism was dealing with the
fact that the escape from Egypt story was simply not supported by
the historical record. They pretty much said that the the truth of
the story was irrelevant and that they would simply keep telling
it. It seems that the symbolism of the story is what is important,
not its truth. The same goes for the creation story.
That said I am an atheist. I can no more get my head around the
mystical or trancedental god (or the need to believe in it) than
the physically real old geezer with the white beard or the heavenly
father on Kolob.
|4.6.06 @ 6:08PM|#
My evangelical friend, a few weeks ago, told me that fetuses
breath as if they have gills while they're in the womb, something
which I did not know. When I pointed out that this fits in well
with the idea that we evolved from sea creatures, he simply shook
his head and said, "That's bullshit."
So there you have it.
|4.6.06 @ 9:12PM|#
Zach, you're so right -- as Rob Hood (Southern
Baptist and conservative pundit) explains:
We have a major problem here in America. People just do not get how serious the situation really is. We have crazed madmen our there telling our children that God is a fairy tale, the Garden of Eden never existed, and creation never happened. They are teaching our children that we derived from apes or evolved over millions of years. What garbage! How do we expect our children to grow up believing in God and obeying the laws of God when they are not taught by the parents to ignore these false doctrines? Yes, Satan has a very clever mind indeed. Evolution. What a deception! What a way to deceive many. What a way to pull people away from God.
|4.6.06 @ 9:26PM|#
...God doesn't play dice.
Comment by: Einstein at April 6, 2006 12:03 PM
Don't tell God what to do with his dice.
|4.6.06 @ 10:02PM|#
I love how people yell about how, no matter how much you breed
dogs with dogs, all you get are dogs.
Well, yes. And if you breed two mammals, you'll always get mammals.
If you breed two primates... always primates. Evolution is
cladistically conservative. Once you are in a particular grouping,
your descendants don't leave that group. Humans still belong to
every single taxonomic group that their direct ancestors belonged
to.
Everything that will descend from dogs will still by and large bear
all the distinctive features that distinguish dogs from all other
forms of life.
|4.7.06 @ 8:24AM|#
TWC,
You described the day-age theory (though hypothesis would be more
appropriate). I got it too, and cognitive dissonance is right.
Every word in the Bible is literally true, and if you believe
otherwise you're going to Hell. Except "day", that's figurative.
Well, and "evening" and "morning". And the parables. But the rest
of it is literal, especially the parts that are different in
English!
Day-age doesn't get you very far, either; the order of events in
Genesis contradicts modern science.
zach,
Humans, like all vertebrates, have gill slits for a time,
but not functional gills. A fetus "breathes" through the
placenta.
|4.7.06 @ 3:50PM|#
change over time is what happens, but the underpinnings of
evolutionary theory is that creatures that adapt best ensure the
survival of the species.
Erm, no. Evolution is the cumulative effect over time of organisms
acting to ensure their OWN survival. Species matters not at all. If
evolution benefitted the survival of a species (presumably through
some mystical process, because how in the world is the organism
supposed to know what behavior best encourages its species'
survival? Humans can't even do that!), then new species would never
appear and the argument would be moot.
Organisms try to survive. That's all. The ones that are better
suited to their environment produce more offspring. The offspring
resemble their parents, passing along whatever individual
variations the parents possessed. In this way, biological creatures
change over time. They can't NOT change. We know for a fact that
organisms vary from one another within a species, and if you apply
that over millions or billions of years, it's statistically
impossible for organisms not to end up vastly different than they
started out.
Species is essentially an arbitrary concept applied by human beings
onto the vast continuum of organisms in the real world. Just listen
to two entomologists arguing over classifying a new species of
beetle to understand how arbitrary it really is. At some point we
consider two organisms so divergent as to be two different species.
(The theoretical distinction is that they can't interbreed, but
this is not universally true -- many related species can produce
viable offspring, lions and tigers for example.) Species is just a
way of quantifying the infinite biological variation around us.
Evolution describes how that variation propagates through
populations over time.
Caveat: I am not a biologist. Apply usual grain of salt.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245