evolution

As I said before, creationism arose from the need of early humans to have some meaning to their life. There is no proof. And, like I said before, there is nothing wrong with that--it is something that probably every culture in the world has thought about at one poing or another.
Evolution from one species to another IS proven. How else would we have ended up with such similar genes to that of an ape? It's not coincidence, that's for sure. So lemme thing... hmm... maybe it could be... evolution? All evolution is, really, is life changing according to various stimuli (both internal and external--genetic mutations can cause an organism to change and so can its environment) in order to, well, survive better. So doesn't it make sense that if an organism was forced to change enough, it could become a new species? Evolution from one species to another is simply one part of a species breaking away from the rest and, over millions of years, changing so much that they are no longer the same species.

Julibug> Palaeontologists have found a quite complete set of dinosaur-to-bird transitional fossils with no morphological "gaps" (Sereno 1999), represented by Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba, among many others (Carroll 1997, pp. 306-323; Norell and Clarke 2001; Sereno 1999; Xu et al. 1999; Xu et al. 2000; Xu et al. 2002).
All have the expected possible morphologies, including organisms such as Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, and the famous "BPM 1 3-13" (an unnamed dromaeosaur from China) which are flightless bipedal dinosaurs with modern-style feathers (Chen et al.1998 ; Qiang et al. 1998; Norell et al. 2002).
Additionally, several similar flightless dinosaurs have been found covered with nascent evolutionary precursors to modern feathers (branched feather-like integument indistinguishable from the contour feathers of true birds), including Sinornithosaurus ("Bambiraptor"😉, Sinosauropteryx, Beipiaosaurus, Microraptor, and an unnamed dromaeosaur specimen, NGMC 91, informally called "Dave" (Ji et al. 2001).

So yes. As Darth also says: Evolution from one species to another IS a proven fact!

jeez... You really know your dinosaurs!

Darth> I’m a physicist and science-journalist. I happen to be working ON some stuff on dinosaurs right now with a palaeozoologist – hence the reason that I DO know 🙂

(Looks around again) No The Force? Oh... well....

cool... I'm into biology/genetics myself, though genetics is an extremely complex subject and I've just started learning about it

While we wait for The Force to try and prove Creationism –

Darth> Biology, hm? 🙂 You wouldn’t happen to know some historical aspects of biology – especially zoology? I’m talking post-romantic trends in the field in the 1920’s…

Maybe... What were you wondering about?

Nope, sorry, Juli, but the idea that evolution is not 'proven' is a myth perpetuated by lazy Creationists. Fact is, there is the same amount of supporting scientific evidence for it as there is for all other fundamental scientific concepts- which is to say, all (good) science is sceptical and continually open to change as new things are discovered. When some Creationists point out gaps in evolution and therefore say it is not valid or- worse- is a 'faith', they may as well say the exact same things about physics, chemistry and biology. Science never (should) claim to offer a complete picture, only a process of understanding.

The ONLY difference for evolution is that it is hard to observe in progress- but you can say the same for a vast amount of physics and astronomy and a whole load of things that people happily accept as fact because the science supports it. The only reason evolution is therefore doubted is because a popular alternative exists.

Actually, I was once surprised that evolution was being doubted in the modern era but it surprises me less these days.

But the fact of the matter is that the debate is unarguable. New Earth creationists (e.g those who think the world is only 6000-ish years opld, as opposed to Old Earth creationists who agree with evolution etc. but simply say that God put it all into motion) answer problems with their theory about the speed of light in relation to us seeeing ancient things by simply making statements like the apperance of these things is deceptive or that God has changed the speed of light over time.

To a hardcore scientist this makes no sense. But to a lot of these people, it is a matter of faith. Science and faith can NOT be used in argument with each other. Neither side whill shift the other. The person with faith will never provide the proof the scientist needs and the scientist will not see why the other person considers faith to be enough. And no- there is no possibility of union in the centre; the concepts are diametrically oposed.

So no-one will win. The true fall-out from the debate is the lazy assumptions and mis-conceptions that arise from it- like this idea that evolution is on shaky scientific ground, as just discussed.

I am Catholic, and have been going to Catholic school for about 12 years now, where Religion is a requirement.

I say that you can't have one side without the other, just because I am christian does not mean I don't believe in Evolution. They go hand in hand for me.

So are you an "Old Earth Creationist" like Ush described?

I'm still sticking with the Adam & Eve thingy.....but I do love reading all these other theories. Fascinating !

I'm sorry I didn't read Ush's post, sorry but I felt a coma coming on 😖leep:
I'm kidding but I can't concentrate if there are too many words 😐

Well then take another nap, my' dear..... 😉

that's a lovely suggestion 😄 sleep1
lol but after skimming Ush's post 😖mart: I can say yes, yes I am ✅

And here I thought we all just came out of a giant pasta machine.....

Where's that damn stork ? He lied to me !

😎

hunt him down and do this chair

that musta hurt...

only slightly wheelchair

Please forgive this lengthy post. I don't expect all of you to read it, but hopefully The Omega & Ush will at least. Also, Force, if you have any comments on the following, please add.

>Omega - As far as the dinosaur to bird fossils, is it not possible that there were just that many species that were similar? Or were these fossils found whole, and dated in transitional time periods?

Presuppositions also affect the way we interpret the facts. Two different people can look at the very same facts and still walk away with different beliefs, because of their presuppositions. One person sees the facts and decides there was no intelligent being involved in creation/evolution, but the other person sees the same facts and finds that they just give more validity to their faith in God. I think science and faith can go together to someone who has faith. Most of evolution may be "provable" with scientific facts, and that may mean that the "week" in Genesis wasn't an actual week. In fact, I looked up the translation of the word "day" in the creation account in Genesis, and it can simply translate a period of time - but not necessarily a 24 hour period of time. We have faulty translations when it comes to Bibles, so it's not always possible to know if a day or a week is literal (& the same for various other things). I think a lot of this has to fall under philosophy, though, because it's more about presuppositions and how you look at the facts than it is about the facts themselves. I cannot scientifically prove creation to you, but I don't think that you can scientifically prove the big bang, either. I look at my child, and I see so much more than genetic code. I believe that there is more to a human than an evolved body and mind. If you don't believe that, it is ok with me. I don't expect to change your mind, and I don't expect you to change mine. I also don't want to get into a "religious" discussion, although it is difficult to stay away from it completely in this area. The only scientific information I have on hand is from the curriculum I am using in homeschool. It is dated 1999, so if there is new info since then, I don't have it here. I apologize if this is as bad as copy & pasting, but I want to quote just a little of what this says. You are welcome to let me know how & why this is wrong.

In regard to genetics:

Pierre-Paul Grasse of the French Academy of Sciences writes, "No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution." Molecular biologist Michael Denton says, "The failure to validate the Darwinian model has implications which reach far beyond biology." Information theorist Hubert Yockey writes, "One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written." Ferguson says, "Scientists are particularly loath to relinquish the last form of prejudice...It must be true because anything else would be unthinkable." For example, Darwin says,"...the only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation, and we reject this alternative."

In regard to paleontology:

Darwin hoped that the fossil record would agree with him and strengthen his theory by containing many transitional forms between species, filling out the branches of his hypothetical "tree." The record was very incomplete at the time but he expected additional discoveries to make it more complete. Darwin also expected to see only gradual changes, not abrupt changes such as the Cambrian "explosion" of life, dated some 550 million years ago. If Darwin's theory of evolution were true, we should see transitional forms in fossils, showing gradual change. Instead gaps occurred because these transitional forms were not found. In general, we do not see fossils of transitional forms between different species of plants or animals. A few fossils that appear transitional have been reported, but major gaps remain. Most of the transitional forms (the missing links) Darwin expected to find are still missing...In the case of ape to man, virtually every "missing link" has turned out to be either an ape or a man, but not a transitional kind of ape-man. Some finds were deliberate hoaxes...Old earth creationists who accept the geologic time table also give God credit for the origin and development of living things. Creationists may differ on how much of the process was actively directed by God's hand. Research scientist Don Stoner, in his book A New Look at an Old Earth, says, "This (Cambrian Explosion) is an interesting companion to the Bible's phrase, 'Let the water teem with living creatures.'" Genesis 1:20

In regard to genetics:

Can scientists prove that two kinds of animals are related by observing DNA? Molecular biologist Christian Schwabe writes, "Molecular evolution is about to be accepted as a method superior to paleontology for the discovery of evolutionary relationships. As a molecular evolutionist I should be elated. Instead it seems disconcerting that many exceptions exist to the orderly progression of species as determined by molecular homologies; so many in fact that I think the exception, the quirks, may carry the more important message." Some molecular biologists speak of evidence of directed evolution, not Darwinian evolution...Evolutionists expected that an improved understanding of mutations, amino acids and DNA should put their theory on firmer ground, but instead biochemistry has raised challenging new questions. Biochemistry has not confirmed macroevolution...Denton says, "The really significant finding that comes to light from comparing the protein's amino acid sequences is that it is impossible to arrange them in any sort of evolutionary series. Thousands of different sequences, protein and nucleic acid, have now been compared in hundreds of different species but never has any sequence been found to be in any sense the lineal descendant or ancestor of any other sequence. In terms of their biochemistry, none of the species deemed 'intermediate', 'ancestral', or 'primitive' by generations of evolutionary biologists, and alluded to as evidence of sequence in nature, shows any sign of their supposed intermediate status."

In regard to mathematics:

Scientists show that the probability of complex life (such as plants and animals on earth) evolving by Darwin's evolutionary model is extremely small, zero statistically. According to most mathematical calculations, a universe even 100 billion years old is still not old enough for a single cell to have developed on earth. Even attempts to synthesize RNA, an information carrying molecule, in the laboratory have also been unsuccessful. Harold Morowitz, a biophysicist, compared the number of interactions needed to randomly produce a living cell with the total number of interactions available since the beginning of the universe. The mathematical probabilities are so small that we ought to see no life at all at this stage of the earth's history. The probability of assembling amino acid building blocks into a functional protein is also too small to be considered possible. Random assembly is therefore ruled out of the question. Hoyle comments, "The currant scenario of the origin of life is about as likely as the assemblage of a Boeing 747 by a tornado whirling through a junkyard."

Fire away!

Btw, back to the original post. Georgia did not ban the teaching of evolution - only the term. They wanted to continue the teaching, but call it "biological changes over time". The whole idea was pretty stupid. In fact, they've dropped it, and will now just call it evolution again.