Thought about creation

[ewoodard]

Purne, I am a Biology teacher and would like to ask you a question.
What is your position on homologous and analogous structures in animals and humans. I am talking about the presence of pelvic bone remnants in whales, tail bones in humans, the similarities in skeletal structures in different animals, the similarities in embryos of different mammals (up to a certain time of development). I believe that religion and evolution can coexist as we can't know the mind of God, we only have the stories written by man to figure it out.
I am not trying to be confrontational, just trying to figure out your side of this discussion.

[Prunepicker]

Purne, I am a Biology teacher and would like to ask you a question.
What is your position on homologous and analogous structures in animals
and humans. I am talking about the presence of pelvic bone remnants in
whales, tail bones in humans, the similarities in skeletal structures in
different animals, the similarities in embryos of different mammals (up to a
certain time of development). I believe that religion and evolution can
coexist as we can't know the mind of God, we only have the stories written
by man to figure it out.

I am not trying to be confrontational, just trying to figure out your side of
this discussion.

Going back to evolution, and not involving religious thought, we do find
similarities, homologous systems, i.e. hands, feet, joints, but the similarities
end there. The same goes with analogous, i.e. bats and birds. However, I
don't have a position. My question is, and always will be, "where's the link"
or where's the critter it supposedly evolved from? It's going to be in the
fossil record if it happened.

F'rinstance, as for what is called the tail bone (cocyx sp.) in humans,
where is the progressive or sequential interconnection from the previous
being or species that had a tail? Did the tail simply disappear all at once?
The change would have happened incrementally. There is nothing.

By the way, this isn't true only with humans but with every species on
Earth.

[Prunepicker]

In your opinion, what constitutes an organism to be a separate species?

Is it based on morphology or genetics? Or maybe something else?

That's a good question, which I don't have an answer, only speculation.
But that doesn't make me an evolutionist LOL.

It's probably the genetics. I read some time ago, Nature, about how the
genes are similar in different species but they are complete different
species.

It was suggested that while the genes were similar they worked differently.
Perhaps it had something to do with how the molecular structure of genes
used the proteins.

I don't know.

[HSC-Sooner]

That's a good question, which I don't have an answer, only speculation.
But that doesn't make me an evolutionist LOL.

It's probably the genetics. I read some time ago, Nature, about how the
genes are similar in different species but they are complete different
species.

It was suggested that while the genes were similar they worked differently.
Perhaps it had something to do with how the molecular structure of genes
used the proteins.

I don't know.

I'm glad you read the science publication Nature. There is a debate between scientists on what constitutes a species. Since mankind came up with the idea of species and tries to organize organisms into an arbitrary system of species; there's interest in generating a concrete classification system.

For example, it is much like how astronomers debated on what constituted a planet. Finally, the IAU settled on this:

(1) A "planet" is a celestial body that: (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.

(2) A "dwarf planet" is a celestial body that: (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, (c) has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit, and (d) is not a satellite.

Although it made Pluto lose its status as a planet, Pluto is still Pluto.

Anyways, back on topic. Species work much like this in that its hard for biologists to agree what constitutes a species. I believe genetics is going to be the final say in this debate. Previously, it was based on physical characteristics (that was thrown out) and the inability to mate (thrown out, think of a male chihuahua and a female St. Bernard; they're still dogs but they can't feasibly mate).

I think they're still hammering out what genetic similarity there needs to be for one to be in the same species. It maybe 99.9% similar or down to 95% similarity, it's hard to peg this number down. Biology is complex; there are viruses that can insert its DNA into an organism's chromosome and that alone will change the genetic percent identity.

I do agree with you that I believe differences in species are based on genetics. Do you agree that species is an arbitrary definition that mankind coined?



You are correct that genes can be similar across species. Some genes that are similar across species do work similarly across species. Other genes that are similar across species don't work similarly across species. It depends on where the gene is expressed and when the gene is expressed. Really simplified example: a gene that encodes for hormones may be activated in this organism (we can call it bugger) at age 1. So bugger matures and becomes a reproductive adult after age 1. In humans, let's say this similar gene gets activated around age 13. This is an example of a gene that is similar across species but doesn't work similarly across species.

I hope I didn't lose anyone.

[ewoodard]

Prune, I appreciate and understand your thought process on evolution as many of my students think the same way. I know there is not a single fossil that can connect a modern species with an evolutionary link, but I do wonder if it is possible that there may have been other changes in anatomy that may have occured. We don't know for sure what any of the prehistoric creature looked like for sure. It is all just conjecture and guesses based on the rock left behind.

I also agree with another poster who stated that not all animals will be turned into fossils, due to the complexity required for that to happen.

I am not sure genes will be the correct answer to determine evolutionary relationships due the fact we can't recover all of the possible dna from fossils.

So in its own way evolution is a form of religion that requires faith to follow what is being found.

Eventually we will all find out what the real truth is, we just won't be able to tell anyone else.

[Stan Silliman]

So in its own way evolution is a form of religion that requires faith to follow what is being found.

Eventually we will all find out what the real truth is, we just won't be able to tell anyone else.

What does that mean? That our brains are too tiny to come to grips about the origins of life?

In that one area, being able to figure things out and with each century advancing far beyond the previous, we have evolved mentally. Maybe not emotionally but eventually as far as knowing anything we seek to know I give humans a fair amount of credit.

[Heyuri]

No. I'm saying that evolution has yet to be proven. Intelligent design has
more going for it than evolution, i.e, there isn't any proof of one speicies
evolving into another. Not that it's right, it's just that evolution hasn't been
proven and ID has more going for it. I'm not giving an answer to anything. I
simply don't have a reason to believe that evolution has ever happened or
is happening.

Michael Behe.

I accept his philosophy.

Sorry... Somehow I got that you were an ID supporter after you supported Intelligent design. How silly of me.

As for evidence against evolution, I would love for you to show me that. You can claim not enough evidence for it, but I have never seen any compelling evidence against it. Its the only theory I have ever heard that does not involve god, or some designer... And since the designer either evolved, or was designed themselves ID /Only/ leads back to god did it.

[dismayed]

Your last sentence should have said, "regardless of scientific evidence against evolution." The religion of evolution shouldn't be taught in schools, either. Religion in the sense that it takes so much faith to want it to be true despite the lack of evidence.

If the rules of science were applied, and it has been vetted via the scientific method, it might be a theory you don't agree with but it isn't religion. It should be taught in science class.

As for religion in schools, I do think that they should be discussed in history or other classes, definitely. Because of curriculum and the law it is likely all the major world religions would have to be covered. Still okay with me, but I would think a lot of other parents here in Oklahoma would probably freak out about that.

On to the other issues... I think I have a better understanding of your viewpoint after your last couple of messages. Basically, we have x number of fossil records which, to me, looks like they show a progression of evolution and are the links. You're saying you would want to see x^10 or the like, which would fill in more of the gaps and give you more confidence in the theory.

I guess my thought is that as time goes by, and more and more fossils are recovered, eventually we will get there but it will take a long time. That's pretty apparent just based on the number of fossils discovered each year. But many things in science are like this... so instead of waiting for data sets you make estimates, look at data and do statistics, do some pattern recognition and so on. My thought is that if you apply these techniques like you would on other issues they are saying that is where the data is taking us.

[Prunepicker]

Sorry... Somehow I got that you were an ID
supporter after you supported Intelligent design. How silly of me.

As for evidence against evolution, I would love for you to show me that.
You can claim not enough evidence for it, but I have never seen any
compelling evidence against it. Its the only theory I have ever heard that
does not involve god, or some designer... And since the designer either
evolved, or was designed themselves ID /Only/ leads back to god did
it.

I am not a supporter of intelligent design. Period. Your description of ID is
incorrect. You're starting to talk in circles.

You're the one on this thread who is ignoring the absolute facts that links,
in any species and over any period of time, have not been found.

You provided a link to some things but what you ignore is the fact that
not a single one of your examples has any proof of evolving from another
species. Every single one of them were of their own.

In your own words I can only say, "Wow, there's all this evidence that
evolution is bunk and you close your eyes to it. Wow!"

[Prunepicker]

I guess my thought is that as time goes by, and more and more fossils are
recovered, eventually we will get there but it will take a long time. That's
pretty apparent just based on the number of fossils discovered each year.

But every fossil that's found belongs to an already discovered species or is
a species of it's own kind. I don't see it changing.

With all of the excavating that's been going you shouldn't be able to help
but find the graduated increments from species to species. Even if there
are species that don't fossilize, there are assuredly more than not that did.

If humans at one time had a tail, then there should be evidence and the
evidence of the tail gradually disappearing.

[NativeOkie]

But every fossil that's found belongs to an already discovered species or is
a species of it's own kind. I don't see it changing.

With all of the excavating that's been going you shouldn't be able to help
but find the graduated increments from species to species. Even if there
are species that don't fossilize, there are assuredly more than not that did.

If humans at one time had a tail, then there should be evidence and the
evidence of the tail gradually disappearing.

Careful Prune your making sense.
This generation is not used to that.

[dismayed]

But every fossil that's found belongs to an already discovered species or is a species of it's own kind. I don't see it changing.

With all of the excavating that's been going you shouldn't be able to help
but find the graduated increments from species to species. Even if there
are species that don't fossilize, there are assuredly more than not that did.

If humans at one time had a tail, then there should be evidence and the
evidence of the tail gradually disappearing.

No matter what is found it is going to be its own species, either already existing or a new one. So I'm not sure that statement makes sense. I mean what on earth are you looking for then? If some trans-species hybrid was found, which I believe many have been, they would be classified as their own species. So I don't see see where that argument is headed?

Like I've said, they have found graduated evolutionary lines, they have been classified as homo erectus, homo neaderthal, etc. All you are really asking for are discoveries of more species that fill in the gaps in between these already transitional species, right?

Tails... human embryos have tails. Every year a few children are born in this country with tails. They are surgically removed. Lots of pictures of this on the internet. People that don't know what they are talking about will argue they are just tumors, but infrequently these tails do include invertibrae and cartilage and are *mobile.*

What if I showed you a partly ape-like mostly human creature that crafted tools and musical instruments, and buried its dead but was still covered in hair/fur and had the forehead, eyes, and lips of an ape and was hunched over like an ape. Would that do it for you? Surprise... it's called a Neanderthal. To me that is a missing link. You are not asking for something that hasn't already been discovered, all you are asking for is more links in between the already discovered links.

[dismayed]

Careful Prune your making sense.
This generation is not used to that.

Feel free to enter the discussion if you have something to add.

[dismayed]

Prune, if what you're looking for is a transitional human, then don't the following fossil reconstructions meet your criteria....

Neanderthal:



Homo erectus:



Homo habilis:

[USG '60]

That top one is Prune on the way to the showers after a tough gig.

[Mr. T in OKC]

Can we accurately link Neanderthal (pictured above) to Cheech Martin?

[HSC-Sooner]

That top one is Prune on the way to the showers after a tough gig.

LOL. All kidding aside, a lot of evolutionary history can be traced through genetics now. There's great research in bacterial and viral genetics that can be used to monitor minor genetic mutations that can accumulate. Most of these mutants are fatal, some are neutral, and very few are beneficial. Sometimes, these beneficial mutants lend a competitive advantage over their nonmutant neighbors.

You can see these mutations accumulate over multiple generations (some bacterial species only take 25 minutes to double their population) and you can see evolution (on a small scale) occur in human observable time.

[dismayed]

That top one is Prune on the way to the showers after a tough gig.

Oh my.

Is it just me or does Neanderthal man look a little bit like former OU Coach Schnellenberger?

[Stan Silliman]

The top picture, I told you I had my dad's yearbook from Altus HS, class of 1929. Don't make me bring it out.

[Prunepicker]

Prune, if what you're looking for is a transitional human, then don't the
following fossil reconstructions meet your criteria...

No.

[dismayed]

No.

Then how would you describe a transitional human and what kind of fossil evidence do you believe would meet your criteria?

Also a second question, regarding the above proto-humans what would you personally classify them as just out of curiosity? Humans? Apes?

[Prunepicker]

Then how would you describe a transitional human and what kind of fossil
evidence do you believe would meet your criteria?

Also a second question, regarding the above proto-humans what would you
personally classify them as just out of curiosity? Humans? Apes?

They aren't transitional. They are species of their own kind.

This is my scientific evaluation of evolution. There is nothing that provides
evidence of a species, you can select any species upon the face of the
Earth, evolving into a completely different species. This is the true subject
of evolution.

This is the problem that exists with the [sic] religion of evolution. According
to evolution, species are supposed to evolve into other species. There is
no evidence whatsoever that this has ever happened.

I've honestly been convinced that evolution is nothing more than a theory
that can't be proved. Yes, I'm impressed with the findings of
anthropologists, but they don't prove that evolution exists. They do prove
that each species is of it's own kind. That means that there isn't any proof
whatsoever of any species evolving into another species.

[ewoodard]

Stan, I am refering to the fact that we all will die and then we will find out if there is a god or not, and that will answer the question of evolution versus creation (ID).

[Luke]

I see those models in pictures above and wonder what actual pieces they found to construct the full models?

[HSC-Sooner]

I see those models in pictures above and wonder what actual pieces they found to construct the full models?

Educated guesses based on similarities to related species. It's similar to finding a bicycle with no wheels. Since you find bits and pieces of it and it looks like a bicycle, you can guess that the missing parts should resemble complete specimens. Meh, poor analogy but it is Monday.