[_ Old Earth _] If humans evolved from apes, where is our tail?

[Brokendoll]

There's absolutely no directly observable evidence that humans evolved from sea dwelling creatures.

We don't have "directly observable evidence" avaliable in most murder cases either, but we do manage to find the guilty party on a regular basis nontheless...

The "nobody was there to see it happen" argument is a fallacy. The end.

 

[jasoncran]

There's absolutely no directly observable evidence that humans evolved from sea dwelling creatures.

We don't have "directly observable evidence" avaliable in most murder cases either, but we do manage to find the guilty party on a regular basis nontheless...

The "nobody was there to see it happen" argument is a fallacy. The end.

Then the Lord must not exist as we cant observe him via scientific means. He must be impotent as he seems not to be able to guide his creation. If you could know the end at the same time that you start. Why would use something like evolution to do that?

 

[Brokendoll]

There's absolutely no directly observable evidence that humans evolved from sea dwelling creatures.

We don't have "directly observable evidence" avaliable in most murder cases either, but we do manage to find the guilty party on a regular basis nontheless...

The "nobody was there to see it happen" argument is a fallacy. The end.

Then the Lord must not exist as we cant observe him via scientific means. He must be impotent as he seems not to be able to guide his creation.

I never claimed any of the above. I merely pointed out that if we accept a type of evidence to make conclusions about one aspect of reality (murder trials), I don't see why we should discard the same type of evidence when trying to understand another aspect of reality (nature).

If you could know the end at the same time that you start. Why would use something like evolution to do that?

I guess you would have to ask God about that. I'm just following the evidence here, just like a detective investigating a murder would.

 

[jasoncran]

The problem with is what part of bible we dont take as literal,because i doesnt line up with science. Is being gay a sin,because the Lord made them that way. What exactly is death, did the earlier forms of man have souls or sin? See how this thinking gets wierd. When did a soul "evolve", and if it evolved then can we become like god?

 

[Brokendoll]

The problem with is what part of bible we dont take as literal,because i doesnt line up with science.

I guess that is something that everyone will have to decide for themselves, and I certainly do not presume to dictate what other people should think.

But I wish to adress what I see as a grave inconsistency when it comes to scientific evidence. It appears that some people have a problem with science when it comes to evolution, but will readily accept the method in other areas. And if one puts little faith in science as a whole I cannot help but to consider that to be somewhat hypocritical seeing as they are reading this forum on a device that owes its very existence to science.

Airplanes, computers, cell-phones, cars, modern medicine, houses and buildings, clothes...even the food we eat owes a debt to the work of scientists and the scientific method. And seeing people blatantly discarding science while enjoying the fruits of it strikes me as quite dishonest.

Just my

 

[Crying Rock]

Airplanes, computers, cell-phones, cars, modern medicine, houses and buildings, clothes...even the food we eat owes a debt to the work of scientists and the scientific method. And seeing people blatantly discarding science while enjoying the fruits of it strikes me as quite dishonest.

What does any of this have to do with macroevolution?

 

[lordkalvan]

What does any of this have to do with macroevolution?

I may be wrong, but I think the point was that YE creationists in particular have problems with particular aspects of science because it appears to conflict with ideas about the natural world they have derived from an idiosyncratic, selective interpretation of the Bible, but have no problems with other aspects that they suppose do not - even when they do.

 

[Brokendoll]

What does any of this have to do with macroevolution?

I may be wrong, but I think the point was that YE creationists in particular have problems with particular aspects of science because it appears to conflict with ideas about the natural world they have derived from an idiosyncratic, selective interpretation of the Bible, but have no problems with other aspects that they suppose do not - even when they do.

Actually, that pretty much sums it up.

The scientific method is the most efficient and powerful idea we humans have come up with, and it produces real applicable results. It annoys me to see people using a computer to go on the internet and claim that evolution cannot be right because they don't like the implications it has on their particular interpretation of the bible. The Theory of Evolution is one of the most solid Theories we have, backed up with massive amounts of evidence ranging over multiple scientific disciplines and has found application in numerous areas.

In short, if you doubt evolution, you should doubt everything that science has achieved if you are to remain intellectually consistent. And if you do, then what the hell are you doing on a computer, living in a modern building, driving a car or taking an airplane when you go on vacation?

 

[jasoncran]

if that was the case brokendoll why the deception over the nebreska man and the piltdown man. If one is really looking for the evidence then why the need to make some up? That was a while ago has there been anymore of this type of solid evidence.

a certain bird comes to mind in china.

 

[Brokendoll]

if that was the case brokendoll why the deception over the nebreska man and the piltdown man. If one is really looking for the evidence then why the need to make some up?

No-one said that science never makes mistakes, and while there is dispute over whether the Nebraska Man was a hoax or an honest mistake, the Piltdown Man was an intentional deception to gain fame and recognition. People are weak, and it is to be expected that there will be a few who, when they don't achieve the recognition they crave, will turn to dishonest means to achieve it.

As for being wrong, even Isaac Newton, generally seen as one of the most prominent scientists ever got a few things wrong as shown by Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.

But that is part of the point. Science is not dogmatic and if sufficient evidence is provided, science will change its view of nature, continually working towards an ever increasing understanding of the universe. The control system of peer review is in place for exactly this reason and it is unlikely that hoaxes such as those mentioned would succeed today. Science has come a long way in the some 90 years since then.

And then there is the indisputable fact that science -works-! It produces applicable results that really helps people and expands our options. Science does not depend on infallible prophets, and a major part of cutting edge science is being prepared to be wrong. In fact, the scientific ideal is that one should be happy about having one's hypothesis shown to be wrong because every idea that is eliminated brings us that much closer to the one that is right.

That was a while ago has there been anymore of this type of solid evidence.

New discoveries are made all the time, and some of the more interesting ones in the area of paleontology are Ardi and Tiktaalik.

It should be pointed out though that fossils are not the only, nor the strongest evidence in favor of the Theory of Evolution. We have animal dispersion, vestigial organs, bacterial evolution and essentially, DNA mapping and comparison, to mention a few. We should also keep in mind that Common Descent is just a small part of the enormous body of work that is the Theory of Evolution, and the textbook definition of Evolution, changes in allele frequences over time, is an indisputable fact.

 

[John]

It should be pointed out though that fossils are not the only, nor the strongest evidence in favor of the Theory of Evolution. We have animal dispersion, vestigial organs, bacterial evolution and essentially, DNA mapping and comparison, to mention a few. We should also keep in mind that Common Descent is just a small part of the enormous body of work that is the Theory of Evolution, and the textbook definition of Evolution, changes in allele frequences over time, is an indisputable fact.

No fossil counts as evidence for evolution.
To my knowledge there are no vestigial organs.
DNA does not prove evolution, it proves a designer.
You don't need evolution to show animal dispersion.

Evolution is not science for it cannot be observed nor tested. It is fine to speculate however once you dabble in the "long ago and far away" part of evolution you left the realm of science.

No one has ever seen a dog produce a non dog, all we ever see in the animal kingdom is animals that produce a variety of themselves, now some people may call it a new species but it is still the same kind of animal.

Evolution is a bad ideal..not a fact, theory or even hypothesis.

[/hovind]

 

[Barbarian]

No fossil counts as evidence for evolution.

Most creationists disagree with you. They claim that intermediates would be evidence for evolution. They just claim the fossils don't exist.

To my knowledge there are no vestigial organs.

You have a tail which no longer functions as an organ of balance. As you might know, "vestigial" means "no longer has the original function."

DNA does not prove evolution, it proves a designer.

No. DNA has shown the same nested hierarchy of common descent first noted by Linnaeus, and we can use it to check common descent of people, so we know it works.

Evolution is not science for it cannot be observed nor tested.

College undergraduates test it every year. Agronomists and plant breeders test it regularly. It is directly observed.

No one has ever seen a dog produce a non dog,

No one has ever seen a giant redwood grow from a seedling, either. The argument that "evolution is change sufficiently drastic that no one could live long enough to see it" is a loser.

all we ever see in the animal kingdom is animals that produce a variety of themselves, now some people may call it a new species but it is still the same kind of animal.

In fact, creationists suppose hyperevolution of animals to solve the Ark problem. But there's a difficulty. They imagine evolution of all cats from a "cat kind." And there's far more genetic variation among cats than there is between humans and chimpanzees. Rock and a hard place.

 

[Brokendoll]

No fossil counts as evidence for evolution.

So, exactly what do you consider fossils to be? God's sketches of preliminary ideas? Or maybe they are all a result of the flood? I'll assume you don't believe in isotop dating either? Or, hey, here's an idea! Maybe all the hundreds of thousands of fossils we have discovered are all an elaborate hoax cooked up by paleontologists as a joke?

To my knowledge there are no vestigial organs.

Here is a short list of eight:
1. Wings on flightless birds.
2. Hind leg bones in whales.
3. Erector Pili in humans (goose bumps).
4. Coccyx in humans and other great apes (tail bone).
5. Degenerative eyes in blind fish.
6. Wisdom teeth in humans.
7. Sexual organs in dandelions.
8. The human Appendix.

The fact that you have gone through life without hearing about any of these makes me seriously question your education, but at least here is an opportunity for you to learn something new. Now go to and do some reading!

DNA does not prove evolution, it proves a designer.

The comparison of DNA mappings show a detailed family tree of all the species on the planet. This can be seen in genetic markers as well as the presence of particular genes, which is why doing research on fruitflies is beneficial for medical treatments on humans. You share about 98% of your DNA with chimpanzees and slightly less than 40% with cabbage. Yeah, I just stated that you are related to cabbage, just as you are related to every other animal and plant on Earth.

You don't need evolution to show animal dispersion.

I assume you have a much better theory that you will no doubt share with us, complete with evidence to back it up.

Evolution is not science for it cannot be observed nor tested.

So, I take it that should you ever get an infection you will request the 1928 version of penicilin instead of the more recently developed types of antibiotics since according to you bacteria don't develop resistance to the old drugs.

No one has ever seen a dog produce a non dog, all we ever see in the animal kingdom is animals that produce a variety of themselves, now some people may call it a new species but it is still the same kind of animal.

Seeing a dog produce a non-dog would actually be very strong evidence AGAINST the Theory of Evolution. The statement above merely shows that you have not understood anything about how evolution works. Speciation for most animals and plants take much longer than even several human life-spans, often ranging into millions of years.

However, a working definition of what a species is would be when two branches have developed so far appart that they are unable to produce fertile offspring with each other. A good example of this would be Ring Species. Rest assured, we will never see the instance of a frog producing a cow, or anything simmilar, but then again, nothing of the kind is claimed by Evolution.

Evolution is a bad ideal..not a fact, theory or even hypothesis.

The Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory that explains a multitude of facts about the biological world. It is not a bad ideal since it is not an ideal at all. It is simply the way things are.

 

[jasoncran]

I'm curious if by 100 yrs or longer oops we are wrong, as the technology or another may come up with another idea. Scientisits believed in life from no life ,cant remember the word for it, for hundreds of yrs. This despite that some dissented and shown that was false.

You said it best, humans are fallible. I see scientists having the same faults as any other human venture, prone to peer pressure, politcal correctness and so on.

Why was the nebraska man and the piltdown taught as the evidence yrs after deakbunked, i'm only 36 as i was taught that those were acceptable.

 

[VenomFangX]

The Piltdown man was a deception by some Christians who knew that the hoax would be exposed one day. They knew that this would discredit evolution in the minds of the uneducated and the pious who are begging for evolution not to be true. Well, the news for them is all bad, as evolution is reality as God wanted it. I am quite proud to have a vestigial tail, appendix, goosebumps and the whole works.
Must be me as I suit belonging to the planet more than ethereality.
yours
VFX

 

[lordkalvan]

No fossil counts as evidence for evolution.

And your grounds for asserting this would be what, exactly? Perhaps you should consider the examples of Chesapecten scallops or the once ubiquitous trilobite.

To my knowledge there are no vestigial organs.

Then your knowledge-base needs to be extended.

DNA does not prove evolution, it proves a designer.

And how do you come to this understanding? Why does DNA 'prove' a designer?

You don't need evolution to show animal dispersion.

Except that the geographical distribution of species supports evolutionary theory; it certainly does not support the idea of a designer.

Evolution is not science for it cannot be observed nor tested.

Eh, yes it can: http://www.skepticfiles.org/evolut/observd3.htm. You may also want to consider the implications of ring species.

It is fine to speculate however once you dabble in the "long ago and far away" part of evolution you left the realm of science.

Inferences drawn from and conclusions based on observed and measured evidence amounts to a great deal more than speculation.

No one has ever seen a dog produce a non dog, all we ever see in the animal kingdom is animals that produce a variety of themselves, now some people may call it a new species but it is still the same kind of animal.

If this cartoon-like caricature of evolutionary theory encompasses your understanding of that theory, it is no wonder that you have so much difficulty with the idea.

Evolution is a bad ideal..not a fact, theory or even hypothesis.

Well, it can quite obviously be a hypothesis whether it is 'true' or not: a hypothesis is an explanation of a phenomenon that can be tested for falsifiability. For example, there are pixies who live in the woodpile at the bottom of my garden who come out at night and eat my gooseberries is a hypothesis that may or may not be true; either way it is falsifiable by observation

It is equally true that it is a theory, i.e. it conforms to observable and measurable empirical data and offers a coherent and consistent explanation and interpretation of that data that has so far not be shown to be false.

Within the parameters of all available data concerning life on Earth, evolution is about as well-established a fact as it is possible to achieve this side of absolute certainty.

 

[jasoncran]

The Piltdown man was a deception by some Christians who knew that the hoax would be exposed one day. They knew that this would discredit evolution in the minds of the uneducated and the pious who are begging for evolution not to be true. Well, the news for them is all bad, as evolution is reality as God wanted it. I am quite proud to have a vestigial tail, appendix, goosebumps and the whole works.
Must be me as I suit belonging to the planet more than ethereality.
yours
VFX

The tonsils were once thought to be more trouble than than they were worth. My parents and those born before me were often had those removed. opps that was a mistake. Maybe we will find out that those things are so uncessary. Do engineers delibaretly design wasteful designs in cars and so forth.? It happens but its isnt planned that way.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/hoax/
from pbs, and nova and orginazation that believes in educating the young on evolution
Those invovled certainly werent christians. Where you got that idea i dont know.

 

[ChattyMute]

The tonsils were once thought to be more trouble than than they were worth. My parents and those born before me were often had those removed. opps that was a mistake. Maybe we will find out that those things are so uncessary. Do engineers delibaretly design wasteful designs in cars and so forth.? It happens but its isnt planned that way.

Tonsils still are for some people. Myself for example. As a small child I was always sick (runny nose, coughing, etc.), had trouble sleeping and couldn't breath easily. Why was this? My tonsils were the cause. I was about 9, and my doctor said they were the biggest tonsils he'd ever seen in any person. They inhibited me from breathing properly through my nose and caused even more difficulty while I was asleep laying on my back. I forgot why he said they made me sick.

Now I get sick maybe once every other year. Tonsils were a huge problem for me and hindered my health. The organ was completely unnecessary for me to have.

 

[VenomFangX]

The organ was completely unnecessary for me to have.

The French from 1789 thought the same about the head on some people and so surgically removed them. :crazy
??????????

 

[jasoncran]

The tonsils were once thought to be more trouble than than they were worth. My parents and those born before me were often had those removed. opps that was a mistake. Maybe we will find out that those things are so uncessary. Do engineers delibaretly design wasteful designs in cars and so forth.? It happens but its isnt planned that way.

Tonsils still are for some people. Myself for example. As a small child I was always sick (runny nose, coughing, etc.), had trouble sleeping and couldn't breath easily. Why was this? My tonsils were the cause. I was about 9, and my doctor said they were the biggest tonsils he'd ever seen in any person. They inhibited me from breathing properly through my nose and caused even more difficulty while I was asleep laying on my back. I forgot why he said they made me sick.

Now I get sick maybe once every other year. Tonsils were a huge problem for me and hindered my health. The organ was completely unnecessary for me to have.

This was done automatically whether one had issues or not those organs were yanked, my tonsils are so large that they will show up on a panoramic dental xray, dentists always ask me that dont know my medical history are you sure you dont have a problem with that. I have a few bouts with tonsilits when i was a kid and i almost had them removed in the early 80's. My parents dont have them. They were removed for no reason other than what i stated. In your case some tonsils are a problem and are necessary to remove. I bet you hate getting the flu, and or have to take antibotics before dental surgeries ,ie pulling of teeth and so on. That region of the head is covered by the tonsils, i know that from well my wife getting an infection that was from a recent root canal. You could see the difference from one side of the neck to the other.