Evolution - Creationists Right and Darwin Wrong ??!!

Charles Darwin

Source

National Geographic Documentary: 'Was Darwin Wrong?'

In the 19th century, the naturalist Charles Darwin formulated a theory of evolution, which allowed for adaptation and change of organisms ~ even into new species ~ as a result of natural selection, mutation and genetic drift.

The Bible, however, tells a different story ~ a creation story, whereby God, in seven Biblical days, created all creatures of land, sea and air, along with humans to have dominion over them.

Evolutionary theory allows for complex humans evolving from simple sea creatures, whereas Creationism states that man was moulded from clay, in the image of God, and had life breathed into him, by this creator God.

Creationists are very certain that they are right, and there are a large number of Creationists ~ especially in the USA.

A NatGeo documentary looked into their claims and the result was the documentary: 'Was Darwin wrong?'

Acknowledgement: For this hub, I have used the National Geographic documentary 'Was Darwin wrong?' as my main source of information and I have supplemented this information with insights from other websites and books. I have also based some of my comments on my own opinions and pre-existing knowledge.

I have written another hub, looking at whether Creationists could be correct, but from another angle. The link is with those to my other 'evolution' hubs, later in this item.

To see videos of the documentary, please go to the end of the hub.

* * * * * * *

Tricia Mason

With the exception of quotes, photos, etc, from others, where I hope that I have credited them correctly, the work in this article is my own. Copyright Tricia Mason. All Rights Reserved.


"And God Created Man In his Own Image"

Creation of Adam - Sistine Chapel - Michelangelo ~ Public Domain - copyright expired - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:God2-Sistine_Chapel.png
Creation of Adam - Sistine Chapel - Michelangelo ~ Public Domain - copyright expired - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:God2-Sistine_Chapel.png | Source

The Creationist Assertions and Arguments

The NatGeo documentary looked at a number of points put forward by creationists:

~ The Bible is God's word and it states that everything was created by God 'just as it is today'.

~ The Earth is only a few thousand years old.

~ It is impossible to believe that a 'blind undirected force' could transform simple single-cell organisms into the complex life that we have on earth today.

~ Certain attributes ~ such as the eye ~ are so complicated and amazing that they could only be the result of an intelligent supreme designer.

~ It is impossible that humans should have evolved from apes ~ and it is even more unbelievable that humans have evolved from fish.

~ There is no proof of evolution ~ there are enormous gaps in the 'evidence'.

~ Evolution supposedly allows for mutations which protect creatures from their predators, so the existence of brightly-coloured birds ~ like peacocks ~ which attract predators, are proof that evolution is a lie.

*

And there are more arguments:

~ Change cannot just happen. Species remain more-or-less the same.

~ Creatures that belong to one species cannot give birth to other species.

~ Evolution is only a theory.

~ No-one has ever actually seen evidence of evolution. Thus, it is faith-based.

"The Bible is God's Word"

Malmesbury Bible-public-domain-Arpingstone - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bible.malmesbury.arp.jpg Family-bible-David-Ball-Wikimedia-Commons- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Family-bible.jpg
Malmesbury Bible-public-domain-Arpingstone - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bible.malmesbury.arp.jpg Family-bible-David-Ball-Wikimedia-Commons- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Family-bible.jpg | Source

The Bible is God's Word

Christians believe that the Bible is either the literal word of God or the inspired word of God.

Accordingly, anything that is contained within the Holy Bible must be true.

The Bible states that God created man in his own image ~ that he moulded Adam from the dust of the ground, and Eve from one of Adam's ribs.

Since the Bible is God's own book, this must, in the opinion of the creationist, be completely true.

If it is, indeed, true, then Darwin and evolutionary theory, must be wrong!

But this is a religious belief, based on ancient scriptures; it is not scientific, nor should it be considered so.

People should be free to believe this, if they so wish, but it cannot be taken as proof that evolution is not true.

This does not prove that Darwin was wrong.

Adam and Eve ~ Genesis

Adam and Eve by Titian. Wikimedia Commons - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tizian_091.jpg Public Domain ~ Copyright Expired
Adam and Eve by Titian. Wikimedia Commons - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tizian_091.jpg Public Domain ~ Copyright Expired | Source

The Earth is Young - So Is Life on Earth

Some Creationists believe in the 'young earth' theory and some do not. Some would say that the age of the Earth is not relevant to evolution. However, the two are interlinked, because a 'young Earth' would not allow for very ancient life.

The geologist, mentioned on the TV programme, was Dr. Martin Julian Van Kranendonk, who is author of 'Earth's Oldest Rocks'.

Quote:

"The geological history of early Earth holds a certain fascination, not just for professional Earth Scientists ..., but for ... many in the general public. This ... is .. because .. it casts light on the fundamental issues of our existence: who are we; how are we here?" ~ Martin J. Van Kranendonk, R Hugh Smithies and Vickie C Bennett

What age do geologists give to the Earth and how does that date the earliest life?

They say that the Earth is billions of years old ~ and they are the experts on this subject.

What about life?

Very, very ancient fossilised stromatolites have been found in extremely ancient strata in Australia.

Geologists can tell which life is earlier, and which is later, according to the level of rock or earth in which they are found. Stromatolites are found in very early layers.

Geologists can also date fossils, using radiometry, which is, according to the documentary, correct to within 0.1%.

The stromatolites in question have been dated to 3.56 billion years in age.

Quote:
"Stromatolites are structures formed by huge colonies of cyanobacteria, formerly called blue green algae." ...In addition to existing in fossilized form, a colony of living stromatolites was discovered in Australia in 1956. [ http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-stromatolites.htm ]

The Earth is old ~ very old!

And so is life on Earth.

Darwin ~ and evolutionary theory ~ are not wrong about this.

The Earth Is Old!

For details, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AS8-13-2329.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Earth_seen_from_Apollo_17.jpg
For details, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AS8-13-2329.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Earth_seen_from_Apollo_17.jpg | Source

A 'Blind Undirected Force'; Single-Cell Organisms; Complex Life

Many Creationists believe that all life was created, by God, in a Biblical week, just as it is, was and always will be ~ so that there has never been any need for it to 'evolve'.

They claim that the idea of single cell organisms changing into modern humans ~ even over long periods of time ~ is so ridiculous as to be impossible.

Certainly, at first glance, it does sound implausible, but what evidence is there for and against?

If the creationists are correct, then all sorts of animals, no matter how simple or complex, should be found in all geological layers.

If the evolutionary scientists are correct, then only very simple organisms will be found in the earliest strata ~ and more complex creatures will be found in later layers.

'Darwin thought that life started with one, or a few, simple living things' and that these evolved to form 'today's millions of complex species'. Thus evolution has led to 'variety and complexity'.

What are the facts?

As we have already noted, the earliest evidence of life found on Earth, in the most ancient layers of rocks, were the stromatolites ~ and stromatolites are made by simple, single-cell bacteria. They lived over three and a half billion years ago. No other life is found in these early strata.

Do later geological layers yield evidence of more complicated life?

~ Yes, indeed.

In the layers relating to 2.1 billion years ago, the first cells containing a nucleus are found. These are the types of cells found in most life existing on Earth today.

About 600 million years ago, the first animal life is seen ~ creatures similar to sea anemones.

By 500 million years ago, life had become 'more varied and complex' ~ and the evidence for this is seen in the later geological strata.

If the Creationists were correct, then all fossilised life would be found scattered throughout all of the strata. This is not the case.

If Darwin's theory of evolution is correct, then ever more complex life forms would be found as the eons go by ~ and this would be illustrated in the geological layers. This is, indeed, the case.

Earth's creatures did not 'arrive' on the planet all at the same time. Simple ones came first and life became ever more complex.

Darwin was not wrong on this issue.

Reconstruction of Tiktaalic - Found Where Expected to be Found!

Reconstruction of Tiktaalik by Zina Deretsky, National Science Foundation (Courtesy: National Science Foundation). See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tiktaalik_roseae_life_restor.jpg
Reconstruction of Tiktaalik by Zina Deretsky, National Science Foundation (Courtesy: National Science Foundation). See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tiktaalik_roseae_life_restor.jpg | Source

If Darwin Was Not Wrong, Just How Was He Right?

Darwin believed that simple creatures evolved into slightly more complex creatures, and that these, in turn, evolved into yet more complicated organisms. It was a very slow process.

He believed that these changes occurred as organisms adapted to their environments. Creatures which were not suited to their environments would die. Those which fitted well, would survive. (This is what is meant by 'survival of the fittest'.) The creatures which survived would pass on their suitable traits (genes / alleless) to their young.

Often, mutations would occur. Unsuitable mutations would, most likely, result in death; beneficial ones would be retained ~ and could be inherited by offspring.

Darwin noted that 'nature was brutal' and that the 'relentless slaughter' meant that many creatures died before reproducing. For the most part, those which survived had traits which would allow them to survive and thrive in their environments. These traits would be passed on. This was evolution by 'natural selection' ~ and it includes 'mutation'.

What, in the short term, produced small changes, over hundreds and thousands of years, produced ever larger changes. Eventually, change would be so huge that an entirely new species would have evolved. 'Life became more complex'.

A change in environment could produce more species changes. Thus, brown bears, which traveled to live in the snowy arctic, would be more likely to survive if they were light in colour ~ and, indeed, white bears ~ polar bears ~ evolved. 'One species had become two'.

'Life would become more complex and more varied'.

We can see from the fossil evidence and from looking around us that life has become more complex and varied since simple blue-green algae were the only colonisers of the planet.

The 'Was Darwin Wrong?' documentary pointed out that just one forest in Panama contains a huge variety of species ~ thousands of them in just a small area. Research entomologist, David Ward Roubik, commented on the 'dazzling diversity'.

The fossil evidence shows that life began with very simple organisms. In the earliest geological strata there is evidence of only one type of life ~ and this is a very simple form of life. Stomatolites are evidence of very simple bacteria.

The evidence of our own eyes ~ coupled with that provided by experts ~ shows that the planet Earth is now populated with a huge variety of living creatures, including both simple and complex organisms.

When Darwin indicated that simple creatures had evolved into more complicated organisms and that life had, thus, become 'more varied and more complex', he was not wrong.

Human and Hawk Eyes

Human Eye by Petr Novk. Creative Commons - 2.5 Generic license. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Eye_iris.jpg + Hawk Eye by Steve Jurvetson. Creative Commons - 2.0 Generic license. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hawk_eye.jpg
Human Eye by Petr Novk. Creative Commons - 2.5 Generic license. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Eye_iris.jpg + Hawk Eye by Steve Jurvetson. Creative Commons - 2.0 Generic license. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hawk_eye.jpg | Source

Evolution of the Eye - Diagram

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Diagram_of_eye_evolution.svg
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Diagram_of_eye_evolution.svg | Source

Nautilus Pompilius Head - Showing Pin-Hole Eye

Nautilus pompilius ~ Chambered Nautilus, at Pairi Daiza, Brugelette, Belgium, 2008 Author: Hans Hillewaert (Lycaon) ~ This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fil
Nautilus pompilius ~ Chambered Nautilus, at Pairi Daiza, Brugelette, Belgium, 2008 Author: Hans Hillewaert (Lycaon) ~ This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fil | Source

The Eye and Other Impossible Organs

The eye is an example of an organ, which is considered, by Creationists, to be so complex ~ with its lens, iris, photo-receptors, etc ~ that it 'could not possibly have evolved by chance'. They argue that it must, therefore, have been the work of, and, indeed, proof of, an intelligent designer ~ God.

Creationists also argue that, since the eye is only useful when 'fully formed', it cannot possibly have evolved, because a 'partially-evolved' eye would have been useless and, so, would not ~ could not ~ have existed.

Is this true, or could the eye have 'evolved in small, advantageous developments'?

One expert, who appeared on the 'Was Darwin Wrong?' documentary, was zoologist Dan-Eric Nilsson, of the Lund University in Sweden. He showed the audience a box jellyfish, which proved that various kinds of eye can exist and do exist ~ even today ~ since this creature, which has 'no brain', has twenty-four eyes ~ 24 different simple eyes.

So how could the eye have evolved?

The earliest eye would just have been 'a patch of light-sensitive cells' on the surface of the organism. As its description implies, it would simply be able to sense light and dark.

The next step would be a slight depression in the light-sensitive area on the surface of the organism. This very slight difference would mean that the creature would not only be able to sense light and dark, but could tell where the light was.

If the 'slight depression' became deeper, with a 'narrow opening', then the organism would be able to tell from which direction any light was coming. These are known as 'pit eyes'.

Pit eyes are not 'imaginary'. They exist. Flat worms have 'pit eyes'.

The development, from the patch of light-sensitive cells to pit eyes is a straightforward step-by-step improvement in the ability to 'see' ~ evolution at work.

If the opening in the 'eye' becomes smaller and smaller, then the image viewed will become clearer and clearer. The 'dip' will be full of water. There is no cornea or lens. The image seen is certainly not as clear or bright as the image seen by a healthy human eye. The resolution is low and the 'picture' is dim, but it is adequate for certain creatures. This is known as the 'pin-hole eye'.

Pinhole eyes are not 'imaginary'. They exist. The nautilus has 'pinhole eyes'.

To be able to focus well, in order to see more clearly, this pinhole eye requires a lens. With an iris, and a lens, a sharply defined image could be picked up by a retina. Water plays its part in this.

The pinhole could then close up. The water inside the sealed spherical chamber would become denser ~ the 'humor' of the eye. Development could continue with a water-inflatable lens. These small additional steps would also include the development of a cornea. A 'retina' has, in effect, existed all along ~ since those first 'light sensitive cells' evolved on the surface of a simple organism.

Although the eye is an amazing organ, and Darwin, himself, said that it seemed "absurd in the highest possible degree" that it should have simply evolved, it did just that. And Darwin knew that, in fact, it was possible. He wrote that "...if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life ...", then evolution of the eye was real, even though "insuperable by our imagination".

The eye began to evolve more rapidly during the Cambrian period (543 million years ago), because of an increase in 'competition'.

Other organs that appear to have been too complex to evolve ~ but which did, all the same, are pumping hearts and the rapidly beating wings of, for example, the hummingbird.

Darwin acknowledged that it was difficult to believe that the 'miraculous' eye could have evolved by natural selection, but we have the evidence to show that it was perfectly possible ~ and, indeed, that creatures, alive today, can live successfully with the less developed eyes.

It is not the case that the eye could not possibly have 'evolved' by chance.

It is not the case that the 'partially-evolved' eye would have been useless.

Darwin was not wrong about the evolution of the eye.

Nautilus

Nautilus profile. Palau Micronesia. 2006 Lee R Berger / Profberger, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publishes it under .. the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nautilus_profile.jpg Author +
Nautilus profile. Palau Micronesia. 2006 Lee R Berger / Profberger, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publishes it under .. the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nautilus_profile.jpg Author + | Source

Dr Dan Eric Nilsson - Evolution of the Eye

Tiktaalik - Fish? Land Creature? Both??!!

Source

Evolution of Humans from Fish is Simply Unbelievable

How could a fish give birth to any creature other than a fish ~ a bird, for example, or a human?! From the viewpoint of the creationist, it couldn't. It is impossible. One species cannot, and does not, give birth to another. It is, therefore, ridiculous to imagine that an ape could evolve into a human ~ to say that a fish could evolve into a human is totally preposterous!

But evolutionists don't believe that fish, or even apes, ever gave birth to humans!

To say that a fish, or even an ape, evolved into a human, does not mean that a fish or an ape ever 'gave birth to' a human. That, indeed, would be preposterous. Evolutionists do not believe this; neither do they believe that any fish, or even ape, ever 'turned into' a human!.

Evolutionists do, however, believe that fish evolved into apes, which evolved into humans. That is another matter!

The relationship between humans and apes is close; the relationship between humans and fish is not nearly as close.

Did it really happen? Did fish evolve into all of the land animals ~ including humans?

Evolutionists say that they did. Is there any evidence for this?

The 'Was Darwin Wrong?' documentary explained the process;

'Four and a half billion years ago, the Earth formed'.

'Four hundred million years ago our ancestors were primitive fish'.

'Three hundred million years ago, 'we' were amphibians'.

'Two hundred and fifty million years ago our fore-runners were reptiles'.

Fossil evidence tells this 'extraordinary story'.

But, claim the creationists, gaps in the evidence 'cast doubt' upon this story.

Neil Shubin of the University of Chicago sees the gaps as a challenge ~ part of the 'joy of science'.

He believed that there was enough evidence to indicate that fishes were ancestors of humans, but he wanted to find a fossil fish that could actually be that ancestor. He sought actual physical proof.

Shubin knew where to find rocks that were 375 million years old ~ in other words, rocks dating from the time just before the first land animals appear in the fossil record. His team searched Ellesmere Island.

Ellesmere Island is '600 miles from the North Pole', but it used to be a 'tropical' area, situated on the equator. It 'moved north via the action of plate tectonics'. Shubin was seeking 'tropical life in an arctic landscape' for five years, before he finally found what he was looking for ~ in 2004.

In 2004, in 'a layer of skeletons', Shubin and co found a 'flat-headed creature' with a snout. It was somewhat 'crocodile-like' in shape. This creatures, which they named 'tictaalik' (meaning 'large freshwater fish'), 'bridged the gap' between fish and land animal. It was a 'true missing link' ~ a 'sea creature, which walked on land'.

Like fish, it had scales and fins.

Like land animals, it had a neck and a flat head with eyes on the top.

Yes, only 'one thousandth of species are preserved as fossils', so, certainly, there are some 'missing' ones, but experts are seeking ~ and finding ~ the ones that they need! And there are, already, enough fossils to provide evidence for evolution ~ even from fish to humans, as amazing and incredible as that may sound.

Just one well-known example of a link fossil is the archaeopteryx, which bridges the reptile-bird gap.

As for humans, researchers in Africa have found 'over a dozen species of hominid'. These illustrate the 'step-by-step' evolution, from 'the ape of four million years ago', to the modern human of today. Increased brain size, the change to walking on two legs, the use of ever more complex tools, etc ~ all are recorded.

The record shows natural selection from simple creatures to complex new species ~ including us humans!

The evidence indicates that Darwin was not wrong.

Your Inner Fish

Neil Shubin and Fish

Neil Shubin, Provost of The Field Museum and Professor of Anatomy at the University of Chicago, has written a book on the subject of our fishy ancestry; 'Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body'.

It is available from Ancestry, where a review, from Oliver Sacks, Professor of Clinical Neurology at Columbia University, states: "Your Inner Fish is my favorite sort of book ~ an intelligent, exhilarating, and compelling scientific adventure story, one which will change forever how you understand what it means to be human.”

Of 191 reader reviews 128 gave it 5 stars out of 5. None gave it fewer than 3

*

Other books that look interesting, are 'The Tangled Bank: An Introduction to Evolution' and 'At the Water's Edge: Fish with Fingers, Whales with Legs, and How Life Came Ashore but Then Went Back to Sea’ ~ both by Carl Zimmer.

Hardcover published by Pantheon in 2008 / Paperback published by Vintage in 2009

Some 'Fossil' Books

Front Covers
Front Covers

Gaps in the Evidence

Creationists believe that there are still many 'missing links' ~ gaps in the fossil evidence ~ to the extent that 'belief in' the theory of evolution, is as much a matter of faith, as is belief in the Genesis story.

When Charles Darwin first developed his theory, and when his 'On the Origin of Species' was published, in 1859, these 'gaps' were, indeed 'enormous' ~ gaps in general human knowledge; gaps in the fossil record; etcetera. The 'crucial missing links' ~ that is the fossils of 'transitional animals' ~ were necessary to show evidence of the step-by-step evolutionary journey.

But that was then.

Gaps in the evidence have already been noted, but they are no longer a major barrier. There are quite enough fossils available to strongly support ~ if not prove ~ the truth of the theory of evolution. And more examples are being found all of the time. Museums throughout the world contain hundreds and hundreds of them.

As Richard Dawkins asserts, the 'missing link' is no longer missing! There are more than enough fossils for the needs of the evolutionary scientists and Dawkins also asserts that they are no longer even necessary to prove evolution true ~ they are just a useful bonus.

When Darwin was alive, there were gaps in the evidence, which had the potential to cause problems for his theory, but as more information is discovered ~ including fossil evidence ~ they support his theory ~ they do not negate it.

The 'missing links are no longer missing' and Darwin has not been shown to be wrong.

Richard Dawkins on Fossil Evidence

Darwin and Mendel

Source
Source

DNA and the Missing Link

Modern studies in Genetics have given a huge amount of support to the theory of evolution and have provided much additional useful information.

If Charles Darwin and Gregor Mendel had been able to meet, and work together, one can only imagine the amazing results that their combined work could have provided.

But scientists had to wait until Mendel's discoveries were 're-discovered' before the information could be applied to Darwin's work.

They have supported it.

The story of evolution is in the genes. Genetics has vindicated Darwin; not proven him wrong.

Sean Carroll on DNA and Evolution

Mutations Which Attract Predators

Evolution, by natural selection, supposedly allows for beneficial traits to prevail over harmful traits. Thus, the fact that some birds are so showy that they attract predators, seems to be evidence against evolution ~ which favours the Creationist claim. They feel that this must prove Darwin wrong.

One of the most showy male birds is the peacock ~ and the peacock is the prey of the tiger. The peacock's beautifully bright and patterned tail makes his position obvious to his predator and also makes it difficult for him to get away. He is almost 'begging to be eaten'. Creationists think that this goes so much against evolutionary theory that God must have created him.

What do evolutionists make of peacocks and other brightly-coloured birds?

They are, indeed, puzzled.

However, they think that there must be a rational explanation for a tail that appears to be less of a help and much more of a hindrance.

There is an explanation. Within what Darwin termed 'natural selection' he included 'sexual selection'. For a male to father the next generation, he needs to be attractive to the female ~ and the peacock tail seems to be very attractive to peahens ~ the more showy, the better!

Thus the most attractive peacock ~ the one with the biggest, showiest tail ~ makes the statement that he is strong and has good quality genes. He will father strong healthy offspring. Since the brightly-coloured birds were favoured to pass on their genes to the next generation, the dull-plumaged male birds died out.

Behaviourist Marion Petrie, of the University of Newcastle, decided to experiment with this conclusion. If the showiest male birds had some of their tail feathers removed, and these feathers were added to the tail of a less showy bird, what would happen?

Petrie tried this and the results were exactly as expected. The once-popular males lost their followers and the newly-enhanced birds were shown more attention by the females.

The beautiful bright and colourful feathers of certain male birds may, at first glance, appear to contradict the theory of evolution, but the truth is that it fits with Darwin's description of sexual selection. It does not prove Darwin wrong.


The Peacock's Showy Tail

Green Peafowl Pavo imperator imperator by Frankyboy5 licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Siamese_Dragon.JPG + Peacock courting peahen has been released into the public domain by its
Green Peafowl Pavo imperator imperator by Frankyboy5 licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Siamese_Dragon.JPG + Peacock courting peahen has been released into the public domain by its | Source

Species Remain The Same + Don't Give Birth to Different Species

Apes do Not Give Birth To Humans ~ Or Turn Into Humans!

I do not recall this being mentioned in the TV programme, but it is something that I hear, regularly!

Creationists use this argument against evolution.

And they are correct; species do not give birth to different species.

Does this, then, prove Darwin, and evolutionists, wrong?

No! Because no evolutionist believes that one species will give birth to another species. That is not what evolution is about.

Change is gradual (although it is considered possible that there are periods of hardly any change followed by periods of relatively rapid change).

If we take the ape-human example, of course no ape ever gave birth to a human (and certainly never turned into a human) ~ but she may have given birth to a 'child' with a mutation that became a human attribute. This pattern may have been repeated over generations, with certain 'human' type traits being passed on and certain ape-type traits being lost ~ until the ape evolved into the human.

Over several generations, the offspring might gradually become more human and less ape.

Parallel to this, certain offspring evolved into chimpanzees. Chimps and humans are very closely related species, so this is quite feasible.

It would be a very different if evolutionists had suggested that, for example, elephants had evolved into rabbits ~ or even humans. They are not closely-related species.

A lot depends upon the closeness of the species. A brown bear could 'evolve into' ~ not turn into ~ a polar bear, over a relatively short period of time, because they are so closely related.

This does not prove either Darwin, or evolution, wrong.

Chimpanzees and Bonobos are Closely Related to Humans!

Licensed under the Creative Commons - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Schimpanse_zoo-leipig.jpg + http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bonobo_009.jpg Source: Wikimedia Commons: Thomas Lersch + Kabir Bakie
Licensed under the Creative Commons - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Schimpanse_zoo-leipig.jpg + http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bonobo_009.jpg Source: Wikimedia Commons: Thomas Lersch + Kabir Bakie | Source

If Apes Had Evolved Into Men; Then Apes Would No Longer Exist

I am not sure that this argument was mentioned in the 'Was Darwin Wrong?' documentary, but it is one that I have heard ~ often!

How can apes ~ or even fish ~ have evolved into humans, when both apes and fish still exist!?

This argument, though, does not hold water, since the answer is that this simply can and does happen ~ and it is obvious all around us. The offspring of some wolves, over generations, evolved into dogs ~ but wolves still exist.

Some types of creatures, which are amongst the ancestors of creatures alive today, will have become extinct; but others will still survive.

This is not an argument against Darwin or evolution.

Wolves Have Evolved into Dogs - And Wolves Still Exist

Desmond Zooman - Creative Commons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Toy_Puppy.png Daniel Mott - Wikimedia Commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wolf_Kolm%C3%A5rden.jpg
Desmond Zooman - Creative Commons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Toy_Puppy.png Daniel Mott - Wikimedia Commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wolf_Kolm%C3%A5rden.jpg | Source

Only A Theory

Another point, which creationists often raise, but which was not addressed in the documentary, was the claim that evolution is 'only a theory'.

Surely, creationists ask, if it were true, then it would not be dismissed, even by experts, as just a 'theory' ~ would it?!

The answer is that 'scientific theory' is based upon experience and experimentation and has been tested by experts. A 'scientific theory' might even, in common parlance, be called a fact.

So this does not indicate that Darwin was wrong!

Not Just a Theory!

Please excuse typographical error ~ sorry + thanks!
Please excuse typographical error ~ sorry + thanks!

No-One Has Ever Seen Evidence of Evolution ~ It is Based on Faith ~ Evolution is Equivalent to a Religion

Another argument I hear from creationists is that no-one has ever actually seen evidence of evolution.

Since the evidence has never been seen, then it has all been taken on faith.

Thus 'evolution' is the equivalent of a religion with no real scientific basis at all.

Clearly, evolution is based on scientific research. To say that it is faith-based is like saying that belief in the force of gravity is faith-based.

As Donald R Prothero writes, in ‘Evolution ~ What The Fossils Say and why It Matters’:

“Evolution is not a religious tenet which one swears allegiance to or belief in as a matter of faith. It is a factual reality of the empirical world".

And people have, indeed, seen evidence of evolution:

1. It can be seen in our 'genetic record'.

2. It can be seen in the fossil record ~ in spite of misleading arguments to the contrary.

3. It can be seen by examining human bones ~ quite recent ones, in fact.

4. It can be seen by examining the bodies of living people.

Human Bones;

When researchers examined skulls from people who had died in Medieval and Tudor times, and compared them with skulls of modern living people, they discovered appreciable differences. Their bodies had evolved.

Living Bodies:

When the circulatory systems of the inhabitants of high altitude villages around Mount Everest were investigated, it was found that they were different from those who did not live at high altitudes. Their bodies had evolved.

So evolution continues ~ albeit slowly. But Darwin always said that it was a slow process, so this does not prove him wrong.

Was Darwin Wrong and Are the Creationists Right?

The 'Was Darwin wrong?' documentary looked at a number of assertions by creationists which, they believe, prove evolution wrong ~ and I have added yet more arguments to that list.

However, it appears that none of them stand up under scrutiny, and none of them indicate that Darwin, or the theory of evolution, is wrong.

What conclusions did the documentary draw?

~ 'Objections to Darwin do not stand up'

~ 'Science proves them wrong'

~ There is 'overwhelming evidence'

~ It is the 'only rational explanation'

*

Are the creationists right?

No, it appears not.

Was Darwin wrong?

No. As Mike Levine commented, he has been 'vindicated in everything'.

Darwin was not wrong!

*

After reading this, could anyone ask why evolution is wrong and Adam and Eve is right?

Darwin Vindicated

Comments 122 comments

diogenese 5 years ago

Arguments for and against evolution are old hat among the scientific community Trish. What we really want to know is what became before the "Singultary" (Big Bang) and how life might continue after when "Heat Death" forecasts the death of all matter leaving pure energy as all the stars die. It's all academic, anyway; man will be long gone I am sure...Bob You took a lot of trouble with this article and should be commended.


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands Author

Hi Diogenes :)

Most of the scientific community ~ and ordinary people like you and me ~ know about this kind of thing (though new discoveries are being made all the time), but lots of people simply do not know about it, or do not believe it because they are told that the evidence does not exist.

I find it really interesting!

Thanks for reading! :)


Stump Parrish profile image

Stump Parrish 5 years ago from Don't have a clue, I'm lost.

One of the best articles I've come across about evolution. Well done indeed. I enjoyed this so much I am not even going to leave a snide comment about what non-thinkers will think about it. Well so much for that plan, lol

Voted up , useful and awesome. Peace.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

Great hub, Trish. Well, you could take every fossil ever discovered and every book ever written on evolution and put them in one big room and the creationists will walk in and say, "Look what God has created!" This is the depth of their ability to think. Perhaps it's genetic.

Maybe someday the God gene will die out. I for one, hope so. Keep up the good work!


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands Author

Hi Stump Parish :)

Thank you for your very encouraging response.

For this hub, I have to give a lot of credit to the 'Was Darwin wrong?' documentary. It was very enlightening and clear.

Glad you enjoyed it. :)


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands Author

Hello Austinstar :)

Thanks for your positive comments.

Very pleased that you liked reading this :)


Docmo profile image

Docmo 5 years ago from UK

This is incredibly well researched, well argued and well detailed, Trish_M. You have done a sterling job producing a comprehensive hub on evolution. Loved it all the evidence base and the for and against arguments are fair and well put forward. Thanks for standing up for Darwin- he had enough flack when he first published his detailed work and the recent re-emergence of discrediting his work seems to be a shame on someone who had plenty of faith in God and also in the scientific process. voted up and awesome!


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands Author

Hello Docmo. Thank you :)

As I said, I owe a lot of the information in this hub to National Geographic :)

I think that Darwin must be turning in his grave. He receives so many insults, for a man, long dead, who seems to have been very pleasant and who was simply fascinated by science and nature.


Genna East profile image

Genna East 5 years ago from Massachusetts, USA

Just a superb hub, Trish. Darwin was a man who truly used one of God's most overlooked gifts; the gift of the mind to discover, to search, to reason and to understand. Kudos!


Rod Marsden profile image

Rod Marsden 5 years ago from Wollongong, NSW, Australia

Pretty good, Trish. Well done in fact. Darwin was definitely more right than wrong. The apples in the garden of Eden are very questionable that is if you believe this garden really did exist.


optimus grimlock profile image

optimus grimlock 5 years ago

My theory hasd always been:god created everything then let it evolve as it would and he would just watch over everything. great hub!


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands Author

Hello Genna :)

Thank you!

Darwin must have had a very enquiring mind.


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands Author

Hello Rod :)

Thank you!

I don't think that apples were ever mentioned, but I think that the story was probably an allegory, anyway.


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands Author

Optimus Grimloc ~ Hi :)

Thanks!

That is what my school 'Scripture' teacher thought. :)


Rod Marsden profile image

Rod Marsden 5 years ago from Wollongong, NSW, Australia

Well, Trish, apples were never actually mentioned but a great many artists in the middle ages had apple trees in mind when depicting the garden of Eden. The interesting thing about the garden of eden is that there are tribes of North American Indians with a similar beginning story that was around before Christianity turned up on their doorstep. I am not suggesting here anything except similar thought processes. The great spirit provides the very best, humans prove to be undeserving hence humans end up with less than they could have had.


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands Author

Hi Rod,

Yes, it's interesting the way that apples were considered to be that fruit in Eden ~ resulting in the Adam's apple, I assume.

I'll have to look into that mystery, I think. :)


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands Author

Regarding the apple, I just found this on Wikipedia:

"In Western Christian art, the fruit of the tree is commonly depicted as the apple, which originated in central Asia. This depiction may have originated as a Latin pun: by eating the malum (apple), Eve contracted m?lum (evil)."


Rod Marsden profile image

Rod Marsden 5 years ago from Wollongong, NSW, Australia

Very good, Trish.


Terry.Hirneisen profile image

Terry.Hirneisen 5 years ago from Shenandoah Valley

I am amazed at time we spend on behalf of Science to convince those that will never be convinced. They do not want to know the truth if it conflicts with religious dogma.

Not to say you did not write a good hub, but those with a degree of education already know this and you are preaching to the choir.

I do the same thing in Politics. I write extensively on the failings of the extreme right. Those that already agree love it, but those that have enlarged Amygdala continue to believe the propaganda. Oh well.

Voted UP for a good treatise.


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands Author

Hi Rod,

What started, in my quote, as 'Malum' and 'Malum' became 'Malum' and 'Mal?m' :(


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands Author

Hello Terry :)

Thank you.

Not everyone, it seems, does know about all of this, so it may be worth clarifying.

Indeed, though I know about evolution, and accept its truth, I was not aware of all of the 'ins and outs' and wanted to be sure of the arguments for myself. I have really enjoyed looking into this subject, further. :)


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

Hopefully, those that are unsure of the science of evolution will be educated by this hub.

But I have noticed that the religionists do not engage on theses types of hubs. They can't seem to defeat the logic.


Silver Poet profile image

Silver Poet 5 years ago from the computer of a midwestern American writer

It was an interesting hub even though I personally do not agree with evolution. I still enjoyed hearing your viewpoint. :)


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands Author

Hi again! ~ You never know who is reading and thinking, though, Austinstar :)


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands Author

Hi Silver Poet :)

It would be a boring world, if we all agreed on everything, so, though I think that the evidence is overwhelming, I respect you right to disagree ~ and I am pleased that you enjoyed reading :)

Thanks. :)


Rod Marsden profile image

Rod Marsden 5 years ago from Wollongong, NSW, Australia

Trish, I wasn't worried about a simple typo.

I see Austinstar wants to stir up the religionists so she can have some fun with them.

There is simply too much proof that other creatures inhabited planet earth before humans.


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands Author

Hi Rod,

It wasn't actually a typo, it was a letter with an accent ~ which showed up, at first, and then turned into a question mark! Weird!

Yes, I agree about the proof of earlier creatures. The 'Walking With .....' documentaries were really eye-opening :)


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

I do like to stir the pot! :-)


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands Author

Hi :)

I like an interesting debate, but not if / when it turns to nastiness ~ as it sometimes does :)


Rod Marsden profile image

Rod Marsden 5 years ago from Wollongong, NSW, Australia

Yes the 'Walking with..." series the Brits put out was very good.


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands Author

Yes, Rod, I think that I bought them all on DVD for the family. We all like that sort of thing. :)


nicomp profile image

nicomp 5 years ago from Ohio, USA

"They are, indeed, puzzled.

However, they think that there must be a rational explanation for a tail that appears to be less of a help and much more of a hindrance."

So, creationist arguments can be brushed away by surmising that sooner or later an evolutionary explanation will be 'discovered.'


nicomp profile image

nicomp 5 years ago from Ohio, USA

"The earliest eye would just have been 'a patch of light-sensitive cells' on the surface of the organism. As its description implies, it would simply be able to sense light and dark."

A patch of light-sensitive cells is worthless, actually detrimental, unless there is a network of nerves connecting the cells to a brain *and* a brain that can decipher those signals and act on them and control other bodily functions to react accordingly. Therefore, the patch of light-sensitive cells would have to 'evolve' at precisely the same time as the appropriate nervous system and an appropriate brain and an appropriate mechanical system of some sort.


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands Author

Hello Nicomp :)

As you must have read, the answer to the peacock's tail has already been found.

And, as you also must have read, the jellyfish has several very simple eyes ~ but no brain.


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands Author

In answer to Nicomp,I have just gathered a few relevant quotes from the Internet:

“some jellyfish, such as Cladonema, have elaborate eyes but no brain. Their eyes transmit a message directly to the muscles without the intermediate processing provided by a brain”

Gehring, W. J. (13 January 2005). "New Perspectives on Eye Development and the Evolution of Eyes and Photoreceptors" (Full text). Journal of Heredity (Oxford Journals) 96 (3): 171–184.doi:10.1093/jhered/esi027. PMID 15653558. Retrieved 2008-04-26.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye#...

*

“Twenty-four eyes but no brain

The smallest of the jellyfish classes, measured by number of species, is the Cubozoa

Having no brain, the jellyfish filters information about object size, motion, and ambient light through the optics of the eyes themselves. The filtered information then passes to the nervous system and interconnected pacemakers, and the animal responds to what it sees by adjusting the speed and direction of its travel. A brain is not necessary.”

http://www.earthhistory.org.uk/corals-and-jellies/...

*

“The brachiopod gastrula senses light. .. It definitely hasno brain, no nervous tissue at all, and no eyes…and there it is .. a region selectively expressing ciliary opsin as if it were a retina. Furthermore, when tested behaviorally .., populations in a light box show a statistical tendency to drift into the light. ..

Amazing. It suggests how eyes evolved .. initially, it was just localized general expression of light-sensitive molecules coupled directly to motors in the skin, no brain required.”

http://www.iphone2die4.com/2011/03/15/brachiopods-...

*

“How do jellyfish react to other organisms?

~ they do have eye spots,which are clusters of light sensitive cells on their bodies,But...interestingly the have the simplest of nervous systems,and no brain at all”

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=201005...


nicomp profile image

nicomp 5 years ago from Ohio, USA

Interesting info...

“some jellyfish, such as Cladonema, have elaborate eyes but no brain. Their eyes transmit a message directly to the muscles without the intermediate processing provided by a brain”

So, we have some living things with eyes connected to muscles (jellyfish) and some creatures with eyes connected to brains (humans, etc.) If the humans descended from the jellyfish, then at some point in pre-history the connection from the eye to the muscle (jellyfish) spontaneously rerouted to the brain. There's no intermediate step that represents an evolutionary advantage.

“Twenty-four eyes but no brain

The smallest of the jellyfish classes, measured by number of species, is the Cubozoa

Having no brain, the jellyfish filters information about object size, motion, and ambient light through the optics of the eyes themselves. The filtered information then passes to the nervous system and interconnected pacemakers, and the animal responds to what it sees by adjusting the speed and direction of its travel. A brain is not necessary.”

This creature has the functionality of a brain in the eye: a nervous system connects to locomotive systems and those systems 'know' how to react to those signals. It's not simply a light-sensitive cell anymore. As before, all these systems must have evolved in parallel because one is useless without the others.

“The brachiopod gastrula senses light. .. It definitely hasno brain, no nervous tissue at all, and no eyes…and there it is .. a region selectively expressing ciliary opsin as if it were a retina. Furthermore, when tested behaviorally .., populations in a light box show a statistical tendency to drift into the light. .."

Cilia provide locomotion. Again, the light-sensitive cells connect to locomotive cells and control those cells. Two systems evolved in parallel because one would be worthless without the other. If we take this info at face value, then at come point a brain 'evolved' into the system, therefore the signals spontaneously rerouted. It's all very interesting.

"Amazing. It suggests how eyes evolved .. initially, it was just localized general expression of light-sensitive molecules coupled directly to motors in the skin, no brain required.”

http://www.iphone2die4.com/2011/03/15/brachiopods-

By the way, iphone2die4.com is not an authoritative source by any means. The actual source cited is http://www.evodevojournal.com/content/2/1/6/abstra...

“How do jellyfish react to other organisms?

~ they do have eye spots,which are clusters of light sensitive cells on their bodies,But...interestingly the have the simplest of nervous systems,and no brain at all”

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=201005

I tried to follow this 'source' just now but Yahoo Answers had already deleted it.


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands Author

I realise that those sites may not be authorities, but the people posting had found relevant information. It's a shame that the one item was deleted ~ but I had already quoted it.

The creatures in question still exist, so they are not, or not necessarily, among our ancestors.

The fact that eyes can be used without a brain, and that simple eyes can be useful, are the important points.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 5 years ago from Ohio, USA

"realise that those sites may not be authorities, but the people posting had found relevant information"

Authoritative sources are crucial to a science-based discussion. We cannot accept everything we read on the Internet as reliable.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 5 years ago from Ohio, USA

"The fact that eyes can be used without a brain, and that simple eyes can be useful, are the important points."

That eye simply contains functionality commonly attributed to a brain. As you said, it filters information and makes decisions based on that information. That's brain activity. My original point stands: they functionality must have evolved in parallel with the signal path from the light-sensitive cells to the brainy eye to the locomotive mechanism. None of these systems would have any evolutionary value without the others. A light-sensitive cell is useless unless it's connected to something that can process and react to the detection of light or lack of light.


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands Author

Hello Nicomp

As I wrote in the article, this information, about the eye, was to counter the Creationist arguments that:

1. ~ an eye is so complex that it has to be created by God and could not have evolved.

2. ~ a partially-evolved eye would not work and would be useless.

The scientists in question showed that 1. an eye could evolve from simple to complex and 2. that a simple eye could be useful to its owner.

The examples they gave ~ and which I have given here ~ are of simple eyes, which are useful to their owners.

Some of these creatures don't even have a brain, yet they have these simple eyes ~ which are useful to them.

I have already cited highly qualified scientists ~ I simply added a few more interesting and relevant bits of information, which agreed with those experts ~ so we already have the requisite crucial authorities.

I'm not really sure what your argument is. You said 'the patch of light-sensitive cells would have to 'evolve' at precisely the same time as the appropriate nervous system and an appropriate brain' ~ but some of these creatures do not have a brain, though they do have the means to respond to the light. The creatures, and their eyes, have, indeed, evolved according to their needs and their environment.

Are you posing an additional creationist argument, to add to the list in the hub? If so, then please let me know.

Thanks.


thedutchman profile image

thedutchman 5 years ago

This article is Knowledgeable. Good Job!


youngdubliner profile image

youngdubliner 5 years ago from Dublin, Ireland

this hub got me thinking :) though im not neither of the two but this had me wondrin how those people come up with these theories/stories. great hub!


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands Author

Hello Dutchman :)

Thank you ~ very glad that you enjoyed it :)

*

Hello Young Dubliner :)

Thanks for commenting.

Anything that gets people thinking is a good thing, in my opinion. :)


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands Author

I have now added some relevant videos, which I think may prove helpful

~ The 'Was Darwin Wrong?' documentary - in three parts.

~ Three from Neil Shubin, who knows about evolution from fish

~ One from Dan Eric Nilsson, the expert on eye evolution.


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands Author

Hello again Nicomp :)

Some of the comments you made were not directly related to the ideas that I was discussing in the hub and I wanted to provide correct responses to them.

As you said, 'Authoritative sources are crucial to a science-based discussion'.

I thought it best to ask the expert on the subject of eye evolution ~ Dr Dan Eric Nilsson.

I put three of your assertions to him and he, very kindly, gave his responses.

Here are three of your quotes, followed by Dr Nilsson's responses:

Nicomp: "A patch of light-sensitive cells is worthless, actually detrimental, unless there is a network of nerves connecting the cells to a brain *and* a brain that can decipher those signals and act on them and control other bodily functions to react accordingly. Therefore, the patch of light-sensitive cells would have to 'evolve' at precisely the same time as the appropriate nervous system and an appropriate brain and an appropriate mechanical system of some sort."

Dr Dan Eric Nilsson: "Wrong! The nerve network may be there before the light sensitivity, responding to other things than light, and then it is not hard to imagine a change from touch to shadow for triggering a defensive contraction in a primitive animal.

"Another possibility is that light sensitivity evolved first, but only for controlling the physiology of the sensitive cells themselves, such as light-controlled growth."

Nicomp: "So, we have some living things with eyes connected to muscles (jellyfish) and some creatures with eyes connected to brains (humans, etc.) If the humans descended from the jellyfish, then at some point in pre-history the connection from the eye to the muscle (jellyfish) spontaneously rerouted to the brain. There's no intermediate step that represents an evolutionary advantage."

Dr Dan Eric Nilsson: "Wrong! First, humans did not evolve from jellyfish.

"Second every possible intermediate exists between the nerve net of Hydra (with no central aggregation of nerve cells) via small cerebral ganglia (in flatworms) to the large brains of vertebrates, insects and other advanced animals."

Nicomp: "This creature [the jellyfish with no brain but many simple eyes] has the functionality of a brain in the eye: a nervous system connects to locomotive systems and those systems 'know' how to react to those signals. It's not simply a light-sensitive cell anymore. As before, all these systems must have evolved in parallel because one is useless without the others."

Dr Dan Eric Nilsson: "Wrong! Sensory cells, nerve cells and muscles can modify gradually to generate more complicated systems of interaction, and after gene duplications (that happen spontaneously) new, duplicated systems can evolve rapidly to take on new functions."

I hope that this clarifies a few things.

I am very grateful to Dan Eric Nilsson, since I am not a scientist, but I do want to provide accurate information. Thank you Dr Nilsson!


nicomp profile image

nicomp 5 years ago from Ohio, USA

"and then it is not hard to imagine a change from touch to shadow for triggering a defensive contraction in a primitive animal."

Imagination is not science.

"Dr Dan Eric Nilsson: "Wrong! Sensory cells, nerve cells and muscles can modify gradually to generate more complicated systems of interaction, and after gene duplications (that happen spontaneously) new, duplicated systems can evolve rapidly to take on new functions."

A nerve cell may 'modify' gradually, but it's either a nerve cell or it's not. Unless the entire system morphs in parallel, any perceived evolutionary advantage is actually a disadvantage.

"Dr Dan Eric Nilsson: "Wrong! First, humans did not evolve from jellyfish."

No one said they did: I said 'if'.

"Second every possible intermediate exists between the nerve net of Hydra (with no central aggregation of nerve cells) via small cerebral ganglia (in flatworms) to the large brains of vertebrates, insects and other advanced animals."

Obviously not, but even if 'every' possible intermediate did exist, the term intermediate is arbitrary.


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands Author

I'm quite happy to go along with Dr Nilsson.

He is the expert on this subject ~ ie the crucial authoritative source of reliable information.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 5 years ago from Ohio, USA

Fair enough. We all have freedom of choice. Thank you for the opportunity to present both sides of a discussion.


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands Author

Thanks for reading and for your input, Nicomp :)


DavitosanX profile image

DavitosanX 5 years ago

A good read, Trish. Keep it up! And thanks for visiting!


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands Author

Hello Davitosan :)

Thank you!

Glad you enjoyed it!


Disappearinghead profile image

Disappearinghead 5 years ago from Wales, UK

Good hub voted up.

I notice that you have had very little response from Young Earth Creationists here...interesting in itself. I have a friend who is one and has recommended that I look at a number of websites, but to be honest I can't be bothered. I don't have a PhD in zoology or palaeontology so I couldn't put up a convincing argument to support my gut feeling that Young Earth Creationism is a blind alley.

I believe the bible is the inspired word of God, but where Creationists go wrong is assuming it is literally true so they try to force a round bible into a square scientific hole. One must read the bible and understand that the creation story is allegory, parable and symbolism that has a much deeper meaning than the simple creation story one reads on the surface. It was never intended to be a science book.

For me eveolution represents a God directed long development process. Much as my children might like to play with Lego and evovle a car into a plane, God has played with His creation, evolving one species into another. He doesn't need 6000 years as He exists out side of time, so billions of years is nothing to Him.

Interesting that Young Earth Creationism is mainly confined to certain sections of the church and is not a doctrine of the whole church or Judaism.

Good hub, I enjoyed the read.


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands Author

Hello Disappearing Head :)

Thank you for your positive comments!

I do think that there is logic in the idea of 'a God directed long development process', because we do not really know about all there is to know about our ultimate beginnings. This is what our religious education teacher believed, back when I was at school.

I think that the Bible is a set of documents, which illustrate the ideas, dreams, myths, history, beliefs, etc, of an ancient tribe. The writers may have felt inspired by God, but I strongly doubt that they were :)

I find it hard to understand how anyone with an education can consider 'Young Earth Creationism' to be a possibility.

As for beliefs and doctrines; I think that there are almost as many views as there are believers :)

Thanks for reading! :)


MysteryPlanet profile image

MysteryPlanet 5 years ago

Very interesting debate here. Personally I lean toward the belief that we (all life on Earth) have the inherent ability to adapt and survive (hence new types of speciaes and variations over time) but I do not believe we evolved from little phospholipid bilayers bouncing around in the "soup"


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands Author

Hello MysteryPlanet.

Thanks for dropping by and posting your thoughts on the subject :)


marlanasifter profile image

marlanasifter 5 years ago from Sanford, NC, USA

Hey, Somehow you created a highly entertaining hub out of a load of information. Nice use of alternative fonts, videos, pics, and graphics. I enjoyed reading this... so now have no need of the vids at the bottom!


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands Author

Thank you Marian ~ very glad that you enjoyed it :)


thougtforce profile image

thougtforce 5 years ago from Sweden

I so enjoyed this hub from you, since you have manage to state both views in an objective way! As a marine geologist I am all for the evolution theory. But I respect that others might see it different. That must be the meaning of having different views, imagine how dull life would be if we all where and thought the same:) Very informative hub that you have put together in a good way!

Tina


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands Author

Hello Tina and thank you :)

Yes, everyone is entitled to their own point of view, but, as I have mentioned before, it is when people distort the truth that I become annoyed.

Evolutionists do not believe that apes can suddenly turn into humans and ~ though many won't accept it ~ there really is evidence for evolution.

You and I and many others know this to be true. These points are truths, not matters of opinion or belief, and it is, in my opinion, very wrong to state otherwise ~ yet that is what many 'creationists' will do.

So I agree with you that we should all respect each other's stances on the subject :)

Thanks for reading and commenting :)

I am glad that you enjoyed this :)

Tricia :)


aguasilver profile image

aguasilver 5 years ago from Malaga, Spain

No mention of Intelligent Design here Tricia, any reason why not?

What is interesting is the lengths people will go to stop it being discussed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEvq4xIHmH4&feature...


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands Author

Hello Aguasilver :)

As I see it, 'Intelligent Design' is a term used in America to indicate an apparently scientific explanation for creationism.

As an English person, it's a term that isn't really a part of my vocabulary; I tend only come into contact with, on sites where Americans argue against evolution.

It simply would not be a term that I would use in a hub of my own.


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands Author

Aguasilver, I have been watching this film that you suggested:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEvq4xIHmH4&feature

The juxta-posing of the subject at hand with other images is out and out propaganda. Really unpleasant! Pretty disgusting to me.

Caroline Crocker claims to have lost her job over ID ~ but is that really true?! Furthermore, since she 'became the Executive Director of the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center in early 2008', then she obviously didn't just mention it, she was a champion of it. I would be interested to see her innocuous slides, to judge what they were really like.

In the USA there is legal separation of church and state, so, surely, the state schools cannot include the teaching of religious dogma, by law?

Since this film is so full of propaganda, I would like to see a less biased look at the subject.


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands Author

I would like to add that, though Darwin had a brilliant mind, and came up with a great theory, and much of what he said still stands, he was not the first evolutionist and certainly not the last.

Scientists are building upon his work every day.

Therefore I do not like 'evolutionary theory' to be called 'Darwinism' ~ and certainly not in the disparaging tones often used by creationists and ID followers.


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands Author

I have watched a bit more of that film.

1. Accepting evolution does not have to result in atheism. It often does, but not always. The Pope accepts evolution; many Protestant bishops and priests accept evolution. Evolution is, self-evidently, about evolution; not about where life originally came from (though it is, of course, a related subject). It even allows for God creating life.

2. If Nazis accepted Darwin's evolutionary theory, then this does not mean that evolution is bad ~ it means that Nazis used the ideas that appealed to them, in ways that suited them.

3. It is true that by using scientific discoveries, like medicine, etc, people are living, today, who would once have died. To a degree, science is taking away natural selection. This makes many people very happy. They live longer and their children survive. Nazis were less happy about it, because it allowed people to live, who did not fit with the society they wanted. That is not Darwin's fault and it does not negate evolutionary theory.

4. Accepting evolution, even if it leads to atheism, does not take away the specialness of life, or the meaning of life, or morality, or ethics, etc, etc, or even the miraculousness of life.


Naim Hasan profile image

Naim Hasan 5 years ago from Dhaka

i dont think Darwin was wrong....human and other living creatures do evolve, its very slow and continuous process, but some people exaggerated his views, and put him against religions and the God. neither Darwin nor the entire mankind has discovered each and everything of the universe, rather we still know very few. a brick might become a stone after millions of years, but the brick wasn't into being just by chance, it was made by someone. what i believe is, evolution has been there, but that dosent mean human came from amoeba or other apes. and i dont know why this feeling comes into me that there might be something in the human body which prevents us to become anything else, unlike other animals, human do evolve and will, but human wont become alien or ape, and apes are not human for sure.


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands Author

Hello Naim Hasan :)

You accept evolution and you don't think that Darwin was wrong, but you don't think that humans evolved from apes?

Isn't that a bit of a contradiction? :)

I certainly agree that we do not yet know everything there is to know on this subject!


graceomalley profile image

graceomalley 5 years ago

I think the new term "epigenetics" will add a great deal to the understanding of how organisms adapt to environment. I read about this in Time magazine about a year ago. A Scandinavian scientist has found that DNA is much more responsive that we realized - events that happen to an individual before they reproduce influence the DNA they pass on to their children. This scientist studied starvation - if a person had gone through a period of starvation in their life, their children would be more likely to have the trait of overeating. This means that environment doesn't just influence DNA passed down by individuals better adapted managing to procreate - but specific life events can change the DNA passed down. It makes organisms much more adaptable than we realized.


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands Author

Hello Grace :)

That is very interesting ~ and the sort of thing, I think, that many of us have wondered about.

Thanks for reading ~ and for mentioning "epigenetics". I shall have to look into the subject :)


marlanasifter profile image

marlanasifter 5 years ago from Sanford, NC, USA

Hmm.. "epigenetics" is interesting. I believe that is the basis behind the Assasin's Creed video games...


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands Author

Hello Marlanasifter. :)

I don't know much about video games, I'm afraid, and I still don't know much about "epigenetics" :(


Zubair Ahmed profile image

Zubair Ahmed 5 years ago

Hi Trish_M,

Nice hub, very well researched and thank you for sharing. I for one do not agree with Evolution, more of a Creationist. But it is always nice to look at alternative viewpoints.

All the best


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands Author

Hello Zubair Ahmed :)

Thank you for reading and commenting!

Well, as you can probably guess, I am not a creationist, but I certainly agree with you, that it is good to look at different viewpoints :)

Best wishes to you, too!


Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 5 years ago from Canada

Great hubs. Look forward to more. ;)


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands Author

Hello Slarty O'Brian :)

Thank you!

Very much!


nicomp profile image

nicomp 5 years ago from Ohio, USA

"The stromatolites in question have been dated to 3.56 billion years in age."

How were they dated?


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

"The cyanobacteria have an extensive fossil record. The oldest known fossils, in fact, are cyanobacteria from Archaean rocks of western Australia, dated 3.5 billion years old. This may be somewhat surprising, since the oldest rocks are only a little older: 3.8 billion years old! "

From http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/cyanofr.html


nicomp profile image

nicomp 5 years ago from Ohio, USA

I ask again, how were the stromatolites dated?


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

Have to ask Berkely. I think they have an acid powered time machine.

It has something to do with dating the rocks by geological methods. The cyanobacteria were embedded in really old rocks.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 5 years ago from Ohio, USA

But... we believe them, right? Because it's written on a web site, yes? ;)

BTW, cyanobacteria are not stromatolites.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

Well, if it is a noted college like Berkely and a trained geologist writing this I do tend to believe them. they have far more insight into it than I do.

The only other way to accept this as scientific fact or theory would be to do independent studies by qualified individuals and see if they come up with similar conclusions. So, has anyone done this regarding the cyanobacteria?


Harlan Colt profile image

Harlan Colt 5 years ago from the Rocky Mountains

IF evolution is correct, then where did right, wrong, morals and ethics come from? Why are they even important? Why would anyone seek to limit the adventurous human animal in any way upon the earth for to do so would merely deprive him of his nature, and interfere with the evolutionary process. No? It could well be that all these morals, ethics, laws and limitations upon the human animal are merely impeding his ability to evolve to the next level - whatever it may be.


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands Author

Wow, lots of new comments!

As Nicomp said, 'Authoritative sources are crucial to a science-based discussion'. I would agree ~ and I would agree with Austinstar that 'a trained geologist' at 'a noted college like Berkely' would have 'far more insight into it than' most of us.

Experts are not always right, but, then, they don't usually claim to be infallible, they just generously provide us with their research ~ and they have to accept a lot of criticism from non-experts.


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands Author

Hi Harlan Colt,

The morality / ethics issue is an interesting one.

I have read items by Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and others on this subject. I have commented on the subject on this site and I have written a hub on this topic.

As far as it is related to evolution, it seems clear that a society which co-operates and cares, is more likely to be successful ~ so that members can thrive and pass on their genes ~ than one which is chaotic and lawless.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

@Harlan - "IF evolution is correct, then where did right, wrong, morals and ethics come from?"

This question has been asked and answered so many times that I'm really tired of seeing it. Keep up, will ya?


Harlan Colt profile image

Harlan Colt 5 years ago from the Rocky Mountains

Trish, I suppose it could be argued that such things as morals and ethics are a natural part of the human's higher intelligence. If its not argued then what else is there to answer with - without picking up religion.

Austinstar, sorry to annoy you. I didn't have the time to read everyone's comment. Best wishes, - Harlan.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 5 years ago from Ohio, USA

"@Harlan - "IF evolution is correct, then where did right, wrong, morals and ethics come from?"

This question has been asked and answered so many times that I'm really tired of seeing it. Keep up, will ya?"

Rough translation: evolutionists have no answer, and they can't be bothered to address questions for which they have no answer.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

Oh Please, Where did ethics come from??? I can find at least 10 hubs on the subject. On either side of the fence too. A Google search will probably return a few million hits.

Let's find something new to wax eloquently about, shall we?


nicomp profile image

nicomp 5 years ago from Ohio, USA

You are an eloquent waxer, indeed. It's always fun discussing with you.


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands Author

Please remember to keep discussions polite!! Thanks!

Nicomp: "evolutionists have no answer, and they can't be bothered to address questions for which they have no answer."

I have already replied and I have mentioned other sources of opinions on the topic.


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands Author

Hi Harlan :)

I think that we humans can philosophise on morality, because we are intellectual beings, but it has been argued that the evolution of morality parallels the evolution of people and communities ~ as I indicated, before.

As for religion, I think that, if we relied on the religious books ~ specifically the Bible ~ for our examples of morality, then we would be in trouble. But that is another topic, for another threrad :)

I have written a number of hubs on this subject and I have made comments on it elsewhere.


talford profile image

talford 4 years ago from U.S.A.

Trish,

The logic you are using is flawed in many ways. May I respectfully disagree?

You repeat the phrase, "simple life", or, "simple eye", many times. To put it simply; Simple life does not exist, much less a "simple eye". Experts in the field of evolution admit this. You seem to brush it aside with a quote and say. "See it's proven".

All known life has DNA, or RNA. Simple?

All known life must in some way reproduce. Simple?

All known life has a cell wall. Simple?

Mendel's work was within one species. Evolution within a species is common and is observable even with breeding dogs, cattle, etc..

That is not the argument.

It is about changing from one species to another.

I do not claim to know the age of the earth, but in order to point out how prejudiced the evolutionists can be, consider the fact that soft tissue has been found and documented, (after much scientific scrutiny), in fossils of Tyrannosaurs Rex. Even though this is impossible within the given time frame for the existence of T-Rex; instead of questioning in earnest, the push now is to try to prove that somehow soft tissue could have survived over 100 million years. This, rather than question their beloved theory of evolution. You see it is a faith that must be defended even against fact.

A lot of grant money is on the line. Many scientists of varied opinions do not dare question evolution.

Well, there is a little more fuel for the fire.

Tom


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 4 years ago from The English Midlands Author

Hello Talford :)

Thank you for reading and commenting.

Ms Schweitzer, the lady who made the T Rex discovery, is a Christian, herself. She believes in God. But she does not accept the young earth theory. Like most scientists, she knows that science does not only provide answers, but also questions.

Science solves some mysteries and then lays bare new mysteries. She was surprised that soft tissue could survive as long as it has and seems to think that scientific assumptions need to be revisited ~ but not the ones about the age of dinosaurs.

Here's a quote from a Smithsonian article: 'Dinosaur Shocker ~ Probing a 68-million-year-old T. rex, Mary Schweitzer stumbled upon astonishing signs of life that may radically change our view of the beasts that once ruled the earth' ~ By Helen Fields ~ Smithsonian magazine, May 2006

Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinos...

'Young-earth creationists .. see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work ... in 1997 .... Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”

This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the .. Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. ....”

Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinos...


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 4 years ago from The English Midlands Author

Now Talford, about 'simple' eyes' and 'simple life' ~ these terms are correct.

This is what the Oxford dictionary has to say:

'simple eye:

'noun

'a small eye of an insect or other arthropod which has only one lens, typically present in one or more pairs. 'Also called ocellus

'Contrasted with compound eye'

This hub was based upon scientific ideas presented in a National Geographic documentary ~ supplemented, in the comments section, with additional information direct from the expert on eye development.

It's not me, who is drawing these conclusions ~ it is the experts in their field, about whom I am simply writing.

Simple eyes do exist.

As for simple life forms, I am referring to organisms of only a single cell, as opposed to complex creatures like us humans, with many thousands of cells.

Here is a reference to a simple organism:

'Professor Chris Thompson, a Wellcome Trust New Investigator at the University of Manchester, is studying an organism called Dictyostelium - often referred to as a social amoeba, slime mould, or just plain 'Dicty'. .....

Chris says: "Dicty is extremely simple, which makes it a good scientific model for studying core cellular processes. ...'

http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/News/2011/Features/WTVM0...

I am not brushing anything aside; this is just the way it is. There are simpler organisms and there are more complex organisms. There are simpler eyes and there are more complex eyes.

All known life does, of course, have a cell wall, but some forms of life have more cells than others.

If I have misunderstood what you are saying, please let me know.

By the way, I don't deny that all life is amazing and apparently miraculous ~ and so not 'simple' in that sense.


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 4 years ago from The English Midlands Author

Quote Talford:

"Evolution within a species is common and is observable even with breeding dogs, cattle, etc..

That is not the argument.

It is about changing from one species to another."

I don't really understand why some people have such a problem with this concept. It seems very clear and obvious to me and I am not a scientist.

Actually, I think that the problem may be the result of Creationist propaganda and mythology.

I keep reading lies, such as that evolutionists believe that Chimpanzees can give birth to humans; or that they can turn into humans; or that cows can change into whales; or that snakes become birds, etc, etc, etc.

Let's be clear here. This is nonsense. No-one believes this. Evolutionists do not believe this. It is untrue Creationist propaganda, designed to delude the unintelligent or uneducated into believing that evolutionists are foolish and wrong ~ and that it is OK to insult and mock them.

Only in fairy tales do toads turn into princes. No monkey is ever going to magically change into a human ~ unless I am very much mistaken.

So what is really happening?

I have written about this in my other hubs ~ eg. 'Evolution and Creationism - My Take On Them and How I Arrived Here' ~ so I should not need to go into detail here. Furthermore, I am not a scientist, so people should really be reading the experts ~ but objectively and without bias!

Anyway, just briefly ...

Yes, 'Evolution within a species is common and is observable' ~ but what is a species? Scientists are not clear on this. Definitions are fuzzy.

So, we must just assume that animals within a species are very similar. Therefore changes within a species are so small that no-one would question them. So far, so good.

But little changes mount up. Eventually changes lead to a new species. But we are not talking about major changes, like a cow developing into a frog. We are still talking about quite small differences.

It is only after a very, very, very long time that the tiny changes will have mounted up enough for them to result in completely different animals ~ but, even then, the differences won't be as huge as the difference between a cow and a frog.

Consider the similarities between wolves and bears, for example. I have no idea how closely related these two creatures are, yet surely they are not so different that people cannot accept that they are, indeed, related ~ but they are certainly different species.

This is the thing ~ each change is very small, but the changes mount up. Consider and compare how languages evolve and diverge. It's a similar process.


talford profile image

talford 4 years ago from U.S.A.

Thanks Trish for answering. I wasn't sure you would post my comment.

My main complaint is the bias of investigation. This is the true ongoing travesty.

Your information about Ms. Schweitzer makes my point. As I said, I don't know the age of the earth. I was pointing out the bias in the approach to research."This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the .. Formation, where B. Rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it."

Wouldn't it be an exciting discovery to learn it was only 50,000, 100,000, or even a million years old? It can not be mentioned as a possibility. Even though scientific fact, (as we now know it), precludes the bones from being that old. No avenues for truth will be allowed to be researched. I do not know Ms. Schweitzer's motives but you can be sure if she had said the bones were not the accepted age, her funding would have quickly dried up.

It also manifests another pet peeve that I wasn't planning on bringing up. The circular argument that is made to date layers of earth. Often it is the fossils themselves that determine the age appointed for strata. In this case it has to be 68 million years old because the experts said so. Forget that the half life of cartilage, even under the very best conditions, makes it impossible. That is when the T-Rex reigned the experts have said, so that makes it so.

Anyway, my only request is honesty. Truly examine the evidence without prejudice. That's all.

Shucks, I haven't even brought up the Law of Entropy. I guess that will have to wait for another day.


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 4 years ago from The English Midlands Author

Hi :)

I don't censor comments, unless they are obvious spam. I believe in openness and honesty.

That is one of the reasons that I seem to be so passionate about this subject ~ because of the false propaganda spread by so many creationists.

The thing with science is that it accepts that it might be wrong; it might have to change its opinions ~ it is always a work in progress.

Blind faith does not acknowledge any such limitations ~ because, self-evidently ~ it is blind and it is based on faith. There is no logic to it. It is not based on investigation, experimentation, or scholarly study. It is just based on beliefs and feelings.

If I understood her correctly, Ms Schweitzer acknowledged that some things, currently accepted as scientific fact, might have to be reconsidered ~ but, to the best of my understanding, not the age of the strata or the dinosaurs.

Obviously this lady, like many, many of the other experts on related subjects, is extremely knowledgeable and well-educated. These scientists are experts.

Now, I do not accept everything that experts say, willy nilly, but I read and study and discuss and I see the evidence for evolution before my own eyes.

Sadly, it strikes me that many creationists simply dismiss the science, without ever studying it, or even objectively reading about it ~ and most likely with little or no understanding of it. They base their rejection on their own 'feelings', on biased propaganda and on ignorance. That is not a good thing.

The experts do not, yet, have all of the answers. Some findings may have to be tweaked ~ some may even have to be tweaked quite violently ~ but that's ok. That is what science is all about.

Science has not been 'completed', as the Book of Genesis was, hundreds of years ago, before mankind was educated to today's level.

There are still many, many mysteries. It is possible that, one day, scientists may even decide that the only possible answer to the beginning of 'life the universe and everything' might be something we could term 'God'. I doubt it, but, even if they do, that will not negate evolution and it will not mean that this is the 'God' of the Bible.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

"If I understood her correctly, Ms Schweitzer acknowledged that some things, currently accepted as scientific fact, might have to be reconsidered ~ but, to the best of my understanding, not the age of the strata or the dinosaurs."

"Science has not been 'completed',..."

There's a contradiction here. Can you find it?


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

"I keep reading lies, such as that evolutionists believe that Chimpanzees can give birth to humans; or that they can turn into humans; or that cows can change into whales; or that snakes become birds, etc, etc, etc."

This is cherry-picking and it simply cheapens the debate. No creationist trained as a scientist suggests anything of the kind. There are outliers on both sides of the argument.


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 4 years ago from The English Midlands Author

Quote me:

"If I understood her correctly, Ms Schweitzer acknowledged that some things, currently accepted as scientific fact, might have to be reconsidered ~ but, to the best of my understanding, not the age of the strata or the dinosaurs."

"Science has not been 'completed',..."

Quote Nicomp:

"There's a contradiction here. Can you find it?"

No.

What do you mean?

Here's another quote from the article, and I believe that it is Ms Schweitzer speaking:

"If particles of that one dinosaur were able to hang around for 65 million years, maybe the textbooks were wrong about fossilization."

Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinos...


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 4 years ago from The English Midlands Author

Quote Nicomp:

"No creationist trained as a scientist suggests anything of the kind."

I should certainly hope not!

But I didn't mention scientists, in this context; I said "I keep reading lies, such as that evolutionists believe that Chimpanzees can give birth to humans; or that they can turn into humans; or that cows can change into whales; or that snakes become birds, etc, etc, etc."

And I do! Even from supposedly intelligent and educated people.

It is not cherry picking, it is reporting a phenomenon that I come across on too regular a basis ~ unfortunately.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

Quote you:

"...but, to the best of my understanding, not the age of

the strata or the dinosaurs."

Quote you again:

"Science has not been 'completed',..."

See the discrepancy now?


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

Quote You:

"But I didn't mention scientists, in this context; I said "I keep reading lies, such as that evolutionists believe that Chimpanzees can give birth to humans; or that they can turn into humans; or that cows can change into whales; or that snakes become birds, etc, etc, etc."

There are outliers in every argument. Your implication is total cherry-picking. It's equivalent to me asserting that all scientists are deceitful because Haeckel falsified his embryo research. Of course there are lies on both sides of the debate, but that doesn't dismiss the earnest science on both sides of the debate. We all have the same facts.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

Referring to the Useful Information that you linked (below)

Did you read this?

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/fosrec/McKinney.html

There's a glaring assumption omitted from the radio-isotope dating method described in the tutorial. I wonder if you noticed it.


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 4 years ago from The English Midlands Author

Nicomp,

To the best of my understanding, Ms Schweitzer, the lady who discovered this phenomenon ~ presumably with her team, does not think that it is the dating of dinosaurs, or of the geological strata, that is incorrect, but, rather, that it may be our understanding of fossilization, which may be incorrect.

She is the expert. Not me. And this is what I think she means. I could be mistaken ~ but the link has been provided, so readers may check for themselves.

I don't see your problem with this. In the past you have requested expert opinion ~ and there it is.

And 'Science' obviously has not been completed. If it had, then Ms Schweitzer would not be researching, hypothesising, etc, etc ~ she would be out of a job.

So no, I still do not understand your comment.


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 4 years ago from The English Midlands Author

Nicomp

I am sorry, but you are the person who is cherry-picking.

The nonsensical remarks, which I keep hearing from creationists ~ even highly educated ones, were not even part of my article. I commented on them, in response to another comment ~ which is a perfectly valid thing to do.

This sort of nonsense is repeated ad nauseum ~ all over the Internet ~ and it is certainly influencing people who, in turn, repeat it ~ spreading the propaganda ~ so please don't imply that I am not allowed to comment upon it, just because you think that this is only the opinion of 'outliers'.


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 4 years ago from The English Midlands Author

I'm sorry, I'm very busy, could you be more specific about omitted glaring assumptions, please?


Steve LePoidevin profile image

Steve LePoidevin 4 years ago from Thailand

Although I have heard all this before, this was a very well written hub that I read from start to finish. I still cannot and never will understand how any intelligent person in 2012 can still believe in creationism. No, science is not the end all and be all. From its beginning, it was meant to be an "intelligent" way to explore and explain the mysteries of life by using a rational, logical process. From my point of view, I cannot see anything that is rational, logical or intelligent about creationism. BTW, I have been classified as a non-practicing agnostic, as far as my religious beliefs are concerned!


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 4 years ago from The English Midlands Author

Hi Steve,

Thank you very much for reading ~ and for your kind words. I have to agree with you :)


talford profile image

talford 4 years ago from U.S.A.

Merry Christmas, Trish and all.

Regarding glaring omissions.

"If I understood her correctly, Ms Schweitzer acknowledged that some things, currently accepted as scientific fact, might have to be reconsidered ~ but, to the best of my understanding, not the age of the strata or the dinosaurs."

The simple FACT: The absolute maximum that soft tissue could survive is 100,000 years. 68 million years is a multiple of 68,000 times that length of time! Yet, no one will even consider that fact in their research.

The only lines of research I can find are about how the square peg of 68 million years can fit into the round hole of 100,000 years.

I love science, but this is no longer science. It is akin to the pope having his cardinals explain the science of the sun rotating around the earth, after Galileo proved otherwise.


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 4 years ago from The English Midlands Author

Hi Talford :)

I disagree that it isn't science. Science is all about discovering and explaining mysteries ~ which is exactly what this is all about. Different scientists may suggest different hypotheses to explain the mystery.

One explanation is the biofilm one:

http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2008/07/dinosaur...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/08072...

I have no doubt that this will be discussed and examined for some time to come, but, whatever the explanation, I am convinced that it will not be related to Biblical Creationism or to 'Young Earth' ideas.

Merry Christmas! :)


talford profile image

talford 4 years ago from U.S.A.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Trying to theorize different scenarios is one thing. Refusing to consider the actual evidence is another. That is not scientific.

It is not so much about defending one stance or another. It should be about seeking the facts. Truth should be the goal no matter the outcome.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

@Trish_M:

"so please don't imply that I am not allowed to comment upon it, just because you think that this is only the opinion of 'outliers'."

Please don't assert that I implied anything. To be perfectly clear: you can comment on anything you like, as if you needed my approval to do so anyway.

On the other hand, your attempt to prove a point by cherry picking the assertions of obvious outliers is academically lazy.

This is getting silly. We are debating metadata instead of the important stuff. Unfortunately this frequently happens in this forum.


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 4 years ago from The English Midlands Author

Talford, I agree, absolutely, that truth should certainly be the goal. But, at present, they don't know what the truth about this matter is. They will have to study the evidence, further. Different scientists are already coming up with different suggestions.


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 4 years ago from The English Midlands Author

Nicomp, as I said, I am not cherry-picking. Noting what many creationists have said, and wondering just what effect these comments are having on the opinions of others, is not cherry-picking. It is discussing the issue.


RobSchneider 4 years ago

My only gripe with Darwinism has been with people who argue about it without having studied it themselves. No complaints about that here! You've done your homework and then some.

It's never been a big issue with me except when more materialistic observers justify all kinds of behavior with inane statements like, "It's all about survival of the fittest, man." I recently read that Darwin saw sympathy as the key to survival. Think about it for, say, 11 seconds and it becomes obvious that we're interdependent and thrive best in a cooperative, caring environment.

Most creation myths go back eons of time and it seems to me that most wouldn't have a problem with reconciling a Creator with evolution.


Hated By Liberals profile image

Hated By Liberals 4 years ago from Eastern U.S.

Science is useful... it is not absolute truth.

Some scientists have said that with all the advances in cloning and in vitro research, they will soon be able to create a man from the dirt - like God did. But God reached down and took hold of the scientist's hand and said - - GET YOUR OWN DIRT !!!


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 4 years ago from The English Midlands Author

RobSchneider ~ Hi! :)

I absolutely agree that 'we're interdependent and thrive best in a cooperative, caring environment'.

I also agree that there does not need to be a choice between accepting evolution and believing in a creator.

Thank you for your comments :)


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 4 years ago from The English Midlands Author

Hello 'Hated By Liberals' :)

Thanks for reading and commenting :)

Yes 'Science is useful', and, certainly, it does not always know the the 'absolute truth', but that' ok, because science is about seeking and discovering ~ and presenting the most up-to-date knowledge and the most likely hypotheses. It is an ongoing work-in-progress.

However, science often does present us with the truth, and I feel that it is very wrong to simply dismiss it, as many creationists do.


B. Leekley profile image

B. Leekley 4 years ago from Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA

Up, useful, interesting, and shared. Thanks for the informative and convincing article.


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 4 years ago from The English Midlands Author

Hello B. Leekley :)

Thank you very much for those kind words!


Samraj19 4 years ago

Darwin did a fishing in a troubled water. His hypothesis evolution theory may be possible with hybrid breeds, unfortunately it is not happening in a natural way hence hard to prove it.


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 4 years ago from The English Midlands Author

Hello Samraj :)

Thanks for commenting ~ but I think that the experts have already shown that, by and large, Darwin was correct.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Neil Shubin - What Darwin got right and wrong

    Neil Shubin - Misconceptions About Evolution

    More by this Author


    Click to Rate This Article
    working