Creationism and Science

[BLADEMDA]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Stop being a posterchild for the people who think physicians have a really poor grasp of basic scientific principles. Scientific theories can't be definitively "proven" by their very nature.

What is a theory?
Evolution is a fact and a theory

Evlution has a lot of holes;Just as many as other "theories." It also has a great many skeptics who doubt this theory is anywhere near fact.

 

[BLADEMDA]

SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
..[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]..[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]This was last publicly updated January 2010. Scientists listed by doctoral degree
.
.[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]or ..[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]..[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]current position. ..
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]..[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]..[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]Philip Skell Emeritus, Evan Pugh Prof. of Chemistry, Pennsylvania State University Member of the National Academy of Sciences
Lyle H. Jensen Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Biological Structure & Dept. of Biochemistry University of Washington, Fellow AAAS
Maciej Giertych Full Professor, Institute of Dendrology Polish Academy of Sciences
Lev Beloussov Prof. of Embryology, Honorary Prof., Moscow State University Member, Russian Academy of Natural Sciences
Eugene Buff Ph.D. Genetics Institute of Developmental Biology, Russian Academy of Sciences
Emil Palecek Prof. of Molecular Biology, Masaryk University; Leading Scientist Inst. of Biophysics, Academy of Sci., Czech Republic
K. Mosto Onuoha Shell Professor of Geology & Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Univ. of Nigeria Fellow, Nigerian Academy of Science
Ferenc Jeszenszky Former Head of the Center of Research Groups Hungarian Academy of Sciences
M.M. Ninan Former President Hindustan Academy of Science, Bangalore University (India)
Denis Fesenko Junior Research Fellow, Engelhardt Institute of Molecular Biology Russian Academy of Sciences (Russia)
Sergey I. Vdovenko Senior Research Assistant, Department of Fine Organic Synthesis Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry and Petrochemistry
Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences (Ukraine)
Henry Schaefer Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry University of Georgia
Paul Ashby Ph.D. Chemistry Harvard University
Israel Hanukoglu Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Chairman The College of Judea and Samaria (Israel)
Alan Linton Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology University of Bristol (UK)
Dean Kenyon Emeritus Professor of Biology San Francisco State University
David W. Forslund Ph.D. Astrophysics, Princeton University Fellow of American Physical Society
Robert W. Bass Ph.D. Mathematics (also: Rhodes Scholar; Post-Doc at Princeton) Johns Hopkins University
John Hey Associate Clinical Prof. (also: Fellow, American Geriatrics Society) Dept. of Family Medicine, Univ. of Mississippi
Daniel W. Heinze Ph.D. Geophysics (also: Post-Doc Fellow, Carnegie Inst. of Washington) Texas A&M University
Richard Anderson Assistant Professor of Environmental Science and Policy Duke University
David Chapman* Senior Scientist Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Giuseppe Sermonti Professor of Genetics, Ret. (Editor, Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum) University of Perugia (Italy)
Stanley Salthe Emeritus Professor Biological Sciences Brooklyn College of the City University of New York
Marcos N. Eberlin Professor, The State University of Campinas (Brazil) Member, Brazilian Academy of Science
..[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]..
A S
CIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM—1

 

[Quirk11]

Blade has not begun the real philosophical "assault" on supposed science and "proven theories."

The whole search for grand unifying theory demonstrates that all physics is CONTRADICTORY on some levels. Einstein's equations and quantum theories don't agree. This is why people have been searching for answers. Right now membrane theory: that we live on infinite membranes floating in infinite multiverses is the best answer.

How crazy is that?

In the end , we really "know" very little and the existence of membrane theory is proof.

Membrane theory certainly allows a role for faith. I do agree however, that picking the right faith is tough, ie how do you know that Mormons or Protestants or Muslims are right?

It's tough, but I would rather believe than not. For those who think that science has answers, that is also a faith...

Blade's posting is like a logical fallacy tornado of argumentum ad populum, argumentum ad ignorantiam, and argumentum ad nauseam all rolled into one. What's even sadder is that it makes newbies like me slightly more hesitant to take his experience/advice/pubmed spam re: anesthesia at face value when his ability to assess degrees of evidence seems so flawed.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Is the theory of evolution a fact?


I'd like to emphasize upfront that – despite many claims – evolution (Darwin's theory of evolution) is NOT a fact. Neither evolution (or creation) is a natural law or a scientific fact, each is merely a model. What does this mean? The process of evolution (just as the act of creation) cannot be observed or repeated, so both models remain unproved by science. Therefore neither can be called a natural law (such as the law of gravity or the laws of thermodynamics, which describe well proved and observed behavior subject to laws of nature) nor a scientific theory (which requires the possibility and evidence of repeated observations). So evolution – just as creation – is only a model used to explain the observations in the world as we know it. It is not a fact, not a natural law, not even a scientific theory, but just a model!

 

[BLADEMDA]

Is Evolution just another false religion?

So, WHY still believe in evolution? Why does the scientific world still want to convince us - after 150 years of unsuccessful looking for answers - that evolution is THE theory that explains our existence or is even a FACT?
I believe the answer is simple. Evolution has become a religion. Its adherents have based their personal convictions, values and above all comfortable lifestyle on this idea that we are just the product of time and chance. We are just an 'accident' and there is no God. Therefore we can do what we want and when we want it, because we are not accountable to anybody. We are our own gods and we should live life to achieve maximum pleasure.
Because evolution has become like a religion its adherents are also not really interested to be open-minded for criticism or alternative explanations. "What do you mean that you want to challenge the concepts of evolution? Evolution is a fact, so we do not need to prove it anymore!"

 

[countingdays]

We know that some factors in evolution theory remain unexplained. That doesn't make evolution theory wrong, just a work in progress. Luckily, science allows for incorporation of new data and rejection of false ideas.

We know for a fact that every religion is demonstrably false. Religions don't really adapt. If it's false, it's false, and they're all false. People may pick and choose beliefs within a religion or may try to find far-fetched ways to justify their untruths, but once you admit that the religion is wrong at all, you have no basis to believe any of it.

You should read this. I read it years ago, but I it disproves every common argument for religion, that's how I remember it anyway.

 

[BLADEMDA]

We know that some factors in evolution theory remain unexplained. That doesn't make evolution theory wrong, just a work in progress. Luckily, science allows for incorporation of new data and rejection of false ideas.

We know for a fact that every religion is demonstrably false. Religions don't really adapt. If it's false, it's false, and they're all false. People may pick and choose beliefs within a religion or may try to find far-fetched ways to justify their untruths, but once you admit that the religion is wrong at all, you have no basis to believe any of it.

You should read this. I read it years ago, but I it disproves every common argument for religion, that's how I remember it anyway.

I'm glad we can be civil during this discussion. I'm not saying you need to believe in anything or anyone; just look at the evidence for the religion known as evolution.

When I was a Med Student I believed in Evolution. Religion and Faith were mere myths. I didn't have the time or inclination to question dogma or status quo. These days it isn't religion that's the dogma: It's quasi-science like Evolution.

Ultimately, it is an individual's choice and freedom to decide on his/her own belief system. All I'm asking is that you examine that system and make sure it's your own.

 

[BLADEMDA]

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."
― Bertrand Russell


"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts."
― Bertrand Russell

 

[BLADEMDA]

We want to stand upon our own feet and look fair and square at the world -- its good facts, its bad facts, its beauties, and its ugliness; see the world as it is and be not afraid of it. Conquer the world by intelligence and not merely by being slavishly subdued by the terror that comes from it. The whole conception of God is a conception derived from the ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men. When you hear people in church debasing themselves and saying that they are miserable sinners, and all the rest of it, it seems contemptible and not worthy of self-respecting human beings. We ought to stand up and look the world frankly in the face. We ought to make the best we can of the world, and if it is not so good as we wish, after all it will still be better than what these others have made of it in all these ages. A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men. It needs a fearless outlook and a free intelligence. It needs hope for the future, not looking back all the time toward a past that is dead, which we trust will be far surpassed by the future that our intelligence can create.

Bertrand Russell

 

[Valadi]

Evolution has become a religion. Its adherents have based their personal convictions, values and above all comfortable lifestyle on this idea that we are just the product of time and chance. We are just an 'accident' and there is no God. Therefore we can do what we want and when we want it, because we are not accountable to anybody. We are our own gods and we should live life to achieve maximum pleasure.

I love that argument because I find it so terribly derogatory to humans and their intrinsic value systems. Are you saying that the only thing keeping you from hedonism, theft, and worse crimes is the threat of punishment in the afterlife? This is equivalent to saying that if heroin was legalized today we should all go out and stick our veins. I bet almost no one reading this now would even try to do that.

More to the point, evolution has not caused man to abandon morality and altruism. If anything, it has created a framework which tells us that our concepts of morality can grow and change even if they are not perfect right now.

God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years: Creationism

Man has developed over millions of years, but God guided this process: Theistic Evolution

Man has developed over millions of years, but God had no part in this process: Naturalistic Evolution

I can imagine the first two worlds... but not without great horror. To the point of this thread, I frankly discredit the concept of a divine creator by knowing that if one did exist he would be the most cruel, malignant, and remarkably inefficient being to have ever existed. I certainly cannot disprove that there is a metaphysical entity pulling the strings on our universe with the ineptitude and vindictive curiosity of a child, but my concepts of morality do not exclude a "God" from their realm. This leads me to search for other alternatives. Evolution has only had 150 years to gather evidence while the three great religions have had thousands. It does not yet have all the answers, but I do not think anyone who has even a basic fundamental understanding of the theory would argue it is fact. As it stands, it is just more likely, fair, and just, than any other theory.

 

[FiremedicMike]

Your 'arguments' are basically just a list of logical fallacies.

The argument from ignorance is the central fallacy of all creationist thought.

Blade's posting is like a logical fallacy tornado of argumentum ad populum, argumentum ad ignorantiam, and argumentum ad nauseam all rolled into one. What's even sadder is that it makes newbies like me slightly more hesitant to take his experience/advice/pubmed spam re: anesthesia at face value when his ability to assess degrees of evidence seems so flawed.

And in one rapid succession of posts, I lost all respect for Blade's sense of logic and reasoning!

But our differences are what makes us fun, so more power to you my god-fearing friend.

85% of those who don't believe in evolution would fail a basic quiz on evolution and would also fail a quiz on the religion they think they believe in.

I think the thing that annoys me the most about atheists/evolutionists is their smug arrogance towards anyone who disagrees with their line of thinking.

 

[hoyden]

I love that argument because I find it so terribly derogatory to humans and their intrinsic value systems. Are you saying that the only thing keeping you from hedonism, theft, and worse crimes is the threat of punishment in the afterlife? This is equivalent to saying that if heroin was legalized today we should all go out and stick our veins. I bet almost no one reading this now would even try to do that.

Actually it is well known scientific truism, that evolution of moral values of humankind is based on the evolution of religion 😀

 

[Trisomy13]

I think the thing that annoys me the most about atheists/evolutionists is their smug arrogance towards anyone who disagrees with their line of thinking.

It's matched only by the condescending and patronizing tone I hear coming from many religious folks. One thing is sure, we're all gonna die, so enjoy it while it lasts.

Here's a fun holiday video!

[YOUTUBE]BbL9Vsobx8I[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Valadi]

Actually it is well known scientific truism, that evolution of moral values of humankind is based on the evolution of religion 😀

I didn't say that morality failed to evolve with religion, or vice-versa. Indeed, Immanuel Kant, John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume (empiricist philosophers who laid the foundation for logical morality) included in their work a place for God (and some even required it), but that evolution provided a conceptualization of this fact -- that abstract thoughts can change and adapt with time.

Edit: It should also be noted that the founder of western philosophy, Socrates, was distinctly secular.

 

[ArMed]

Evolutionism vs. Creationism??? Truthfully, who cares? If what you're looking for is the Ultimate Answer, that has already been established as a firm 42. But seriously, as someone with a strong religious upbringing and background, I've come to realize one thing...none of it makes any difference. I honestly think that radical belief in ANYTHING is silly and a waste of energy. I personally hope Job never really existed, for his own sake, and pity anyone who quotes the book.

You can pray if it makes you feel better, you can study fossils if that's your thing, but know this; there will NEVER be proof that God, Allah, Vishnu, Jah, Jehovah, Jesus, Moses or Darwin are listening to your prayers. Proselytizing is only useful for making enemies. The ONLY reason I can see why establishing a set of beliefs is important is with regards to a specific value system you might want to imbue in your children, and no one is better than the next.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Evolutionism vs. Creationism??? Truthfully, who cares? If what you're looking for is the Ultimate Answer, that has already been established as a firm 42. But seriously, as someone with a strong religious upbringing and background, I've come to realize one thing...none of it makes any difference. I honestly think that radical belief in ANYTHING is silly and a waste of energy. I personally hope Job never really existed, for his own sake, and pity anyone who quotes the book.

You can pray if it makes you feel better, you can study fossils if that's your thing, but know this; there will NEVER be proof that God, Allah, Vishnu, Jah, Jehovah, Jesus, Moses or Darwin are listening to your prayers. Proselytizing is only useful for making enemies. The ONLY reason I can see why establishing a set of beliefs is important is with regards to a specific value system you might want to imbue in your children, and no one is better than the next.

Really? Beliefs aren't important? Morals? Values? Tell that to these guys:

 

[BLADEMDA]

a specific value system you might want to imbue in your children, and no one is better than the next.QUOTE]

Really? How about this value system?

 

[BLADEMDA]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Love Your Neighbor as Yourself.​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]And one of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that He had answered them well, asked Him, "What commandment is the foremost of all?" Jesus answered, .[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]"The foremost is, 'Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.' "The second is this, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these.".[FONT=Arial, Helvetica] .[FONT=Arial, Helvetica](NAS, Mark 12:28-31).
​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]In Jesus' teachings, our relationship with our fellow men, women and children is inseparable from our relationship with God. Love of God and love of our neighbors are two aspects of the same calling:.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.".[FONT=Arial, Helvetica] .[FONT=Arial, Helvetica](NIV, John 13:34-35).

​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Who is my Neighbor?.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]We commonly think of neighbors as the people who live near us, but Jesus meant it to include all mankind - even our enemies! Jesus told His famous parable of the Good Samaritan to make it clear that "love your neighbor" means to love all persons, everywhere - not just our friends, allies, countrymen, etc.:.

 

[BLADEMDA]

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

 

[countingdays]

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheistSurveys.htm


A 1999 Gallup poll conducted to determine Americans' willingness to tolerate a Jewish president (Joseph Lieberman was the Democratic candidate for Vice President at the time). Here are the percentages of people saying they would refuse to vote for "a generally well-qualified person for president" on the basis of some characteristic; in parenthesis are the figures for earlier years:

• Catholic: 4% (1937: 30%)
  Black: 5% (1958: 63%, 1987: 21%)
  Jewish: 6% (1937: 47%)
  Baptist: 6%
  Woman: 8%
  Mormon: 17%
  Muslim: 38%
  Gay: 37% (1978: 74%)
  Atheist: 48%

 

[BLADEMDA]

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheistSurveys.htm






A 1999 Gallup poll conducted to determine Americans' willingness to tolerate a Jewish president (Joseph Lieberman was the Democratic candidate for Vice President at the time). Here are the percentages of people saying they would refuse to vote for "a generally well-qualified person for president" on the basis of some characteristic; in parenthesis are the figures for earlier years:

• Catholic: 4% (1937: 30%)
  Black: 5% (1958: 63%, 1987: 21%)
  Jewish: 6% (1937: 47%)
  Baptist: 6%
  Woman: 8%
  Mormon: 17%
  Muslim: 38%
  Gay: 37% (1978: 74%)
  Atheist: 48%

I'm suprised the "jewish" category was only 6%. I suspect that's much higher. I'm not suprised about the atheist category. Voters don't trust atheists.

The only party I see nominating an openly "Gay", Muslim or Atheist person is the Democrat party. I hope the GOP base understands that it needs a Mormon guy named Romney this go around to defeat Obama.

 

[BLADEMDA]

I'm only quoting scripture to make a point about value systems and their importance on one's beliefs and actions.

 

[Robert Loblaw]

with all due respect to an otherwise intellectually savvy poster...this is just another sad story of a scientist whose disdain for the contradiction between what he was told when he was young and what he has learned when is old is exceeded only by his fear of eternal damnation.

 

[powermd]

I love that argument because I find it so terribly derogatory to humans and their intrinsic value systems. Are you saying that the only thing keeping you from hedonism, theft, and worse crimes is the threat of punishment in the afterlife? This is equivalent to saying that if heroin was legalized today we should all go out and stick our veins. I bet almost no one reading this now would even try to do that.

More to the point, evolution has not caused man to abandon morality and altruism. If anything, it has created a framework which tells us that our concepts of morality can grow and change even if they are not perfect right now.



I can imagine the first two worlds... but not without great horror. To the point of this thread, I frankly discredit the concept of a divine creator by knowing that if one did exist he would be the most cruel, malignant, and remarkably inefficient being to have ever existed. I certainly cannot disprove that there is a metaphysical entity pulling the strings on our universe with the ineptitude and vindictive curiosity of a child, but my concepts of morality do not exclude a "God" from their realm. This leads me to search for other alternatives. Evolution has only had 150 years to gather evidence while the three great religions have had thousands. It does not yet have all the answers, but I do not think anyone who has even a basic fundamental understanding of the theory would argue it is fact. As it stands, it is just more likely, fair, and just, than any other theory.

Good post.

 

[BLADEMDA]

with all due respect to an otherwise intellectually savvy poster...this is just another sad story of a scientist whose disdain for the contradiction between what he was told when he was young and what he has learned when is old is exceeded only by his fear of eternal damnation.

You are welcome to your opinions. I can handle it. But it isn't a sad story at all. It's a joyful one.

Belief systems matter not just in the next world to come but in this one as well. Even if you can't embrace the Son of God himself why not embrace the message?

One doesn't have to be a Christian to understand the value of human life, all human life:


Whoever destroys a soul, it is considered as if he destroyed an entire world. And whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world.
- Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5; Babylonian Talmud Tractate Sanhedrin 37a

 

[perpetual labor]

Why can't we simply accept the Torah/Koran/Bible as parables, and as a means to guide a group of people towards peace and morality? I like to think that these were books written by well-intended (mortal) human beings. Anything more requires a lot of faith, a lot of imagination, and is cause for war, murder, hate, homophobia, and so many other horrid things.

A god is not disprovable, and evolution is not an unquestioned law. Organized religion, however, is terrifyingly evil. It's more divisive than uniting.

“Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”

-Marcus Aurelius

 

[perpetual labor]

...and those "quizzes" you posted were baseless propaganda. They don't belong in this type of discussion. Yikes.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Why can't we simply accept the Torah/Koran/Bible as parables, and as a means to guide a group of people towards peace and morality? I like to think that these were books written by well-intended (mortal) human beings. Anything more requires a lot of faith, a lot of imagination, and is cause for war, murder, hate, homophobia, and so many other horrid things.

A god is not disprovable, and evolution is not an unquestioned law. Organized religion, however, is terrifyingly evil. It's more divisive than uniting.

"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."

-Marcus Aurelius

If your religion is "terrifyingly evil" then you need to re-evalute your belief system. Faith isn't a source for evil it's the foundation for doing good in this world.



Jesus taught, "You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also (Mt 5:38-39).

 

[BLADEMDA]

...and those "quizzes" you posted were baseless propaganda. They don't belong in this type of discussion. Yikes.

I disagree. The quizzes were fun and I passed the one on Evolution. How about you?

 

[BLADEMDA]

...and those "quizzes" you posted were baseless propaganda. They don't belong in this type of discussion. Yikes.

I'm sure you will think the quote below doesn't belong in this discussion either. However, you would be wrong. The whole point of Faith is to move beyond organized religion and rules into a real belief system:



Luke 10:30-37 Jesus answered, "A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who both stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. By chance a certain priest was going down that way. When he saw him, he passed by on the other side. In the same way a Levite also, when he came to the place, and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he traveled, came where he was. When he saw him, he was moved with compassion, came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. He set him on his own animal, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, and gave them to the host, and said to him, ‘Take care of him. Whatever you spend beyond that, I will repay you when I return.’ Now which of these three do you think seemed to be a neighbor to him who fell among the robbers?" He said, "He who showed mercy on him." Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise."

 

[Intubate]

I find this whole thread disturbing. You present yourself as someone who uses evidence to make your decisions. You often post articles to support your opinions. Do you have any peer reviewed articles (from legitimate publications) that present evidence refuting evolution? I mean other than the Bible, or posts from the answers in Genesis website, or a list of religious weirdos that reject mountains of objective evidence that clearly refute their mythical, nonsensical beliefs.

 

[vector2]

Cognitive dissonance truly is a wondrous thing. Blade would have no problem accepting that a mutation in the gene encoding MCR1 necessitates that some redheads might need more anesthesia, but yet he would go through mental gymnastics to explain away the fact that humans have 23 chromosomes instead of 24 (like chimps and other closely related hominids) because our chromosome 2 is a fused hybrid of chromosomes from a common ape ancestor.

All members of Hominidae except humans have 24 pairs of chromosomes. Humans have only 23 pairs of chromosomes. Human chromosome 2 is widely accepted to be a result of an end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes.[3][4]

Fusion of ancestral chromosomes left distinctive remnants of telomeres, and a vestigial centromere


The evidence for this includes:

The correspondence of chromosome 2 to two ape chromosomes. The closest human relative, the chimpanzee, has near-identical DNA sequences to human chromosome 2, but they are found in two separate chromosomes. The same is true of the more distant gorilla and orangutan.[5][6]

The presence of a vestigial centromere. Normally a chromosome has just one centromere, but in chromosome 2 there are remnants of a second centromere.[7]

The presence of vestigial telomeres. These are normally found only at the ends of a chromosome, but in chromosome 2 there are additional telomere sequences in the middle.[8]

Chromosome 2 presents very strong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes. According to researcher J. W. IJdo, "We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2."

 

[vector2]

There was a wisecrack earlier about the evidence for evolution not being on pubmed, and to certain extent this is true....but not in the way most would think. Pubmed does not reflect basic high school level evidence for evolution, but instead reflects the notion that evolution is so crucial and has been the foundation of modern biology and medicine for so long that a search for evolution on its database returns 15,000 pages worth of hits related to specific evolutionary queries within all branches and subbranches of the biological sciences.

For instance, have you ever wondered why child birth is so difficult if humans were intricately and purposefully designed?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15654501

Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2005 Jul-Aug;16(4):315-20. Epub 2005 Jan 15.

Evolution of the female pelvis and relationships to pelvic organ prolapse.

Schimpf M, Tulikangas P.
Source
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, 06030, USA. [email protected]
Abstract

The female pelvis provides support for the lower limbs as well as for the gastrointestinal tract, the bladder, and the reproductive organs. It must also serve as a passageway for defecation, urination, and, possibly, delivery of an infant. The bones, ligaments, and muscles of the human female pelvis have evolved from our early ancestors. Pelvic organ prolapse may occur because of the limitations involved with adapting the pelvic bones, muscles, and ligaments previously used for other purposes into a supportive role. Here we review these changing roles and functions of nonhuman primate and human female anatomy.

full text

Adaptations for childbirth

The evolution of the human birth canal compared to that of the quadruped seems to be a by-product of bipedalism instead of facilitating parturition [8]. In most primates and even the hominids, the birth canal is essentially a straight, horizontal tube and the sacrum lacks any of the significant concavity of the human [7, 8]. In monkeys, the pelvic inlet and outlet are largest in the sagittal plane, but the long axes of the inlet and outlet are perpendicular in the human pelvis [8]. Because of that curvature, the human birth canal requires multiple maneuvers during labor of both the fetal head and shoulders that may lead to complications with malpresentation or macrosomia. This is distinct from even our close hominid relatives [8]. As the sacrum widened over time, the obstetric passageway increased in size, possibly to accommodate the progressively larger fetal head measured throughout time [2, 7, 8, 19, 28]. Despite all the facilitative changes, the medial prominence of the ischial spines, as previously mentioned, confirms that obstetric factors do not dominate evolution [2].

Coronal views show the human pelvis to be gynecoid in about half of women, which may be related to timing of initiation of ambulation and early athletic activity more than other factors [29, 30]. The chimp is typically anthropoid and the Macaca monkey oftentimes android [13]. Lucy and the other hominids are platypelloid [8].

The largest area of the monkey birth canal is posterior and the largest diameter of the fetal head is the occiput, which may explain why most monkey neonates deliver from the occiput posterior or mentum anterior positions [8]. Humans, though, have adequate anterior area in the birth canal due to the shape of the pelvis and the rotation of the birth canal and deliver more frequently from the occiput anterior position [8, 31]. It is not clear if Macaca monkeys have more anterior or posterior prolapse.

There is a close size relationship between the maternal pelvis and fetal head for humans, Macaca monkeys, and gibbons, but the fetal head is much smaller than the maternal pelvis for orangutans, chimps, and gorillas [8]. Macaca monkeys have been noted to have neonatal death secondary to cephalopelvic disproportion when delivering in the wild, but larger apes seem to have an easier course of labor and delivery [8]. Species with narrow birth canals and large-headed fetuses, such as humans and some hominids, typically have sexually dimorphic traits, including variations in the ventral length of the pubis and the outline of the obturator foramen, which is framed by the pubis and the ischium [13, 28].

Conclusions

Prolapse remains a multifactorial dilemma. A review of the role of evolution on shaping the human female pelvis confirms that the conversion to a dedicated erect, bipedal lifestyle has impacted pelvic structure perhaps more than any other factor, balanced to some degree by obstetric requirements. Understanding adaptations of the skeleton and muscles of the pelvis helps us to understand their role in pelvic support. A narrow birth canal, which may make a vaginal delivery difficult, could later decrease the risk of pelvic organ prolapse. Avoiding injury to the perineum or reconstruction of the perineum if it is injured could help to preserve its role in support. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, maintaining or rehabilitating levator muscle bulk and strength may be the key to preventing many cases of pelvic organ prolapse. All of these topics present ideas for future study.

 

[vector2]

Blade- I take it you agree that in the healthcare field mid-levels do not have the same education, training, or skillset of physicians in the same specialty (we've all seen the x% of DNPs failed a simplified step 3 headline). Can you honestly say that you have been able to objectively evaluate the evidence for evolution and come to your conclusions when in all likelihood you would flunk an upper-level undergrad exam on comparative anatomy or phylogenetics?

 

[FiremedicMike]

I find this whole thread disturbing. You present yourself as someone who uses evidence to make your decisions. You often post articles to support your opinions. Do you have any peer reviewed articles (from legitimate publications) that present evidence refuting evolution? I mean other than the Bible, or posts from the answers in Genesis website, or a list of religious weirdos that reject mountains of objective evidence that clearly refute their mythical, nonsensical beliefs.

I find it disturbing how many posters have lashed out against a well respected attending physician on this forum and proclaimed that everything he has ever said has been complete bull**** and he is obviously a total ***** simply because he believes in God and creationism. Pretty far reaching conclusions if you ask me.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Blade- I take it you agree that in the healthcare field mid-levels do not have the same education, training, or skillset of physicians in the same specialty (we've all seen the x% of DNPs failed a simplified step 3 headline). Can you honestly say that you have been able to objectively evaluate the evidence for evolution and come to your conclusions when in all likelihood you would flunk an upper-level undergrad exam on comparative anatomy or phylogenetics?

Wow. Now, I would flunk my basic exams. My USLME scores were very good. I also crushed my Written and Oral Board Exams. I understand anatomy, genetics and evolution quite well. I simply disagree with evolution as the source for why we are here as human beings.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Two million years ago somewhere in Africa, a small group of individuals became separated from other australopithecines. This population bottleneck led to a series of sudden, interrelated changes -- in body size, brain size, skeletal proportions, and behavior -- that jump-started the evolution of our species.
That is the conclusion of a new University of Michigan study published in the current (January 2000) issue of Molecular Biology and Evolution that analyzes a broad range of genetic, fossil, and archeological evidence to decipher the most likely scenario for the start of human evolution.
The analysis, by researchers at the U-M Department of Anthropology, is the first to examine the full spectrum of paleontological, archeological, and genetic evidence available, each reflecting a different part of the puzzle of human origins. By estimating the ranges of error in the different types of evidence, the researchers were able to narrow down the common, overlapping areas of agreement to construct an explanation that disproves some high-profile recent theories and supports one of the oldest modern versions of the origin of homo sapiens.
"All the available evidence supports an 'Out of Africa' theory, that humans first evolved in Africa about two million years ago, then spread to other regions of the world," says John Hawks, first author of the paper and now an assistant professor of anthropology at the University of Utah. "This original population lived before humans colonized regions outside of Africa. In fact, it was the act of becoming human that made these colonizations possible."
Examining the anatomical evidence, the authors, including U-M anthropologist Milford Wolpoff, conclude that a "genetic revolution" took place in a small group isolated from other australopithecines. "The earliest H. sapiens remains differ significantly from australopithecines in both size and anatomical details," notes Wolpoff. "Insofar as we can tell, these changes were sudden and not gradual."
A second reason for suspecting that a population bottleneck led to a rapid genetic reorganization that started the process of human evolution comes from archeological evidence of a series of behavioral changes suggestive of a new adaptive pattern of hunting, gathering and scavenging. "Body size is a key element in these behavioral changes," the authors note, "because of the locomotor changes that large body size denotes, and the increased metabolic resources it requires." These behavioral changes are far more massive and sudden than any earlier changes known for hominids, they point out.
According to the researchers, the available genetic data do not disprove a simple model of exponential population growth following a bottleneck two million years ago and extending through the Pleistocene Epoch, when ice covered much of North America and Europe. But they are incompatible with a more recent population-size bottleneck.
"Many details of subsequent human evolution over the period of the ice ages remain unclear, but one certain finding from both anthropological and genetic data is that there was no later time when the size of the human species became small again," says Hawks. "So the 'Eve theory' of modern human origins, which states that modern human populations very recently arose as a new African species that replaced all other indigenous peoples such as Neanderthals, can be put to rest."
Co-authors of the study with Hawks and Wolpoff are Keith Hunley, U-M Department of Anthropology, and Sang-Hee Lee, Department of Biosystems Science, Graduate University for Advanced Studies, Hayama, Kanagawa, Japan.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Mitochondrial Eve Theory states that the mitochondrial DNA in all humans is inherited from one common female ancestor in Africa ~200,000 years ago. This is just one of several theories about human evolution that are being debated and this is the only theory that will be discussed in this presentation.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wS1za00mMM

 

[BLADEMDA]

­In 1987, a group of genet­icists published a surprising study in the journal Nature.­ The­ researchers examined the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) taken from 147 people across all of today's major racial groups. These researchers found that the lineage of all people alive today falls on one of two branches in humanity's family tree. One of these branches consists of nothing but African lineage, the other contains all other groups, including some African lineage.
­Even more impressive, the geneticists concluded that every person on Earth right now can trace his or her lineage back to a single common female ancestor who lived around 200,000 years ago. Because one entire branch of human lineage is of African origin and the other contains African lineage as well, the study's authors concluded Africa is the place where this woman lived. The scientists named this common female ancestor Mitochondrial Eve.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Richard Klein, a paleoanthropologist at Stanford University,

has offered a controversial theory: The modern mind is the

result of a rapid genetic change. He puts the date of the change

at around 50,000 years ago, pointing out that the rise of cultural

artifacts comes after that date, as does the spread of modern

humans from Africa. The evolution of the modern mind allowed

humans to thrive as never before, Klein argues, and soon even

a continent as huge as Africa could not contain their expanding

population.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Still, science does contradict a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis in the Bible—on the origin of the universe—which says that God created heaven and the Earth and the species on it in six days.
Scientific evidence shows that the universe was actually formed about 13.7 billion years ago, while the Earth was formed around 4.5 billion years ago. The first humans date back only a hundred thousand years or so.

RELATED


Like other scientists of faith, Primack, who is Jewish and reads the Bible regularly, argues that the Bible must not be taken literally, but should be read allegorically.
"One simply cannot read the Bible as a scientific text, because it's often contradictory," Primack said. "For example, in the Bible, Noah takes two animals and puts them on the Ark. But in a later section, he takes seven pairs of animals. If this is the literal word of God, was God confused when He wrote it?"
Proving God
Science is young. The term "scientist" may not even have been coined until 1833. Ironically, modern physics initially sought to explain the clockwork of God's creation. Geology grew partly out of a search for evidence of Noah's Flood.
Today few scientists seem to think much about religion in their research. Many are reluctant to stray outside their area of expertise and may not feel a need to invoke God in their work.
"Most scientists like to operate in the context of economy," said Brian Greene, a world-renowned physicist and author of The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality. "If you don't need an explanatory principle, don't invoke it."
There is, of course, no way to prove religious faith scientifically. And it's hard to envision a test that could tell the difference between a universe created by God and one that appeared without God.
"There's no way that scientists can ever rule out religion, or even have anything significant to say about the abstract idea of a divine creator," Greene said.
Instead, Greene said, science and religion can operate in different realms. "Science is very good at answering the 'how' questions. How did the universe evolve to the form that we see?" he said. "But it is woefully inadequate in addressing the 'why' questions. Why is there a universe at all? These are the meaning questions, which many people think religion is particularly good at dealing with."
But is a clean separation between science and religion possible? Some scientific work, including such hot topics as stem cell research, has moral and religious implications.
"Religion is about ethics, or what you should do, while science is about what's true," Primack said. "Those are different things, but of course what you should do is greatly determined by what's true."
Natural Laws
In a 1997 survey in the science journal Nature, 40 percent of U.S. scientists said they believe in God—not just a creator, but a God to whom one can pray in expectation of an answer. That is the same percentage of scientists who were believers when the survey was taken 80 years earlier.
But the number may have been higher if the question had simply asked about God's existence. While many scientists seem to have no problem with deism—the belief that God set the universe in motion and then walked away—others are more troubled with the concept of an intervening God.
"Every piece of data that we have indicates that the universe operates according to unchanging, immutable laws that don't allow for the whimsy or divine choice to all of a sudden change things in a manner that those laws wouldn't have allowed to happen on their own," Greene said.
Yet recent breakthroughs in chaos theory and quantum mechanics, for example, also suggest that the workings of the universe cannot be predicted with absolute precision.
To many scientists, their discoveries may not be that different from religious revelations. Science advancements may even draw scientists closer to religion.
"Even as science progresses in its reductionist fashion, moving towards deeper, simpler, and more elegant understandings of particles and forces, there will still remain a 'why' at the end as to why the ultimate rules are the way they are," said Ted Sargent, a nanotechnology expert at the University of Toronto.
"This is where many people will find God, and the fact of having a final unanswerable 'why' will not go away, even if the 'why' gets more and more fundamental as we progress," he said.
Brian Greene believes we are taking giant strides toward understanding the deepest laws of the universe. That, he says, has strengthened his belief in the underlying harmony and order of the cosmos."The universe is incredibly wondrous, incredibly beautiful, and it fills me with a sense that there is some underlying explanation that we have yet to fully understand," he said. "If someone wants to place the word God on those collections of words, it's OK with me."

 

[BLADEMDA]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtQH_ni2U2c

2 minute video on Creationism and Evolution.

 

[btbam]

Do you really expect people to read a cut and pasted wall of text in different fonts and sizes with no paragraph breaks?

Sorry I'm not going to. Instead of posting dozens of articles, why don't you put together an essay that summarizes your argument Blade and you can cite all of these papers in your references.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Do you really expect people to read a cut and pasted wall of text in different fonts and sizes with no paragraph breaks?

Sorry I'm not going to. Instead of posting dozens of articles, why don't you put together an essay that summarizes your argument Blade and you can cite all of these papers in your references.

I'm responding to various posters, questions, statements, etc. If this thread doesn't interest you why bother reading it all/? Just avoid the thread entirely.

 

[BLADEMDA]

The Hebrew word for "day" is the word "Yom." Young earth creationists have always argued that the word used for the days of creation can only mean a 24-hour day. In this article, we will examine the uses of Yom in the Old Testament, and show that it can mean a wide variety of time periods.
First, one must understand that the Hebrew language is not nearly as diverse as our English language. Whereas our vocabulary is around half a million, the Hebrew language has only 8,700 words. The French language, one of the poorest modern languages in vocabulary and the language of choice for diplomats, has just about 40,000 words or over 4 times the amount of words that Ancient Hebrew has.
Many of the Hebrew words could be considered duplicates with only slight differences. Thus, words which contain multiple meanings are common. Such is the case with the word Yom

http://www.answersincreation.org/word_study_yom.htm

 

[BLADEMDA]

Neanderthal Culture

There are a large number of cultural habits that distance Homo sapiens from animals. No other organisms, either living or fossil, made tools to make other complex tools, buried their dead, had controlled use of fire, practiced religious ceremonies, used complex syntax in their spoken grammar, and played musical instruments, yet we know from their fossils that Neanderthal engaged in all.
Deliberate burial of Neanderthal remains is well known from at least 36 sites with a geographical distribution over most of Eurasia (Gowlett, 1994), with at least 20 complete skeletons known (Lewin, 1998). Some graves have stone tools, animal bones, and flowers buried in the ground, along with the Neanderthal remains. At the Uzbekistan Neanderthal site of Teshik-Tash, is a boy's grave surrounded by a ring of mountain goat bones, horns, and levallois tools indicating ritualism of some sort. Burial is known to have occurred in an unnatural posture, which demonstrates that a corpse was not simply dropped into a hole in the earth without preparation (Trinkaus and Shipman, 1992). Burial implies an awareness of the after life and demonstrates the existence of formal ritual. Indication of strong social ties can be inferred from cases where Neanderthal individuals with severe crippling injuries were cared for (i.e., the Shanidar remains).
In 1996, pristine evidence of Neanderthal humanness came to light, when a cave in Slovenia produced a small flute made from the thigh bone of a cave bear. Four precisely aligned holes are punctured on one side of the four-inch-long bone (Folger and Menon, 1997). Thus cultural evidence strongly supports Neanderthal humanness.
Neanderthal (mitochondrial) DNA

The recent recovery of mitochondrial DNA from the right humerus of the Neanderthal remains from Neander Valley near Dusseldorf, Germany, has been of great interest to evolutionists and creationists alike (Krings et al., 1997).
Based on the comparison of modern human mt DNA and that taken from the Neanderthal, evolutionists have argued that the "Neanderthal line" diverged from the line of "hominids" leading to modern humans about 600,000 years B.P. without contributing mt DNA to modern Homo sapiens populations. This strongly implies that Neanderthals were a different species from modern humans.
However, the above noted interpretation is not scientifically justified. Lubenow (1998) has pointed out that the use of a statistical average of a large modern human sample (994 sequences from 1669 modern humans) compared with the mt DNA sequence from one Neanderthal is not appropriate. Furthermore, the mt DNA sequence differences among modern humans range from 1 to 24 substitutions, with an average of eight substitutions, whereas, the mt DNA sequence differences between modern man and the Neanderthal specimen range from 22 to 36 substitutions, placing Neanderthals, at worst, on the fringes of the modern range.
Conclusion

Neanderthals were human. They buried their dead, used tools, had a complex social structure, employed language, and played musical instruments. Neanderthal anatomy differences are extremely minor and can be for the most part explained as a result of a genetically isolated people that lived a rigorous life in a harsh, cold climate.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Top ten signs of Modern Evolution. I find this very interesting.


http://listverse.com/2009/01/05/top-10-signs-of-evolution-in-modern-man/





As so often happens with misconceptions, we hear the error and nothing else can undo it. The real differences between a Neanderthal and a human is that the Neanderthal was shorter on average, had stronger muscles, larger brains (yes – it's true), bigger chests and broader noses. If a Neanderthal was to be resurrected today, dressed in the latest fashion and put on a bus, no one would be the wiser.

 

[BLADEMDA]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...rthals-were-too-smart-for-their-own-good.html


Neanderthals were too smart for their own good

Neanderthals died out because they were too clever for their own good, research suggests.

Neanderthals died out because they were too clever for their own good,

 

[BLADEMDA]

I find it disturbing how many posters have lashed out against a well respected attending physician on this forum and proclaimed that everything he has ever said has been complete bull**** and he is obviously a total ***** simply because he believes in God and creationism. Pretty far reaching conclusions if you ask me.

This is a touchy subject for atheists and believers in classic evolution. There is simply so much we do not know and so much we keep revising about evolution.

I find the subject fascinating and see both sides of this argument. Yes, I really enjoy the science of where we come from and the study of ancient man. At the same time my belief system remains intact.

Both sides can actually learn from each other and the debate is a healthy one for real scientific argument/evidence. For example, not long ago Evolutionists believed Neanderthal man was an "ape-like" creature distinct from our species. Creationists and others have argued that Neanderthal man was human. In the end, the evolutionists agreed Neanderthal man did procreate with modern humans.


Neanderthals are classified either as a subspecies of Homo sapiens (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) or as a separate human species (Homo neanderthalensis).[1]

 

[countingdays]

This is a touchy subject for atheists and believers in classic evolution. There is simply so much we do not know and so much we keep revising about evolution.

I find the subject fascinating and see both sides of this argument. Yes, I really enjoy the science of where we come from and the study of ancient man. At the same time my belief system remains intact.

Both sides can actually learn from each other and the debate is a healthy one for real scientific argument/evidence. For example, not long ago Evolutionists believed Neanderthal man was an "ape-like" creature distinct from our species. Creationists and others have argued that Neanderthal man was human. In the end, the evolutionists agreed Neanderthal man did procreate with modern humans.


Neanderthals are classified either as a subspecies of Homo sapiens (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) or as a separate human species (Homo neanderthalensis).[1]

There isn't a debate because you produce no evidence whatsoever that anyone should believe in your religion. Attacking weaknesses in evolution theory is a good thing. Science grows through challenges and revision to theories, but you aren't proposing improvements in evolution theory. You have created a false dichotomy that leads to acceptance of a man-made religion.
Your assumption that if evolution is wrong, then Christianity must be right is a ridiculous leap. You don't seem to believe in the idea that there must be a God because evolution occurs too rapidly to be explained by our current observation of mutation rates and relative lack of gain-of-function mutations, you believe in a Judeo-Christian God with no evidence other than a work of fiction, full of internal contradictions, full of unethical and contradictory mandates, written by ignorant people thousands of years ago.
You want to frame this discussion as attack on evolution vs defense of evolution. How about you defend Christianity instead? At least there is physical evidence favoring evolution, however incomplete the theory currently is. There is nothing to support Christianity except words on a page written by people with the ability to imagine and the ability to lie and the desire to manipulate and control. Fossils are the remains of animals without the ability or desire to mislead. Which are more reasonable to believe?
Look at the world today. Consider the current world assuming Jesus was God vs a world where he was just a regular guy who had followers who told tall tales about his life. There is NO DIFFERENCE in the world today that you can point to that favors him being God. His complete lack of impact on the world or human nature makes the God theory unlikely. People invent stories of a second coming, or removal of original sin, of forgiveness of sins- all of which are conveniently invisible. The lion was supposed to lie down with the lamb, but instead- nothing happened.

Isaiah 11:6 Then the wolf shall be a guest of the lamb,
and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat;
The calf and the young lion shall browse together,
with a little child to guide them