Yes, it's another damned evolution question...

[Lincoln]

When someone says, "don't read whatshisname but read so-and-so" that is a pretty good indication that they are brainwashed. Why not weigh the evidence from all sides instead of measuring everything to fit into an preconceived mindset? I believe in creation and evolution as far as it has been proved. Objective thinking frees your mind. Discarding the very thorough research from a dreaded "creationist" only shows a fear of being proved wrong in your original view of the matter in question. Almost all the talkorigin objections are refuted and argued elsewhere. Of course if talkorigins is someone's Bible then I can understand why they would think of it as the last word.

[Sava]

Lincoln, how can you believe humans are spawned from two naked white people 6,000 years ago... AND... that evolution has merit? I'm confused... again...

I don't believe in either one as a universal law of nature or anything. I do think evolution has merit as it is based on years of research and impirical evidence. I don't think creationism myths in any religion have much merit. The most important thing when putting such ideas in perspective is the credibility of the author. Religious literature was written by humans. The question is: Who is more credible? Ancient religious leaders? Or scientists? I choose scientists because their methods for discovery are sound, logical, and well documented. Sure, nothing is 100%... but the theory of evolution makes sense and fits in line with years and years of research.

[Tolls]

In essence, you have a functioning hearing system which has gone through several iterations of improvement, a new system would have to start off as superior to the old system otherwise there would be no reason to be selected for...and I suspect the novelty factor would likely mean it was selected against. Mutations don't really work like that (in big leaps at one go), they're cumulative.

For the human family tree, we weren't static for a million years, since the branch heading towards us (separating from erectus) produced ergaster about 800,000 years ago, and the archaic us about 150-200,000 years ago. It wasn't a sudden big leap. The archaic "us" went through changes brought on by a population collapse around 90,000 years ago (possible volcanic eruption in Indonesia), and then by the ice age.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Once again, I am going to ask the old chestnut: how could free-will evolve?

Because intelligence evolved long before factual knowledge did, thereby leaving ample room for guessing!!!!!

[Sava]

On the free will issue: Assuming free-will does exist... Does anyone think animals have free will?

[Jack the Bodiless]

Lincoln:

There is a rather fundamental problem with creationist articles: they tend to cite "evidence" that does not actually exist. While many creationists are honest but ignorant, the movement is driven by fraud.

When engaging in debate, there is an assumption that both sides are presenting factual information. Christians, in particular, seem to have problems grasping the fact that a fellow Christian is lying to them.

What is the scientific explanation of the "vertical whale", for instance (a whale found fossilized in a vertical position, cutting straight through strata representing millions of years of deposition)? What about the "Hovind mammoth" (radiocarbon dating of the head end and the butt end give results thousands of years apart)? The explanation isn't a "scientific" one: these are creationist lies.

And so it goes...

[Lincoln]

Right, and evolutionists are always honest. I have seen lies and half-truths from both sides. Discarding research because it comes from someone who believes in God is simply biased.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Right, and evolutionists are always honest. I have seen lies and half-truths from both sides. Discarding research because it comes from someone who believes in God is simply biased.

Dishonest scientists will be turned on and roundly condemned by honest ones. Creationists have never exposed any dishonest scientists: their fellow scientists do that.

Whereas the admission of error and deceit is virtually unheard of among creationists. "Answers in Genesis" eventually produced a list of arguments that creationists should not use, but this was only because creationists using them kept getting shot down in flames.

And this has nothing to do with "belief in God". Plenty of theistic scientists do honest and worthwhile research. But none of those are creationists.

[dannubis]

Is what is considered to be "free will" not just the ability to make an abstraction of our surroundings and then use that abstraction to make choices. What I mean is that you need to be able to make an abstraction of a your surroundings in order to create a hypothtical situation resulting from a certain choice ?

[Lincoln]

Well I don't know what you are calling a "creationist" Jack. If you are talking about fanatics who reject all evidence then you have a point. But I believe that life was created by God and there is a great potential in that life to adapt and change over time. Does that make me a creationist or what?

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless

Dishonest scientists will be turned on and roundly condemned by honest ones. Creationists have never exposed any dishonest scientists: their fellow scientists do that.

Whereas the admission of error and deceit is virtually unheard of among creationists. "Answers in Genesis" eventually produced a list of arguments that creationists should not use, but this was only because creationists using them kept getting shot down in flames.

Now why do you assume that the corrections on one hand are motivated by truth and honesty and the other because they got caught? AIG did what you say only "honest" scientists do yet you say that their motives are impure while the other is the epitome of integrity (OK I exaggerated here

[Jack the Bodiless]

The term "creationist" generally means someone who believes that species were independently created ex nihilo in accordance with Genesis. They reject, not just evolution, but any form of common descent from shared ancestors over millions of years.

Many (though not all) also refuse to accept that the Earth is more than a few thousand years old.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Yes, they are. And as a random rearrangement of organs would almost certainly be fatal, mechanisms have evolved which tend to keep organs in pretty much the same configuration relative to each other: a configuration which works. This would be a better argument against "intelligent design" rather than evolution.

I think you are missing my point. Why is there no drastically different animal able to fill the same niche as mammals and be just as good as it? I suppose one has to go back much further to talk about this. For example, you point out that the ear mechanism comes from fish gills. Fair enough, but why was it only fish that were able to fill the niche of turning into mammals (eventually)?

Imagine two completely separate 'creation events' - ie. two points of origin for self-replicating organisms. Would they not have developed (evolved) completely different mechanisms for surviving in the various environments on Earth. Would you really expect them to look, externally and internally, the same? I would, so I think one has to come up with a mechanism to prevent this. For example, maybe the event is so rare that the first will always be sufficiently evolved to kill off the second.

But given only one 'origin' we still have a similar problem: why do very early branchings not produce equally successfull mutations to end up with 2 (or more) equally successfull species, filiing a similar niche, which are completely different? We have convergent evolution, but only between recently separated species.

To give even a relatively recent example: why not have an insect which fills the same role as a grazing mammal? The only problem I see with this would be the breathing mechanism, but presumably that is not too hard to get round.

To put my objection in other words. Why is there only one 'origin' of life on Earth, and why are all 'similar' enviromental niches filled by very closely related species?

[Jack the Bodiless]

Now why do you assume that the corrections on one hand are motivated by truth and honesty and the other because they got caught? AIG did what you say only "honest" scientists do yet to say that their motives are impure while the other is the epitome of integrity (OK I exaggerated here )

Because creationists have never succeeded in "catching" anyone. And it's highly unlikely that they ever will, given that real scientists are MUCH better equipped to catch scientific fraud.

...Whereas bogus creationist arguments circulate for years (and are still circulating).

[Lincoln]

Well I am not one then according to your definition. But anyway my eyes are getting blurry so I will have to go.

To answer Elok's question I can just say that no one will ever no for sure what is a true species transformation and what is not because the definition evolves as well! Even talkorigins admits this fact. As far as one kind of creature evolving into another the potential is obviously there. Their is greater potential in some more than others. A tadpole "evolves" into a frog and a moth "evolves into a winged flying creature. So it is foolish to say that some particular creature in past ages did not also make some equally spectatular transition.