[ableton]

Your comment is so ironic. You complain about conservatives wanting to "shut up" the media. And yet here you are advocating shutting up conservative ideas about creation in school. How hypocritical.

As for science, macro evolutionary theory isn't even science. The scientific method requires testing and 200 years isn't long enough to verify something that takes tens of thousands of years to occur.

Secondly, the fossil record shows all kinds of stuff that just doesn't jive with evolution. Darwin said if he was right the ground would be full of innumerable transitional fossils. But what we find is that as soon as something appears in the fossil record, it stays very similar. The Cambrian explosion is another thing that just doesn't make sense evolutionary speaking.

And all this is made worse by the fact that somehow evolution spent billions of years unable to move past unicellular organisms, and yet was able to jump from a monkey to a human in 10k years? Monkeys have the intelligence according to tests of a 2 and 1/2 years old. The difference is astonishing and yet supposedly happened in an exceedingly short period of time, when life couldn't get out of the bacteria stage for a billion years?

There are a lot of holes in evolutionary theory. What is unscientific, and all to common among liberals is ignoring those who point out inconvenient facts

[david38]

Not hypocritical.

Religion isn't science. It's fantasy. Physicists vs chemists would be be a scientific debate.

A proper conservative creationist debate would be vs Roman paganism.

X isn't perfect so Y must be the answer is the oldest false choice gimmick going. I can easily point to how shitty everyone practices their religion and prove it's fake that way too.

Seriously, how many people are reading the Bible? Some. The best available translation? Fewer. The original untranslated text? Very few. It's the actual word of God and you don't think it's important enough to read in the original? Please. Give me a break.

Let's set that aside though. Let's just go for the big stuff. Is Jesus cosubstancial with the father? You would figure something that profound would be easy to ask God himself. How this question was resolved is proof of the popularity contest that was / is the Christian church.

Science keeps chipping away at the Bible. The reverse doesn't happen. Just because X doesn't solve everything perfectly (and doesn't claim to) doesn't mean Y is anything less than fantasy.

[ableton]

Great question about translation. I read "Youngs literal translation" which is much more accurate. And I frequently use the Blue Letter Bible website which has an amazing resource to help you understand the Greek/Hebrew meaning of any word!

Science doesn't "chip away at the Bible". Bad science does though. Anecdotally I think what happens is that people want to have sex outside of marriage so they accept bad science to validate their choices. Sex hormones make people do really irrational things.

[Xoros]

Isn't irrational the base of the religion (in opposition to rational : "based on facts and reason, not emotion" according to Cambridge dictionary) ?

[throwaway2016a]

> What is unscientific, and all to common among liberals is ignoring those who point out inconvenient facts

So against my better judgement I'm going to not ignore (downvote) you and reply briefly. Key word being briefly. I have no interest getting into a debate.

No one is ignoring those "inconvenient facts"

1. Calling them "facts" is a red flag you are not open to debate. A fact has a very specific definition and what you said is not a fact and I wouldn't call it one even if I agreed with the idea.

2. The "no transition fossils" idea has been thoroughly debunked (there are indeed many).

3. The Cambrian Explosion has been debated and written on quite significantly and the research is pretty convincing for most people.

4. On your comment about the speed of evolution. The number of mutations needed to change the DNA of a chimpanzee to that of a human is far fewer than a single celled organism. A common first program in bioinformatics courses is to calculate the longest subset of similar DNA between species. The differences are very subtle. Which incidentally is why a small mutation can cause a human child to be born with very different physical properties than a healthy human child.

In fact, if you take the time to study how DNA works it is very clear to see how evolution works. After studying the subject it very clear and clean cut.

I think one of the biggest problems with science education is that we talk a out evolution on a marcro scale. Talking about it at a DNA level I think the amount of closed-mindedness to deny it would be astounding.

Edit: As another aside, assuming you are Christian, what is it about the bible that you think 7 days and 7 nights is to be taken literally? The bible is meant to be allegorical not literal. Most Christians I know have long since stated that they believe in evolution and that they do not feel that contradicts their faith.

[ableton]

1. As for facts, I am referring to things like the Cambrian explosiom, and the lack of transitional fossils. For example how about Lucy? Lucy was clearly a chimp. You can go read the actual PBS interview with the guys who reconstructed it. They said when they reconstructed it at first, the hip looked just like a chimpanzee hip. Since there wasn't much anything else to make it transitional, they decided there must be something wrong. So they broke the hip up and put in together again in the "right way". This is another fact that people just ignore. I think actually Google had a "Lucy day" when Lucy is clearly a hoax.

>The perfect fit was an allusion that made Lucy's hip bones seems to flair out like a chimps. But all was not lost. Lovejoy decided he could restore the pelvis to its natural shape. He didn't want to tamper with the original, so he made a copy in plaster. He cut the damaged pieces out and put them back together the way they were before Lucy died. It was a tricky job, but after taking the kink out of the pelvis, it all fit together perfectly, like a three-dimensional jigsaw puzzle. As a result, the angle of the hip looks nothing like a chimps, but a lot like ours.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2106hum1.html

2. This has not been thoroughly debunked at all. In fact over and over again the "missing link" turns out to be a fake. Or how about archaeopteryx? It has fully formed wings and feathers. Where is the creature with half wings and partial feathers? Surely feathers couldn't have developed overnight! Yet it simply doesn't exist.

3. It's convincing for "most people". Well it's not convincing for a lot of others. So should the opposing position be censored? I don't think so.

4. Speed of evolution. Observing the mutation rate of Malaria is instructive. It is a eukaryotes, not a prokaryote, so is much more similar to our cell structure. Up to 1 trillion malaria organisms can infect the host. 250 million get malaria per year. That's up to 250 million trillion organisms per year. Which is millions of times the number of generations between monkeys and people. Yet it takes years for malaria to develop a resistance to a single anti malarial drug. There is no way the far more complex transition from monkeys to humans occurred in 1/1millionth of the number of generations. The rate of evolution is simply too slow.

To your edit: the Bible is meant to be allegorical in some parts. But as for creation, trying to somehow rectify the Bible + evolution is no good. The Bible says God created them so they would reproduce according to their "kind" https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=e...

This is exactly what we see in the fossils. When something shows up in the record, it stays the same.

Thanks for engaging, not downvoting! Your a cool guy (or girl)

[eesmith]

You wrote "the hip looked just like a chimpanzee hip". The PBS link you gave says "Superficially, her hip resembled a chimpanzee's, which meant that Lucy couldn't possibly have walked like a modern human." The term "resembled" is much weaker and broader than your phrase "just like."

Elsewhere in the same transcript it says "[Lucy] didn't look like anything we had ever found before." and "Lucy had an ape-like face with a brain just a little larger than a chimps." If Lucy looked "just like a chimp" then what explains these quotes about the differences?

Because it sounds to me like you are cherry picking and distorting quotes, which is a standard creationist practice.

Earlier you wrote that humans separated from monkeys 10,000 years ago. This of course is not true. How old do you think Lucy is?

Lucy is not the only Australopithecus afarensis skeleton found. This includes AL 129-1 found by the same Don Johnson you quoted. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AL_129-1 : "It is estimated to be 3.4 million years old.[1] Its characteristics include an elliptical Lateral condyle and an oblique femoral shaft like that found in humans, indicating bipedalism."

Or there's AL 333-160. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis : "The foot bone shows that the species had arches in its feet, which confirmed that the species walked upright for the majority of the time.[33] The foot bone is one of 49 new bones discovered, and indicates that A. afarensis is "a lot more human-like than we had ever supposed before", according to the lead scientist on the study.[34]"

Or Selam, "Here we describe a well-preserved 3.3-million-year-old juvenile partial skeleton of Australopithecus afarensis discovered in the Dikika research area of Ethiopia. The skull of the approximately three-year-old presumed female shows that most features diagnostic of the species are evident even at this early stage of development. The find includes many previously unknown skeletal elements from the Pliocene hominin record, including a hyoid bone that has a typical African ape {hominid} morphology. The foot and other evidence from the lower limb provide clear evidence for bipedal locomotion, but the gorilla-like scapula and long and curved manual phalanges raise new questions about the importance of arboreal behaviour in the A. afarensis" (using the quote by Alemseged et. al from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selam_(Australopithecus) .

So even discarding the reconstruction of Lucy's hip, there is other evidence that A. afarensis was bipedal in way that chimps are not.

You write "Where is the creature with half wings and partial feathers?" This is not how evolution works.

To begin with, feathers existed long before wings. Sinosauropteryx is an example of a non-avian dinosaur with feathers. We've found feathers on Epidexipteryx, from 160-170 million years ago, which is 10 million years before Archaeopteryx. Hardly "overnight".

The "half wing" is a standard creationist argument, but essentially meaningless. First, there are many definition of "wing". If I stick my hand out the window of a moving car, I can use it to get upward lift. That makes it a wing.

Under this definition, the body of a Paradise flying snake is a wing, even though it looks nothing like a bird or bat wing. Unlike my hand, but like birds, the wing property of the snake body is the result of adaptive selection.

The evolutionary argument is that "wing" is a continuum of abilities, from very poor wing to a very good wing. All of them are wings. None of them are "half wings".

What a creationist will do is place absurd requirements on what a "wing" is such that any evolutionary reasonable interpretation for "half a wing" is disqualified for not being a wing.

That would be like saying that email didn't exist until the late 1970s because no previous system implemented the 32 distinct components that Ayyadurai says were needed to be "email".

You write "When something shows up in the record, it stays the same". As I pointed out earlier, that's because species labels "are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation", to quote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil . When things change, we call it a new species. It is not a fundamental reflection of the biology.

[ableton]

First your right about the 10k years thing. I misspoke, estimates are on the order of millions of years. But my point still stands at 10 million vs 1 billion. Anyways, all these dates are complete conjecture. Nobody really knows how old anything is, or what the effect of ice ages, meteors, etc. would be.

As for the rest of the interview, this guy is lying through his teeth when he says "Lucy had a brain just a bit larger than a chimp's" There is no possible way to get this from the bones. Here is a picture of what they found of "Lucy":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Reconstruction_of_the_fos...

These guys just make stuff up, probably to get more fame and funding. I just found another link, turns out they found a baboon bone in the skeleton! The reason that the hip is so important is because it's the only thing that's really fully formed enough to say it looks human (note that lucy is about 3.5 feet tall, the size of a chimp).

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27325-baboon-bone-fou...

As for Epidexipteryx, first, sure I will grant that it has something close to feathers, but it's still a weak argument, because they are in the wrong place! There must be a birdlike animal that has partially formed feathers on it's wings. Unfortunately, fossils are rarely preserved well, and it is difficult to tell what is actually happening. Combine that with scientists' desire for fame, and you get sketchy results like lucy

[Oletros]

> There is no possible way to get this from the bones. Here is a picture of what they found of "Lucy"

http://www.efossils.org/book/how-big-was-lucys-brain

> Fossil remains of Lucy’s braincase are fragmentary, limiting the reconstruction of her brain size. However, brain size estimates from other members of her species suggest that Lucy’s brain was probably about the size of a modern chimpanzee’s (range between 387 – 550 cc; average 446 cc)

Try again

> These guys just make stuff up, probably to get more fame and funding.

> Combine that with scientists' desire for fame, and you get sketchy results like lucy

Why creationists are so quick to call others liars and frauds?

Funny thing is that they don't even understand the science and only sput the same debunked thing found in sites like answersingenesis et al.

And funnier, this is just a thing in some Christian denominations in USA and in some Muslim countries like Turkey.

The whole majority of the world doesn't believe the bullshit those people spout

[eesmith]

What does it mean to "really know" something? I might not "really know" something if the estimated standard deviation is +/- 10% when I really want it to be +/- 0.1%. While for some things the estimated error is +/- 0.00001 % or smaller. (For that matter, Heisenberg says we'll never "really know" the position and velocity of a particle.)

We don't "really know" the effects of the ice ages, but we know a lot of the effects. We don't "really know" what the effect of a major meteorite strike, but we have some idea of its effects.

We know enough about both topics to draw some reasonable conclusions based on multiple trails of evidence.

We know how to date things well enough to be able to date things far better than "10 million vs 1 billion" years. Creationists love to challenge the potassium-argon dating used in East Africa for early hominid remains. While there was controversy early on with, say, the dating of the KBS Tuff, as http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD031.html covers, that link points out there are now multiple different methods by different people which agree on a time around 1.9 million years ago, with a +/- of about 1%. This is a well-studied topic because understanding it is so important for the story of human evolution.

I have read enough about the science behind reconstruction from bone fragments to get the sense that it's a reasonable science, and to realize that it is a specialized skill that depends on intensive understanding of many different animals. Just because neither you nor I can make much sense of those fragments doesn't mean that others cannot.

In any case, there's no reason to trust their interpretation. As I pointed out before, Lucy is not the only A. afarensis fossil. AL 444-2 is the complete skull of an A. afarensis male. It's larger than Lucy; the assumption is sexual dimorphism. That makes the AL 444-2 skull even less like a chimp than Lucy, yet they are of the same species, which you say is a chimp.

Furthermore, reconstruction is eminently testable. Here are two I thought of: 1) How well does the reconstruction match more complete skeletons found later, and 2) create a 3D model of part of a known skull and do a double-blind test to see how well the reconstruction matches the skull. If people mostly "made stuff up" then it would easily be discovered.

The New Scientist link is clear to say "He stresses, though, that the analysis, which he will present at a meeting of the Paleoanthropology Society in San Francisco next week, also confirms that the other 88 fossil fragments belonging to Lucy’s skeleton are correctly identified. And the mislabelled baboon bone fragment doesn’t undermine Lucy’s important position in the evolution of our lineage.".

Furthermore the actual paper says "This work does not refute previous work on Lucy or its importance for human evolution, but rather highlights the importance of studying original fossils, as well as the efficacy of the scientific method."

And again, why is all of your focus on Lucy? We have other A. afarensis fossils which give us even more details about bipedal adaptations.

You write "they are in the wrong place". And your point is ... what exactly? Evolutionary theory predicts that existing structures get adapted for new uses, including to change place. Also, "right place" implies that somehow those early feathers were in the wrong place. They weren't. They were only in a different place.

You write "There must be a birdlike animal that has partially formed feathers on it's wings". No. Feathers came first. They were always fully formed, but in a different form. By analogy, there's no such thing as a giraffe with a partially formed neck, only earlier giraffe-like animals with a fully-formed but shorter neck.

"Combine that with scientists' desire for fame". What a silly argument. First, scientists are humans, and yes many humans want fame and will do short-cuts to achieve it. Do you have any evidence that scientists are more prone to that than other fields?

That said, there are many easier ways to fame than to become a scientist, fame built on sketchy research is fragile, and one way to become famous is to show that someone else is wrong or even a fraud. For example, Ioannidis became famous as a result of his paper "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False".

Furthermore, over time it becomes more difficult to produce sketchy new results which are consistent with the existing body of work. At some point it's easier to do non-sketchy work. (Like the old observation that it was easier to go to the Moon than to fake the Moon landing.)

Most of the scientists I know are not in the field to become famous, and they know they will never be famous. How many famous paleontologists do you think there can be? How many paleontologists are there?

[eesmith]

"Macroevolution" in modern biological theory is microevolution acting across geological timescales.

"Geological timesscales" is far longer than "tens of thousands of years".

"Testing" is a more encompassing term than "experimentation". To give an example, a test of evolutionary theory is the prediction that the transition from fish to amphibians started during the Devonian. Indeed, after years of work, Tiktaalik fossils were found in Devonian rock. Evolutionary science is full of tests like these.

As I understand it, you also do not consider astrophysics to be a science.

There are many transitional fossils, including Tiktaalik. The transitional fossils for cetacean history make a quite lovely series. All fossils of a given species are "very similar" for the simple reason that the species labels "are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation", to quote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil .

What aspects of the Cambrian explosion are you talking about? There is much we don't know about it, but nothing which forces us to reject well-established evolutionary theory.

Modern humans evolved from archaic humans starting about 200,000 years ago. Archaic humans evolved from Homo erectus, which evolved from Homo habilis, which evolved from Australopithecus, etc. The common ancestor of humans, chimps, and bonobos was about 10 million years ago. The common ancestor of humans and the non-ape monkeys was about 29 million years ago.

This is far longer than the 10k years you mentioned. For that matter, we have found human remains from Combe-Capelle, La Brea, Cheddar, and Kow Swamp which are about 10k years old. Are you seriously proposing that humans "jumped" into existence 10K years ago and within 1K years were found from North America to Australia?

You write "Monkeys have the intelligence according to tests of a 2 and 1/2 years old". But "monkey" isn't a species name, so what you wrote is meaningless.

"Monkey" has multiple meanings. Humans are part of the family of Old World monkeys, so yes, humans are monkeys. However, apes, including humans, are traditionally not included as a monkey in that sense, making "monkey" a polyphyletic term.

All told, your critique shows no real knowledge of the evolutionary theory that you are trying to challenge. I would much rather have inconvenient facts than the fabrications you presented.

[Oletros]

> As for science, macro evolutionary theory isn't even science. The scientific method requires testing and 200 years isn't long enough to verify something that takes tens of thousands of years to occur

Lensky experiment, try another thing

> Darwin said if he was right the ground would be full of innumerable transitional fossils.

Darwin published his booke more than 100 years ago. Science has advanced a lot since then

> and yet was able to jump from a monkey to a human in 10k years

What?

> There are a lot of holes in evolutionary theory

Examples

[flukus]

Have you actually tried finding answers to all your questions? I assure you, those answers already exist if you actually look.

The fact that you don't bother to look is an indication of how weak your opinion/faith really is.

> And all this is made worse by the fact that somehow evolution spent billions of years unable to move past unicellular organisms, and yet was able to jump from a monkey to a human in 10k years? Monkeys have the intelligence according to tests of a 2 and 1/2 years old. The difference is astonishing and yet supposedly happened in an exceedingly short period of time, when life couldn't get out of the bacteria stage for a billion years?

This bit in particular stood out for how poorly informed you are, the last common ancestor between humans and monkeys was 8-6 million years ago. You are no where near informed enough on evolution to criticize it at all.

[anigbrowl]

And yet here you are advocating shutting up conservative ideas

Untrue. Jemfrost critiqued conservatism, rather than calling for it to be shut down. If you can't deal with criticism. I'd like to address the rest of your objections, but your starting out with such self-evident falsehoods suggests I'd be wasting my time.