In celebration of the sequicentennial of the publication of Origin of Species (and the bicentennial of Darwin's birth, for that matter), I declare this evolution discussion thread open.

As before, I will attempt to answer any questions I can, and will even commit to doing some research if needed.  But this is not just a Q&A for me, so everybody should contribute as well.

So, bring it on.  Question/statements/comments about all evolution and all things vaguely related welcom.  Abiogenesis, big bang, radiometric dating, flood geology - go nuts.

Even if you are a hard-core Darwinist, I am sure there are issues/questions to discuss.  I know I have some.

Ok...

So according to Darwin, certain members of our society are "less" evolved than others, which is suppost to "prove" evolution.

They haven't evolved to the point of the average white anglo saxon... (according to darwin).

Evolutionists try to discredit this point of the theory. But, if you believe in evolution, you have to believe that some are "more" evolved than others... Therefore some people have limits as to what they can do, and therefore are less "valuable" than other, more evolved members of society...

The concept is that things get better with time... But, nature/science tells us this isn't the case, with each generation the next generation actually pics up the negatives in their growing gene pool and degrades. This scientific fact is not disputed, and yet it completely disagrees with evolution...

Here is an example

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/08/60II/main700519.shtml - http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/08/60II/main700519.sh tml

"The genetic problems come down to something called the "founder effect" because the nearly 150,000 Amish in America can trace their roots back to a few hundred German-Swiss settlers who brought the Amish and Mennonite faiths to the United States in the 18th century. Over generations of intermarriage, rare genetic flaws have shown up, flaws which most of us carry within our genetic makeup but which don't show up unless we marry someone else with the same rare genetic markers."

http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2007/03/norway-immigrant-children-born-with.html - http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2007/03/norway-immigrant-c hildren-born-with.html

"Many of the illnesses are known syndromes, which come up due to gene mutations.  The mutations lead to deformities in the child because the parents are related and with that have the same mutations.  The Pakistanis and Kurds are among the groups with traditionally marry with relatives according to researcher Torunn Arntsen Sørheim of the Norwegian Center for Minority Health Research.

"We routinely find that there are relations between the parents when we see that a child has a deformity.  In children of immigrants we quite often know that the child's parents are related."  explains Lindemann."

So science is telling us that intermarrying will lead to genetic mutations... And genetic mutations lead to death. Not new species... No matter how many years you throw at it.

Now, look at what the study of our DNA has shown us.

Hmm. We all come from Eve... (sounds like the description in the Bible, huh...)

http://www.archaeology.org/9609/abstracts/dna.html - http://www.archaeology.org/9609/abstracts/dna.html

The years might be in question. But, in order for the science to be factual. Eve would have to be perfect. Otherwise, the degrading genetic drift from her lineage would have resulted in gene mutation, which science has proven equals death...

Basically, after researching evolution, I saw a belief system that is completely focused on secular humanism, with the goal of eliminating the need for a higher power. Therefore the people that have this viewpoint are blind to the evidence of God in their daily lives, in fact, they want to discredit and "prove" that God isn't real, in order to push their own man centered agenda.

This man centered agenda has a problem. When there can be no ultimate "judge". Life becomes what you can "get away" with. Instead of having a moral compass that focuses on Gods will for your life. You can now "choose" your moral direction. If no one knows what you do, then it must be fine.

After all;

Survival of the fittest, right?

FreeEnterprise wrote: Ok... So according to Darwin, certain members of our society are "less" evolved than others, which is suppost to "prove" evolution. They haven't evolved to the point of the average white anglo saxon... (according to darwin).

Wow.  Just wow.

FreeEnterprise wrote: The years might be in question. But, in order for the science to be factual. Eve would have to be perfect. Otherwise, the degrading genetic drift from her lineage would have resulted in gene mutation, which science has proven equals death... Basically, after researching evolution, I saw a belief system that is completely focused on secular humanism, with the goal of eliminating the need for a higher power. Therefore the people that have this viewpoint are blind to the evidence of God in their daily lives, in fact, they want to discredit and "prove" that God isn't real, in order to push their own man centered agenda.

Every single argument you enter into, you bring in your "you're either with me, or you are being a bigot who is bashing my beliefs" attitude.  No, the goal of those who research and push evolution is not to disprove the Christian God.  Just because something isn't a direct study of something biblical, it is not being done just to spite you.  And for you to completely write evolution off becuase you feel it can not coexist with your beliefs is incredibly immature and closed-minded.

Besides, we have more proof for evolution than you will even find for Allah, Zeus, the Tooth Fairy, or God.

FreeEnterprise wrote: So according to Darwin, certain members of our society are "less" evolved than others

I am fairly certain Darwin never said this.  Regardless, attaching labels like "more" or "less" to evolution is very tricky.  These terms can sometimes be used to describe the degree of change from a given starting point, which is helpful in virology, for instance, but otherwise the terms are meaningless.  These statements imply a directionality or goal-orientedness that does not exist.

...which is suppost to "prove" evolution

Not sure what you are getting at here.  This doesn't make sense to me.  Please elaborate.

They haven't evolved to the point of the average white anglo saxon... (according to darwin).

Oh, I see where you are headed.  The old "Darwin was a racist" business.  Well, I am sure he was a racist.  By today's standards, pretty much everybody was back in the day.  I am fairly certain that Darwin did not include any discussion of superiority or inferiority of the various human "races" - I could be wrong.

But either way it is irrelevant.  Evolution stands on its own, regardless of Darwin's racist beliefs.

Evolutionists try to discredit this point of the theory. But, if you believe in evolution, you have to believe that some are "more" evolved than others... Therefore some people have limits as to what they can do, and therefore are less "valuable" than other, more evolved members of society...

All parts of this are false.

First off, it is not part of "the theory" that some human races are superior to others.  Second, as discussed above, the very concept of "more" evolved only makes sense in a very few specific instances, and this is not one of them.

Third, any discussion of "limits" on what people can do would be a discussion of genetic makeup in general, and nature vs. nurture, and so forth - not merely a discussion of (incorrect) evolutionary theory.

Yes, some racist idiots over the years have claimed that black people (for instance) are "less evolved" than white people, and that this is somehow proof of their inferiority.  But anybody making this claim has no understanding whatsoever about evolutionary theory (or is deliberately lying about it), because it makes absolutely no sense.

And, frankly, even if were true, that would also be irrelevant.  Science exists independently of the social ramifications.  A scientific theory is not false just because we dislike the implications.

The concept is that things get better with time... But, nature/science tells us this isn't the case, with each generation the next generation actually pics up the negatives in their growing gene pool and degrades. This scientific fact is not disputed, and yet it completely disagrees with evolution...

All parts of this are false.  The concept is not merely that things get "better" with time, but rather that over time life adapts to its environment.

As to "degradation" - negatives and positives are both passed down generations, but positives are more likely to get passed on than negatives.  Of course, "negative" and "positive" are both relative terms.  Again, the reference point is the environment.  The gene for sickle cell anemia, for instance, is a "negative" in the US, but is a "positive" in Africa.

Smarter isn't always better, stronger isn't always better.  Everything has to be viewed in context of the environment.

Here is an example [stuff] So science is telling us that intermarrying will lead to genetic mutations... And genetic mutations lead to death. Not new species... No matter how many years you throw at it.

You are misreading the articles.

What those articles are saying is that intermarrying leads to recombination of recessive genes, which in turns leads to deformity and disease.  The genes were already there, created by mutation generations ago.

And the articles do not say that mutations lead to death.  Some mutations are harmful, yes - but others are beneficial, and most are neither.  Yet others are both harmful and beneficial (arguably most fall in this category).

Now, look at what the study of our DNA has shown us. Hmm. We all come from Eve... (sounds like the description in the Bible, huh...) http://www.archaeology.org/9609/abstracts/dna.html - http://www.archaeology.org/9609/abstracts/dna.html The years might be in question. But, in order for the science to be factual. Eve would have to be perfect. Otherwise, the degrading genetic drift from her lineage would have resulted in gene mutation, which science has proven equals death...

Again, all of the above is incorrect.  Genetic drift is not "degrading."  There is no such thing as genetic "perfection."  Science has not proved that mutation equals death.

Basically, after researching evolution, I saw a belief system that is completely focused on secular humanism, with the goal of eliminating the need for a higher power. Therefore the people that have this viewpoint are blind to the evidence of God in their daily lives, in fact, they want to discredit and "prove" that God isn't real, in order to push their own man centered agenda.

You got that from a biology class?

This man centered agenda has a problem. When there can be no ultimate "judge". Life becomes what you can "get away" with. Instead of having a moral compass that focuses on Gods will for your life. You can now "choose" your moral direction. If no one knows what you do, then it must be fine.

This is irrelevant. 

Scientific theories are true or false regardless of the social implications.

Don't know much about Darwin, huh Hysteria...

Maybe if you actually read "origin", you could argue it better...

http://www.mediamonitors.net/harunyahya44.html - http://www.mediamonitors.net/harunyahya44.html

"

Darwin claimed that the "fight for survival" also applied between human races. "Favored races" emerged victorious from this struggle. According to Darwin the favored race were the European whites. As for Asian and African races, they had fallen behind in the fight for survival.

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. [2]

As we have seen, in his book, The Origin of Species, Darwin saw the natives of Australia and Negroes as being at the same level as gorillas and claimed that these races would disappear. As for the other races which he saw as "inferior," he maintained that it was essential to prevent them multiplying and so for these races to be brought to extinction. So the traces of racism and discrimination which we still come across in our time were approved and lent justification by Darwin in this way.

Darwin's racist side showed its effect in much of his writing and observations."

 

So, yeah, I don't go around tooting the horn for Darwin.

 

He was a racist, of the worst kind. You are welcome to blindly follow him if you want... But, I get enough dribble from the evening news.

-------------
They tremble at my name...

Simple question then.

Did we all come from eve?

Reb Cpl wrote: If we evolved from monkeys.....how come there are still monkeys?

To be nitpicky, we did not evolve from monkeys.  We share a recent common ancestor with today's great apes - gorillas and chimpanzees.  Chimps are our cousins, not our grandparents.  Technically, we ARE apes, just like them.

So we evolved from earlier apes.  There are three large groups of apes today:  Gorillas, chimps, and humans.  The earlier apes from which we descended are extinct.

This is not necessarily always the case, however.  There are plenty of instances where a new subspecies evolves while the "parent" species lives on.

Speciation usually involves geographic separation.  Say a bunch of birds fly off to a different island.  This new island has a different environment than the old island, so the birds undergo rapid evolution to adapt.  The result may be a new species.  In the meantime, the birds on the old island have been evolving slowly (since there was no changed environment), and are therefore still basically the same species that they were before.

This can be (and has been) easily replicated in a lab with various fast-growing microorganisms.

PaiNTbALLfReNzY wrote: Concerning the big bang theory, how do you suspect the horizon problem to be solved?

I can tell you what the horizon problem is (sort of, anyway), and I can tell you that smart people are thinking about it.

But how (or even if) it will be solved?  WAY above my paygrade and level of understanding.

Call Sir Stephen about that one.

FreeEnterprise wrote: Simple question then. Did we all come from eve?

I don't know and neither do you. 

FreeEnterprise wrote: Simple question then.   Did we all come from eve?

I will translate your question to mean "was there a single first Homo Sapiens" from which we are all descended?"

My understanding is that this is an issue under much discussion. 

Using studies of mitochondrial DNA it appears fairly certain that all non-African Homo Sapiens descend from a small group (roughly 4,000) that left Africa a ways back.

I am not aware that the mitochondrial DNA has shown any further limiting than that.  I believe the current state of research is that there were likely a number of individuals that "became" Homo Sapiens more or less at the same time.  Certainly a small group, but a single point seems relatively unlikely.

What I find interesting is that FE's post actually contradicts itself if he feels all the things he says are true. The evidence that he is trying to use as support for his beliefs, actually disputes them. If you believe in the genetic mutation/degradation and interbreeding as destroying humanity. Wouldn't we all be 6 toed inbreds that would have died off within a few generations if we all came from a single pair of parents? Using your arguments, only a diverse genetic core population would have resulted in the prolongation of our species as well as its continued physical diversity.

Edited because it wasn't relative.

Oh, and it's drivel, not dribble.

Reb Cpl wrote: Please, please don't think me idiotic enough to have posted seriously.

I didn't.  But enough people ask the question that I figured I would answer anyway.

:)

oldpbnoob wrote: What I find interesting is that FE's post actually contradicts itself if he feels all the things he says are true. The evidence that he is trying to use as support for his beliefs, actually disputes them. If you believe in the genetic mutation/degradation and interbreeding as destroying humanity. Wouldn't we all be 6 toed inbreds that would have died off within a few generations if we all came from a single pair of parents? Using your arguments, only a diverse genetic population would have resulted in the prolongation of our species as well as its continued physical diversity.

FE's point is common among certain apologists.  This allows them to reconcile their view of evolution with Biblical theory.  Basically, God is perfect.  He created Adam and Eve in his image, therefore they were pretty much perfect.  We have gradually been falling away from God, therefore we are less perfect now than before.  Similarly, if evolution worked the way FE describes, we would be on the same slow path to genetic hell.

Of course, it is based in a completely incorrect understanding of science and evolution.

Bruce Banner, Free_Enterprise, Oldpbnoob and Eville

are you guys Pro Evolution or Pro Creation??

Actually, let me speak for myself instead of assuming you know what I am going to say...

Science tells us that we all come from a common ancestor.

The Bible states this as well. And as Bruce stated, God Created them to be like him. Perfect in every way.

Then Adam sinned and brought death and destruction into the world. The first animals died to cloth them. And a new standard was born. Sin brought death, and destruction.

Although back then as the world was so perfect, it took longer for the death to occur. Look at how long Adam and Eve lived.

Science believes that we all came from this common ancestor as well. But, the problem with the science theory (remember the world view is to eliminate God). Therefore the first man/woman, should be similar to us... Except if that were true, then the issues of intermarriage (gene degredation) that we see (I posted examples) would have happened a long time ago, and none of us would be here... As mutations bring death.

Another question.

Can miracles happen?

Mr.Awesome wrote: Bruce Banner, Free_Enterprise, Oldpbnoob and Eville are you guys Pro Evolution or Pro Creation??

I don't understand the question.

I am not for or against anything - I am just discussing a scientific theory.  You might as well ask if I am for or against blue.

Personally, I am anti everything(lol), but do believe evolution as a viable explanation of how we came to be. IMO there is too much fossil evidence to ignore that life has evolved and that there was life for millions of years before Man came onto the scene. With that said, it doesn't mean I don't believe in the existence of a higher being whether it be God or something we aren't evolved enough to comprehend yet. I also don't know for certain that this higher existence wasn't the "spark" that created not only the universe, but the first signs of life that eventually evolved to become what the world is today. I have too many questions to be led by faith and haven't heard enough answers to believe science is a smart as it thinks it is.

FreeEnterprise wrote: Science tells us that we all come from a common ancestor. ... Science believes that we all came from this common ancestor as well. But, the problem with the science theory (remember the world view is to eliminate God). Therefore the first man/woman, should be similar to us...

Except that the common ancestor was not human.  Probably not even a single-celled organism, but free-flowing DNA.  Or, if some current theories are right (and depending on how you define "ancestor"), not even DNA, but RNA or just a bunch of proteins or nucleotides.  Nothing like us at all, except for the DNA or near-DNA.

Except if that were true, then the issues of intermarriage (gene degredation) that we see (I posted examples) would have happened a long time ago, and none of us would be here... As mutations bring death.

Mutations do not bring death.  This is patently and obviously false.  You really ought to stop saying that.  Moreover, inbreeding does not lead to mutation, it simply allows recessive genes more play.  You aren't suddenly going to be a bleeder just because your parents are siblings if they aren't carriers.

Can miracles happen?

While this is a vaguely interesting question, I do not see how it is relevant to a discussion about evolution.

Hysteria wrote: FreeEnterprise wrote: Simple question then. Did we all come from eve? I don't know and neither do you.

According to science and the study of DNA, actually we do know. You too have "eve's" dna in your body. So even though you don't know about it, or don't believe it. It is still a scientific fact...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A703199 - http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A703199

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

When the scientific world agreed that Eve was the common point of Humans, it put the evolutionary "theory" over the edge, it is now not a theory anymore but a belief system. That must be obeyed regardless if it is proven wrong.

FYI, from your own article:

Article that FE cites wrote: That's Ridiculous – How Could a Single Being Populate a Planet? And this is where the confusion sets in. A single organism can't populate a planet (arguments about amoeba aside). The evidence didn't suggest a single woman living in isolation from members of her own species. What it suggested was a genetic bottleneck – a period in human history when the population was so small that the genetic expressions of a single woman could have an impact on all humans living on the planet today.

oldpbnoob wrote: FYI, from your own article: Article that FE cites wrote: That's Ridiculous – How Could a Single Being Populate a Planet? And this is where the confusion sets in. A single organism can't populate a planet (arguments about amoeba aside). The evidence didn't suggest a single woman living in isolation from members of her own species. What it suggested was a genetic bottleneck – a period in human history when the population was so small that the genetic expressions of a single woman could have an impact on all humans living on the planet today.

Obviously you felt it was tldr...

But, if you had read right below the headline you posted...

That's Ridiculous – How Could a Single Being Populate a Planet?

"And this is where the confusion sets in. A single organism can't populate a planet (arguments about amoeba aside). The evidence didn't suggest a single woman living in isolation from members of her own species. What it suggested was a genetic bottleneck – a period in human history when the population was so small that the genetic expressions of a single woman could have an impact on all humans living on the planet today.

She didn't live alone – she would have lived within a community. She didn't just pump babies out, either. There is no reason to suppose that she had more than one female child. But there is reason to suppose that whatever female children she had, they contained specific advantages for survival over the rest of the population."

So, actually, like I said, Christians and Science agree.

We all came from Eve. Unless you choose to stick your head in the sand and ignore DNA...

Evolution on the other hand, that is where the problems exist.

Why don't the evolution supporters show us evidence of species changing from one species into another... Not at the cell level but actual changes, a new species. There are thousands on the earth. I'm sure that there must be that obvious evidence, since it is taught in schools as fact...

Do miracles happen?

mir⋅a⋅cle 

Bruce Banner wrote: Mr.Awesome wrote: Bruce Banner, Free_Enterprise, Oldpbnoob and Eville are you guys Pro Evolution or Pro Creation?? I don't understand the question. I am not for or against anything - I am just discussing a scientific theory.  You might as well ask if I am for or against blue.

you answered it

Um, no, I read the article and you simply seem not to be grasping what it is saying. Here is some additional info from your Wikipedia cite that may help you out:

FE's cited Wikipedia wrote: [edit] Matrilineal descent To find the Mitochondrial Eve of all living humans, one can start by tracing a line from every individual to his/her mother, then continue those lines from each of those mothers to their mothers and so on, effectively tracing a family tree backward in time based purely on mitochondrial lineages. Going back through time these mitochondrial lineages will converge when two or more women have the same mother. The further back in time one goes, the fewer mitochondrial ancestors of living humans there will be. Eventually only one is left, and this one is the most recent common matrilineal ancestor of all humans alive today, i.e. Mitochondrial Eve. It is possible to draw the same matrilineal tree forward in time by starting with all human female contemporaries of Mitochondrial Eve. Some of these women may have died childless. Others left only male children. For the rest who became mothers with at least one daughter, one can trace a line forward in time connecting them to their daughter(s). As the forward lineages progress in time, more and more lineage lines become extinct, as the last female in a line dies childless or leaves no female children. Eventually, only one single lineage remains, which includes all mothers, and in the next generation, all people, and hence all people alive today. [edit] Misconceptions Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common matrilineal ancestor, not the MRCA of all humans. The MRCA's offspring have led to all living humans via sons and daughters, but Mitochondrial Eve must be traced only through female lineages, so she is estimated to have lived much longer ago than the MRCA. According to probabilistic studies,[1] Mitochondrial Eve is thought to have lived around 140,000 years ago. On the arbitrary assumption that people mate with a random individual drawn from the whole of the global population, the "theoretical" MRCA could have lived as recently as 3,000 years ago.[2] Allan Wilson's naming Mitochondrial Eve[3] after Eve of the Genesis creation story has led to some misunderstandings among the general public. A common misconception is that Mitochondrial Eve was the only living human female of her time. Had this been the case, humanity would have long since become extinct due to an extreme example of a population bottleneck. Indeed, not only were many women alive at the same time as Mitochondrial Eve but many of them have living descendants through their sons. While the mtDNA of these women are not as common as the MRCA, their Nuclear genes are present in today's population.[4] What distinguishes Mitochondrial Eve (and her matrilineal ancestors) from all her female contemporaries is that she has a purely matrilineal line of descent to all humans alive today, whereas all her female contemporaries with descendants alive today have at least one male in every line of descent. Because mitochondrial DNA is only passed through matrilineal descent, all humans alive today have mitochondrial DNA that is traceable back to Mitochondrial Eve. Furthermore, it can be shown that every female contemporary of Mitochondrial Eve either has no living descendant today or is an ancestor to all living people. Starting with 'the' MRCA at around 3,000 years ago, one can trace all ancestors of the MRCA backward in time. At every ancestral generation, more and more ancestors (via both paternal and maternal lines) of MRCA are found. These ancestors are by definition also common ancestors of all living people. Eventually, there will be a point in past where all humans can be divided into two groups: those who left no descendants today and those who are common ancestors of all living humans today. This point in time is termed the identical ancestors point and is estimated to be between 5,000 and 15,000 years ago. Since Mitochondrial Eve is estimated to have lived more than hundred thousand years before the identical ancestors point, every woman contemporary to her is either not an ancestor of any living people, or a common ancestor of all living people.[1][5]

cdacda13 wrote: That sounds like it came out of my Evo textbook. I'm not saying you stole it, I'm just commenting on how accurate your information is.

Very possible I stole it.  My textbook was Futuyma's, which I believe is still the leading evolution textbook in the US.   :)

Time for my question: Did  the neanderthals go extinct, or interbreed with H. sapiens?

Again, far too intelligent of a question for me.  The best I can do is regurgitate the current state of research.  I am not a researcher myself to where I would be able to have an intelligent opinion on this subject.  And my understanding is that Neanderthal interbreeding is very controversial, and very much under ongoing discussion.

My personal and entirely unscientific theory is that humans like to, uh, breed, and given that some humans find sheep close enough for breeding, I find it most likely that humans would not pass on breeding with Neanderthals - at least in West Virginia and New Zealand.

oldpbnoob wrote: Um, no, I read the article and you simply seem not to be grasping what it is saying. Here is some additional info from your Wikipedia cite that may help you out: FE's cited Wikipedia wrote: [edit] Matrilineal descent To find the Mitochondrial Eve of all living humans, one can start by tracing a line from every individual to his/her mother, then continue those lines from each of those mothers to their mothers and so on, effectively tracing a family tree backward in time based purely on mitochondrial lineages. Going back through time these mitochondrial lineages will converge when two or more women have the same mother. The further back in time one goes, the fewer mitochondrial ancestors of living humans there will be. Eventually only one is left, and this one is the most recent common matrilineal ancestor of all humans alive today, i.e. Mitochondrial Eve. It is possible to draw the same matrilineal tree forward in time by starting with all human female contemporaries of Mitochondrial Eve. Some of these women may have died childless. Others left only male children. For the rest who became mothers with at least one daughter, one can trace a line forward in time connecting them to their daughter(s). As the forward lineages progress in time, more and more lineage lines become extinct, as the last female in a line dies childless or leaves no female children. Eventually, only one single lineage remains, which includes all mothers, and in the next generation, all people, and hence all people alive today. [edit] Misconceptions Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common matrilineal ancestor, not the MRCA of all humans. The MRCA's offspring have led to all living humans via sons and daughters, but Mitochondrial Eve must be traced only through female lineages, so she is estimated to have lived much longer ago than the MRCA. According to probabilistic studies,[1] Mitochondrial Eve is thought to have lived around 140,000 years ago. On the arbitrary assumption that people mate with a random individual drawn from the whole of the global population, the "theoretical" MRCA could have lived as recently as 3,000 years ago.[2] Allan Wilson's naming Mitochondrial Eve[3] after Eve of the Genesis creation story has led to some misunderstandings among the general public. A common misconception is that Mitochondrial Eve was the only living human female of her time. Had this been the case, humanity would have long since become extinct due to an extreme example of a population bottleneck. Indeed, not only were many women alive at the same time as Mitochondrial Eve but many of them have living descendants through their sons. While the mtDNA of these women are not as common as the MRCA, their Nuclear genes are present in today's population.[4] What distinguishes Mitochondrial Eve (and her matrilineal ancestors) from all her female contemporaries is that she has a purely matrilineal line of descent to all humans alive today, whereas all her female contemporaries with descendants alive today have at least one male in every line of descent. Because mitochondrial DNA is only passed through matrilineal descent, all humans alive today have mitochondrial DNA that is traceable back to Mitochondrial Eve. Furthermore, it can be shown that every female contemporary of Mitochondrial Eve either has no living descendant today or is an ancestor to all living people. Starting with 'the' MRCA at around 3,000 years ago, one can trace all ancestors of the MRCA backward in time. At every ancestral generation, more and more ancestors (via both paternal and maternal lines) of MRCA are found. These ancestors are by definition also common ancestors of all living people. Eventually, there will be a point in past where all humans can be divided into two groups: those who left no descendants today and those who are common ancestors of all living humans today. This point in time is termed the identical ancestors point and is estimated to be between 5,000 and 15,000 years ago. Since Mitochondrial Eve is estimated to have lived more than hundred thousand years before the identical ancestors point, every woman contemporary to her is either not an ancestor of any living people, or a common ancestor of all living people.[1][5]

actually... I have read it.

It does say that all of us, come from a single ancestors dna.

Science has to put in others, to pacify the secular humanists, *cough* excuse me, Evolutionists.

The Bible already explained it in Chapter 1 of Genesis.

King James Version: Genesis Chapter 1

1 In the beginning God created the http://sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd170.htm#006 - heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and http://sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd097.htm#008 - darkness was upon the face of the http://sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd100.htm#008 - deep . And the http://sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd349.htm#009 - Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the http://sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd097.htm#008 - darkness .

5 And God called the light Day, and the http://sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd097.htm#008 - darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

6 And God said, Let there be a http://sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd134.htm#000 - firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7 And God made the http://sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd134.htm#000 - firmament , and divided the waters which were under the http://sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd134.htm#000 - firmament from the waters which were above the http://sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd134.htm#000 - firmament : and it was so.

8 And God called the http://sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd134.htm#000 - firmament http://sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd170.htm#006 - heaven . And the evening and the morning were the second day.

9 And God said, Let the waters under the http://sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd170.htm#006 - heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth http://sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd154.htm#005 - grass , the http://sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd174.htm#008 - herb yielding seed, and the http://sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd139.htm#000 - fruit tree yielding http://sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd139.htm#000 - fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12 And the earth brought forth http://sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd154.htm#005 - grass , and http://sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd174.htm#008 - herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding http://sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd139.htm#000 - fruit , whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the http://sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd134.htm#000 - firmament of the http://sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd170.htm#006 - heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for http://sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd325.htm#003 - seasons , and for days, and years:

15 And let them be for lights in the http://sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd134.htm#000 - firmament of the http://sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd170.htm#006 - heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the http://sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd350.htm#008 - stars also.

17 And God set them in the http://sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd134.htm#000 - firmament of the http://sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd170.htm#006 - heaven to give light upon the earth,

18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the http://sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd097.htm#008 - darkness : and God saw that it was good.

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving http://sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd092.htm#004 - creature that hath life, and fowl that may http://sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd136.htm#004 - fly above the earth in the open http://sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd134.htm#000 - firmament of http://sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd170.htm#006 - heaven .

21 And God created great whales, and every living http://sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd092.htm#004 - creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living http://sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd092.htm#004 - creature after his kind, http://sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd074.htm#002 - cattle , and creeping thing, and http://sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd049.htm#001 - beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25 And God made the http://sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd049.htm#001 - beast of the earth after his kind, and http://sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd074.htm#002 - cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the http://sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd134.htm#005 - fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the http://sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd074.htm#002 - cattle , and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the http://sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd134.htm#005 - fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every http://sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd174.htm#008 - herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the http://sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd139.htm#000 - fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

30 And to every http://sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd049.htm#001 - beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green http://sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd174.htm#008 - herb for meat: and it was so.

31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

-------------
They tremble at my name...

FreeEnterprise wrote: You too have "eve's" dna in your body. So even though you don't know about it, or don't believe it. It is still a scientific fact... http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A703199 - http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A703199 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve When the scientific world agreed that Eve was the common point of Humans, it put the evolutionary "theory" over the edge, it is now not a theory anymore but a belief system. That must be obeyed regardless if it is proven wrong.

First off, Mitochondrial Eve was not "the common point of humans."  As stated in your own link, she was merely the most recent common female ancestor.  There were certainly others before her, and lots of them.  Genes do the darndest things.

Second, how does this in any way constitute some flaw in evolutionary theory?  Common ancestors are a necessary feature of evolutionary theory.

FreeEnterprise wrote: Ok, Here is a list of mutations... My contention is that mutations are bad, eventually resulting in death (after it evolves), based on the amount of negative mutations listed. Show me the evidence from this list of all the "positive" mutations... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation

I don't understand your question.  The article you link lists several beneficial mutations, and I have mentioned some as well.

So what is your point?

Moreover, I note that you love citing science (kind of, anyway) when it serves your purpose, but ignore or disregard studies from those selfsame scientists when it appears to contradict your point?  Is your understanding of evolutionary science so great that you can determine that large swaths of studies are false, while others are true?

FreeEnterprise wrote: Why don't the evolution supporters show us evidence of species changing from one species into another... Not at the cell level but actual changes, a new species. There are thousands on the earth. I'm sure that there must be that obvious evidence, since it is taught in schools as fact...

Thousands of species, you say?

In any event, the problem here is with expectation, and with understanding. 

Speciation has been identified, proven, and demonstrated on numerous occasions.  Some folks, however, discount the evidence, for a variety of reasons.  Some don't think that microbial speciation counts - lord knows why.  Others don't think it counts if a bird just becomes another kind of bird, expecting for some reason that the birds would suddenly become dogs.

The truth is that evolution is gradual, and (usually) not dramatic.

We can take a dish full of identical microbes, divide them into two populations, subject them to different environments, and in a relatively short time we will have two different species of microbes (who have undergone a series of beneficial mutations to help them adapt to their respective environments).  The only people disappointed by this are the people who thought that the microbes would sprout legs.

For historical speciation, there are many easy examples, starting with Darwin's Finches.  Seagulls around the world provide an amazing illustration of a ring species, which stretches our very concept of a species.

Examples abound.

FreeEnterprise wrote: oldpbnoob wrote: FYI, from your own article: Article that FE cites wrote: That's Ridiculous – How Could a Single Being Populate a Planet? And this is where the confusion sets in. A single organism can't populate a planet (arguments about amoeba aside). The evidence didn't suggest a single woman living in isolation from members of her own species. What it suggested was a genetic bottleneck – a period in human history when the population was so small that the genetic expressions of a single woman could have an impact on all humans living on the planet today. Obviously you felt it was tldr... But, if you had read right below the headline you posted... That's Ridiculous – How Could a Single Being Populate a Planet? "And this is where the confusion sets in. A single organism can't populate a planet (arguments about amoeba aside). The evidence didn't suggest a single woman living in isolation from members of her own species. What it suggested was a genetic bottleneck – a period in human history when the population was so small that the genetic expressions of a single woman could have an impact on all humans living on the planet today. She didn't live alone – she would have lived within a community. She didn't just pump babies out, either. There is no reason to suppose that she had more than one female child. But there is reason to suppose that whatever female children she had, they contained specific advantages for survival over the rest of the population."   So, actually, like I said, Christians and Science agree.   We all came from Eve. Unless you choose to stick your head in the sand and ignore DNA... Evolution on the other hand, that is where the problems exist. Why don't the evolution supporters show us evidence of species changing from one species into another... Not at the cell level but actual changes, a new species. There are thousands on the earth. I'm sure that there must be that obvious evidence, since it is taught in schools as fact...

I'll admit, I skimmed the article, but apparently, if you would have read to the conclusion of the article, you would have seen this:

Article FE cited that contradicts his beleifs, so now he will backtrack and say it doesn't say what it says wrote: Is Any of This True? Well, yes and no. To get a completely accurate result the tests would have to be performed on every single person living on the planet today. The dates are in dispute, but the date is perhaps the least importmant point. Broadly speaking, populations do pass through bottlenecks. Eve had many ancestors – it helps if you think about her as an hourglass – she was the pinch in the glass through which our genes ran. There had been many more Eves before her, she is just our most recent common ancestor. There will probably be more population bottlenecks and more Mitochondrial Eves in the future.

But, I am sure that now, you will call me a liberal and cite scripture at me.

I think Charleton Heston said it best.... " Get your hands off me you dirty stinking ape!"

Kayback wrote: Which is more likely, that we are just the result of an uncountable number of lucky happenings, or that there is a guiding influence?

I will disregard the rest of the post, lest this become a silly religion thread.

As to this part - this is a horrible mischaracterization of evolutionary theory.  Moreover, these "lucky happenings" are events that can be observed, measured, and repeated in a laboratory.  The same can not be said for the guiding influence.

There is a tremendous - and I mean tremendous - amount of scientific evidence for the central tenets of evolutionary theory.  There is ZERO scientific evidence for the designing influence - there are some few claims masquerading as science, but they quickly fold under investigation.

Putting the two theories side by side is an incredible insult to science.

The whole "micro/macro-evolution" bit is a bit of a distraction...

STO - what exactly do you mean by "where that change started?"

http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/113 - Pro video.

I do think that evolution is hostile to religion. If you don't believe the genises account, then part of the bible is wrong. If part of the bible is wrong, how on earth is it the word of god?

(However, I do wish this would have been posted after I finished darwins book  I just started it.)

Bruce Banner wrote: FreeEnterprise wrote: There are thousands on the earth. Thousands of species, you say?

lol.

I had a question or two I would have liked to ask last semester when I actually learned about evolution at the cellular level, but I can't remember now.

^^^Evolution is the cornerstone of modern day Biology. Also, just because someone is an athiest doesnt mean they're going to murder people...

Kayback wrote: DeTrevni wrote: :)Oh, and "God's real, prove me wrong" is not a valid response. Blah blah blah...

I knew I'd get someone all razzed up with that, but I didn't think it would be you.

I'd like to consider myself intelligent enough to know that, "THERE IS NO GOD PROOV ME RONG!!1!" is not a viable argument.

In fact, you can even look at the mere fact that this Universe exists as suggestion towards a creator existing.  A commonly cited observation is that if the fundamental constants of our universe, such as the four forces or the speed of light, differed even by the tiniest margin from how they exist today, the Universe as we know it would not exist.  Stars would burn out in only a few million years, or dissolve easily.  Matter would collapse into black holes or simply be unable to bond into the compounds that exist today. Now, I'm not claiming it as proof, but it is rather uncanny.  Of course there are other explanations and arguments against that view, such as the notion that we are part of a Multiverse of all possible combinations of properties and merely exist in one of the Universes which succeeded. In fact, in the future this may be proven or disproven by theories such as String Theory.

Bruce Banner wrote: Kayback wrote: Which is more likely, that we are just the result of an uncountable number of lucky happenings, or that there is a guiding influence? I will disregard the rest of the post, lest this become a silly religion thread. Typical of a secular humanist viewpoint. Anything deemed "religious" must be demeaned. As it is an affront to your view that you are god, and there is no higher power... As to this part - this is a horrible mischaracterization of evolutionary theory.  Moreover, these "lucky happenings" are events that can be observed, measured, and repeated in a laboratory.  The same can not be said for the guiding influence. Again, showing his god complex... There is a tremendous - and I mean tremendous - amount of scientific evidence for the central tenets of evolutionary theory.  There is ZERO scientific evidence for the designing influence - there are some few claims masquerading as science, but they quickly fold under investigation. Biggest generalization of the thread so far... Why don't you just say. "I am god, and I am right"... "you are wrong"... That is faster than what you posted, and has the same meaning. Most of your posts can be shortened to the above statements. You don't want to "discuss" evolution and Creation. You just want to belittle one, and promote the other, without presenting facts or evidence... Claiming there is tons of evidence doesn't count... Putting the two theories side by side is an incredible insult to science. Actually, evolution is scared to face God. Evolution was created (by man) to explain away God. The "proof" of an intelligent designer stares at anyone who examines the facts.

I asked if you believe in miracles.

As someone who believes in evolution. You have to, unless you discount the theory of probability...

I too believe in miracles. I have witnessed them firsthand, and I see life, the earth, and all of Gods Creations with my own eyes. To discount that would be foolish. I don't pretend to have all the answers, but I know that God does, so I put my trust and faith in him, and I put my faith in his Son, Jesus and depend on his blood to save me from my sins.

Time is what evolution uses as the "creator". When in fact no matter how much time you throw at something. The logic that it could "create" its self is still just as ludicrous.

Which came first the chicken or the egg?

The Bible answers this question, but evolutionary science can not... I chose to believe the Bible. I have "faith" in Gods word, just like you have "faith" in man being god... aka secular humanism/evolution.

I don't have a degree in biochemistry, but Dr. Eric Norman does.

Here is an article that I would like to present as evidence.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0817norman.asp - http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0817norman.asp

"I recalled how science changes, giving examples of my vitamin B₁₂ research. I mentioned that Einstein replied, when asked why he studied relativity, “I challenge an axiom." I stated that Darwin's theory originally “explained” some things (e.g., natural selection, although it is not a mechanism to drive molecules-to-man evolution; see http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/muddywaters.asp - Muddy Waters: Clarifying the confusion about natural selection ), but after a century and a half of research, Darwinian evolution no longer holds up. I gave them a handout, which discussed three topics: 

1. Problems with the formation of a cell by naturalism include:  

   1. Laws of probability: The odds of correctly forming an average 200 amino acid protein are 1 in 10²⁶⁰, but statisticians state that odds over 1 in 10⁵⁰ are impossible. (Bliss, Parker, Gish, Origin of Life, 1979.)  

   2. Laws of chemistry: All amino acids in proteins are “L” which would not occur randomly. DNA would not form in a water solution. My master’s thesis was in the area of DNA synthesis. 

   3. Irreducible complexity: For many biological systems to properly function, all parts must be present at the same time. (Behe, http://www.answersingenesis.org/onlinestore/gateway.asp?PageType=detail&UID=10-3-081 - Darwin’s Black Box , 1998.)

   4. Information: You do not obtain useful information from random processes. Have you read a good book authored by a computer lately, I asked tongue in cheek? I mentioned that the formation of the first cell is now recognized by many evolutionists as not possible by naturalism (i.e., I argued that this means supernaturalism had to be involved: a Designer).  

2. Difficulties for a cell developing into advanced life-forms:

   1. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/d_gish.asp - Dr. Duane Gish , ICR biochemist, while visiting the Smithsonian Institution, was told they had no undisputed intermediate fossils. 

   2. Mutations do not increase useful genetic information. A teacher at my lecture mentioned he had read a book that stated that the universe could not be old enough for life-forms to develop by genetic mutations. I added that I had read a scholarly book by an Israeli scientist (Spetner, http://www.answersingenesis.org/onlinestore/gateway.asp?PageType=detail&UID=10-3-085 - Not by Chance , 1996) confirming that view.  

   3. Where does all the information in the human cell come from? If you typed the four letter alphabet for the DNA code for a bacteria, it would take 2,000 8”x11” single-space pages. However, for a human cell, the length of the code would require a million pages.  

3. I noted scientific support for a young earth (available as a free booklet, written by http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/r_humphreys.asp - Dr. Russell Humphreys ; also downloadable at http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=1842 - Evidence For a Young World .

I then told the science teachers that this is what I think has happened in science history:

Modern scientific thought began to develop about the time of Copernicus (1473–1543), the father of modern astronomy who discovered that the earth rotated daily and revolved around the sun yearly. Subsequently, Kepler discovered laws of planetary motion; Newton (1642–1727) discovered gravitation and laws of motion; Boyle showed gas volume varies inversely with pressure; Priestley discovered oxygen, and Lavoisier (1743–1794) identified the composition of water founding modern chemistry.

Scientific discoveries and laws were giving science great credibility, and then Hutton (1785) wrote the Theory of the Earth, claiming the earth was old and governed by the principle of uniformitarianism. Hutton was a physician and not a geologist, but his opinion, following on true scientific discoveries, was also accepted as truth. In 1814, theologian Thomas Chalmers proposed the http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/compromise.asp#gap - gap theory in the Bible by inserting millions (and later billions) of years between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. This additional time then gave Darwin the needed years to propose his theory of evolution (published in 1859). 

We then discussed the book The Design Revolution by Dembski and whether intelligent design could be tested. The professor noted Dembski has Ph.D. degrees in both math and philosophy. 

I gave the biblical view of history. Genesis clearly states a six-day creation by using the Hebrew word “yom” with a “number” and/or the phrase “evening and morning,” which can only mean a 24-hour period. Therefore, the time can be calculated from the beginning of creation to the death of Joseph (2,369 years). The historical date of 586 BC for the fall of Judah to Babylon is also well established. Using these dates, the age of the earth can be calculated to be about 6,000 years (within hundreds of years, not thousand or millions). 

I then brought in current secular DNA studies. The female passes down mitochondrial DNA, and the male the Y chromosome. Thus by looking at the DNA mutations, the age and past location of ancestors can be predicted. Olson, in Mapping Human History (2002), notes every human descended from a mitochondrial “Eve” who lived about 150,000 years ago, Sykes (in The Seven Daughters of Eve, 2001) suggests 45,000 years ago humans set foot in Europe, and Science News, (2005, p. 339) reports 70 adults populated North America about 10,000 years ago. More recent estimates indicate the possibility that a mitochondrial “Eve” appeared on earth as recently as 6,000 years ago (Gibbons, Science 279:28–29, 1998). Although most of these dates are not according to the biblical timescale, they are far closer to the Bible’s age of the earth than they are the evolutionary timescale.

I continued with the comment about biblical history that Abraham was able to marry his half-sister and Jacob his cousin, but Moses prohibited marriage to a close relative because DNA mutations were accumulating. Human beings develop about 100 mutations per generation; a single one can be lethal (Ridley, Genome, 1999). Approximately 8% of liveborns by age 25 will be diagnosed with a disorder that has a major genetic component, and birth defects are the leading cause of death among infants, as noted in an article entitled: “The Human Genome Project: What it Means for You” by Lupski, M.D., Ph.D. Thus, the rate and accumulation of mutations in DNA support the biblical age for humans.

-------------
They tremble at my name...

oldpbnoob wrote: Oh, and it's drivel, not dribble.

It is... I guess you should change the dictionary then...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dribble - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dribble

dribble

How do evolutionists justifty biogenesis? Since miracles are out of the equation...

no, biogenesis.

If biogenesis is true. Then evolution is false.

The Bible says God (who is alive) Created life. which agrees with biogenesis.

Evolutionary/secular humanism says there is no god, and life evolved (over billions of years of course). Which is totally against biogenesis. Which states all life comes from life.

Law of biogenesis. The law which states that life arises from existing life.

I didn't see any mention of premortial goo in that description...

-------------
They tremble at my name...

adrenalinejunky wrote: biogenesis does not equal the Law of Biogenesis. biogenesis is the process of life being created from life. the Law of Biogenesis states that life can only come from life. while abiogenesis has never been proven, the law of biogenesis hasnt either. Pastuer proved that maggots came from other life, but i dont recall his experiments including making a primordial soup and observing it for several billion years. :)

wow.

Let me make sure I understand that you are saying that a basic "law" of science, it hasn't been proven?

Are you serious?

If it were not provable, it would be a "theory". example, see; theory of evolution.

Guess after we change the dictionary, we should change the science books too...

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Law_of_biogenesis - http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Law_of_biogenesis

What do they teach in schools now?...

Tolgak wrote: FreeEnterprise wrote: Bruce Banner wrote: Kayback wrote: Which is more likely, that we are just the result of an uncountable number of lucky happenings, or that there is a guiding influence? I will disregard the rest of the post, lest this become a silly religion thread. Typical of a secular humanist viewpoint. Anything deemed "religious" must be demeaned. As it is an affront to your view that you are god, and there is no higher power... The whole point of secularism is keeping religion from controlling our lives. That means keeping it out of government (as a tax payer, I don't want the government forcing me to go to church/mosque/temple every day), and keeping its influence out of our personal lives. The view point is basically the Golden Rule elaborated... omitting all the specifics of religious texts including the existence of deities.   Sorry, but the teachings of evolution are a form of religion. Who worship at the alter of secular humanism. http://www.secularhumanism.org/ - http://www.secularhumanism.org/   As to this part - this is a horrible mischaracterization of evolutionary theory.  Moreover, these "lucky happenings" are events that can be observed, measured, and repeated in a laboratory.  The same can not be said for the guiding influence. Again, showing his god complex... What god complex? To say that something natural can be repeated and tested and something supernatural (outside the binds of the laws of physics [not all, of which, we have discovered]) cannot is simply to speak the truth. If your god is supernatural, you cannot test it. Not only is the statement simple truth, it fits precisely your definition of deities. The persons perspective determines his belief system. Ken Hamm said it best with this. " Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same. The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events. Past and present We all exist in the present—and the facts all exist in the present. When one is trying to understand how the evidence came about (Where did the animals come from? How did the fossil layers form? etc.), what we are actually trying to do is to connect the past to the present. However, if we weren’t there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so we can explain the present? It would be great to have a time machine so we could know for sure about past events. Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a ‘time machine’. They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know. On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present. Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present. Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/overheads/pages/oh20020809_131.asp - interpretations based on their presuppositions. That’s why the argument often turns into something like: ‘Can’t you see what I’m talking about?’ ‘No, I can’t. Don’t you see how wrong you are?’ ‘No, I’m not wrong. It’s obvious that I’m right.’ ‘No, it’s not obvious.’ And so on."   There is a tremendous - and I mean tremendous - amount of scientific evidence for the central tenets of evolutionary theory.  There is ZERO scientific evidence for the designing influence - there are some few claims masquerading as science, but they quickly fold under investigation. Biggest generalization of the thread so far... Why don't you just say. "I am god, and I am right"... "you are wrong"... That is faster than what you posted, and has the same meaning. Most of your posts can be shortened to the above statements. You don't want to "discuss" evolution and Creation. You just want to belittle one, and promote the other, without presenting facts or evidence... Claiming there is tons of evidence doesn't count... There IS a lot of evidence and there's no need to debate it here because people who live in denial, such as you, refuse to accept any evidence you see. The ideas of science are never made to meet some sort of predefined notions (more on that later). The conclusions come ONLY after testing and retesting and submitting those ideas to other people who continue to test and confirm or deny what's going on. see above. I actually enjoy when new evidence comes out. Its fun to look at the implications of it. http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2009/108/2 - http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2009/108/2   Putting the two theories side by side is an incredible insult to science. Actually, evolution is scared to face God. Evolution was created (by man) to explain away God. The "proof" of an intelligent designer stares at anyone who examines the facts. Evolution was discovered, not created. It does not conflict with the notion of a god, but does conflict with the idea that it would have any hand in manipulation of animal cells. If a god existed, it could have formed us using evolution by messing with the environment over the years. Of course, that's a needlessly complicated method for a god to do things, but it's not like gods of various religious texts don't go around doing needlessly complicated deeds. Evolution is a theory. Abiogenesis is a good example of bad theory as it is not able to be tested but was created by man to explain away Gods impact in our world.   I don't have a degree in biochemistry, but Dr. Eric Norman does. Here is an article that I would like to present as evidence. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0817norman.asp - http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0817norman.asp  <Mindless Drivel> The probability of getting a royal flush in poker is 1/2,598,960. Is there some divine influence going into your hand? No. This comparison with cards isn't perfect, but it works well with the idea of probability in regards evolution. We'll start with a few billion decks. Each deck can be dealt 100 times before getting tossed out. If a Royal Flush occurs during its life time, the dealer (simulating the environment) splits the decks in half at random and combined with a random half of another deck that has also gotten a Royal Flush. The other halves also combine, so each brood is marked by two offpsring. The next decks will likely have a few repeated cards. If a daughter deck has more face-cards of the same suit, it is slightly more likely that it will produce a Royal Flush in its life time, and thus more likely to be able to breed. Of course, it would breed within its generation, which would be filled with decks that have many Royal Flush producing ancestors. Slowly, but surely, each next generation will have a higher ratio of face cards in the decks. Eventually, almost every deck will put out a Royal Flush in its lifetime, and there will be an insignificant amount of numbered cards left in all the population. The statement that your doctor (who's education record I could not find) makes, in regards to this situation, means that he is disregarding the fact that all decks have extremely high amounts of face cards in them. He puts on his creation filter and and says "A standard deck of cards cannot put out a Royal Flush in 99% of dealt hands." Tests of playing card evolution (btw, this is testable) confirm that the evolution can and has happened. Dr. Norman tests this with just 50 decks of cards and stops and says "It's just impossible." It's not because he gives up, but because he eliminates the science and misinterprets the methods to fit his idea of creationism. In the real world of biology, there have been many experiments that confirm evolution can, does, and did happen. A few people saying it can't, no matter how many experiments they've tried, does not discount all instances of it actually happening. Another analogy: creationists are looking a good set of home theatre speakers, attaching only a few double-A batteries to them, and saying "It's impossible for all speakers of this type to be louder. Anyone who who says otherwise is just trying to anger the tenants in the room upstairs (which has never been occupied) who do not like loud noises."

See, I guess if you eliminate logic, you could win with an argument like that... But, logically, it is impossible that everything we see, with its complexity and ability to evolve (slight changes that are already in our genetic code which God gave us) can happen on their own, given enough time?

No way. Life was Created. It is way to complex to have just "happened". Or else we would see evidence of this today, as well as evidence of it in fossils. Which we don't. But, we do have a book with the written word that describes what happened.

But, if that is correct, then all the rest of the Bible is correct too. And we don't want that on our conscience do we?...

adrenalinejunky wrote: Bruce Banner wrote: I am fairly certain Darwin never said this. Regardless, attaching labels like "more" or "less" to evolution is very tricky. These terms can sometimes be used to describe the degree of change from a given starting point, which is helpful in virology, for instance, but otherwise the terms are meaningless. These statements imply a directionality or goal-orientedness that does not exist. actually, that may not be entirely true, even from the standpoint of making the assumption that evolution is in fact, what happened. http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S22/60/95O56/index.xml?section=topstories - http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S22/60/95O56/inde x.xml?section=topstories

Interesting article.

The point I was trying to make, however, is that "more" and "less" imply a teleological purpose.  As in "closer to (or farther from) an objective ideal."  I don't read your article as implying this, but rather describing a mechanism by which organisms can accelerate the creation of complex structures.  Very cool, but different from what I was discussing.

Is a cockroach more or less evolved than a chimpanzee?  Depends entirely on whatever convenient definitions you use.

Where do you keep finding these nifty articles?

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2009-01-09-natural-killer-cells_N.htm - http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2009- 01-09-natural-killer-cells_N.htm

Stuff like this just points to how much "science" doesn't yet know. And yet also points to a Creator...

FreeEnterprise wrote: I don't have a degree in biochemistry, but Dr. Eric Norman does. Here is an article that I would like to present as evidence. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0817norman.asp - http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0817norman.asp Problems with the formation of a cell by naturalism include:   Laws of probability: The odds of correctly forming an average 200 amino acid protein are 1 in 10260, but statisticians state that odds over 1 in 1050 are impossible. (Bliss, Parker, Gish, Origin of Life, 1979.)

First off, this has nothing to do with evolution.  He is discussing abiogenesis, which is an entirely different issue.  Evolutionary theory describes the changes in DNA-based life, not the origins of life itself.

Also - statisticians state that odds longer than 10^50 are "impossible?"  I would like to meet these statisticians.  That is a whole lot different than what I was taught.

Then, of course, there is math:

Let p = a real number between 0 and 1, but greater than 0, where p is the probability that event E occurs in any given trial.

Let P = the probability that event E occurs at any point during a set number of trials.

Let T = the total number of trials.

Then

P = 1-[(1-p)^T]

Example: E = rolling a 1 on a 10-sided die; p = 0.1; T = 20 rolls.

P = 1-[(1-0.1)^20] = 0.87842334540943071199

88% chance you roll at least one 1 in 20 tries.

Now, as you increase T, the number of trials, P increases as well.

More specifically:

Lim (T -> infinity) (1-[(1-p)^T]) = 1

In other words, given an infinite number of trials, every event that has a p > 0 WILL occur as a matter of mathematical certainty.

And it does not matter how small p is, so long as it is greater than 0.  1 in 10^50 is greater than zero, therefore this event is 100% mathematically certain to occur given enough trials.

You biochemist needs to go back to calculus 101.

But, of course, this is all irrevant, since we are discussing evolution and not abiogenesis.

Laws of chemistry: All amino acids in proteins are “L” which would not occur randomly. DNA would not form in a water solution. My master’s thesis was in the area of DNA synthesis.

Again with the discussion of abiogenesis rather than evolution.

Irreducible complexity: For many biological systems to properly function, all parts must be present at the same time. (Behe, http://www.answersingenesis.org/onlinestore/gateway.asp?PageType=detail&UID=10-3-081 - Darwin’s Black Box , 1998.)

Irreducability is an interesting subject.  Will address separately.

Information: You do not obtain useful information from random processes. Have you read a good book authored by a computer lately, I asked tongue in cheek? I mentioned that the formation of the first cell is now recognized by many evolutionists as not possible by naturalism (i.e., I argued that this means supernaturalism had to be involved: a Designer).

Information theory is also interesting.  Will address separately.

Difficulties for a cell developing into advanced life-forms: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/d_gish.asp - Dr. Duane Gish , ICR biochemist, while visiting the Smithsonian Institution, was told they had no undisputed intermediate fossils.

Well, I don't know about the Smithsonian specifically, but there are thousands of undisputed (by scientists, anyway) "intermediate" fossils.

We then discussed the book The Design Revolution by Dembski and whether intelligent design could be tested. The professor noted Dembski has Ph.D. degrees in both math and philosophy.

I have read Dembski's works.  He does argue for the testability of ID.  Yet nobody has actually bothered to test it.  There are zero scientific studies testing ID vs. evolution that show evidence for ID.

FreeEnterprise wrote: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2009-01-09-natural-killer-cells_N.htm - http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2009- 01-09-natural-killer-cells_N.htm Stuff like this just points to how much "science" doesn't yet know. And yet also points to a Creator...

To the contrary - your post points to how little you understand of science.

The studies described in that article were conducted by ... ... scientists.  Scientists that are contributing to the total learning.  Those same scientists that provide volumes of support for evolutionary theory, and are now furthering our understanding thereof.

A study that contradicts a prior study is not proof of weakness of science, but the strength of science, and proof of the strength of evolutionary theory in particular.

Over the last 150 years, evolution has been studied extensively.  During that time, nobody has been able to come up with any scientific evidence disproving the theory, and many have tried.  Instead, every year we get more and more evidence supporting the basics of the theory.

Evolution may yet be proven wrong, but today it is an incredibly robust and well-proven theory.  Even the article you link describes further evidence.

Eville wrote: FE wrote: ] That is the point of these discussions. Where did life begin? Who cares how it could possibly change given time and more time, and more time... How did it begin? the point of these discussions is evolution, did you not read the title?  Evolution has nothing to do with where life began, only with where it went from there.  Why is it that creationists like yourself are utterly incapable of comprehending that?

yeah, I did read the title. I guess we need to go back to the encyclopedia since you don't understand what evolution is...

evolution, concept that embodies the belief that existing animals and plants developed by a process of gradual, continuous change from previously existing forms. This theory, also known as descent with modification, constitutes organic evolution. Inorganic evolution, on the other hand, is concerned with the development of the physical universe from unorganized matter. Organic evolution, as opposed to belief in the special creation of each individual species as an immutable form, conceives of life as having had its beginnings in a simple primordial protoplasmic mass (probably originating in the sea) from which, through the long eras of time, arose all subsequent living forms.

Guess we need to change that too, to fit your "new" definition of evolution... Please write out what "you" think evolution means...

Bruce Banner wrote: Irreducability is an interesting subject.  Will address separately.

Irreducability is Michael Behe's baby (not his theory - it precedes him by at least a century).  He has written several books on the subject.

The basic idea is that (1) evolution requires gradual change, with each change being more beneficial than the last, and (2) there are some anatomical structures that are only beneficial in their complete state.  Therefore (3) these structures could not have evolved, therefore (4) they must have been designed.  (No strawman is intended here.  If my characterization is incorrect, please fix)

Pre-Behe, the critic's favorite example is the eye, in part because Darwin mentions the eye in the Origin of Species.  People who still bring up the evolution of the eye need to catch up on their reading.

Behe is a biochemist, and prefers to use the bacterial flagellum, "nature's outboard motor," the immune system, and blood clotting as examples of complex structures.  In Darwin's Black Box,  Behe writes persuasively that these complex cellular structure could not evolve gradually.

Tellingly, however, Behe neither performs nor proposes an experiment to test this hypothesis.  He simply declares it true.  His theoretical argument is powerful, but that is all it is - a theoretical argument.  Science requires testability, and actual testing.  I am not aware that any experiment has been conducted to support his hypothesis for any of these structures.

Even more importantly, he ignores contrary evidence.  This is a no-no for scientists.  During cross-examination in Kitzmiller v. Dover, Behe was confronted with dozens of scientific articles, published in top-end journals describing experimental research on the evolution of each of these structures.  None of these articles were discussed in Behe's book.  He pretends they do not exist.

The bottom line is that irreducible complexity is an interesting hypothesis, and may be true.  If true, it would certainly challenge some of the central tenets of evolutionary theory.  As it turns out, however, proponents of the hypothesis have conducted no experiments (of which I am aware) to support the hypothesis, and frequently ignore the growing volume of studies that show direct evolutionary pathways for each of the proposed irreducible structures.

It is an interesting proposition, but so far it is batting .0000.

People new to irreducible complexity are often also too narrow in their thinking about how evolution works.  Going back to the first paragraph above:

(1) evolution requires gradual change, with each change being more beneficial than the last

This is not accurate.  Not every change must be more beneficial.  Many changes are neutral at the time of the change.  A major source of biological variation is genetic drift, which is essentially a random collection of neutral mutations and genetic rearrangements.  Directly harmful mutations tend to get weeded out, but neutrals stick around.

Environments change.  What was previously a neutral mutation can suddenly become positive or negative with a change in environment.

(2) there are some anatomical structures that are only beneficial in their complete state. 

"Beneficial" is often relative.  Environments change, and the definition of beneficial along with it.  Fins are useful for swimming, legs are useful for crawling.  Legs were not evolved from scratch for crawling, but instead a pre-existing structure was retooled.  The benefit of a structure can change over time.

(3) these structures could not have evolved

As discussed above, to my knowledge evolutionary pathways have been proposed for all irreducible complex structures currently on the table.

Therefore (4) they must have been designed.

Not A does not lead to B.  Intelligent design is not a bad hypothesis, but simply disproving evolution (which had not been done) does not lead to intelligent design.

In general, for a good non-scholarly discussion of most aspects of intelligent design, I recommend the transcript from Kitzmiller v. Dover.  Available everywhere on the net, including http://www.toarchive.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html - here .

FreeEnterprise wrote: http://www.reference.com/browse/evolution - http://www.reference.com/browse/evolution

I think, for a discussion of scientific concepts, we should use scientific definitions.

Abiogenesis is separate and distinct from evolution.

Evolution is the study of evolution of life, not the study of the origin of life, no matter what your dictionary says. 

FreeEnterprise wrote: [ It is sad to think anyone would take your posts seriously... Look at the quote... "The odds of correctly forming an average 200 amino acid protein are 1 in 10260" Thats just amino acids, how much more complex are our bodies. And to believe evolution we have to look at our bodies and say, that given time, and chance, we will eventually be here... Its not logical. Even with "bruce" logic...

It is you who are not being logical.  Your argument consists entirely of "whoa, look at those big numbers."

With a simple math proof, I was able to prove - PROVE - that with enough time, we would indeed evolve if it is at all possible.  Improbability proves evolution's case.  To quote: "I'd say more like one out of a million."  "So you're telling me there's a chance."

Given enough trials, improbability becomes certainty.

Arguments from incredulity are not persuasive.  Look around you - all the things we have created would have boggled the mind a mere century ago.  We rely on evidence.  And the evidence supports evolution.

FreeEnterprise wrote: Bruce Banner wrote: Well, I don't know about the Smithsonian specifically, but there are thousands of undisputed (by scientists, anyway) "intermediate" fossils. Here you go again. Making claims that you don't back up with links, pics or facts... Just your "stated" word. Which has been proven to be suspect in my little time on this board.

That you even question this tells me that you have not even tried to look.  You claim to have "researched" evolution, but clearly you did not even pick up a textbook.

First off, the very idea of an "intermediate" fossil is surrounded by misconception.  As the term is used by critics, it implies separate distinct species, with a "missing link" between them.

In reality, evolution is gradual, and distinctions between ancestor species and descendant species are somewhat arbitrary.  Strictly speaking, EVERY fossil is an "intermediate," since it evidences a creature different from the one that came before and the one that follows.  To quote Futuyma's excellent textbook: "the distinction between birds and dinosaurs has become arbitrary" (p. 73)

Scientists, however, are particularly interested in some junctions in evolutionary history, and spend much energy seeking evidence of these transitions, such as fossils.  Critics have seized on this, and incorrectly placed excessive value on these particular transitional fossils, when in fact every fossil shows a transition. 

Scientists are interested in these fossils because they are missing, not because they are unique.  Every fossil is transitional; the ones that get all the attention (the "missing links") are simply the ones that are missing.  They are not more important than the ones that are found, it's just that they are missing.

Wikipedia has a decent discussion on the subject:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

Nevertheless, numerous fossils have been located that are "transitional" by any definition, such as Tiktaalik and many others.

Again, Wikipedia conveniently lists a few out for us:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

But, again, technically speaking, every fossil is intermediate.

FreeEnterprise wrote: I have read Dembski's works.  He does argue for the testability of ID.  Yet nobody has actually bothered to test it.  There are zero scientific studies testing ID vs. evolution that show evidence for ID. Oh, I'm glad to see you know everything being tested in the world right now (god complex anyone)... Also your "zero" studies is quite laughable, I must have missed the link you furnished to back that doozy up...

Well, it is kind of hard to link to an absence.

But, I refer you to the ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover.  Dembski didn't testify, but Behe and other heavyweights did.  Despite unlimited opportunity to argue the science of ID in open court, ID proponents failed to show any evidence for their theory.

http://www.toarchive.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html - http://www.toarchive.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decis ion.html

Eville wrote: Bruce, those big numbers can be aweful scary to us simple folk

As well they should.  Probability is fascinating stuff, and can really bend the mind.  The trick is to reduce it to things you can relate to.

Take lotteries.  Winning the lottery is, say, 1 out of 50 million.  Not quite astronomical scale, but long odds nevertheless.

When you buy a lottery ticket, you expect to lose.  You buy 100 tickets, you still expect to lose.  A million tickets, and you still expect to lose.

But what if you bought a ticket every week for a million years?  52 million chances?  Now, maybe you are thinking you might win, at least once?  What if you bought a ticket every DAY for a million years?  365 million chances? 

I would certainly expect to win, and at some point I would get pissed if I DIDN'T win, and start to think that the game was rigged.

If you bet on 13 at the roulette table, you expect to lose.  But if you bet on 13 every turn for a week and still haven't won even once, you are getting suspicious.

In our gut we know that with enough goes at it we should strike paydirt eventually.

Then there is the flipside.

When somebody wins the lottery, we don't automatically accuse them of cheating, even though they only bought one ticket and were facing 1 in 50 million odds.  We figure they probably won fair and square, despite the long odds.

This is because even though it is very unlikely that any given ticket will win, it is VERY LIKELY that A ticket, somewhere, will win.

EVERY EVENT that ever happened and ever will happen is bizarrely unlikely.  The odds against you inheriting your particular genetic makeup from your parents (as compared to a slightly different makeup) is in the order of trillions - yet clearly you were going to get SOME genes.  The improbability lies merely in the particular combination.

Every event is unlikely - but it is certain that SOMETHING will happen.  It is bizarrely unlikely that we evolved exactly as we did - but it was certain that something would evolve.

Bruce Banner wrote: FreeEnterprise wrote: [ It is sad to think anyone would take your posts seriously... Look at the quote... "The odds of correctly forming an average 200 amino acid protein are 1 in 10260" Thats just amino acids, how much more complex are our bodies. And to believe evolution we have to look at our bodies and say, that given time, and chance, we will eventually be here... Its not logical. Even with "bruce" logic... It is you who are not being logical.  Your argument consists entirely of "whoa, look at those big numbers." With a simple math proof, I was able to prove - PROVE - that with enough time, we would indeed evolve if it is at all possible.  Improbability proves evolution's case.  To quote: "I'd say more like one out of a million."  "So you're telling me there's a chance." Given enough trials, improbability becomes certainty. Arguments from incredulity are not persuasive.  Look around you - all the things we have created would have boggled the mind a mere century ago.  We rely on evidence.  And the evidence supports evolution.

Ok, so why is there no life in the dead sea?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea

shouldn't different things evolved to be able to live in the high salt concentrate?...

Or how about life on Mars?... The rovers must have missed it. According to science they had the same building blocks that earth had billions of years ago...

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/marslife.html - http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/marslife.html

Or maybe when we landed on the moon we missed the life there as well?

Come on. Your really reaching. By your logic, I am about to win the lottery. Even though I have never played, based on the odds of course...

"Given enough trials, improbability becomes certainty."

And yet, you are here arguing that you came from chance. I don't think you exist. You can't prove to me otherwise... according to your "logic". 

Bruce Banner wrote: FreeEnterprise wrote: Bruce Banner wrote: Well, I don't know about the Smithsonian specifically, but there are thousands of undisputed (by scientists, anyway) "intermediate" fossils. Here you go again. Making claims that you don't back up with links, pics or facts... Just your "stated" word. Which has been proven to be suspect in my little time on this board. That you even question this tells me that you have not even tried to look.  You claim to have "researched" evolution, but clearly you did not even pick up a textbook. First off, the very idea of an "intermediate" fossil is surrounded by misconception.  As the term is used by critics, it implies separate distinct species, with a "missing link" between them. In reality, evolution is gradual, and distinctions between ancestor species and descendant species are somewhat arbitrary.  Strictly speaking, EVERY fossil is an "intermediate," since it evidences a creature different from the one that came before and the one that follows.  To quote Futuyma's excellent textbook: "the distinction between birds and dinosaurs has become arbitrary" (p. 73) Scientists, however, are particularly interested in some junctions in evolutionary history, and spend much energy seeking evidence of these transitions, such as fossils.  Critics have seized on this, and incorrectly placed excessive value on these particular transitional fossils, when in fact every fossil shows a transition.  Scientists are interested in these fossils because they are missing, not because they are unique.  Every fossil is transitional; the ones that get all the attention (the "missing links") are simply the ones that are missing.  They are not more important than the ones that are found, it's just that they are missing. Wikipedia has a decent discussion on the subject:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil Nevertheless, numerous fossils have been located that are "transitional" by any definition, such as Tiktaalik and many others. Again, Wikipedia conveniently lists a few out for us:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils But, again, technically speaking, every fossil is intermediate.

Sorry, no. that is not the case. A fossil is an example of petrified previous life. Not fairy tales. All of the "examples" you posted looked to be specific life forms. I'd bet their DNA would prove this as well...

Which reminds me. How can science find DNA in old dinosaur bones?... When according to evolution they lived billions of years ago, and DNA breaks down and wouldn't last that long...

FreeEnterprise wrote: Or how about life on Mars?... The rovers must have missed it. According to science they had the same building blocks that earth had billions of years ago... http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/marslife.html - http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/marslife.html

This one is easy: The temperature doesn't suit life there, and there was likely no lightning to give the atoms the free energy necessary for certain endergonic chemical reactions (probably because the colder temperatures did not allow for the molecules to build up enough kinetic energy to collide with eachother enough to make the lightning).

Without the energy to form the more complex monomers associated with chemical evolution and the building blocks that form amino acids, the chemical processes simply wouldn't happen, yeilding simple compounds (such as H2O, O2, H2, CO2, C) to be left in their current states.