Transitional fossils in 18 minutes

| 131 Comments | 1 TrackBack

We keep hearing from Intelligent Design Creationists that the fossil record is lacking in transitional fossils. To support their claims, they consistently quote mine statement by Gould and others while ignoring the actual data.

Thanks to modern technology, Youtube presents Transitional Fossils I and II by DonExodus2

And check out the full offerings by DonExodus2

I’m a 24 year old male in Chapel Hill, NC.

Most of my videos pertain to the subject of evolution, creationism, and religion.

Education: Highschool BS Evolutionary Biology- UNC-Charlotte. Doctoral- UNC-Chapel Hill

Theological- 8 semesters at Cathedral Preparatory school from 99-02.

Im just getting into youtube, and will be adding videos pretty rapidly in the coming weeks.

1 TrackBack

Stephen Jay Gould (September 10, 1941 — May 20, 2002) was an American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science. He was also one of the most influential and widely read writers of popular science of his generation. (Wikiped... Read More

131 Comments

I liked it.. but then at 6:15ish it says “needs to develop” and then “the fossil record clearly shows all of these being developed”. You know that it will be parsed by some as “Oh? How did that fish KNOW it had to develop waterproof skin to become a reptile? Well? See!? You can’t answer that!!”. Use enough long words and you’ll end up with people picking the words they do know and interpret them as best they can (ie not always very well).

I don’t know how to make this basic information more accessible, maybe with easier to remember names… I can’t spell austrapheliticus without help but I know how to write Lucy. Scientific accuracy is one thing.. outreach potential is quite another.

I fully support the teaching of biology set to Neil Young and Grand Funk.

Great find

Thanks, and keep up the good work!

Hat Tip to Reed Cartwright.

perfect

Jackelope King:

I fully support the teaching of biology set to Neil Young and Grand Funk.

I prefer music by T. Rex and the Trogs.

“I fully support the teaching of biology set to Neil Young and Grand Funk.”

Kool music. I think I’ll watch it again with the headphones on!

The music will probably turn the fundies off faster than the facts. Should it be re-mixed with something like Lawrence Welk?

;-)

“…I’m getting closer to my home”…Oh yeahhh!

Oh yes! Clear and succinct and fine background tunes. More, please.

Evolution makes no predictions by definition. It is an uncaring molecular process driven by random mutations and ratcheted by additional random processes, called selective pressures. Weather, climate, predation, disease, accidents, catastrophes and floods are all dominated by randomness and thus two concatenated random processes cannot predict anything.

Evolution curve fits observations over intervals by adding such variables as may be necessary to connect the dots, much like a multivariate regression where with enough variables invented any continuous curve cab be approximated over a short interval of outcomes.

And since mutational effects are 99% harmful or useless even when expressed there should be millions of fossils that do fit any series such as so called whale evolution where the blowhoile apparatus supposedly evolved as teh nose moved steadily backward on teh head to the top.

But where are all the blowholes or noses moving in any other of the 359 degree directions, there should be many with nostrils moving sideways, down at all angles, after all successive mutational expressions don’t care. It’s true only those that proved “beneficial” would persist, but that does not excuse the absense of failed expressions that would be 100/1 in evidence. This is of course the case in all other so called transitional series where every fossil is perfect fit in the series.…how convenient…anbd impossible.

Evolution the science for the committed myopic community.

Keith Eaton Wrote:

Evolution makes no predictions by definition. It is an uncaring molecular process driven by random mutations and ratcheted by additional random processes, called selective pressures. Weather, climate, predation, disease, accidents, catastrophes and floods are all dominated by randomness and thus two concatenated random processes cannot predict anything.

A common confusion about evolution is that it is random, when in fact it is all but random. While Keith is correct that we may be unable to identify all the selective pressures involved, this does not mean that evolution therefore is random or unpredictable.

Evolution is a process which includes as one of its processes variation, inheritance and selection. All these processes are observed in nature and in fact some excellent research exists that shows natural selection in action in nature. In addition, real predictions can and have been made based on evolutionary principles, contrary to Keith’s unsupported assertion that “evolution makes no predictions by definition”. Even Darwin made some predictions which turned out to be quite successful.

Keith Eaton Wrote:

Evolution curve fits observations over intervals by adding such variables as may be necessary to connect the dots, much like a multivariate regression where with enough variables invented any continuous curve cab be approximated over a short interval of outcomes.

An unsupported assertion. Perhaps Keith could provide us with an example?

And since mutational effects are 99% harmful or useless even when expressed there should be millions of fossils that do fit any series such as so called whale evolution where the blowhoile apparatus supposedly evolved as teh nose moved steadily backward on teh head to the top.

Again we notice a problem here with reality. Most mutational effects are neutral, or near neutral, some are beneficial and some are harmful. However confusing neutral with useless, ignores the large amount of evidence in support of the importance and relevance of such neutral variation. Hint: neutrality is an essential component for the success of evolution as it improves evolvability.

As to whale evolution, again we see intermediates where the blow hole is slowly moving to the top. Should there be millions of fossils, Keith does not explain why and in fact the number of transitionals, however impressive, match expected numbers based on some simple back of the envelope calculations.

Evolution the science for the committed myopic community.

So far the only myopic person in this thread appears to the Keith who can be observed making many unsubstantiated comments, while ignoring the 18 minutes of transitional fossils video

So who is myopic here?

And since mutational effects are 99% harmful or useless even when expressed there should be millions of fossils that do fit any series such as so called whale evolution

I see we’ve gone from ‘there are no intermediate fossils’ to ‘there should be millions’, which I suppose is progress. Keep it up, Keith!

but that does not excuse the absense of failed expressions that would be 100/1 in evidence.

Why would they be present if they failed? That comment is even dottier than your norm.

I see we’ve gone from ‘there are no intermediate fossils’ to ‘there should be millions’, which I suppose is progress. Keep it up, Keith!

No logic nor supporting analysis is presented by Keith, showing how ignorance seems to be a driving force behind keith’s myopic vision (and may I add understanding) of evolutionary theory and the available data and evidence.

Of course, what is even more noticable is an absence of any ID relevant explanations. Figures.

While I’m now certain that Keith is a parody, his “where are all the failures” point should be addressed.

Only lucky critters get fossilized. The odds are very poor that any given critter is going to wind up preserved and then dug up so that we can bring it into a lab to study. Some environments lend themselves more to fossilization than others, but by and large, fossilization is going to be a rarity, just like the “99% harmful” mutations (ignoring for a moment that this is completely wrong… most mutations are neutral or nearly neutral, thanks to wobble in the codons).

But let’s keep assuming that 99% of mutations are going to be bad. “Bad” in this case means lowered fitness, which means fewer viable offspring (in many cases, it would be zero, as the organism might not even gestate completely and die before birth/hatching), while that 1% of mutations would be beneficial, producing more offspring. That would mean that, over a few generations, there would be MANY more examples of critters with that beneficial mutation than all of the ones with bad mutations (many of which might never reach a stage in development where fossilization is at all possible). Which one is going to be more likely to fossilize: an example of a mutation that has propagated through a population for a few generations, or one which was seen only once or twice in a few critters who never had offspring? More examples means there’s more chance to fossilize, so the odds are heavily against the hypothetical “nose moving in other directions” that Keith the Parody mentions.

To take a more modern example, let’s say you’re going into a landfill to look for an mp3 player with a specific feature to chart the “development of mp3 players”. If that feature is something found in the iPod line (let’s go with the scroll wheel), you’re more likely to find it, because there were more of those models manufactured and sold than any other mp3 player (ie it was more successful and more fit). It would be more likely to wind up in the particular pile in the particular landfill you happened to be digging in.

K eaton:

even when expressed there should be millions of fossils that do fit any series such as so called whale evolution

Why are not the ocean beds all over the planet covered with fossils?

Once again Keith displays his ignorance. Where to start?

First, evolution is not an entirely random process as PvM pointed out and as this guy no doubt already knows.

Second, just because there are some random elements in evolution, doesn’t mean that no predictions can be made. So Keith, the outcome of flipping a coin is random. Can you make any predictions as to what the outcome would be if you flipped the coin one million times? If not, you don’t understand probability. If so, then your contention is falsified.

Third, there are plenty of examples of large lineages where many species went extinct, many without giving rise to any other species. Just look at the horse lineage. How many species existed in the past? How many species exist today? How many toes do they run on? So Keith, is three intermediate betwewen four and one? Then look at the hominid lineage. How do you explain Neanderthals? If you say they are an intermediate in the human lineage then you concede that humans evolved. If you don’t thyink that they are intermediates, then once again your contention is conclusively falsified.

Fourth, as for whale evolution, how do you explain the fact that there are fossils that document the intermediate forms in the movement of the whale nostrils? So if fossils are found that don’t fit in as intermediates, will you concede that those would be no problem for evolutionary theory or would you then claim that evolution could not explain them?

Keith, grow up, learn some biology and go somewhere else, not necessarily in that order.

Beneficial mutations are common and we see them every day. Antibiotic resistance mutations, anti-biocide mutations, anticancer drug mutations and so on. These are beneficial to the pathogens although humans consider them problems. They are responsible for killing millions worldwide every year.

They are also known in humans, adult lactose tolerance, amylase high expression, HIV resistance, resistance to artherosclerosis.

No beneficial mutations is just a creo lie. All they have are lies.

Below is one of many laboratory studies quantitating beneficial mutations.

Science. 2007 Aug 10;317(5839):813-5. Links Adaptive mutations in bacteria: high rate and small effects.Perfeito L, Fernandes L, Mota C, Gordo I. Instituto Gulbenkian de Ciência, Rua da Quinta Grande, number 6, 2780-156 Oeiras, Portugal.

Evolution by natural selection is driven by the continuous generation of adaptive mutations. We measured the genomic mutation rate that generates beneficial mutations and their effects on fitness in Escherichia coli under conditions in which the effect of competition between lineages carrying different beneficial mutations is minimized. We found a rate on the order of 10(-5) per genome per generation, which is 1000 times as high as previous estimates, and a mean selective advantage of 1%. Such a high rate of adaptive evolution has implications for the evolution of antibiotic resistance and pathogenicity.

No beneficial mutations is just a creo lie. All they have are lies.

True however Keith was careful in his formulation that 99% of the mutations are detrimental or useless. However the last part shows a common confusion amongst ID creationists, namely that neutral or near neutral mutations are inherently useless. They are useful in that they allow genetic variation to spread through a population without affecting the fitness or phenotype. However, such a variation, which may initially be near neutral can acquire beneficial roles, for instance when environmental conditions change, or neutral variation can affect evolvability by providing a reservoir of genetic variation. Claiming that neutral mutations are just useless is a statement of ignorance at best.

I could point to various scientific works that explain this but until Keith acknowledges that he needs to do more research, I will not waste my time, anyone with an internet connection can do the research for themselves (perhaps with the exception of William Wallace, our creationist friend who seems to be unable to find the reports how to homogenize data for surface observation stations. Ignorance of evolution and Global warming so often seems to correlate that one may start to wonder if there is actually a causal explanation in order.)

It is an uncaring molecular process driven by random mutations and ratcheted by additional random processes, called selective pressures

A comment on evolution and “randomness”.

Let’s just deal with “mutation and natural selection” for now. Let’s also just deal with mutations that arise during cellular reproduction, although mutations may occur in non-dividing cells. Let’s also assume that the genomes we are talking about are DNA. These very minor simplifications won’t hurt, and will make it easier to be clear.

Whatever mutations, that is, whatever variance of offspring DNA from parent DNA that occur, they are independent of the human-perceived “needs” or “desires” of the organism possessing the parent DNA.

Are they “random”? It depends on what you mean by random. The probability that a given segment of DNA will experience a “mutation” of any sort is impacted by all sorts of exogenous and endogenous factors, like level of mutagens in the environment, chromosome structure and position of the segment on the chromosome, sequence of the segment in question, other biochemical features of the segment (such as methylation), etc. So someone might argue that mutation is not entirely “random”, in the sense that a given type of mutation would not be equally likely to occur at any point in the genome.

But someone else might argue, more correctly perhaps, that if we could account for a sufficient number of the factors that affect, in a significant way, the probability of a given mutation at a given site, mutation occurence would appear probablistic, or “random”, to human eyes, within those conditions. (In other words we might know that there would be a certain probability of a certain mutation at a certain site, just as we know that a roulette ball has a certain probability of landing in a certain spot - in that case we know the probability to a high degree of certainty, assuming a well-engineered table - but don’t know when it will land in that spot.)

However, whether we call mutations “random” or not, they are absolutely independent of human-perceived “needs” or “desires” of the organism.

If a mutation has a potential phenotypic effect, those organisms that express the effect may (or may not) be acted on by natural selection, one way or the other.

Natural selection is almost never conceived of as purely random. The elements that make up the environment may arise in so complex a manner as to be random to human eyes - climate, weather, soil conditions, other organisms present. The occurence of specific mutations may be perceived as a random sampling from probability distribution. The effects of natural selection itself are often modeled, in classical population genetics, in a probablistic and statistical way. We can easily note that thinking of the expected number of offspring, and the variance of that expected value, from individuals posessing or lacking a certain trait, is an obvious way to model natural selection. (In the case of severe selection like the killing of all population members who lack some sort of resistance element, it becomes simpler).

However, in the long run, natural selection tends to have such a strong directional effect that it is not conceived of as random.

@harold,

Nice, detailed rebuttal.

It might be simpler and more accurate to use “random” in a different sense, though. Mutation is “random” in the sense that it is not controlled by the needs of the organism in which it appears. Random as opposed to “directed” (e.g., Larmarkian).

I’m not disagreeing with the points you made, but it seemed like an additional and useful way of explaining “random” mutation.

How do you explain Neanderthals? If you say they are an intermediate in the human lineage then you concede that humans evolved. If you don’t thyink that they are intermediates, then once again your contention is conclusively falsified.

Dave:Creationists see neanderthals as being fully human:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/art[…]fast-talking

Recent research publications indicate that some Neanderthals may have had red-hair, fair complexions, and the capacity for speech and language. This is not surprising to creationists who have long held that Neanderthals are fully human, descendants of Adam and Eve, and therefore would be expected to share many modern human characteristics. These findings are contrary to evolutionary-based predictions of Neanderthals as knuckle dragging, dark-haired, grunting savages.

Peter,

I know that some creationists think that neanderthals were completely human, however, they are completely wrong. Neanderthals were very distinct morphologically, culturally and genetically. The genetic evidence clearly indicates that they were not humans. I can provide references if you wish. The best hypothesis based on current evidence is that they are an extinct sister group to homo sapiens that may or may not have made a slight genetic contribution to the modern human gene pool.

In any event, they certainly fulfill the criteria put forward by Keith. They were an unsuccessful hominid lineage, whether or not they were in the direct line of descent to modern humans is immaterial. And I suppose we could add Homo florensis to the list as well.

Keith just doesn’t seem to get the concept of the tree of life. If he did, he wouldn’t make such nonsensical claims.

some Neanderthals may have had red-hair, fair complexions, and the capacity for speech and language. This is not surprising to creationists who have long held that Neanderthals are fully human,

AIG is lying again. Since when do red hair and fair complexions have anything to do with being fully human? Orangutans have red hair. Chinese, Japanese, Africans, Mexicans and Italians are fully human.

These findings are contrary to evolutionary-based predictions of Neanderthals as knuckle dragging, dark-haired, grunting savages.

The evolutionary predictions and findings predicted that Neanderthals would be similar to modern humans. That they were most likely light skinned and capable of speech and thought was discovered by scientists not religious fanatics in Kentucky. The stereotype of Neanderthals as primitive went out before I was born, again due to scientists, not the churches. AIG is taking credit for something they had absolutely nothing to do with.

Of course, they forgot to mention that Neanderthals disappeared 26,000 years ago, before the last ice age was over and 20,000 years before the earth was created. LOL

Where to start with the math and logically challenged…?

The fact that a process has a known distribution means it is random…sort of by definition. The copying errors in DNA are best described as from a uniform distribution without any bias. About 1 per 10**9 base pairs approximately in human DNA according to Wills.

Now if you want to contend that small incremental changes occurred effecting a specific morphological change like a nose/blowhole location then the gene(s) expressing nose location would have to be varying due to mutations on the same gene perhaps several loci, some neutral, some harmful, some beneficial and through selection pressure changes, etc. always were reflected in some perfectly coordinated movement front to top..so be it..but statistically that’s essentially impossible.

There would be some increments in a given direction that were so slight that no selective advantage could be distinguished, then perhaps reversion, then sideways, then down…it’s absolutely inevitable. Thus although if the advantage is to go deeper into water and be able to breathe it is logical moving up top is the way to go, over eons necessary to effect such it is rediculous to presume there would not be many, many, “failures” in nose location and certainly some would be fossilized. The same can be said fore the enormous number of additional adaptations to get to a sperm whale from a land dwelling, quadruped with its many specialized features. Thuis again many failed experiements…ad finitum over millions of species, yet neat little perfect series are what you claim to construct.

Its a fairy tale.

Neanderthals are currently thought to have interbred with so called fully human populations, perhaps onoly rarely. They were degenerative genetically for reasons not understood..perhaps isolation and interbreeding in small populations, disease,radiation effects localized to their population..no one knows.

The genomes are considered 99% identical to homo sapien, they had the ability for language and speaking in their DNA analysis.

Jeez even the wikipedia site knows this.

The tree of life is a bush, not a tree and its upsidedown with almost all major taxa, etc. bursting into full fruition folowed by stasis, extinction, and minor variation within narrow vertical limits.

Can’t you all see that Keith is a parody? please stay on topic.

The fact that a process has a known distribution means it is random…sort of by definition

not at all, actually.

a standard bell-shaped distribution hardly implies complete randomness.

in fact, just the opposite.

if you can find a best fit curve to a distribution of data points that is significant, that indicates non-randomness by definition. However, since you don’t appear to understand the difference between “randomness” and “probability distribution”…

Where to start with the math and logically challenged…?

project much, moron?

ad infinitum Keith? There is no infinite series involved. Have you looked at a Hox gene mutant? Do you understand the myriad of variations that organisms possess? For example that most organisms are not perfectly symmetrical in bone size from left to right? Are you aware that increased symmetry increases performance? Are you aware that the mathematics on population genetics nicely predicts a dramatic increase in fixation chance for any beneficial allele, where as there is only a threshold based on population size only for slightly deleterious mutations? And it all ends up as only a chance of fixation (much smaller than the advantageous chance) anyways? You have a non-sensical Platonic idea of a species as being one thing and only one thing with no regard for the tremendous amount of variation within a species. Further your simplistic notions of probability would not even get out of chapter 1 of a college algebra treatment of probability.

Where to start with the math and logically challenged…?

Why not start with yourself? Just a friendly suggestion

The fact that a process has a known distribution means it is random…sort of by definition. The copying errors in DNA are best described as from a uniform distribution without any bias. About 1 per 10**9 base pairs approximately in human DNA according to Wills.

Of course copying errors are but one of the many sources of variation in the genome. What is even more interesting is that since some of the sources of variation are under genetic control, they are open to evolution themselves. In other words, sources of variation can evolve to become more successful.

Now if you want to contend that small incremental changes occurred effecting a specific morphological change like a nose/blowhole location then the gene(s) expressing nose location would have to be varying due to mutations on the same gene perhaps several loci, some neutral, some harmful, some beneficial and through selection pressure changes, etc. always were reflected in some perfectly coordinated movement front to top..so be it..but statistically that’s essentially impossible.

An interesting handwaving argument. Where is that math you promised? Do you really believe that there is a gene expressing nose location? Could you help us identify said gene? Until Keith can show that this is statistically ‘essentially impossible’ we should reject his objections as a just not so story :-)

What the fossils show is how the blow hole, contrary to Keith’s assertion, moves further backwards. Now Keith may argue that this move is initiated by something else than variations in genetic information, but it would be hard for Keith to ignore these data. As to the amount of variation needed. Within most species, there is a large source of variation regarding the location and shape and form of for instance the nose, mouth, ears and even eyes.

To claim that there is no evidence for blow hole evolution is plain silly, as PZ Myers showed. Were all the changes solely because of selective pressures?

Let me ask Keith, do you accept the evidence for the evolution of the location of the blowhole, the evolution of the middle ear as so well documented by science or do you also reject these factual data? I am curious as to where your objections are located.

Its a fairy tale.

It’s better described by a ‘strawman’

Jeez even the wikipedia site knows this.

You do know that while Wikipedia is a good source for information, there is more scientific data outside wikipedia that deals with the less obvious aspects?

Surely Keith has no excuse not being familiar with evolutionary theory given the presence of Dennis Anderson’s website at the OK Community College?

The tree of life is a bush, not a tree and its upsidedown with almost all major taxa, etc. bursting into full fruition folowed by stasis, extinction, and minor variation within narrow vertical limits.

You have shown you can cut and paste but can you defend or even explain the relevance of your statement?

Is the bush/tree upside down? Of course not, after all major taxa do arise before the species arise by the nature of the Lynnaean system. Any species will have to belong to a higher taxa, including a phylum. Yes, quite a few phyla arose during a few million years although most of them looked quite alike, causing quite a bit of confusion in recognizing fossils, and leading to an interesting over inflation of the number of ‘phyla’ until a closer look revealed the true story. See this PLOS paper for some interesting details about bush versus tree.

What is such a big deal about the tree of life being a bush or a tree? We see stasis, we see gradual evolution, we see more abrupt evolution and we see extinction. What we do not see however is minor variation within very narrow vertical limits. That is a misrepresentation of fact.

Jacob Wrote:

Again not worth responding to.

I understand, being asked to support your claims is best not responded to.

Ah the power of denial…

Jacob,

You are extremely rude and I don’t have to respond to anyone who is rude to me. Since you are not willing to engage in a civil scientific discussion, I will not respond to anything else you write. Until you answer my questions about the SINE insertions, I will not read anything else you have to write. I suggest that others treat you the same way.

If you show up on any other threads I will repeat my questions. I will keep asking until you answer or go away. Your refusal to discuss the evidence disqualifies you from any serious scientific consideration.

Jacob:

Again not worth responding to.

Amazing. Call him an ass and you get a lecture on polite discourse (akin to getting a lecture on diet from Hannibal Lecter), but make thoughtful detailed comments on his scientific claims, and that’s not worthy of a response.

You really missed my point didn’t you

No dipshit, you and all the other evolution-deniers obsessed with “Darwinism” have missed the big point, which is that modern evolutionary theory left Darwin behind a long long LONG time ago. Were Darwin alive today, he’d hardly recognize it, and some of it would outright astonish him. If you think we are all here defending “old time evolution”, you are even more out of touch than I thought you were, which is saying quite a bit.

There are three theories about the origin a mankind, creation, evolution, and Ufology, the belief that mankind is Alien origin. Creation is Christianity and other religious beliefs that mankind was created from the earth, evolution teaches that mankind evolved from the earth, and Ufology teaches God is an alien and mankind is a product of a genetic experiment with the primates. If this is true, then we have discovered the missing link to mankind and the primates. To make everyone happy, we could agree with the UFO theory and say that God is an alien and humankind is the results of genetic experiment with primates. This would satisfy Christianity and other religious groups that believe in intelligent design. It also would be the missing link to how humankind evolved. But how could we solve the debate about life after death. But have you ever considered why there much emphasis on our existed? Beginning with our childhood, most of us if not all have asked our parents, “How did we get here?” And I parents will tell our ancestry history linking us to the beginning of mankind and God. Now why do you suppose, we asked this question? Now I am going to guess that you might say we were just curious about our existence. If this is your answer how do you explain it being a universal question that most children asked between the age of six and eight. What if we never asked this question? Religion, evolution and Ufology would not exist. Why? It is because the origin of every belief begins with man questioning his existence. Neither would science. For without this thought there would be no reason for science to search for the origin and age of mankind, the earth, or the universe. We would be like the primates we supposedly evolved from. Through science we learn the purpose of everything that exists. But what is mankind purpose? Do we exist to protect the human species, protect the earth and its inhabitants? Not if exist by chance. Besides if mankind is an advance stage of evolution, there is a major flaw. Mankind is a threat to himself and everything that exist. It is man’s nature to protect the earth because God gave this task to him. God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Genesis 1:28 (NASB) there are about 6 billions of people on the earth, mankind have subdued the earth and made things of creation, giving it a reason for existing, and man rule over every the animals.

Now if evolution is the truth and there is no God, the least that can happen is to die with the faith of believing that there is eternal life. If we are lucky we live to be of old age and good health. You just spend your hold life doing good for nothing. However there is a brighter side to your belief. Your efforts of being generous are good for society. Therefore, why not let people believe that God exist, that if it there belief promotes good works. On the other hand, if there is an afterlife, the worst that can happen is dying and wakening up to an afterlife.. Now about the origin our thoughts, the bible says that God set eternity in man’s heart. It also says that man will not find out the work which God has done from the beginning even to the end. In this case it means creation for it says that everything made appropriate for its time. He has made everything appropriate in its time. He has also set eternity in their heart, yet so that man will not find out the work which God has done from the beginning even to the end. Ecclesiastes 3:11 (NASB) This passage explains mankind relentless pursuit to discover the origin of life and why there are various beliefs about the life’s origin. The bible also says that mankind suppressed the truth about creation. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, Romans 1:18 (NASB) God already gave mankind a hint when He said every creature came from the earth and was created according to its kind. Thousands of years later science discovers that mankind came from the earth. . Scientists that support evolution believe it the only idea that holds biology together. In other words, without evolution nothing in biology makes sense. On the contrary scientists supporting creation believes that creation is the only way of understand how life exist. Everything that exists was created for a purpose and science is the way of understanding the purpose and meaning of everything created. This is the task given to humankind by the creator. Moreover, without the wisdom and knowledge of creation even biology would not exist.

Evolution theory does not imply absence of God; it only implies that life forms are ancestrally related to each other, just as they appear to be to those familiar with the subject area.

Henry

Henry J said:

Evolution theory does not imply absence of God; it only implies that life forms are ancestrally related to each other, just as they appear to be to those familiar with the subject area.

Henry

the only way that life is related is because the earth was made from water and all life species come from the earth. read 2 peter 3. In Gen 1, God created all things according to its kind.

Don’t be deceived, evolution do imply that God does not exist. For example God says the there is an afterlife, but evolution says there is no Afterlife. Now if you want to gamble with your eternity that is up to you. But eternity without God is like living on the earth without any moral or goodness. So if you think world is evil now, just wait until the afterlife. Now if there is no after life, you don’t have anything to worry about, but if there is you will have a lot to worry about.

God created all things according to its kind.

Even if true, that does not imply absence of ancestral relationship.

Don’t be deceived, evolution do imply that God does not exist

I’ve read enough about it to know that evolution does not deny existence of God. If you think it does, then you have been deceived about the science.

but evolution says there is no Afterlife.

Evolution says absolutely nothing about an afterlife.

read 2 peter 3. In Gen 1,

Those verses were written by people, expressing their beliefs about God. If the universe was created by God, then the universe itself is the “word” of God much more than is scripture in a book written by people.

Besides, people have learned stuff about the universe since then.

Henry

You know there is truth in creation, evolution, and the belief that mankind is a product of an alien experiment and it is that mankind came from the earth. But of course the Bible gave us a hint thousands of years ago that mankind came from the earth. The bible says that God put eternity in man’s heart yet mankind would never discover the work of God from the beginning to the end. Eternity is the reason we asked our parents,” Where did we come from” This is the beginning of our journey of discovering God, our purpose and what happens after death. This question is also the core of everyone’s belief. Without this question, religion, evolution, or Ufology would not exist. Moreover there would be no reason for science to discover the origin of man, the earth, or the universe. There we would be like the primates we supposedly have evolved from. I hope you think about this. The bible says that mankind purpose is to procreate, fill the earth and rule over the animals. Evolution teaches that man is an advance stage of evolution evolved for a similar purpose. In fact you don’t have to read to the bible to know this. Just look around you, there 6 billion people in the world, mankind have subdue the earth making thing s out of creation, and he rules over the animals. Our purpose is as natural as breathing. We never think about breathing until we are out of breath. The threat of global warming is the reason that man recognizes his stewardship over the planet. Now if mankind is an advance stage of evolution then there is a major flaw in evolution. Mankind is a threat to his existence, the planet and other life species. It would have been better for us to stay in our primate state. Now if mankind was to vanish from the earth the evidence of his existence would be what he has made from creation. Just the same the evidence that God exist is creation. And since mankind is made in his image he emulates God by creating things from creation giving them a reason for existence. Even the attempt clone in the image of man is because man emulates God nature. If man wrote the Bible did he know that the earth was once a super continent, the earth is round and hangs on nothing, the expanse of the heavens cannot be measured neither the stars can be counted. Now if I am wrong I just die believing what I believe. But will I be wrong to promote my faith if it inspires others to love one another, do good to others. Think what the world would be like if we all did this. So why discourage people from trying to believe in God. We have soldiers dying for our rights and we honor them. Jesus died for our sins and people reject Him. Now if there is a motive behind evolution it is because no one wants you to learn the truth about mankind’s heart. And the truth is that mankind heart is the reason why the wars, famines, and diseases. However, I do respect your beliefs.

The bibles say to examine all things. For this reason I don not ask a person to believe in creation, however I suggest that we examine every religious and non religious beliefs about mankind existence. And as you do think about this. God says mankind will not discover His work from the beginning to the end. Evolution trys to explain how life began. Ufology teaches says that God is an alien, the Big bang theory was the Planet X colliding without another planet creating the earth and the moon, And the missing link between mankind and primates is Aliens DNA. and there are varous relgious belief that contents with the Gen. story of creation. The bible also says what seems right to man end in death. Now the truth stands alone but the lie needs the truth to exist. that is why in every lie there is some truth. And the truth about mankind existence that the he is of the earth. But before science confirm this God said it. Which means in this case science validates what God said. The problem with science is that it tries to discover the beginning of God’s work.

Of course people have learn much about the universe, the Bible says that mankind’s knowledge would increase. That is why God said mankind is without excuse. The knowledge of creation is proof that God exist. The lack of knowledge about creation is the reason why Darwin believed that life evolved. Nevertheless the scriptures prophesied that man will suppress the the truth about creation. Now that mankind knowledge have increase there is no excuse for rejection intelligent design and believing in a natural process of selection of survival of the fittest. Furthermore for creation to exist each species must depend on others to exist. This is impossible if it took millions of years for things to evolved. The chance that life is evolved is like sending a rocket to the moon without the knowledge of the solar system . For mankind to send a rocket to the moon. He had to determined the distance to the moon from the earth and determine the exact time the launch the rocket, since the earth spins on its axis and the moon orbits around the earth. Now if took wisdom and knowledge for mankind to figure this the solar system had to be created with knowledge and wisdom. The Bibles says By wisdom and knowledge the heavens and earth was created. And God gave mankind the task to discover everything He created. Now if everything evolved by chance then everything would be unstable. Mankind is unstable because he reject the knowledge and wisdom of God to procreate, protect the environment and rule over the creatures. at least you must agree to that.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PvM published on March 15, 2008 6:41 PM.

UNM Awards Genie Scott with Honorary Doctorate of Science was the previous entry in this blog.

International Society for Science and Religion: Intelligent Design is neither sound science nor good theology is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter