Evolution

There is no such thing as a missing link.
Evolution is a process, it doesn't just go from one phase to another.

 Interesting article... thanks for the link!  

(Macro)evolution is a crock.

"Evolution is a process, it doesn't just go from one phase to another."
 

You wouldn't think so but theres no solid fossil evidence of stages between micro and macro evolution. Yes there are intermediate species such as this fossil but it still leaves HUGE holes. I'm not saying "Jesus did it" i'm just saying the scientific community makes evolution out to be absolute fact to the public when its still just a theory with pretty big holes...  

Look up "puncuated equilibrium" vs "phyletic gradualism"   Palentoligists have been finding major problems with the gradualism theory and to me puncuated equilibrium sounds like a convenient solution... also without solid evidence.

make an argument dont just drop a fatty claim like that.

Evolution is a crock of shit, seriously, do you actually think we evolved from a monkey?
Does it say so in the bible?
God made us all like we are, go have a look at the bible and come back with some solid evidence~

I think it is cool. When I first heard about the the discovery I thought it was going to be one of the hominid links...but I still think it is really cool...I never really thought much about ancient prosimians. So it's really cool specially how well conserved the fossil is...I mean they even know what her last meal was.

As far as evolution and the fossil record goes...I think it's a poor source to get an overall picture because it is rare that fossils are so well conserved and only certain species tend to show up. But discoveries like this do add to are general knowledge about the history.

Geez, where should I start?

There's the side where Darwin says IN HIS OWN BOOK that if ANY of part of his theory is not held up, it all falls apart. And then you have people making up "excuses" (as I see it) of how it CAN work...punctuated equilibrium, anyone (thank you mcreyns, I forgot what it was called)?

Have you ever read Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box"? I think irreducible complexity sounds pretty legit.

And let us not ignore that within fossil layers in the rock, supposedly it should be most basic organisms at the bottom to most complex at the top, right? So riddle me this: why are they all combined throughout the layers?

I also believe that there is a specific type of flower that requires a singular, specific type of insect to pollinate it...how could the flower exist without this insect, if evolution were true? Just wait, you'll try to tell me that plants evolved. Sounds outlandish? Then how much more ridiculous human evolution sounds.

And to clarify before someone gets something confused:

microevolution = within-species evolution, ex: cat family...cougars, pumas, tigers

macroevolution = species to species evolution, ex: monkey --> man

I think it is really disappointing how people want to be so dependent on themselves, like they want to just wish God away. What is so wrong with believing that there is something outside of our human comprehension and understanding? I don't think that everything needs to be explained away by science...it's nice if life has a little mystery. :) I know people will jump on that and ask why God made Himself so uncomprehensible, but would you want to follow an entity you could completely understand? What is so great about that? Because if I could understand it and all that jazz, I wouldn't find it necessary to follow them because they would be just like me.

Anyway, I'm not here to pick a fight and I'm not looking to change anyone's minds about anything. I just know what I believe that leads me to the conclusion that evolution is a farce. You can believe that it's true down to the letter, and I can believe my way without anyone trying to step on anyone else's toes.

Peace.

Take a geology class and a biological anthropology class and then come back and argue your point.  Obviously you have no idea that the earth is constantly changing.  Rock formations can end up completely upside down and sideways from the moving plate activity.  Just because some rock is higher up than others doesn't mean it was created last.  Also, WE DID NOT EVOLVE FROM MONKEYS!!!  If you were to take a biological anthropology class, you would learn that the only thing we have in common with modern monkeys was a common ancestor.  We did not change from monkey to Homo sapiens.  Our common ancestor millions of years ago broke off into different groups.  One of those groups led to modern monkeys and the other to the line that would become the great apes and humans.  As simplified as that is (I could go into much greater depth), I feel like you don't even have a basic enough understanding to even be arguing this point at all.  Please spare us your ignorance.

I don't know much about this and if any Archy people can help me out that would be great. Wasn't there something signed in the Archy world that said fossils should remain in the countrythat  they are found in? I know this was a big debate with the Lucy fossil. How are people getting around that agreement and moving fossils? Very interesting article.

That comment was completely uncalled for and very rude.

Potato/patato. It all depends on how you perceive the "evidence."

Although this does remind me of that one episode of Friends when Ross it trying oh-so-hard to "prove" to Phoebe that evolution is true...until she gets him to admit that there might be one tiny little possibility that it's not. Man I miss that show.

It's beautiful and interesting and important, but I do have to take exception to the surprisingly frantic news coverage I'm seeing. It's being called the "missing link in human evolution", which is annoying. The whole "missing link" category is a bit of journalistic trumpery: almost every fossil could be called a link, and it feeds the simplistic notion that there could be a single definitive bridge between ancient and modern species.  There isn't.

Katie-- First off I do want to say that I do respect your beliefs and I also am not interested in a fight.  If you don't accept a theory on religious grounds that's fine, but if you reject it on scientific grounds then you are up for a debate.  I know that myself and a lot of other people who defend science get frustrated when we argue with people who misrepresent and/or show a clear misunderstanding of the science in making their arguments, but then claim exemption from attack on the grounds that their beliefs are religious in nature.  Well, which is it?  Because people will correct you on the science.  And we expect to be corrected when we make scientifically inaccurate or irrelevant statements.  If this is not the basis for your beliefs then it shouldn't matter one way or the other.

First, evolutionary theory has evolved, so to speak, since Darwin's time so even if the current evidence did contradict his writings that would not have much bearing on the current theory.  The same is true when we discuss Mendeleev's contributions to chemistry and Mendel's early work in genetics.  I believe that what you are referring to is a passage in which Darwin says that if the fossil record does not support his theory then it has failed or is at least incomplete.  "Ida" is just the latest in a long line of fossils that corroborate his theory, so there is no problem here.  Punctuated equilibrium in no way violates the theory of evolution by natural selection, it's an addendum which seeks to account for specific cases of evolution.  Unlike religious ideas, scientific ideas are constantly changing with the state of the available evidence.  You may see it as an "excuse" but the important thing is that it does not go against evolution, it merely expands upon it. 

Irreducible complexity is full of problems.  First it fails on purely logical grounds by employing the argument from ignorance, which essentially says "I don't understand how this could have happened, therefore it cannot have happened."  Just because Michael Behe doesn't understand how complex systems can evolve from simpler prototypes does not mean that it is impossible.  I don't understand how many magic tricks work but I also do not believe that the guy on stage possesses true supernatural powers.  A second problem which follows directly from this is that Behe's outlook is anti-scientific.  If we just throw up our hands every time we lack an explanation for something we will never learn anything.  It's not about a fear of mystery or a belief that we can or will know everything, it's a simple recognition of the fact that human knowledge has grown tremendously since we've been on this planet thanks in large part to people who have refused to stop asking questions.  Behe illustrated his rather odd understanding of science when he admitted under oath that astrology would meet his definition.  The third and probably most serious problem is that Behe is simply incorrect.  The scientific literature is full of examples of precursors to "complex" systems existing in more primitive forms.  The bacterial flagellum is closely related to an ion channel that is common in many cells and a lot of work has been done investigating the molecular changes that are necessary to transform this into the flagellum.  Behe admitted on trial that he was simply not familiar with the scientific literature when he wrote his book, and much more work has been done since he originally published.

For the most part things fall exactly where we expect to find them.  The layers don't simply fall on top of each other and then remain stationary until we dig them up.  There are earthquakes, floods and volcanic eruptions to stir up the layers.  Determination of strata is not based solely on the depth of the layer but on the unique geological history of each site and on a host of chemical techniques for determining the age of a given layer or an item found in a layer.

Again this is totally consistent with evolution and the nature of genetic mutations.  It's amazing, no doubt, but neither impossible nor even unlikely.  Besides if you want to play this game then we have to entertain questions about why an intelligent designer would do such a crummy job designing us.  Why the bad back?  Why the susceptibility to sinus infections?  Why do female humans die during childbirth when other mammals almost never do?  Then there's all the weird stuff:  Why do males have nipples?  Why the tail bone?  Why do human embryos have slits during part of development?

Cougars and pumas are actually the same species and tigers are a separate species.  The felines are an excellent example of mammalian evolution and adaptive radiation.  No body believes that "monkey evolved into man" so I don't have a response to this.  Why, logically, can microevolution occur without macroevolution?  Enough changes plus enough time plus geographic isolation offer a pretty straightforward mechanism for the appearance of distinct species.

As for the last bit, it's interesting to note that scientists sometimes turn the same argument around on creationists.  In fact it is we who are comfortable not knowing, not understanding.  On the one hand we seek to further our knowledge but we also recognize the limitations of our knowledge.  Rather than leave it all up to faith, we try to challenge our assumptions and gain new knowledge, and are encouraged to acknowledge what we can't explain, but not to hastily attribute it to something and abandon the question.

Finally, I want to point out that many people find no conflict between religion and evolution.  The theory of evolution says nothing about the existence of a god or gods.  Kenneth Miller writes about this in Finding Darwin's God, and I know there are other examples out there.  I have not read this book but I've heard him speak many times on this very issue and he's reasonable.

 I totally agree.  I heard somewhere that this confirms Darwin's theory, as if it has controversial until this point.  It's no less controversial among scientists or more controversial among creationists than it was a week ago.  It's also interesting how much they are focusing on the implications for human evolution, though not the least bit surprising.  This is a link between the prosimians and the primates that many people are probably more familiar—the monkeys and apes, which include humans.  We already have numerous fossils of much more recent human ancestors, not to mention living species which tell us more about our direct lineage than "Ida" does.  Unfortunately I think that this sort of reporting does nothing to improve public understanding of how evolution really works and the true state of the evidence.

Katie,

It appears that you lack a solid understanding of the evolutionary process. I agree that we are all entitled to our own beliefs but since you felt the need to provide your viewpoints on this thread and base them on "facts" you have so thoroughly researched, I will provide you with the reasons why you are wrong.

First, you make an argument by quoting Darwin as admitting that if any part of his theory does not hold up, it all falls apart. This is something he did in fact say "IN HIS OWN BOOK" yet all you did was provide us with the quote. It still remains that no part of his theory has been disproved so I fail to see how this leads you to believe that the theory is somehow flawed and requires "excuses."

Second, (and I'm ecstatic to be able to point this out) you refer to Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" and his notion of "irreducible complexity." I'm happy you brought this up because it is a perfect example of how people revert to using bad logic in an attempt to justify their beliefs that are based on illogical biblical ideas in the first place. For those of you unfamiliar with Michael Behe, his idea states that a system is "irreducibly complex" if its function is lost when a part is removed. He believes that these systems can not evolve by gradual evolutionary mechanisms.

This argument is basically a rehash of the famously flawed "Watchmaker" argument first proposed by William Paley at the beginning of the 19th century and is logically expressed as the following:

• (P1) Direct, gradual evolution proceeds only by stepwise addition of parts.
• (P2) By definition, an irreducibly complex system lacking a part is nonfunctional.
• (C) Therefore, all possible direct gradual evolutionary precursors to an irreducibly complex system must be nonfunctional.

Anyone who has taken an Introduction to Logic class can identify the flawed logic it relies on. Not only have standard genetic processes produced such "irreducibly complex" systems, but his logic is based on a false premise: "Direct, gradual evolution proceeds only by stepwise addition of parts." This is not true because gradual evolution can in fact change parts, add them, and even remove them. I won't go too much more into it because Behe's argument has already been refuted countless times as you will find if you do a simple Google search. So no, irreducible complexity doesn't really sound that legit.

Third, you attempt to form an argument based on the fossil record which uses downright false information. You say:

"And let us not ignore that within fossil layers in the rock, supposedly it should be most basic organisms at the bottom to most complex at the top, right? So riddle me this: why are they all combined throughout the layers?"

If you took the time to read about the fossil record, you would find that the fossils are in fact ordered exactly as we should expect them to be based on evolutionary processes. The "most basic organisms" do appear first as invertebrates, then simple vertebrates, then jawed fishes, then amphibians, then reptiles, and finally birds and mammals.. They are all combined within layers of rock for the exact reason we see a combination of reptiles, birds, mammals, and even single celled organisms living today. Evolution does not eliminate organisms just because it has created something more complex. The single celled organisms living today are perfectly adapted to their environment and need not change or be eliminated.

Fourth, you offer the best reason why your knowledge of evolution is in such desperate need of an overhaul by stating that "Just wait, you'll try to tell me that plants evolved. Sounds outlandish?" Katie, I hate to break it to you, but yes, plants did evolve and no it does not sound at all outlandish. Plants have DNA just like we do and this DNA is prone to changes and mutations. Plants are living things that need to survive. In a changing environment, this means that plants must adapt through the process of natural selection. Those most fit to survive, will. A simple example of this is the evolution of ancient maize into what we now call corn.

I ask you to please refrain from calling this an example of "micro-evolution" because there is no such thing. Evolution is evolution. It is defined as "a change in a species' collective genes as a group." This also allows for speciation, or what creationists have deemed "macro-evolution" and is when a parent population and a daughter population evolve to the point where to the populations are no longer interfertile. This is the process of evolution and the process is a fact. It is directly observable both on a "micro" and "macro" level meaning that scientists have directly observed speciation. Please note also that the parent population can go on existing at the same time as the daughter population, which accounts for why we see such a diverse number of species today.

The evolutionary process is an observable fact and it cannot be denied. Evolutionary Theory is the entire body of human knowledge that applies to how life on earth changes and changed. It only refers to how and when species evolved over time to reach what we see today. It is a theory, meaning there are possibilities that the theory is wrong but do not hold on to the common phrase of "Evolution is JUST a theory." The scientific method holds that all conclusions are tentative and nothing can ever be absolutely proven to a certainty. Theories in science are the highest form an idea can attain. A scientific theory has been thoroughly tested and serves as the best explanation for something observed. The theory of gravity is "only" a theory but no one says gravity is made up.

Please note that the theory of evolution does not relate to any other areas of science such as cosmology or physics. It does not explain how life began, it explains what happened to life after that. This is why most scientists refuse to debate creationists on the topic. One cannot debate someone who is abominably ignorant on a subject. Please refrain from spouting false data to back up your beliefs. If you don't know enough about evolution, do not try to debate against it.

Thanks

First of all, macro and micro evolution did not lead to eachother. Micro evolution refers to changes within a species and macro evolution is basically speciation, so yes, you are right, there are no fossils that show these stages, because they do not exist. And second, I don't think most scientists believe evolution is an absolute fact. Evolution is a theory that has been pretty well backed up. However, in science, no theory is considered absoute fact, and it will only stand until something better comes along and displaces evolution. But for the time being, evolution is the most accepted theory, but that does not make it "the truth."

Actually, evolution is generally regarded as being both a theory and a fact.  Your basic characterization of theories is correct in that there is always room for change, improvement, and even the possibility of total upheval.  However at this point in time evolution is so well-established that it is taken as fact.  What qualifies something as a theory is related to its explanatory power and the way in which it is formulated.  In science there are theories which are known not to be literally true but which are still widely use because they are good explanatory tools and provide a framework for analyzing a problem and arriving at a good approximation of the truth.  Then there are theories like evolution and kinetic molecular theory which are both theory and fact.  Here are some good explanations of evolution's status:

www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact

I want to be clear that this in no way means that biologists are closed to new evidence.  Any good evidence to overturn evolution would be usher in a new age of biology and a host of exiting research avenues.  A young grad student could make his or her career disproving evolution.

The Little Mermaid clearly shows that humans are just mermaids who've transformed after they've climbed onto land. Ariel is obviously the progenitor of the human race after they escaped from the evil octopii.

The bible is fiction. Citing it as "fact" has the same strength as me citing any other extremely biased account of history passed down for hundreds of years through word of mouth of people who constantly revised stories, then edited by monks who deleted and inserted what they pleased when they were scribing copies, then again selectively edited by various kings and councils of people who wanted to control people through use of a political document represented as divine fact.

What we know is that creatures adapt and improve their species through natural selection. Over billions of years, this easily could have led to creatures becoming more and more complex, leaving the ocean to escape predators, devloping lungs and endothermic bodies, rough skin and turning fins and flippers into limbs, brain development constantly becoming more and more complex, intelligence higher and higher, etc etc...

It's a far better explaination than "God did it."

The most irritating thing about the debate between creationism and evolution is that people truly believe there is debate amongst the scientific community about the validity of evolution.

Sure, there've been a couple of scientists who openly voice their pro-creationism opinions. And I, as well as any erudite worth his salt, is grateful for countering opinions, and promotes non-personal argument.

But anybody who knows understands basic statistics realizes that the debate doesn't come from science, it comes from public discussion.

Let me make one actual point:  Natural selection is not a theory. It's a deduction based on several clearly defined principals, all which appear to be met in nature. 
Evolution is simply one abstraction higher than natural selection.

Thanks johns517 and lampshade. I don't have the patience to deal with these people.

people are always arguing about what is considered the true origin of the human race. many ideas are debated and only one idea appeals to every individual. but what really makes us unique is that we can constanley change over time and so does the world. at least the darwin awards are funny as hell.

To johns517:

I'm sorry, I must be getting things confused...I think of evolution and natural selection as two separate things. For evolution, I thought it was the gradual change (evolution) of one animal into another. Natural selection is the survival of the strongest of the species, is it not? Those things are distinctly different, in my eyes. I think natural selection is perfectly legit--to a point. But then that would drag euthenasia into the mix, along with letting people with any other sort of debilitating disease live. If it were entirely true, we will kill all the people of retirement age of being a drag on our system/resources.

I think you have your definition of irreducible complexity confused with something else. It's when if you remove any part of a process (Behe uses the example of blood clotting), the whole process falls apart/doesn't work. Fails, if you will.

I do not appreciate you saying that my God is a crummy maker. I know you will laugh hysterically when I say this, but all of those problems that you listed (bad back, sinus infections, childbirth) are a result of the sin that occurred in the Garden of Eden. I think that originally childbirth did not have any pain because when God banished Adam and Eve, He said that then it would be painful. How things are are not like they were originally meant to be, but God knew it would end up like this. He's a smarty. :)

Microevolution is from small variations in genetic to produce what we have today (back to the cat example). I think that even though the Ark was pretty huge, not everything was able to fit, so there was probably two of each species, and those species had offspring that eventually, over thousands of years (I don't believe in millions), ended up with the broad spectrum of what we see today. Macroevolution implies crossing species boundaries, and micro does not lead to macro.

Oh yes, and in the end I think you are referencing theistic evolution. The problem with that is that it directly contradicts the Bible. It says that God created each one, not that He made something and guided it along the path to being a human.

To lampshade:

I will admit that the last time I had a science class was bio in 10th grade, so it's been a while.

The reason why I said Darwin's quote is because I feel that when other so-called evidence is found, things must be reworked so that everything fits.

For your third reason, you seem to not understand your own logic--by what you say, that means that all forms of life (complex and simple) are found throughout all layers of rock. Did you just disprove yourself?

Like I have said before, evolution and natural selection are two different things. And I have never before heard of plants evolving, but I just have my head so obviously buried in the sand.

And I'm sorry, but I must stand and say that there are different kinds of evolution. But that is no matter, you will blow that off anyway.

To flieder:

The Bible is not fiction. Quite the contrary. Many things that are said in the Bible (places, events, people, etc) have been found to be true. Also, if you would pop on over to your local library, you will find it in the nonfiction section.

Also, saying that "God did it" sounds so much better to me than thinking I am somehow related to...something not human. I have been informed from many people that it is not a monkey, but they have not clarified what it might be. But of course, what sounds good to one person sounds tragic to another (like I prefer olives to onions, while my mother would strongly disagree).

To cakeface:

I apologize for being one of "those people" that grates on your nerves so much. At least I make it so you can reaffirm your notions.

To anyone else:

I stand by my opinion, and that's just what it is...MINE.

Just thought that I'd mention that "survival of the fittest" is a term that belongs to Herbert Spencer, not Charles Darwin. So, I guess that one could say that the idea of "survival of the fittest" –although reminiscent of natural selection- is in no way connected to evolution as discussed by Darwin.

Herbert Spencer coined the term, and came up with the idea of Social Darwinism that led to eugenics. Eugenics is really terrible, and you can read about it in Edwin Black's book "War Against the Weak."

DNA is genetic material found in side the nucleus of a cell. The DNA structure consists of a two-stranded double helix that is connected between four types of chemical bases which are; Adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine (A,C,G,T). Scientists are now beginning to take steps to understanding the genetic variants that are passed from one generation of species to the next (Orr). DNA helps scientists understand how the process of natural selection works.
The probability of surviving and reproducing in a given environment is termed fitness. There are many factors that attribute to the survival of a species some are maintenance, growth, storage, reproduction, protection, and obtaining more energy. The geographic location of a species also plays a large role in the process of surviving and adapting to the ecosystem. All of these factors are important in determining how much an organism must be genetically altered in favor of the ecosystem in which the organism lives. After all physical factors are accounted for, the process of natural selection can begin. An environmental disturbance can drastically affect the habitat in which a species lives. The adaptation in one species that favors the new environmental changes may be stronger or weaker then others. The fitter a given organism is in a population, the greater frequency of growth will be established (Orr).
The process of natural selection in advanced organisms is a slow process. The genetic alterations is passed from parent organism to offspring. The adaptation is a two step process. One being the division of labor between genetic alterations and between mutations which are either neutral or negatively affect adaptation (Orr). Thus the adaptation process is to reduce unfit variants (mutations) and exchange them with positive ones. Eventually natural selection will drive the evolution of physical traits in living organisms (Kingsley).
A species that is isolated in a geographic area will potentially adapt and thrive in its environment. For instance, The Discovery channel portrayed different types of ecosystems in it’s series Planet Earth. In the cave episode, a certain type of lizard has been isolated from the outside environment for a long enough time that it has lost all pigment in it’s skin and has also lost its eyes. The process of such a dramatic change in physical attributes can be attributed to natural selection. The lizard no longer needs vision to see. The lizard also loses its skin pigment due to the countless generations of lack of sun. The lizard is a prime example of the adaptations that occur in a place where a species is isolated.
There are three goals that scientists use when determining the effects of natural selection. The three goals consist of the commonality of the organism in the given ecosystem; the precise genetic changes of the organism given by adaptations through natural selection; and how big of a role the natural selection process plays in the evolution process (Orr).

Orr, H. (2009, January). Testing Natural Selection. Scientific American, 300(1), 44-50. Retrieved February 19, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.

Kingsley, D. (2009, January). From Atoms to Traits. Scientific American, 300(1), 52-59. Retrieved February 19, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.
 

In 1925 John Scopes taught evolution to his biology class in the small conservative town of Dayton, Tennessee. Earlier that year a bill was passed in Tennessee that made any other teaching other than creationism by God illegal (Scopes). The American Civil Liberties Union persuaded Scopes to test the bill and supported him legally through the trial. The verdict was undoubtedly decided before the trial began. Did Thomas Scopes teach evolution in the classroom? The defendant pled guilty. The underlying issues of the Scopes trial is what the ACLU and the Christian fundamentalists debated about vigorously. The fundamentalists argued that the first book of Genesis in the Bible, which covers God’s creation of the heavens and the Earth, is of literal interpretation. Creationism to fundamentalists is black and white. God created everything on Earth therefore evolution is wrong. The fundamentalists believe that Darwinism brings about social change and will therefore tear down the walls of traditional Christian belief.
Put simply, the teaching of creationism in the classroom is a bad science. Creationism considers theories of supernatural explanations for how the Earth was made (bad science). Evolution on the other hand, has no pretense to religion. The theory of the Origin of Species is based on observations that can be calculated. Darwinism uses scientific research to present its case.
Eighty years later after the Scopes trial there was the Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover trial. The case went to trial when the Dover school board voted to revise the biology textbook explaining gaps and problems to the evolutionist theory (Press). By revising the textbooks it paves the way for alternate theories, which is Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is the savvy term that Christian groups came up with to disguise the word God or creationism in textbooks. The case violates the first amendment, which separates church from state (Press). Intelligent design in public school institutions is in violation of the first amendment. The school board lost the case particularly because of the first amendment and the illogical viewpoint that creationism is a science.

Academic freedom is one of the most important aspects in academics. It is important for people to critically think about controversial topics and weigh in arguments that are presented to the people. This is why America adopted the first amendment and this is why the government gives American’s the right to vote on issues. Academic freedom sometimes causes institutional reform. However, academic freedom should be limited to subjects that can be presented in a factual and scientific way. Alternate theories to evolution are presented in a hidden meaning that suggest that God was the ultimate creator. This view is illogical and is not a science. Also, suggesting alternating viewpoint is confusing to students. On one hand there is the theories of evolution which is based on scientific observations and inferences. On the other hand there is creationism, which is based on the belief that there is no explanation to the occurrence of belief besides the hand of God. Grouping the two together in a classroom will send students into a dizzy confusion.
The large majority of American’s are traditionalists. These people are church going members that cannot open themselves up to change. The reason is simple, Christians are told in the Bible and by pastors to take the Bible’s teachings as a literal concept. If any Christian that revokes apart of the Bible will go to the Hell. The Christian does not open themselves to change out of fear. According to the paper Evolution in Action, forty percent of the United States population believes that living things have not evolved from their present state since the beginning of time (Evolution in Action).

Press, Eyal. Darwin on Trial. Geology 152 reading. March 4 2009.
The Scopes Trial and the American Character. Geology 152 reading. March 4 2009.
Branch, G. and Scott, E.C.: The Latest Face of Creationism. Scientific American, January 2009,v. 300 n. 1, p. 92-99.

Evolution in Action. Geology 152 reading. March 4 2009.

Scientists have constructed a format of categories in order to interpret the Earth’s history. Since the Earth’s history has undergone many changes of evolution, there relevance to history is formatted in the categories. Scientists subdivide history into four parts and are in order from the oldest time periods to the most recent. These categories are eons, eras, periods, and the most recent period epochs. Other terms of history include; Zoic (animal life), paleo (ancient), meso (middle), and ceno (recent).
In dealing with time relevance of rocks, scientists study strata, which is the layers of rock. The science of strata is stratigraphy. Stratigraphy is the measuring of the layers of rocks and how those layers relate to time.
The basalt flow lays atop older rock that has been baked by the volcanic flow underneath it. The age of rock in layers states that rock that is under another rock layer is older. This pattern of layers from youngest rock to oldest rock is the law of superposition. The granite dike is younger then the rocks it cuts crossed at a diagonal. The Granite dike is younger than rock its cuts crossed and older than the rock above it. These patterns of rock formations are used by scientists for relevance of geologic time.
There are three concepts that are related to the study of fossils are thus the law of fossil succession. 1) Fossils are represented as once being a living organism. 2) Fossils that are buried within rocks are most likely the remains of animals and organism that are now extinct in our modern time period. 3) Overtime organism have evolved as adaptations to the environment and/or have become extinct. Therefore, these fossils can be represented in different periods of history. Scientists can therefore date rocks to time periods by interpreting fossils through the law of fossil succession.
The half-life of an isotope is the length of time that the parent isotope is transferred to the daughter isotope. The life of certain isotopes vary depending on the element that is subjected to. Dating rocks by using half-life isotopes measure the time that the rock was approximately formed. The rock in subject of dating is found together with other rock and is assigned relative ages because of their fossils.

Maasch, Kirk A. The Big Chill. PBS. 1997
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ice/chill.html

Edwards, Lucy and John Pojeta Jr. Fossils, Rocks, and Time. 14 Aug 1997. http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/fossils/contents.html/

Don't apologize to me. I don't want that from you. Also, you don't make it so I can reaffirm my notions. The only way I reaffirm my my notions is using the reason that your so called "God" gave me.

I think your opinions are misinformed. To put it bluntly, I think you're stupid for holding those opinions.

Katie, sorry for not doing a better job of defining my terms.  The terms evolution, natural selection, Darwinism, and "survival of the fittest" get thrown around a lot so I think it is important to clarify their meaning.

• On evolution & natural selection

Evolution is a change over time in the genetic composition of of a population (Campbell).  Thus evolution does not necessarily refer to the the development of new species, but can be applied to observable changes within a single species.  I believe this is what people mean by "microevolution."  It's easy to see find examples of this sort of evolution in the domesticated plants and animals that we keep around us; selective breeding for favorable traits leads to an increase in the frequency of some traits (and the genes that code for them) and a decrease in others.  However there is an expanded definition: Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors (TalkOrigins.org).  This second definition corresponds to "macroevolution," although it is worth noting that biologists do not really use these terms and they frequently appear in non-scientific writing on the subject.  Natural selection is one mechanism of evolution, in other words, evolution occurs by natural selection.  

The basic idea of natural selection is that a population can change over generations if individuals that possess certain heritable traits leave more offspring than other individuals.  The result of natural selection is evolutionary adaptation, an accumulation of inherited characteristics that enhance organisms' ability to survive and reproduce in specific environments (Campbell). Like evolution, the term natural selection can be used to describe events on a short time scale, like a few generations, but is often used to talk about large scale changes over a much longer period of time.

So why don't we go around killing off the sick and the weak? For one thing, evolution and natural selection are not things that individuals or populations do consciously, they are process that simply occur.  Social groups actually provide a selective advantage to populations.  The idea is that while many individuals give up a little bit of their biological "fitness" to protect others, the overall result is that more individuals are able to live long enough to reproduce.  It's possible that at this stage in our evolution we could afford to kill everyone over 65, because by this time almost everyone is done having kids.  But for most of human evolution it was probably useful to have older people around to help raise children ("the grandmother hypothesis").

• Irreducible complexity

I am well aware of the definition of irreducible complexity.  I am not sure exactly which examples Behe uses in his book, but the three classic ones are the blood clotting cascade, the bacterial flagellum, and the vertebrate eye.  As you say, irreducibly complex systems would no longer function if a single component were removed.  The implication is that they cannot have evolved from simpler systems because there would have been no evolutionary benefit to having 90% of a flagelllum or half an enzymatic cascade.  I've already touched on why this is false, as has lampshade:

I used the bacterial flagellum as an example of one such system.  The bacterial flagellum is a molecular motor which is powered b an electrochemical gradient across the bacterial plasma membrane.  The structure and the underlying genetic basis of the bacterial flagellum is very similar to a class of proton pumps which are found in humans, plants, bacteria and other life forms.  While it is true that a bacterial flagellum would not function as a bacterial flagellum if you removed one or two of the important parts, it could still function as a proton pump.  Biological evolution proceeds by co-opting parts of one system to do work in another, giving rise to families of proteins and protein complexes with similar amino acid sequences and chemical and physical properties but diverse cellular functions.

• Micro- and macroevolution

As I said earlier, these terms do not appear very often in scientific journals or in textbooks; they are frequently used in discussions such as this and I admit I find them rather confusing because they are not used consistently and do not correspond well with any concepts in modern biology.  What you describe sounds to me like garden variety evolution:

This is essentially how an introductory biology textbook might describe evolution.  A group of cats reproducing, spreading out and giving rise to lions, tigers, cheetahs, house cats and cougars after many generations is consistent with evolution.  All of these are members of different species.  They are similar and share a common ancestor—the cats on the Ark, for example—but you would not confuse a cheetah and a house cat!  I guess I'm not really clear about where you draw the line between micro and macro.  Chimpanzees and humans are more similar than lions and cougars.

I understand that you do not "believe" that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, but just imagine for a second that it is, and that life has been on earth for about 3.5 billion years.  If two cats can give rise to distinct species in just 4,000 years, suddenly it does not seem as strange that organisms which today appear totally unrelated could have shared a common ancestor millions or even billions of years ago.  I'm not asking you to change your beliefs, but I hope you can see that evolutionary theory is at least internally consistent.

Just out of curiosity, how are you planning to satisfy your lab science requirements for graduation?  
________________________________________

Campbell's Biology, 7ed. 
TalkOrigins.org FAQ: www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

 I get the impression Creationists feel as they need to defend themselves against science, as if they suspect if the world turns out to be one way or another it will undermine everything they believe in... and it's really a little depressing to watch.  True faith is not assailable.  If you feel as if yours is, I'd contend what you have could not be called faith.  I'm not saying you have a less than ideal amount of faith, I'm saying you don't even understand what faith really is. 

Im sorry, but I fail to see how believing in evolution kills old people?

this thread is so twilight zone.

i didnt read everything on here because ive already read just about every argument on both sides for evolution. let me just throw my pennies in, there's no "missing link." we're, genetically, 98% identical to the chimpanzee, if thats not enough of a link to other animals then nothing will be. and thats probably the case because the whole missing link thing is just so much religious idiocy, looking for a way to put a hole in a theory that is a fact. it is a fact. its too fucking basic, obvious and OBSERVABLE  to deny that. you can watch evolution work in fruit flies, carl sagan had a great example with the japanese samurai frog. it happens, if you dont think its either because your parents succesfully brainwashed you as a baby to believe in crazy shit like outer space kingdoms and zombies and giant eyeballs destroying cities or you havent had evolution explained clearly enough. because its pretty fuckin simple. but given that you shouldnt listen to some asshole on a chatboard about anything, i will again suggest you go buy climbing mt. improbable, or the dragons of eden or the ancestors tale or the selfish gene. anything by dawkins, who maybe an atheist battle commander but is also a universally respected evolutionary biologist (probably related), or carl sagan.

You can't disprove that god made everything the way it is right now, and furthermore the bible is the WORD OF GOD!!! so I'd think twice before you say it is innacurate.  Also, god wouldn't have let people disgrace his book for political purposes.  Why can't you just realize god created everything like it is now?  Stop overanalyzing this, please~

I don't understand you.  You say that you are "utterly opposed to religion" on your profile, but then you make some comments that are unbacked by facts about the truth of religion.  You can have beliefs without fitting into a certain religion, but your arguments are not making any sense unless you are being sarcastic.  If so, then I find that extremely counterproductive to this thread.  You bring up the point that no one can disprove God; well, tell me this, how can you prove God?  As a person who thinks scientifically, I can understand that we don't have much evidence disproving its existence, but I have yet to see one bit of evidence that says: "because of this...there must be a god."

I had a long, thought out response to this, but then I realized that you're probably not going to read it.

You're a fucking idiot. I hope you meet God soon.

To cakeface:

Basing my intelligence on my opinions is a little bit ludicrous, don't you think? If I were to say that I enjoy movies with Ben Stiller in them, and you didn't, would I still be stupid? What I enjoy doesn't impact you in any way, unless I were to have a conversation with you and drone on and on about how much I like Zoolander...

To johns517:

I really appreciate your sincerity in your posts, compared to others who are not willing to defend their opinions and instead feel that they need to cut other people down to make themself feel better. :)

I'm not quite sure how I can clarify the difference between micro and macro evolution any more than I already have. Felines vs felines compared to canines vs felines?

I am curious on your thoughts of the platypus. Do you believe that evolution wanted to play some sort of weird joke and combined a lot of different (random, may I?) characteristics just for fun?

I shall humor you and think for a second that the earth is billions of years old. Unfortunately, the common ancestor theory just doesn't work for me. I'm glad that you found something that works for you, but I'll stick to the earth being a few thousand years old. I also think of, if the earth is billions of years old, how likely it is that it is still around and not obliterated by asteriods or whatnot. Also, the placement of the earth is so perfect, along with what the air is composed of (not too much oxygen so everything catches fire, etc.)...I just think it is hard to think that it was all by "chance." There are so many things that just seem to line up so perfectly, I think it is hard to discount a supreme being. But that's just me.

OH! And for your last question about my science requirements, I took physics, stats, and environmental science back at my CC.

To Barty:

The reason why some Christians have such an issue with evolution is that it directly contradicts the Bible because it says that God created everything. Evolution implies no God. Additionally, there is a thing called "theistic evolution" where it is believed that God created, as johns517 says, a "common ancestor" and "guided" it in its evolutionary process.

To ihlerj:

I did not say that evolution "kills old people." I said natural selection would.

To Pete:

I think X-Files > Twilight Zone.

To coreyb:

I do not appreciate being called an "asshole." That was uncalled for and immature.

Additionally, from where I stand, evolution seems pretty darn complex for it to work out all neat and tidy like it has (if you believe it's true).

To Ogrim:

Yes, I am confused too as to your standing on religion...or perhaps you are just being sarcastic?

Has nobody figured out yet that he's being sarcastic?  Come on people this is a forum :),  I find it hilarious to watch one person type something jokingly and for others to take it serious.

And this whole debate is kinda stupid...

I don't believe ANY of what I just said.  Yes, I'm opposed to religion, I hate the very thought of religion.  I was just trying to feel what it's like on the other side (religious, or not believing in evolution) of things.  All I accomplished was feeling dumb as fuck.  I do believe in evolution, for the record.
To the person who called me a fucking idiot: word up brotha, were on the same side, if somebody else posted what I posted, I would definitely call them a fucking idiot too~

Thank...well not "God"...what do I say in these situations?

I don't think basing your intelligence off of your opinions is ludicrous at all. In order to form an opinion, you have to think about it. If you actually had taken the time to think critically about your opinions, then you would see that they are poorly formed. In this instance, movies are a poor example because they have to deal with aesthetics rather than science.

I have a question for you though, and I would like a well reasoned response (using the logic that your God gave you). Why is the Bible the word of God, and the Quran, Bhagavad Gita, and other holy scriptures from the rest of worlds religions not the word of God? What is it that makes your book the right one? The reason I ask is because you base your entire world view on this one book that clearly contradicts the countless tomes of scientific knowledge we have gathered over the centuries (once again, using the reason and logic, that your God gave us).

I guess what I am trying to emphasize is that the exact same process you are talking about would lead to very different species given enough time.  This is a huge oversimplification, but let's say you have a species of animal living in a given area.  There is a large natural disaster which splits them into two large populations.  At first they are just two populations of the same species, like people in New York and people in Los Angeles.  Assume that there is a steady rate of genetic mutation in each group, and that they are never able to mate with individuals from the other group one their habitat is split in two.  Let's say that the mutation rates result in an average 1% genetic difference each thousand years.  Both populations are changing at the same rate, but the changes are different.  Some of the changes are likely to be the same but the net effect is that after each 1000 years there is a 1% increase in the genetic difference between the two populations, in other words a 1% decrease in genetic similarity.

Year      % genetic similarity
1           100%   
1000     99%
2000     98%
3000     97%
4000     96%

After just 4000 years the genetic make up of the populations are 96% similar with a 4% difference.  This might correspond to the difference between a cheetah and a house cat, or a fox and a wolf.  Humans and chimpanzees differ by less than 2%.  Using this very simplistic model, we would expect that if these two populations were separated for 100,000 years they would be 100% genetically distinct!  I admit that there is a lot wrong with this model, but the point is that the only real difference between microevolution and macroevolution is the time scale required.  

The platypus makes perfect evolutionary sense.  We know that mammals and reptiles had a common ancestor so we would expect there to be a sort of "half mammal-half reptile" somewhere.  Thinking of it as a mammal-reptile hybrid or a "missing link" is not really scientifically accurate and is overly simplistic, but we  The platypus is just another organism that "settled" on a suite of characteristics that allow it to be successful.

As for the earth being perfectly suited for life, the counterpoint would be that we are perfectly evolved to live here because those organisms that were not died out.  Animals that would have been better suited for a planet closer to or further from the sun would not do well here.  The oxygen content of our atmosphere is a byproduct of life; plants and many single-celled organisms produce oxygen gas as part of their metabolism.  Oxygen is actually toxic to many lifeforms, so while it is required for our lives, it is not required for life itself. 

I agree that the fact that we have life is absolutely amazing.  The reason I am studying biology is because I just think it is so freakin' cool.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldilock%27s_zone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_bias

I don't know if you realize that you just contradicted yourself within the span of 2 sentences...

For your information Katie, people die. As a matter of fact. In fact, I would be bold enough as to claim that proximity to death is what defines old age... *facepalm*

But you seem to have figured it out all by yourself that it's entirely bollocks! It mustn't be too complex then...

Please, people, be respectful when presenting your arguments. "Be humane: Behind the computer screen, there are real humans with real feelings; avoid insulting language or belittling statements." Calling anyone stupid or an idiot or anything of that sort is rather insulting.

I'm not even going to get actively involved in this one... I'll just say that, to me, if one looks at everything critically, it's hard to ignore all the evidence that supports evolution... and it's pretty easy to ignore any evidence that supports the Bible...

Katie-
Just curious...do you believe in dinosaurs?

What do you mean "believe in"?

Evolution is too complex to work out?...
So, anything that can't be explained in three words (God did it; Read the bible; Jesus loves us;) can't possible be true?

I want to believe... in dinosaurs.

I'm disappointed in your arguments. You should take another biology class.

I firmly believe that people who can't stand the thought of being related to a chimpanzee are the main problem with society today. When we consider ourselves better and more important than any other of God's creatures, we justify destruction and cruelty. If you believe God created everything, the least you could do would be to treat the rest of his creation with a little respect.

We are all related, and to me, therein lies the beauty and magic of life on this planet.

The last line was beautifully worded and comes to the exact point that some of us had been trying to get at.  In the great scope of things, we are all related.  I have never understood why religious people don't respect the animals on this planet.  Just because the Bible says that "God placed" the animals on this planet for humans' use, does not mean that everyone has to follow that ideology.

Katie~If you really want something to think about, many evolutionists not only believe that we have changed over time through "animal" species, but that we also share a common ancestor with all plants, bacteria, fungi, and any other animal species.

Thanks to the above poster.
I mean, come on, the fact that every living organism uses the same DNA code isn't enough?!?