h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

LoL, i didn't know that guy was a fraud, its quite ironic that a supporter of creationism should turn out to be so. ti hee

Sadly, 'ironic' in the strictly Alanis Morissette sense of the word...

Gif

"i didn't know that guy was a fraud, its quite ironic that a supporter of creationism should turn out to be so."

Wow.

Creationists constantly use deception to try and force their religious beliefs onto all children in science classes. It should come as no surprise.

Ste

AH well..... Lets put in my Two Cents....... DARWINISM????????? AFraud used to simplify the incrediby complex interaction of all living things in a system to large to measure or PREDICT...( so much for global WARMING) ' Heck I'd like to see a study on hoe the earth itself is Dealing with this so called GLOBAL DISASTER' (unfortunatly ALL scientists Subscribe to EGO magazine and think they are the Begining and the End (ALPHA AND OMEGA!) HE HE HE.......Religion??????? SAME AS ABOVE...... We spend to much time putting ourselves at the center,,, When we are in fact less Than .0000000000000000001% of the worlds LIVING population,,,, AND givin that even a MICOSCOPIC bacteria can both create Oxygen and rid the earth of us I think we are all equal despite our Size......... Oh Well... thats all

Signed... One with who science is both lover and Enemy

What on earth are you talking about?

Please rephrase in legible English. It may also help to post on h2g2 when sober.

Ste

""i didn't know that guy was a fraud, its quite ironic that a supporter of creationism should turn out to be so."

Wow.

Creationists constantly use deception to try and force their religious beliefs onto all children in science classes. It should come as no surprise."

> are you reffering to my statement or adding to it? <

Pacmarac

I'll try to be more clear:

Creationists routinely use deception and lies to try to further their campaign to teach their religious belief as scientific fact to children.

Example: "Evolution is just a theory". A scientific theory is a scientific fact backed by empirical evidence from scietific experiments. It also has another meaning more akin to the word "speculation". Evolution is a scientific fact, not speculation. Creationists use this to trick people into thinking evolution is speculation. A devious lie, and an enormously successful one.

Ste

I've yet to see a creationist explain how evolution is able to make testable predictions.

I have yet to see 'Intelligent Design' make any testable predictions.

Gif

I am not a creationist, IDist nor any other religious 'ist'. Due to the controvercy, surrounding 'the theory of evolution', backed by some very convincing arguments against it, I need a little help in trying to sort my mind out about it. I've trawled through endless pages of evolutionary information, as suggested by several irrate evolutionists, looking for the 'proving' evidence that I am constantly being informed that there's an "overwhelming abundance" of. I am only concerned, at this moment in time, in the fossil evidence of Human Origin and progress up to us modern humans, but all I can find, as the very best evidence available, is reference to the common ancestor of us Humans and the Chimp, and since that creature (or a fossil sample of it) cannot be produced as evidence, let alone identified, I'm finding it difficult to even contemplate accepting it as evidence. Can some clever Biologist (evolutionist) out there, please, point me in a more specific direction of some REAL, 'hold-in-your-hand' fossil evidence, out of this "overwhelming abundance" that's been collected, so that my 'faith' in evolution being responsible for the origin of 'mankind' can be restored.
Thanks

Hi M-M-H,

We have a complete-ish sequence of fossils from human-chimp-common-ancestor to humans, that become less ape-like and more human-like as they get more modern. The earliest are apes by any reasonable definition - 3 feet (1m) tall, tiny brains etc.

We don't have fossils of the actual chimp/human common ancestor and nor, perhaps surprisingly, so we have a single good chimp transitional fossil. This might be because chimps live in rainforest (where fossils rarely form) whereas humans live on plains, or there may be some other reason.

Have you seen http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/ , especially including http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/skullpage.htm has some snazzy photos.

Not quite sure why you're limiting yourself to fossil evidence of humans?

Gif

Hi Gif

Your response is the similar to those I've been getting from qualified evolutionists and biologist, where I am constantly being refered to evolutionary biased sites, which contain volumes upon volumes of information, that, in the end, tell me nothing. No-one can actually point me to a specific bit of fossil evidence, that unequivocally proves that evolution is true. The things I have discovered are that the very best solid evidence they've got, doesn't exist, i.e. the common ancestor of us humans and the Chimp. They can't give it a proper name nor say what species it was, in fact, they have no evidence of it, what-so-ever.
I also discovered, quite disturbingly, that there are quite a number of biologists who don't believe in evolution, whereas, if evolution was the 'fact' that the more fanatical evolutionists say it is, then, surely, ALL biologists would have to believe it, wouldn't they?
The reason i'm "limiting" myself to the fossil evidence of human origin, is because it is, or would be if any existed, the only solid proof of the validity of evloution. The current genetic evidence that evolution is in progress today is disputable in it's complexity and excessive information, and is way out of my league anyway.

Regards

Jack

Hi Jack, and welcome - unless you're also MMH, in which case welcome back.

I'm slightly confused by your response - you seem to be saying that there is too much evidence in favour of evolution for you to believe!

Perhaps you are asking for a single specific fossil, in which case I'd point you to Australopithecus afarensis, and specifically the 'Lucy' fossil. It's clearly transitional, since it's too human to be a chimp and too chimp-like to be a human.

We have plenty of common ancestors to humans and chimps - what we don't have is the most recent common ancestor (nor, in all probabilty, would we know if we did have it). Sahelanthropus tchadensis is probably pretty close - palaeontologists are sure it's a human ancestor, but it's controversial whether it's also ancestral to chimps. The current consensus seems to be that it is, i.e. it's exactly what you're asking for.

On the other hand, if you mean that a single fossil cannot prove evolution, then I'd agree with you - you need a whole sequence of fossils. Perhaps that's why all those biologists refer you to places that give lots of fossils?

I strongly suspect you have been mislead about 'biologists who don't believe in evolution', particularly if by 'evolution' you mean simply that humans are related to chimps. Something like 1% of biologists have any trouble with evolution, and even they largely accept small-scale change like chimps to humans. In other words, all biologists do accept evolution - there's some debate about the details.

I doubt that the genetic evidence is 'out of your league' - I'd be happy to run through it with you in 4 or 5 posts if you want. It's pretty incontrovertable and not that complex. Even if you don't like genetics (by which I presume you mean all molecular data, not just DNA), you could look at morphological (body-shape), embryological (embryos), biogeographical (where things live), palaeobiogeographical (where fossils are found) and atavistic ('throwbacks') evidence.

Or did you think fossils and genes were the only evidence?

Gif

Hi MMH & others,

If you haven't run off, you might like to take a look at this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19815236/from/RS.5/

Looks like the fossil I referred you to just got more convincing. Did you have any response to any of this? Was it what you were looking for?

Gif

well i believe in evolution but i do not denys gods existence
if god "intelligently designed" everything,why did he have to make so many rules?the physical laws of gravity and many other things
if hes omnipotent,couldnt he have done without all these complications?

Hi Eric, and welcome.

I wonder what happened to Jack / MMH. Either my post was so incredibly insightful that all his questions are now answered, or so monumentally pointless that it's not worth him replying. Or perhaps he's still looking at photos of fossils?

Ho hum.

Gif