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

This is one of the best entries I've read, a great approach and I love the photo album analogy. Great job!

Well done!



Could part of the analogy be that a few of someone elses' family album pictures are thrown into the book? I wonder if some of the *dead ends* of evolution could be considered part of the album as well and thus muddy the water a bit more. Just a thought.

That's a very interesting entry. I've never really understood what a "transitional fossil" actually is, so thanks for clearing that up for me. It seems logically impossible to actually find one, as evolution is such a slow process, anyway. I expect creationists still believe that the world was created at 3pm. on the 12th August, 6006BC (or whatever that date was that someone came up with!.

From the tone of your comments, it seems you find creationists a bit of a pain. There is an entry in the 'Tell us a Joke' thread that you might find amusing. No. 8750. Assuming that you haven't found it yet.

I think you've just found the one thing you might find 'wrong' with the analogy.
Using a photoalbum is great, but actually, you should use more than one photoalbum. The use of one album suggests that evolution is linear, which it is not. It's more of a 'tree'-structure.
So you could start out with one album, but somewhere in the book a family member decided to start it's own book, while the original still continued. These 'new' books might be of a family that prospered, or the family might have died out, being a dead end in evolution.
The problem with dead ends, is that you don't know if the 'youngest' page you have discovered is in fact the last page in the book. For all we know, the last page was ripped out.

Thankyou, all. Good point, Varindweion. Maybe I'll put it in v2.

I've been wondering, again, about this. Don't bird fossils seem to show a fairly strong similarity to reptiles?? Could you say that these types of fossil are about as close to "transitional" as you could get?

I found this link:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1414150.htm

that seems to be saying just that.

Birds are actually more evolved reptiles, just as mammals are.
Below I've put a very simplified tree of life.

Modern Fish (Actinopterygii)
Old fish and four legged creatures (Sarcopterygii)
.|--Lung fish (Dipnoi)
.|--Land vertebrates
......|--several extinct groups
......|--four legged creatures (Tetrapoda)
...........|--modern amphibians (Amphibia)
...........|--Amniota
...............|--Synapsida (mammals)
...............|--Anapsida
....................|--Turtles and tortoises (Testudines)
....................|--Diapsida (reptiles and birds)
.........................|--Lepidosauromorpha (lizards and snakes)
.........................|--Archosauromorpha
..............................|--some extinct groups
..............................|--Archosauria
...................................|--Crocodylomorpha (crocodiles)
...................................|--Dinosauria
.......................................|--Ornithischia (e.g. Iguanodon)
.......................................|--Saurischia
............................................|--Aves (birds)
............................................|--Raptors (e.g. T-Rex)

It may be a bit much, but you can see that birds are actually evolved reptiles. The reptiles as we know them (snakes, lizards, croc's, turtles) are not a natural group. Birds are actually very closely related to croc's.
One other thing that always strikes me as an indication that birds are reptiles, is the way a chicken walks. If you look at the way a raptor like T-Rex walks (just look at Jurassic Park) and than at the way a chicken walks: it's very similar. That's because their skeleton is much the same. Though of course there are differences.

That's one big, mean chook!!

It's sort of a shame you felt the need to write the entry in the first place, but I'm glad you did. I don't understand an "education" system seriously teaching creation as "fact". Seems like teaching wilful ignorance to me.

I recently watched an interesting documentary about the Jesuit astrophysicists supported by the Vatican. If those guys can reconcile their spiritual beliefs with practical application of scientific method without their heads exploding, then perhaps there's some hope for truth and logic AND spiritual beliefs happily coexisting. Thought for the day.

Francesca, I agree totally.
(btw: sorry about the big chook )

I don't have so much a problem with a system that teaches 'creation' as a fact, but I do dislike it when 'creationism' is regarded as a scientific theory, which it is not. Remember, even evolution is simply a theory. It stands open to falsification. But creationism not, because it is based on a believe-system and not on the scientific method of:
1. observations
2. hypothesis
3. experiments
4. theory
5. testing of theory

Reminds me of the ancient Australian curse: May your chickens turn into emus and kick your dunny down.

Well, I agree if you teach creation as part of a spiritual belief. You could even go so far as to say that God created the universe, and then had a think about things. Then decided that a 24/7 watch on the whole darned lot was a bit too much for a busy deity, so put evolution in to take care of business while he choofed off to invent a few more interesting continuums (continuua??).

You do get a lot more mileage out of evolution, though. As a theory it has stood the test of time. Creation is too cut and dried. You don't actually learn anything; but you can glean a huge amount of knowledge by studying evolutionary trends. Apart from anything else, there is a total sense of wonder when you find a fossil. I was moving rocks around in the garden the other day and found a perfect shell fossil. Made my day. Here I am on a mountaintop and there's a seashell from when this area was under some ancient sea!! Amazing.

Francesca, the thing you said about God 'installing' evolution as a watch/guard, that's just something to use, so religious folk can reconcile themselves with evolution. But my point is that they shouldn't have to reconcile themselves with it. Science and religion are to very separate and distinct aspects of our culture and society. One does not exclude the other. I know professors who believe, very much, in fact. But it doesn't interfere with their belief.
Same with the Bible (or any holy book): it is not some history of the world as we see it, but more a history of the world as believers know/experience it. And that is on a whole other level as the 'emperical world'. And you can't impose the rules of the 'holy world' on the 'emperical world' and vice versa.
That would be like looking at rugby, but thinking about the rules of American Football: rugby totally doesn't make any sense more.