Evolution: The Scientific Evidence

[retina]

Hair seems to be in abundance, check out this guy.

[brunoparga]

Well, then it seems we'll have to reduce the specially-created species to only water mammals and, perhaps, elephants.

So long, and thanks for all the fish.

Bruno

[brunoparga]

Well, first of all, let me apologize because, as cheesehead has pointed out, my recent posts directed to Mally have indeed been a bit too harsh and that's not the ideal atmosphere to keep in a forum.

Just as a correction, Mally, my mother tongue is Portuguese, not French.

Now, the questions you've raised do deserve an answer, Mally. And I think the essence of this answer, what sets apart (most of) the people here in this forum with religious beliefs from (most of) those without them, is method.

The point of your reasoning is to claim some of us (me included) haven't read Genesis, which would be "the other side of the coin" in this discussion. You ask us to do so, and here's where I believe the point of method comes.

*All* scientific knowledge comes from observations of the natural and/or human world (this includes such areas as History, my major, within the realm of science). From these observations, attempts at explanation are derived. Previous explanations are then compared with the observed facts and the proposed new theory (this word, btw, comes from the greek verb "to observe", much like the word "theatre"). This explains why scientists keep changig their theories from time to time. They don't pretend to know everything; when they find out something new, they have to account that in their theories. You seem to have somewhat ridiculed the fact by saying "No wonder they [scientists] have to change their theories from age to age!."

Your viewpoint, as I understand it, starts from a different way of looking at the world. Firstly and most important, you believe. In your particular case, it's the Bible you believe in, but for someone else that could be, for example, the Qur'an. Because you believe and because we live in a world which (justly) requires evidence for belief, you try to find proofs. I think that's what you've done in the other two threads. From my viewpoint, all of your arguments had serious flaws, which were pointed out, worse by me and better by others. But you probably think otherwise, you probably stand for your arguments. And I think that just reflects the difference in our principles: my logic needs to depart from the observable world, yours can depart from belief itself, it seems to me.

Now, this is why I won't take your suggestion of studying Genesis: because I simply can't accept that a book which, unless I believe in it, was written entirely by limited, fallible human beings, having observational capacities way weaker than those available today (to be explicit: they had neither microscopes nor telescopes and so on), I can't accept that any such book can contain the Truth. It's nothing specifically against the Bible. The only reason I could have for believing a book could contain the Truth would be if I believed in an omniscient God, and the only way I could believe that would be believing a book could contain the Truth. This is only my personal way of looking at it; I do my best to act respectfully regarding your views, and I'm sure you'll be able to do the same regarding mine.

( Why can't I write smaller posts???)

This is it. Only to make another post by me clearer, which you have demanded: my post which mentions orang utans and dolphins tries to depart from the acceptance that humans were specially created, while looking at our traits which you seem to claim support that creation, and seeks to identify other specially-created beings by looking for those very traits. I'm trying to apply logic because I think the truth, or at least things one believe in, have to stand to logical inquiry.

Yours,
Bruno

[mfgoode]

Thank you Bruno for meeting me on level ground.
I have logical answers to your last few posts but will make a diversion to something all evolutionists and believers could jointly find interesting.

The findings, published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, found that women with ring fingers longer than their index fingers had performed better at running and associated running sports such as soccer and tennis.

In women the ring finger is commonly shorter or the same length as the index finger, while in men the ring finger is generally longer.

The report said detection of sporting potential by examining the ratio between the index and ring fingers "could help identify talented individuals at a pre-competitive stage."

The reasons for the findings were unclear, said one of the report's authors, Professor Tim Spector from the Twins Research Unit at King's College, who said he was originally sceptical about the link to sporting ability.

"Previous studies have suggested the change in finger length was due to changes in testosterone levels in the womb", he said.

But he said the unit had found in a separate study of twins that finger length was largely inherited, possibly explaining why sporting parents often have sporting children.

"We found that finger length was 70 percent heritable with little influence of the womb environment," he said.

"This suggests that genes are the main factor and that finger length is a marker of your genes."

He said no specific candidate genes had been identified for the link and that multiple genes were probably responsible.

Previous studies looking at the link between finger length and sporting ability have mainly focussed on men.

A study published in 2001 of 304 English professional soccer players found they had a significantly larger ring-to-index-finger ratio than a control group of 533 other men.

Other studies in men have shown the ratio of the ring finger to the index finger can be associated with varied traits such as sexuality, musical ability and vulnerability to certain diseases.

Mally

[xilman]

Originally Posted by brunoparga

Well, then it seems we'll have to reduce the specially-created species to only water mammals and, perhaps, elephants.

So long, and thanks for all the fish.

Bruno

Baby elephants in particular are quite hairy. Adults still have hair but it's very sparse --- about as sparse as the hair on the backs of my fingers.

Another good example of a "naked" terrestial mammal is Heterocephalus glaber, aka "naked mole rat".

Some mutant house cats are very nearly hairless too. I've met one and it is a perfectly normal cat apart from being bald. The breed is generally called "Sphynx".

Paul

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by mfgoode

I have logical answers to your last few posts

Well, quite honestly Mally, that would be a refreshing novelty, so please forgive me when I say "I'll believe it when I see it."

but will make a diversion to something all evolutionists and believers could jointly find interesting.

The findings, published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, found that women with ring fingers longer than their index fingers had performed better at running and associated running sports such as soccer and tennis.

This is indeed of interest to students of evolution and genetics - it sounds very much like a similar finger-size anomaly that appears to be related to the brain-development anomalies in people with autism and its close cousin, Asperger's syndrome. Both would appear to be examples of a trait with little functional significance (longer ring fingers) generally being inherited along with a functionally significant one (autism, or certain kinds of athleticism in your example). Modern genetics has a ready answer for why this kind of thing occurs, namely that the genetic selection and reshuffling that occur during germ cell differentiation and sexual reproduction are not in fact entirely random: in many cases, entire clusters of genes tend to get passed on as a whole. Such readily-discernible markers may thus be useful in tracking/predicting their associated functional traits (whether beneficial or deleterious), and previously unknown examples thereof are always of great interest.

But: what possible interest does such a finding hold for a believer in human-as-a-perfect-and-separate-creation-from-all-other-species such as yourself? After all, your belief system answers all such questions of "why?" in basically the same way: "because God made it so, and God can do whatever he wants."

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by xilman

Some mutant house cats are very nearly hairless too. I've met one and it is a perfectly normal cat apart from being bald. The breed is generally called "Sphynx".

I call mine "Kojak." :D

[mfgoode]

Originally Posted by xilman

.

Some mutant house cats are very nearly hairless too. I've met one and it is a perfectly normal cat apart from being bald. The breed is generally called "Sphynx".

Paul

:
I lost my pet dog we called 'Plato' for 13 years early this year. He was practically hairless but this was because he had a bad attack of mange and though hospitalised he could not be cured. I wonder if this is the -ve side of evolution.

Ewmayer :Thank You Ernst for being happy at the divergence in the thread.
We never know what's on Gods Mind and why he makes fingers so. Its up to you evolutionists to explain why as they conclude its due to the genes and not an excess of testosterone as they thought before.

Well whatever it is, I make sure I keep my finger nails clean and Short when I'm up to some tricks!

I am off to the distant suburbs today so will not be able to post for 4 days, but this will not mean that I've lost interest in these threads or are bowing out of them.

In the mean while I welcome posts from those interested in having a go at me.

When the cat is away let the mice play!

Mally

[ewmayer]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/08/wo...t/08camel.html

Ancient Giant Camel Found in Syrian Desert Pushes Back History

By REUTERS
Published: October 8, 2006

DAMASCUS, Syria, Oct. 7 (Reuters) — Swiss researchers have discovered the 100,000-year-old remains of a previously unknown giant camel species in central Syria.

“This is a big discovery, a revolution in science,” said Jean-Marie Le Tensorer, a prehistory professor at the University of Basel. “It was not known that the dromedary was present in the Middle East more than 10,000 years ago.”

He said it was about 12 feet tall, “as big as a giraffe or an elephant.” Professor Tensorer, who has been excavating at the desert site in Kowm since 1999, said the first large bones were found some years ago but were only confirmed as belonging to a camel after more bones from several parts of the same animal were recently discovered.

“We found the first traces of a big animal in 2003, but we were not sure it was a giant camel,” he said.

A group of humans apparently killed the camel while it was drinking from a spring, said Professor Tensorer, adding that human remains from the same period were discovered nearby at the once water-rich site.

A human bone, taken to Switzerland for anthropological analysis, was of a homo sapiens, or modern man, the professor said, but a tooth was similar to that of a Neanderthal. “We don’t know yet what it is exactly,” he said. “Do we have a very old homo sapiens or a Neanderthal?”

Signs of human habitation go back 1.5 million years in the area that is now Syria. The area played a key role in the migration of the first human beings toward Asia and Europe, the professor said.

Kowm, where the remains were discovered along with flint and stone weapons, is a 14-mile gap between two mountain ranges.

The site, which was first surveyed in the 1960’s and where evidence of a million-year-old human settlement has been found, is considered a “reference for early prehistory in the Near East,” according to a recent Basel University research paper.

Springs in the area attracted migrating herds, like antelope, as well as well as humans. Archaeological layers covering a period of several hundreds of thousands of years were discovered, which is unusual for such an open site, he said.

“It was a savannah more or less,” Professor Tensorer said. “The camels then ate probably what they eat today.”

[xilman]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/08/wo...t/08camel.html

As it has been written, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle if it has first been lightly greased.


Paul

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by xilman

As it has been written, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle if it has first been lightly greased.

True, but in this case, to paraphrase a famous thriller movie, "I think you're gonna need a bigger needle."