| From: Olly | 9/11/99
20:29:11 |
| Subject: Evolution started from clay? | post id:
5990 |
I was reading a book about evolution and it gave an interesting hypothetical premise to the beginning of evolution. Originally DNA may have been as a form of crystal. Crystals are very ordered, but if they obtain an imperfection, they copy that imperfection into subsequent layers. Crystals in effect can store data. If going back billions of years, maybe there were lots of water streams in rivers with clay beds. At times some of these rivers may dry out and dust particles (which are really just tiny crystals) may float off into other rivers and replicate there. Maybe there was some sort of competition that formed between crystals... and maybe that somehow led to a form of life.... Olly | |
| From: Matt | 9/11/99
23:24:37 |
| Subject: re: Evolution started from clay? | post id:
6048 |
| Interesting - you know it would
take more faith to believe in that than a God and
Creation! | |
| From: David Brennan | 10/11/99
12:23:43 |
| Subject: re: Evolution started from clay? | post id:
6122 |
| Why do you say that Matt? It
seems that they are equally far fetched ideas. Since DNA is clearly
organic and crystals are inorganic, they seem more analogous than actually
directly related. Interesting, sure, but far fetched. David | |
| From: michael c | 10/11/99
12:28:14 |
| Subject: re: Evolution started from clay? | post id:
6123 |
| Since DNA is
clearly organic and crystals are inorganic..... Many organic chemicals can form crystals David. Much of the work on the structure of DNA used X-ray crystallography. Michael C J | |
| From: Olly | 10/11/99
14:09:35 |
| Subject: re: Evolution started from clay? | post id:
6147 |
| Exactly, what do you think diamond is made out of? I don't think that it is a too far fetched idea that life originated from crystals. Crystals are in a state of order, can replicate, and can aquire imperfections and copy these imperfections as they grow. | |
| From: Matt | 10/11/99
18:30:18 |
| Subject: re: Evolution started from clay? | post id:
6231 |
| I believe that there is evolution
(adaptation) within God's creation. I am not sure of all the finer points
of the theory of evolution (maybe someone knowsand can tell me) but it
seems there are so many maybes, perhaps etc and chance that the amount of
faith required to believe in it is much more in my eyes than that of a God
who created the world - look around - it is definitely beautiful,
purposeful and perfect. You yourself said they were equally "far -
fetched" - so why take the evolution option? I could argue coming from this point of view too - a Creator would use similar "tools" or principles in the creation which is why crystals and DNA, to use this example, seem to come from a common origin. | |
| From: Matt | 10/11/99
18:42:06 |
| Subject: re: Evolution started from clay? | post id:
6234 |
| look around
- it is definitely beautiful, purposeful and perfect. It is? There is beauty in it, but beauty is a human construct. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Purposeful? What is the purpose of the world? I know of none. Perfect? Is it perfect to have your head ripped off by a tiger? | |
| From: Matt | 10/11/99
18:59:27 |
| Subject: re: Evolution started from clay? | post id:
6236 |
| I think it is - and that you
understand my point... But anyway - Purposeful - life! and to sustain life! Perfect - ie harmonious. For eg a tree - common tree - prefectly balance with a seemly disordered structure of branches yet beautiful - energy from the sun and earth - doesn't take more than it needs and so on and so on. Perfect - if fundamental constants were slightly different there would be no life. Beauty - you said it - there is beauty. The degree of which is in the eye of the beholder. | |
| From: Grantley | 10/11/99
19:07:57 |
| Subject: re: Evolution started from clay? | post id:
6239 |
| As far as science is concerned,
there is no such thing as perfection (Heisenbergs Uncertanty Priciple and
20TH Century physics laid that one to rest). Belief in god is religion (or
philosophy ) not science. No one has yet come up with a "Theory of
Creation" that can withstand scientific
scrutiny. | |
| From: Matt | 10/11/99
19:19:58 |
| Subject: re: Evolution started from clay? | post id:
6240 |
| Of course - if you come from a
human point of view our knowledge of a quantum system can never be perfect
and total. Maybe perfect was taken too literally. And of course a theory
of Creation can never stand up to scientific scrutiny - we are far less
intelligent than God and it is a bit too much to think that we can
comprehend how God operates or else we would be "gods" in some sense. It
requires faith, just like believing in Evolution. Can the same be said for
evolution - that it stands up to scientific scrutiny. It probably gets a
fairer deal as it is a construct from within this scientific community.
But in the end I think it is a personal conviction and belief which we all have the freedom to choose. | |
| From: Grantley | 10/11/99
19:27:03 |
| Subject: re: Evolution started from clay? | post id:
6242 |
| You are still confused about
science and religion. Evolution is NOT a belief so you dont believe it,
just like the rest of science. Science require proof and evidence NOT
belief. Evolution stands up to proof and evidence to the highest levels
(no god in here). Animals (& life) HAS evolved, full stop.. no need to
believe it. | |
| From: Matt | 10/11/99
19:38:51 |
| Subject: re: Evolution started from clay? | post id:
6244 |
| No I am not confused at all - I
understand what you are saying. But where is the proof. I mean with all
scientifc evidence one can believe if the evidence a) is true - which it
normally is in proper experiments - and b) to what extent that proves and
supports the theory. There are many "disbelievers" of quantum mechanics (non-locality for eg) and relativity (locality for eg) just like there are ( more) "believers". This is a belief. If you are so adamant that life HAS evolved full stop - then show me all the evidence in a convincing way. I mentioned before that I am no expert on evolution theory. | |
| From: Grantley | 10/11/99
19:47:38 |
| Subject: re: Evolution started from clay? | post id:
6247 |
| A good start, if you are really
interested is to read a good book, I would start with Richard Dawkins, The
Blind Watchmaker (it has an excelent reference list if you want to go
furthur). Stephen Jay Gould is another good writer on evolution (both good
scientists as well). Everything comes from physical evidence dug up around the world and classified by paleoanthropologists, archaeologists, paleontologists et al. This is all scientific... | |
| From: kathy | 10/11/99
19:51:35 |
| Subject: re: Evolution started from clay? | post id:
6248 |
| there is NO real proof that we
came from apes, it's a theory, just like the theory that we elvoled from
fish. There is also a difference between Religion and Religious beliefs,
some Christians do believe in evolution after the first creation of
animals. I am not one of them but i just thought you should watch your
generalisations. | |
| From: Matt | 10/11/99
19:52:32 |
| Subject: re: Evolution started from clay? | post id:
6250 |
| Thanks for the suggestions - like
I said earlier I accept an adapting creation which is definitely
scientifically proven and proveable. But the origins of life is where I
believe in God - and I don't want to sound ignorant but I believe that and
won't change this belief. | |
| From: kathy | 10/11/99
20:03:58 |
| Subject: re: Evolution started from clay? | post id:
6254 |
| It
requires faith... Yes, that's exactly the point... ...just like believing in Evolution. No, that's also exactly the point. Can the same be said for evolution - that it stands up to scientific scrutiny. That depends on what you meen by standing up to scientify scrutiny. Is it plausable? Yes. Is it proven beyond doubt? No. Is it consistent with well-established scientific principles? Yes. Is there evidence (real, observable evidence) supporting it? Yes. Is there evidence (real, observable evidence) against it? None that I'm aware of. Does it make useful predictions? Yes. It probably gets a fairer deal as it is a construct from within this scientific community. Just like creationism is a construct from within the religious community. Evolution with a scientific framework and creationism within a religious framework are self-consistent. That means that you cannot use one to discredit the other within the wrong framework. Some base their lives on religion. Some base their lives on science. | |
| From: kathy | 10/11/99
20:13:38 |
| Subject: re: Evolution started from clay? | post id:
6256 |
| What about emotions? If we came
from crystals or single celled animals, or a big bang, where did our
emotions come from? And why are we the only animals that know we
exist? | |
| From: Matt | 10/11/99
20:14:16 |
| Subject: re: Evolution started from clay? | post id:
6257 |
| I think that is a good point
Terry - that they are self consistent in their own frameworks and can't be
used to discredit one another. All what you said re evolution applies to a
Creation within the religious context. And I can't convince you (someone)
to change your (their) beliefs just like I have faith in mine.
| |
| From: Grantley | 10/11/99
20:23:48 |
| Subject: re: Evolution started from clay? | post id:
6262 |
| To Kathy I was being carefull with my generalisations. Evolution is part theory, part fact. Fact - fossils have been found back to about 2.2billion years. These fossils are fact, they exist and they are different as time changes. So animals change with time. Theory - How and why they changed (that is all). Emotions are part of social science if any. To Matt where life originated is open to debate (scientific and religious). In a scientific forum I have no beliefs (as much as is humanly possible | |
| From: damien | 10/11/99
21:09:04 |
| Subject: re: Evolution started from clay? | post id:
6274 |
| Hi Olly, Somewhere out there is a
book DrKarl referred to me "Clay gives life and is good to eat",he wrote
it and would know where is sold(not at A.B.C shops)could u tell me if you
find out?. | |
| From: steve(primus) | 11/11/99
6:49:24 |
| Subject: re: Evolution started from clay? | post id:
6376 |
| there is NO real
proof that we came from apes, it's a theory, just like the theory that we
elvoled from fish There is no proof that we come from apes or fish because we don't - nt modern apes or fish anyway. We share an ancestor with the apes and the divergent lines led to humans and the different apes we have around today. There were also many lines that became extinct. It is estimated that 99.9% of all species of living things on the Earth that have ever existed are extinct. The animals and plants you see today are the current ends of long series of species that led to what is around now. The fossil record clearly shows the development and transition from one to the other. Evolution could be very simply falsified by finding one fossil out of its time zone - human remains mixed with dinosaurs for instance, but there are no examples of this, none at all! The creationists have claimed in the past to have found human footprints mixed with dinosaur footprints but these are demonstrably fakes - and have been declared to be fakes by other creationists. Apart from evolution, what possible hypothesis can you sustain that explains the fossil record? | |
| From: Di | 11/11/99
9:43:12 |
| Subject: re: Evolution started from clay? | post id:
6385 |
Apart from evolution, what possible hypothesis can you sustain that explains the fossil record? Telling point Steve. :o) And... one that I have never seen satisfactorily addressed by creationists. If God "just put them there" (ie the remains of long dead species) then "why?" Is God deceptive? | |
| From: Di | 11/11/99
11:07:31 |
| Subject: re: Evolution started from clay? | post id:
6420 |
| Chris, you should know better
than expect our feeble minds to understand the ways of God! I've had this
discussioin many times. Ours is not to wonder
why... | |
| From: Di | 11/11/99
11:16:36 |
| Subject: re: Evolution started from clay? | post id:
6424 |
Hehe... yep, thanks for reminding me. What I hadn't considered was that perhaps the devil put the fossils there to confuse us and lead us away from God's truth. Perhaps the same devil is responsible for linking the periodic table and sex in the minds of young impressionable female chem students? | |
| From: Di | 11/11/99
11:20:51 |
| Subject: re: Evolution started from clay? | post id:
6425 |
| :) Well if it works, who can knock it :)... i still think of Flourine as a very naughty atom. | |
| From: Di | 11/11/99
11:49:54 |
| Subject: re: Evolution started from clay? | post id:
6490 |
ok - I'm thoroughly intrigued here. All I can see is the male-ness of the electron donators to the left and the female-ness of the electron receivers. But then what about the whole covalent thing? Females with females sharing electrons for mutual fulfillment? And isn't more sharing more naughty? So aren't the group VIIs a little more picky than the "someone give me three electrons or I'm going to go share some with someone else" VIs and Vs. Please explain? | |
| From: Di | 11/11/99
11:59:58 |
| Subject: re: Evolution started from clay? | post id:
6507 |
| Well think of the halogens as
being a woman who would kill for a hubby. Covalent bonding is very mutual and takes the hippy approach. The more we eat (extra electrons) makes us fatter. Ummm, i had a million ways of thinking about things. | |
| From: Martin B | 11/11/99
12:40:23 |
| Subject: re: Evolution started from clay? | post id:
6534 |
| Howdy Everyone I reckon the evolution stuff in the FAQ needs to be upgraded. I'm happy to help put something together, though it's not my field... kathy (& stevie p) there is NO real proof that we came from apes Just a bit of pedantry, but we are apes. Regardless of what you think about the "origin of species", based on any kind of self-consistent classification scheme, humans and chimpanzees are extremely closely related, and gorillas are slightly more distantly related to both. Of course you may choose not to have a self-consistent classification scheme, or you may have different criteria for classification. Which brings me to my next point... Everyone These debates involve a lot of arguing past each other. Let's see if there are some things we can agree on. (Jeez, I'm sounding like Daryn...) Both science and religion involve meta-assumptions. The assumptions of science were summarised recently quite nicely by Chris in a Relativity-y thread (I forget which one). They involve assumptions like
Along with these meta-principles, there are also methadological principles, the most important of which is Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor is not a guide to the truth or falsity of a theory, but it is a principle that enables work to be done fruitfully so that questions of truth or falsity can be uncovered more quickly. The meta-principles of religion are many and varied, and I am not really qualified to talk about them. However I would suggest that most of the Judeao-Christian-Islamic tradition shares principles like
Now already it is clear that the basic assumptions of one group are pretty different from the assumptions of the other group. So it is almost impossible to 'disprove' either Science or Religion, since a mutually agreed standard of proof is almost impossible to find. However we can usefully discuss the attempts to work the two traditions together, such as Creation Science. Now there are at least three major strategies for explaining the results of Science within the framework of religion
Now all of these strategies are consistent and defensible, but they all conflict with basic scientific meta-principles. The first one conflates current uncertainty mwith intrinsic inconsistency. This is a misguided strategy, because as more and more is explained by Science, the God of the Gaps gets smaller and smaller. Unfortunately when it comes to the past, the absolutely irrefutable evidence has often been lost. This allows people to say "I accept micro-evolution, but show me the proof that species change into other species." Ultimately the only evidence that would be acceptable would be to preserve complete specimens in a direct ancestral link over tens of thousands of years. Such evidence does not exist. That absolutely irrefutable evidence does not exist doest not mean that extremely compelling evidence does not exist. It does. I'll turn to that soon. The second strategy offends Occam's Razor. As I said, that doesn't make it false. If you want to have a meta-explanation of the orderliness of Science as reflecting God's will, then go ahead. Just accept that you will never explain one thing that cannot be equally explained by those atheistic scientists. The pursuit of debates like this becomes a little fruitless. The third strategy offends both Occam's Razor and the principle of Causality, for the evidence does not mean what it appears to mean. Also, if God has intervened wilfully before, He/She/It is almost certain to do so again. This strategy expresses most clearly the gulf in meta-principles between Science and Religion. Scientists will look at the propostions above and say "that is ridiculous", while it will seem completely sensible to Creation Scient | |
| From: Martin B | 11/11/99
12:40:58 |
| Subject: re: Evolution started from clay? | post id:
6536 |
| The
Evidence for Evolution There are three main sources of evidence that demonstrate compellingly that species change over time and differentiate to form ‘new’ species.
Modern field evidence Major changes within species have been observed in response to changes in environmental factors. Selective breeding of domestic plants and animals has been mentioned. So has the peppered moth, Biston betularia. Another example is Darwin’s ground finch, Geospiza fortis. In 1977 there was a drought on Daphne Major in the Galapagos. The finch in question did not breed at all in that year, and was reduced to 15% of the pre-drought population. The survivors were significantly larger and had stronger beaks than the pre-drought average. The measured characteristics were found to be 76% heritable, with the consequent dramatic change in the populations appearance. Simultaneously, the seeds that survived the drought were found to be larger and harder than the pre-drought average. This sort of evidence means that almost no-one disputes micro-evolution. But what about speciation? Again there is contemporary evidence, mostly concerning flies of the Drosophila genus. Variation, of the kind described above, over many generations has been shown to produce related populations incapable of reproducing with each other, both in the laboratory and in the field. The fossil record Fossil remains show us quite consistently that all species have a timeframe. All species have a date before which they never appear, an era in which we do find there remains along with the remains of contemporaneous species, and for 85% of species there is a date after which we never find their remains. We never see human remains before about 3 million years ago. We do find remains of creatures that are very similar to, but significantly different from, modern humans. Yet we don’t find any remains of these creatures today. How do you explain the disappearance of a species extremely closely related to humans and the appearance of humans more satisfactorily than evolution? That over a few hundred thousand years changes, of the kind we know about, accumulated to produce a small but significant transformation into humans. The dating of fossils is either by stratigraphic methods (comparing similar fossils found in similar relative strata from different locations) or by radiometric methods (Carbon dating, etc). To dispute stratigraphic methods, you would need to produce an entirely new mechanism for fossil production, or dispute the Consistency principle. To dispute radiometric methods you would need to come up with new biochemical mechanisms or a new Unified Electroweak theory… Fossil evidence is often weak. The fossil record is incomplete. Very few individuals of a population get fossilised, and only in quite exceptional circumstance. Individual datings are often difficult, and open to dispute. But taken as a whole, the very large body of fossil evidence is entirely consistent with the basic principles of evolution, with no major unknowns. Modern molecular genetic evidence It is pretty widely accepted that the mechanism for inherited characteristics is DNA. Yet this DNA evidence pinpoints relationships between species with an amazing precision. Humans and chimpanzees share, what is it nearly 98? or 99% of genetic material. How can you explain this relationship more satisfactorily than evolution? The similar genetic material was inherited from a common ancestor, whose remains we have found. Separate populations of this common ancestor changed differently in response to different environments, in ways we know happens. Eventually interbreeding was no longer possible, a fact we have observed in other species, and the separate species we know as chimpanzees and humans arose. Pretty compelling evidence, wouldn’t you say? | |
| From: helen | 11/11/99
14:54:45 |
| Subject: re: Evolution started from clay? | post id:
6584 |
nice one, Martin B! if nothing else, this topic needs shifting into the faq from the not-faq; a "tutorial" mightn't be a bad idea. I'm happy to help out, but it's not my field either :-) | |
| From: helen | 11/11/99
15:09:41 |
| Subject: re: Evolution started from clay? | post id:
6588 |
What about emotions? If we came from crystals or single celled animals, or a big bang, where did our emotions come from? And why are we the only animals that know we exist? Hi Kathy, the simplest answer to this is that they evolved right along with our brains and bodies: they're as essential for us to survive in a challenging physical and social environment as legs and eyes. Darwin discussed emotions quite extensively in the Expression of Emotion in Man and Animals, and much of this early work has informed current research. And we're not the only animals that know we exist - chimpanzees, bonobos and orangutans do too, as do some gorillas; dolphins and other cetaceans might. :-)helen | |
| From: steve(primus) | 11/11/99
15:12:07 |
| Subject: re: Evolution started from clay? | post id:
6589 |
| It isn't really my field either
although I have done some prehistory at Uni and read a lot since then. My
own view is to encourage people to read more or more widely. Although
whoever writes a tutorial would try to be as objective as possible, total
objectivity is well nigh impossible, we all carry our baggage of opinions
with us - which is why discussions in here are so much fun. Perhaps with some questions, we should compile a booklist of relatively easy-to-read stuff that can get the enquirer started, rather than reinventing the wheel every time. | |
| From: michael c | 11/11/99
15:19:36 |
| Subject: re: Evolution started from clay? | post id:
6592 |
| By saying those particular
animals "know they exist" you are really saying (as far as I am aware)
that they know a reflection in a mirror is of themselves and not another
animal on the other side of some glass. For example couldn't preening be considered self awareness? The budgy that bangs its head against the mirror may not realise that the budgy in the mirror is itself, but it certainly is self-aware enough to clean itself and maintain its feathers for flight. Michael C J | |
| From: helen | 11/11/99
15:29:57 |
| Subject: re: Evolution started from clay? | post id:
6593 |
not necessarily, although I can see what you're getting at; preening, cleaning etc are more simply accounted for by reference to instinct and/or imprinting. Self-awareness might be part of it, but we don't have evidence for that (that I know of, anyway) :-). | |
| From: michael c | 11/11/99
15:35:46 |
| Subject: re: Evolution started from clay? | post id:
6594 |
| Well I am a bit out of my depth,
but what then is the definition of self-awareness? And how is it tested
(if it is not the mirror test)? I always felt it was a tool used to
justify the misconception that humans were "higher up the evolutionary
scale" than all other animals and so superior. Am I way off the
mark? Michael C J | |
| From: Rhys Hill | 11/11/99
15:43:42 |
| Subject: re: Evolution started from clay? | post id:
6595 |
| I concur. Can ayone give a
definition of self-awareness that is actually solid? For instance, the
mirror test seems to me to be flawed anyway. If an animal has not
experienced a mirror before, instinct will tell it that image in the
mirror is a fellw | |
| From: helen | 11/11/99
15:56:35 |
| Subject: re: Evolution started from clay? | post id:
6597 |
| I'm with Helen (oops, sorry Helen
- I forgot you told me not to tell anyone! ;o) To clarify - I agree with Helen. A tutorial on evolution would be excellent. The problem is who to do it - it's not my field of expertise! Also there are a lot of people on this forum who can make significant authoritative contributions. So here's a suggestion: how about we set up a place for people to write what they know about evolution. We can then condense a comprehensive tutorial out of it. We can either start a particular thread devoted to it, or have people send potential contributions to one email address (I'll volunteer one) and that person can edit it (I'll use standard tutorial style). Content can be checked with contributors before posting. Martin B's effort is a fantastic start, and we could also try and anticipate FAQs on evolution (or pick them straight from the forum!) What does everyone think? Chris Btw, my two cents on awareness - you shouldn't expect to find it as a direct result of our constituents: evolutionary or biochemical. My guess is that we will find that it is a naturally emerging complexity - greater than the sum of its parts (Eds has a keen interest in the math of emergent complexity - maybe he can add something there?) | |
| From: helen | 11/11/99
15:59:23 |
| Subject: re: Evolution started from clay? | post id:
6598 |
An inability to recognise oneself in a mirror has never been presented as evidence of lack of self-awareness that I know of (I'm just pointing out that humans aren't the only ones who can do it, and that there's some neat phylogenetic continuity in the species who can). Apart from the familiarity issue, there's also primary sensory modality - can we expect an animal who operates largely by hearing (dolphins, say) to cope with a visual task like this? Maybe not. As for a working definition of self-awareness, I'm probably out of my depth too - this is a very current and hotly-debated topic, so anything that's offered is going to be contentious. Dawkins thinks it arises when the brain's simulation of the world becomes so complete that it's forced to include a model of itself; there are dozens of others. However we define it though, I think it's important to keep in mind that old parsimony thing: use the simplest explanation you can - don't go invoking consciousness where something simpler can account for what you've observed. And that goes for humans, too ;-). | |
| From: helen | 11/11/99
16:00:31 |
| Subject: re: Evolution started from clay? | post id:
6599 |
oops, there goes that cat again ;-) | |
| From: steve(primus) | 11/11/99
16:16:19 |
| Subject: re: Evolution started from clay? | post id:
6602 |
| Great idea Chris. If yu are going
to pick FAQs from the forum, would it be worth distilling the wisdom in
the replies as well? There are some excellent replies that various people
have posted already. There is a lot of work involved in this and it is unfair that anyone should expect you to do it. Might I suggest that we make a list of the FAQs we can think of first, then various interested parties can take a question, search for previous answers, add some of their own knowledge then send it to you for collation. I would be very happy to help. | |
| From: michael c | 11/11/99
16:18:36 |
| Subject: re: Evolution started from clay? | post id:
6607 |
| aaaahhhh I see. Thanks Helen,
Occams Razor applied again. I should have known it would be a contentious
issue because self-awareness is obviously a very difficult thing to define
and test for. Sound like a good idea Paul, the only problem I can see is filtering the accepted facts from the opinion and misconceptions. It made me think that Dr Karl could almost publish another book that incorporated the contributions to the FAQ and Not the FAQ (with appropriate aknowledgements of course). Michael C J | |
| From: Matt | 11/11/99
18:08:49 |
| Subject: re: Evolution started from clay? | post id:
6640 |
| Just a question as I am ingornant
in this field and have no reference books at hand - was is the general time line - is it dinosaurs, apes,cavemen, "humans"....? Or what? Is it possible apes came from Humans? | |
| From: helen | 11/11/99
18:55:35 |
| Subject: re: Evolution started from clay? | post id:
6646 |
in terms of a general time line, dinosaurs were extinct long before apes and humans came along; you can check http://www.islas.org/DrCMcM/BIOLOGY/Lectures/16ab_EvHistory.html here for a basic geological and evolutionary timeline. We didn't evolve from apes, and apes didn't evolve from humans; rather, apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor. Think about your family tree. Let's say you have a cousin, John. Your cousin John and you are similar in a lot of ways, but different in a lot of other ways. To find out what you might have in common genetically, we might travel up the branches of your family tree to your common ancestors, your grandparents. Your grandparents have some things in common with both of you, but of course they're different again. You didn't come from John, and he didn't come from you - the things you have in common, genetically, are due to your grandparents. We can use another kind of tree to look at species, not individuals: the phylogenetic tree, or tree of life. Apes and humans are kind of distant cousins on this tree, but when we go looking for their common ancestor, instead of only having to go back a couple of generations, we have to go back 6 or 8 million years - and of course we're not looking at a human or an ape, but another species altogether, which is now extinct. The genetic things we have in common with apes are due to this common ancestor, not to one species/genus directly coming from the other. :-)helen | |
| From: Grantley | 11/11/99
20:33:50 |
| Subject: re: Evolution started from clay? | post id:
6660 |
| To Chris(Avatar) and
Helen This has been a good thread, and I agree, a complete section on Evolution could be organised and I would be willing to help. My particular interest is the evolution of mankind (from when Helen said, about 6m years BP (when the chimpanzee line diverged from the Human line). I am a Surveyor & I work with a friend who is an Archaeologist and together we have a good library on Human evolution (and prehistoric australian occupation) | |
| From: Matt | 11/11/99
21:56:15 |
| Subject: re: Evolution started from clay? | post id:
6670 |
| Will creation get a
representation? | |
| From: steve(primus) | 12/11/99
1:30:32 |
| Subject: re: Evolution started from clay? | post id:
6690 |
| Matt, may I suggest you look at
the following sites http://www.answersingenesis.org/ Answers in genesis and http://www.onthenet.com.au/~stear/index.htm No Answers in Genesis The first site is a major creationist site, the second is from the Skeptics web page. There is a lot of material in both sites but I think you will discover why creationism is not science very quickly. | |
| From: Martin B | 12/11/99
9:36:30 |
| Subject: re: Evolution started from clay? | post id:
6709 |
| Creationism should certainly get
a mention in any tutorials, since it is one of the reasons people ask
questions about evolution here. But it certainly shouldn't get "equal time". Arguments that "creationism and evolution are both theories so they should be treated equally" completely misrepresents the nature of science, and the hierarchy of certainty within it. Evolution is a fact. The details of evolution are still very much being argued about. But to take one of these arguments about details and say "See, evolution hasn't been proved, its only a theory" is ridiculous. There are many ways of maintaining a creationist stance, as I pointed out in my earlier, rather long-winded post. These range from accepting science as it is, but positing an extra-scientific God, to completely rejecting the validity of the scientific method. But trying to disprove evolution from within a 'scientific' framework by using the Bible and/or other religous evidence always leads Creation Scientists to look foolish as it becomes immediately clear that they need to ignore some evidence and twist other bits of evidence to be able to make their case. | |
| From: Grantley | 12/11/99
9:57:36 |
| Subject: re: Evolution started from clay? | post id:
6713 |
| To Martin B I totally agree. There is no "Theory of Creation" in the scientific world but there are people out there who think that creation science is a valid science so it should be dealt with (just like all pseudo science). | |