How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism

[Lief Erikson]

Here's an article I found extremely interesting. I wonder how such tissues as this could survive over such a long period of time. Anyway . . .

Originally Posted by Article from CNN

For more than a century, the study of dinosaurs has been limited to fossilized bones. Now, researchers have recovered 70-million-year-old soft tissue, including what may be blood vessels and cells, from a Tyrannosaurus rex.

If scientists can isolate proteins from the material, they may be able to learn new details of how dinosaurs lived, said lead researcher Mary Higby Schweitzer of North Carolina State University.

"We're doing a lot of stuff in the lab right now that looks promising," she said in a telephone interview.

It was recovered dinosaur DNA -- the blueprint for life -- that was featured in the fictional recreation of the ancient animals in the book and film "Jurassic Park." Although that was science fiction, Schweitzer said she was not sure if scientists would be able to isolate dinosaur DNA fragments from the fossilized materials.

The soft tissues were recovered from the thighbone of a T. rex, known as MOR 1125, that was found in a sandstone formation in Montana. The dinosaur was about 18 years old when it died.

The bone was broken when it was removed from the site. Schweitzer and her colleagues then analyzed the material inside the bone.

"The vessels and contents are similar in all respects to blood vessels recovered from ... ostrich bone," they reported in a paper bring published Friday in the journal Science.

Because evidence has accumulated in recent years that modern birds descended from dinosaurs, Schweitzer said she chose to compare the dinosaur remains with those of an ostrich, the largest bird available.

Brooks Hanson, a deputy editor of Science, noted that there are few examples of soft tissues, except for leaves or petrified wood, that are preserved as fossils, just as there are few discoveries of insects in amber or humans and mammoths in peat or ice.

Soft tissues are rare in older finds. "That's why in a 70-million-year-old fossil it is so interesting," he said.

Matthew Carrano, curator of dinosaurs at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History, said the discovery was "pretty exciting stuff."

"You are actually getting into the small-scale biology of the animal, which is something we rarely get the opportunity to look at," said Carrano, who was not part of the research team.

In addition, he said, it is a huge opportunity to learn more about how fossils are made, a process that is not fully understood.

Richard A. Hengst of Purdue University said the finding "opens the door for research into the protein structure of ancient organisms, if nothing else. While we think that nature is conservative in how things are built, this gives scientists an opportunity to observe this at the chemical and cellular level." Hengst was not part of the research team.

John R. Horner of the Museum of the Rockies at Montana State University, said the discovery is "a fantastic specimen," but probably is not unique. Other researchers might find similarly preserved soft tissues if they split open the bones in their collections, said Horner, a co-author of the paper.

Most museums, he said, prefer to keep their specimens intact.

Schweitzer said that after removing the minerals from the specimen, the remaining tissues were soft and transparent and could be manipulated with instruments.

The bone matrix was stretchy and flexible and there were long structures like blood vessels. She added that what appeared to be individual cells were visible, but could not say if they were blood cells.

She likened the process to placing a chicken bone in vinegar. The minerals will dissolve, leaving the soft tissues.

The research was funded by North Carolina State University and grants from N. Myhrvold and the National Science Foundation.

[Nurvingiel]

Wow, that's really interesting Lief! Maybe they were preserved in the same way you can get petrified wood? (I don't know how that works either, I'm just wondering...)

[Jonathan]

I did some thinking on this whole creationism vs. evolution issue. The creationists have a huge advantage - their belief in a god. See there is no evidence imaginable that could prove that God wasn’t involved in this or that. Whereas creationists in theory can come up with evidence against evolution (evolution is a science and thus there is always a chance you can disprove it), there is no way you can prove God didn’t have anything to do with the creation of life. You can’t really expect God would leave a fingerprint or a signature saying “Made in Heaven� in every living organism. No matter how hard you look, I believe it’s quite evident you won’t find any trace of God inside any life form. So what do we have? An invisible deity that has left no proof of his existence at all. Well, except for the so-called “intelligent design� which isn’t a good or even valid proof anyway. The word “intelligent� is highly subjective.
With evolution, you have to come up with some kind model. Creationists have a good time attacking the evolutionary models, claiming this and that proof isn’t good enough or is false. Creationism doesn’t really require a model. You can always fit God into any model imaginable. Not very scientific, don’t you agree?

I was also thinking about how vast periods of time are critical for evolution. Creationists believe the earth is only a few thousand years old – Can it be that they think evolution can’t be true just because there haven’t been enough time for evolution to happen? Or don’t they believe in it because the Bible says every animal were created in such a way that they don’t change? I mean, what is the main reason for the creationists to believe evolution is wrong? Lack of time for evolution to take place, contradictions with the Bible, poor evidence for the theory in the first place… what?

I found a good quote somewhere, said by one of the earliest evolutionists:
If... the organic and physical world are perfectly adapted to each other,
and... the physical world changes,
then... the organic world should also change.
But... according to special creation, the organic world does not change.
Therefore... a contradiction exists.

RÃ*an, I just skimmed through your posts here - summary posts on why I believe the evidence supports creationism..

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

In fact, because of the lack of expected evidence for intermediate forms, the theory of evolution has been modified from steady, small, evenly-spaced changes to “punctuated equilibrium�, which basically says that changes occurred in bunches and thus didn’t show up in the fossil record in the expected number. But that is a premise based on a LACK of evidence, not what is ACTUALLY OBSERVABLE in the fossil record. I think that there is some evidence for simple-to-more-complex in some ways, but it's not consistent.

First I’d like to point out that there isn’t a lack of intermediate forms in the fossil record. If so, it’s because creationists doesn’t recognize the fossils as intermediate forms, simply because they don’t believe in intermediate forms .

Anyway there are many intermediate forms that have been found. Every time we find a fossil, we’re not always looking at the end of the evolutionary line. A completely new fossil could very well come from a species that has evolved into something else. The Neanderthals might not be our ancestors, but we have found fossils of humanoids that were both our and the Neanderthals’ common forefathers. If we could get their DNA too, we could establish our relationship even more closely than we can now by examining their bones. However I’m afraid creationists fail to see why similarities in DNA suggests a relationship. It’s God who makes himself reminded in their argumentation again – God wouldn’t have any problems whatsoever giving us and them similar DNA. Anyway, DNA is something that speaks for evolution and thus pretty much against creationism IMO…
Um, I guess what I’m really trying to say is that there are intermediate forms. There are many examples besides from the one above. If there hadn’t been intermediate species, it would have been a blow to the theory of evolution. Now that intermediate species have been found, their existence proved (at least if you believe similarities in bone structure and DNA is evidence enough, and really, it should be enough unless you’re a creationist ) creationism seems less likely.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

However, there are also many problems with out-of-order fossils, only SOME of which can be explained by earth movements, and this is very much against evolutionism. These out-of-order fossils happen frequently enough that there are even special terms for them! ("stratigraphic leaks"). This speaks against evolutionism, but is fine with creationism (sorting would keep MOST in the same level, but SOME in different levels is no problem for creationism).

No rule without an exception. In physical or chemical experiments, you always get some values or results that differ from what you should get, depending on various sources of error. You will have to discard those results if you can’t justify that they’ve been attained under perfectly legitimate circumstances. If so, you will have to come up with a new physical or chemical model. Like first, everything pointed to the fact that time was constant. Not until the measuring methods were refined could it be proved that was not the case – time was not constant.
The thing is, it’s not strange there are some cases where things don’t really fit in with the theory of evolution but the majority of things do. In every field of natural science, there are exceptions from the rules due to other, sometimes unknown factors! It would almost have been strange if there hadn’t been any of these “stratigraphic leaks�

Btw, I’ve got something of a proof that involves “out-of-order fossils� that speaks against creationism! . See, dinosaur foot prints have been found in places where you wouldn’t expect to see them – on steep, vertical cliffs. Does this mean dinosaurs could climb walls? Imagine a big heavy sauropod taking a walk on a precipice just like a spider! No, of course that wouldn’t have been possible. The cliffs must have been more horizontal when the dinosaurs left their footprints there. Without any traces of volcanos or earthquakes that shook the area, how can these cliffs have almost flipped 90 degrees? Well, geologists have always said the earth isn’t static, it moves and has done so for billions of years. These cliffs have during the past million years very slowly arisen and started to tilt, millimetre by millimetre. Millions of years! So unless creationists want to accept the fact that the earth is a little older than just a few thousand years, I guess they have to start trying to prove that dinosaurs had suction cups on their feet

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

And to be a little gross, but it’s true – mammals “bloat and float�. I remember reading about some tragic ethnic mass murders, and how the local river was just filled with floating corpses of murdered people. So the suggestion that someone made here about throwing fossils/bones into water and seeing that they sank to the bottom disproves creationism/flood just doesn’t … float, if you’ll excuse the pun, because humans, for example, were not fossils/bones when they died. They would bloat and float, and be eaten by scavengers in the ocean, etc. And bones that DID survive would have been laid down later in the process, so they would be nearer the top.

From what I know, every living organism can both float and sink. Dead mammals can definitely sink! . Some float, but some definitely sink . I’m not sure scavengers would always have enough time to devour a whole corpse before it sinks. Hey, even wood can sink!

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

In addition, evolutionism says that the information-increasing changes, which cause an advantage and are then naturally selected, come from beneficial mutations. BUT there have NEVER been any mutations of this type observed – NEVER! Again, that’s not to say that they CAN’T occur, but there has never been one observed. And we’re grading on observable evidence.

That statement is sooo wrong that if you were any more wrong, we’d have to redefine the very meaning of “wrong� to make it applicable to how incredibly wrong you are now . I have a funny proof of this that I’m going to post in the Evolution thread later when I have the time (it has to do with how you can build computers with viruses ). Right now it will have to suffice with stating that you are so frigging wrong

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

I did some thinking on this whole creationism vs. evolution issue.

Lots to think about! There's lots more I'd like to bring up eventually.

Just wanted to say, tho, that this bit below is VERY much in error, IMO!

I found a good quote somewhere, said by one of the earliest evolutionists:
If... the organic and physical world are perfectly adapted to each other,
and... the physical world changes,
then... the organic world should also change.
But... according to special creation, the organic world does not change.
Therefore... a contradiction exists.

That last line, "according to special creation, the organic world does not change", is just wrong! I've NEVER heard ANY creationist say that. Instead, it seems to be something that people SAY creationists think. I challenge you to find a creationist saying that anywhere in print

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

That statement is sooo wrong that if you were any more wrong, we’d have to redefine the very meaning of “wrong� to make it applicable to how incredibly wrong you are now .

I disagree, but let's discuss it, by all means!

I have a funny proof of this that I’m going to post in the Evolution thread later when I have the time (it has to do with how you can build computers with viruses ). Right now it will have to suffice with stating that you are so frigging wrong

As I mentioned before, one can get computers to do ANYTHING ... I don't consider a computer simulation a proof, as I personally know how to make computer simulations!

[jerseydevil]

I had fouhd this quote in someone's signature in the nation state's forum and I thought it was very appropriate to this discussion of creationism...

"in science, when the theories do not fit the facts, the theories are discarded.
in religion, when the theories do not fit the facts, the facts are discarded"

[Rían]

Ah, interesting quote! And I find it very appropriate to the discussion on evolution, so I'll run over and post it there

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by jonathan

You can’t really expect God would leave a fingerprint or a signature saying “Made in Heaven� in every living organism. No matter how hard you look

well what about this barcode on the back of my neck

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

That last line, "according to special creation, the organic world does not change", is just wrong! I've NEVER heard ANY creationist say that. Instead, it seems to be something that people SAY creationists think. I challenge you to find a creationist saying that anywhere in print

Does this mean that you believe life forms evolve? . Let's pretend that life still exists on earth a few million years from now (Judgement day postponed or whatever ). Now, do you think that life will look the same way as it does today, or do you think it has evolved into new races and species?

Because clearly one of the major problems for creationists to grasp is the amount of time required for evolution. Earth isn't that old, thus evolution can't have had enough time to take place. But what about in the future? Millions of years from now? Will the organic world have evolved?

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

As I mentioned before, one can get computers to do ANYTHING ... I don't consider a computer simulation a proof, as I personally know how to make computer simulations!

Oh but this has nothing to do with computer simulation. This is manufacture of computers by using evolving viruses

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Does this mean that you believe life forms evolve? .

That depends upon your definition of "evolve" If you mean what is commonly called "microevolution", I certainly believe that takes place, as do most creationists I've heard. It is certainly observable today.

If you mean what is commonly called "macroevolution" (fish to philosopher), then I do NOT believe that takes place, because I see little or no evidence for it taking place.

Let's pretend that life still exists on earth a few million years from now (Judgement day postponed or whatever ). Now, do you think that life will look the same way as it does today, or do you think it has evolved into new races and species?

I think it will look different, but not unrecognizeably (sp?) different. I think there might be new species (and remember, species is defined by people!) even to the point of where they can't breed anymore, but birds will still produce birds, and horses still produce horses, etc. etc.

Because clearly one of the major problems for creationists to grasp is the amount of time required for evolution. Earth isn't that old, thus evolution can't have had enough time to take place. But what about in the future? Millions of years from now? Will the organic world have evolved?

I believe it certainly will have changed - some species will have gone extinct, as we observe today, and some new ones will come about, as we observe today. But birds will produce birds, etc. etc. What we observe today is that there seem to be LIMITS to the change, and new species come about from EXISTING genetic info and end up with LESS genetic info.

Oh but this has nothing to do with computer simulation. This is manufacture of computers by using evolving viruses

Oh, that will be interesting to hear about!

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

That depends upon your definition of "evolve" If you mean what is commonly called "microevolution", I certainly believe that takes place, as do most creationists I've heard. It is certainly observable today.

If you mean what is commonly called "macroevolution" (fish to philosopher), then I do NOT believe that takes place, because I see little or no evidence for it taking place.

Ther eis evidence though. The only reason why you seem not to believe it is because you throw out all the evidence that supports evolution. As Jonathan says - when a fossil is found - it isn't necessarily a top leaf in the evolutionary tree. Was it an organism that lived? Yeah - it was - but that doesn't mean it didn't continue to evolve through successive generations to become something completely different. The dinosaur to birds is a prime example of this. We have started to find the various "missing links" between dinosaurs and birds.

I think it will look different, but not unrecognizeably (sp?) different. I think there might be new species (and remember, species is defined by people!) even to the point of where they can't breed anymore, but birds will still produce birds, and horses still produce horses, etc. etc.

Not necessarily. Not over the course of millions of years. What is really the difference between horse and man? We both have heads, we have sex organs, somach, liver, eyes, hair, etc, etc. We have far more in common with a horse - than not. In the grand scale of things - there are very little difference between a horse and man.

I believe it certainly will have changed - some species will have gone extinct, as we observe today, and some new ones will come about, as we observe today. But birds will produce birds, etc. etc. What we observe today is that there seem to be LIMITS to the change, and new species come about from EXISTING genetic info and end up with LESS genetic info.

Again - that isn't necessarily true. maybe if people lived for millions of years evolution would be observable. Just like for as long as I have been alive the Jersey Shore has been in the exact same place as it is now. But at one point in time - the ice sheet was only a couple of miles north of me during the ice age, and the jersey Shore was about 200 miles east of it's present location. Now I don't see the changes in the Jersey Shore - unless a nor'easter comes through or a hurricane. Generally it is very gradual. This is the same thing with evolution. It is a GRADUAL change over time.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

By the way - Rian in my opinion is still trying to explain the evidence for creationism by knocking evolution - while trying not to mention evolution. This is demonstrated with her comment about evolution not being testable and comparing it to the idea that god is untestable and that therefore they are in the same league scientifically.

I gave a single post, just like you wanted, supporting creationism, WITHOUT mentioning evolution or god. It's post number 447. Since you wanted just a single post, it was necessarily very brief. I'll expound in greater detail later.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Ther eis evidence though. The only reason why you seem not to believe it is because you throw out all the evidence that supports evolution.

The only evidence I throw out is evidence I feel is unsupported. As I've said many times before, I think some areas in the theory of evolution are well-supported. I guess you just don't remember that

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

The only evidence I throw out is evidence I feel is unsupported. As I've said many times before, I think some areas in the theory of evolution are well-supported. I guess you just don't remember that

Well you guess wrong because I do remember that. But the thing is the evidence of intermediate species is well supported in the fossil record. The problem is - you seem to look at them as being top leaves. So why do you throw this evidence out - when it is well-supported? Henxce why I feel that you do throw out evidence that doesn't conform to your beliefs.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I gave a single post, just like you wanted, supporting creationism, WITHOUT mentioning evolution or god. It's post number 447. Since you wanted just a single post, it was necessarily very brief. I'll expound in greater detail later.

I saw it - and commented on it. You seem not have seen my comment. I don't consider it one where evolution isn't mentioned - when you did mention it in your second paragraph basically saying that there was no difference between believing in god or evolution - because neither was testable - thus neither are scientific - which is the furthest thing from the truth. I guess you just ignored that though.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

I did some thinking on this whole creationism vs. evolution issue. The creationists have a huge advantage - their belief in a god.

Well, that's no advantage scientifically. It's scientifically neutral, IMO.

Well, except for the so-called “intelligent design� which isn’t a good or even valid proof anyway. The word “intelligent� is highly subjective.

Yet anthropologists pick up arrowheads all the time and have no problem concluding they are NOT a result of naturalistic processes, but are rather a result of intelligence and intent and design

Yes, it's subjective, but we make these types of analyses all the time. That's what SETI is all about - the search for extraterresterial intelligence looks for certain types of things that indicate intelligence rather than randomness.

With evolution, you have to come up with some kind model.

You do with creationism, too. It's the MODEL of both of these things that is testable scientifically.

Creationism doesn’t really require a model. You can always fit God into any model imaginable.

It DOES require a model if you're talking about scientific testing. The specific model I"m talking about is YEC - young earth creationism (iow, creation as described in Genesis).

I mean, what is the main reason for the creationists to believe evolution is wrong? Lack of time for evolution to take place, contradictions with the Bible, poor evidence for the theory in the first place… what?

I'll have to get into that on the evolution thread

First I’d like to point out that there isn’t a lack of intermediate forms in the fossil record.

Then why was gradualism dropped?

However I’m afraid creationists fail to see why similarities in DNA suggests a relationship.

Creationists feel that DNA similarities indicate design commonalities. And this seems to fit the evidence. And there's lots of problems, IMO, with what evolution claims about DNA - but I"ll get into it on the evolution thread.

Btw, I’ve got something of a proof that involves “out-of-order fossils� that speaks against creationism! . See, dinosaur foot prints have been found in places where you wouldn’t expect to see them – on steep, vertical cliffs. Does this mean dinosaurs could climb walls? Imagine a big heavy sauropod taking a walk on a precipice just like a spider! No, of course that wouldn’t have been possible. The cliffs must have been more horizontal when the dinosaurs left their footprints there. Without any traces of volcanos or earthquakes that shook the area, how can these cliffs have almost flipped 90 degrees? Well, geologists have always said the earth isn’t static, it moves and has done so for billions of years. These cliffs have during the past million years very slowly arisen and started to tilt, millimetre by millimetre. Millions of years! So unless creationists want to accept the fact that the earth is a little older than just a few thousand years, I guess they have to start trying to prove that dinosaurs had suction cups on their feet

I don't see how this is against creationism The recent mudslides in California produced changes from vertical to horizontal in minutes. Earthquakes produce changes from vertical to horizontal in minutes.

From what I know, every living organism can both float and sink. Dead mammals can definitely sink! . Some float, but some definitely sink . I’m not sure scavengers would always have enough time to devour a whole corpse before it sinks. Hey, even wood can sink!

Yeah, as I said, this is the weakest area in the creationism model, IMO. But humans have the most intelligence and could get to higher ground better and would prob. die last. But this is a weak explanation and needs some improvement, or maybe just needs to be jettisoned and another model developed, just like evolutionists do.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I saw it - and commented on it. You seem not have seen my comment. I don't consider it one where evolution isn't mentioned - when you did mention it in your second paragraph basically saying that there was no difference between believing in god or evolution - because neither was testable - thus neither are scientific - which is the furthest thing from the truth. I guess you just ignored that though.

But you're talking about the wrong post - it's number 447! I didn't ignore it - you're talking about the wrong post

[Rían]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Well you guess wrong because I do remember that. But the thing is the evidence of intermediate species is well supported in the fossil record. The problem is - you seem to look at them as being top leaves. So why do you throw this evidence out - when it is well-supported? Henxce why I feel that you do throw out evidence that doesn't conform to your beliefs.

What I said was "lack of expected evidence for intermediate forms". From what I can tell, the majority of evolutionists agree with this - they believe that there are not enough intermediate forms to support gradualism, and that's why the current theory is punctuated equilibrium. I agree with them that there are not enough intermediate forms to support gradualism.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

But you're talking about the wrong post - it's number 447! I didn't ignore it - you're talking about the wrong post

No I wasn't talking about the wrong post. Post 447 was basically a continuation of what you were talking about in 446. You posted two posts back to back.

Edit - to put it bluntly - what you did was attacked evolution in post 446 and then tried to present your "scientific" evidence in post 447. Which basically was a post explaining WHY the evidence for evolution suppsoedly doesn't work without mentioning evolution by name.