Jump to content
3000AD Forums
Sign in to follow this  
LostInSpace

Evolution is it a Fact or a Theory?

Recommended Posts

quote:

Originally posted by LostInSpace:

. I agree with the statements in the link. What's your take on this?

This page is full of Misinformation

quote:

by Laurence Moran
It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory,

-Obviously, this guy has never picked up a dictionary. Let's see, what does it say.

quote:

From Dictionary.com

Fact

n 1: a piece of information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred; "first you must collect all the facts of the case" 2: a statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened; "he supported his argument with an impressive array of facts" 3: an event known to have happened or something known to have existed; "your fears have no basis in fact"; "how much of the story is fact and how much fiction is hard to tell" 4: a concept whose truth can be proved; "scientific hypotheses are not facts"


If you can't prove how it happened, then it is Not a fact.

quote:

by Laurence Moran

It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old.

Again, here is a factual assumption extracted from the Radiometric Dating theory. To see some facts on this see http://www.trueorigin.org/dating.asp

quote:

by Laurence Moran
It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.

Again, stating that something is a fact doesn't make it a fact. You still need supporting evidence!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am so sick and tired of everyone saying "There's overwhelming evidence" and yet fed that they don't need to provide this evidence. Everyone loves to say there is plenty of evidence, but then point to more theories to explain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by Chaoticmass:

I agree with this guy,
.

Oh, I like that, simple and to the point, anyone without ANY training can understand EXACTLY what he is talking about. Bookmarked, thanks for the link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by Darkling:

I am so sick and tired of everyone saying "There's overwhelming evidence" and yet fed that they don't need to provide this evidence. Everyone loves to say there is plenty of evidence, but then point to more theories to explain.

Oh puhlease, You want the evidence?

What? Did you never take a biology class, have you never studied dinosaurs? My 7 year old is so fascinated with dinosaurs that it is insane.

What? Did dinosaurs not exist? were they put there by the devil to fool us and lead us away from god?

Come on man, let's get real.....

fight these facts

come on, go ahead, I would LOVE to see it.

OK, now let's see if you can disprove evolution...

Here's something that evolution predicts, and an example, now show one example that shows that it is NOT true.

quote:

In "The Origin Of Species" (1859), Darwin said:

"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection."

Chapter VI, Difficulties Of The Theory

This challenge has not been met. In the ensuing 140 years, no such thing has been found. Plants give away nectar and fruit, but they get something in return. Taking care of other members of one's own species (kin selection) doesn't count, so ants and bees (and mammalian milk) don't count.

Darwin pointed out that the Madagascar Star orchid has a spur 30 centimeters (about a foot) long, with a puddle of nectar at the bottom. Now, evolution says that nectar isn't free. Creatures that drink it pay for it, by carrying pollen away to another orchid. For that to happen, the creature must rub against the top of the spur. So, Darwin concluded that the spur had evolved its length as an arms race. Some creature had a way to reach deeply without shoving itself hard against the pollen-producing parts. Orchids with longer spurs would be more likely to spread their pollen, so Darwin's gradualistic scenario applied. The spur would evolve to be longer and longer. From the huge size, the creature must have evolved in return, reaching deeper and deeper. So, he predicted in 1862 that Madagascar has a species of hawkmoth with a tongue just slightly shorter than 30 cm.

The creature that pollinated that orchid was not learned until 1902, forty years later. It was indeed a moth, and it had a 25 cm tongue. And in 1988 it was proven that moth-pollinated short-spurred orchids did set less seed than long ones


OK, or how about this one, this should be easy for you....

quote:

Evolution predicts that the fossil record will show different populations of creatures at different times. For example, it predicts we will never find fossils of trilobites with fossils of dinosaurs, since their geological time-lines don't overlap. The "Cretaceous seaway" deposits in Colorado and Wyoming contain almost 90 different kinds of ammonites, but no one has ever found two different kinds of ammonite together in the same rockbed.

Give me ONE, just one example of a fossil being out of place in the strata, that has not been geologically explained.

Just one....

Evolution is not only a fact, it is a theory, and it is science, it makes predictions, and 99.999% of the time, thos predictions have been correct.

Any number of things that would shows those predictions to be wrong would toss the theory on it's head, so, come on, some up with something.

You are so sure that evolution is not true, and is NOT indeed a fact, show me something in those predictions that make them wrong.

I will be waiting, I'm tired of being on the defense all the time, about time a creationist had to do some work for a change.

Oh, and remember this, even if you disprove evolution, (like that is going to happen) it does not prove creationism. You cannot disprove one to prove the other. So you are chasing your tail, as most creationists do.

[ 03-01-2004, 01:30 AM: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing to remember when talking about evolution is the distinction between evolution itself, which is a fact, and the mechanism for evolution, which is still actively debated in the scientific community.

Also...

quote:

If you can't prove how it happened, then it is Not a fact.

Thats the funniest thing I've heard all day.

I found a penny on the ground. I dont know how it got there, but it is, for a fact, there on the ground in front of me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by Darkling:

quote:

Originally posted by LostInSpace:

. I agree with the statements in the link. What's your take on this?

This page is full of Misinformation

quote:

by Laurence Moran
It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory,

-Obviously, this guy has never picked up a dictionary. Let's see, what does it say.

quote:

From Dictionary.com

Fact

n 1: a piece of information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred; "first you must collect all the facts of the case" 2: a statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened; "he supported his argument with an impressive array of facts" 3: an event known to have happened or something known to have existed; "your fears have no basis in fact"; "how much of the story is fact and how much fiction is hard to tell" 4: a concept whose truth can be proved; "scientific hypotheses are not facts"


If you can't prove how it happened, then it is Not a fact.

quote:

by Laurence Moran

It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old.

Again, here is a factual assumption extracted from the Radiometric Dating theory. To see some facts on this see http://www.trueorigin.org/dating.asp

quote:

by Laurence Moran
It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.

Again, stating that something is a fact doesn't make it a fact. You still need supporting evidence!


I have decided that I am going to have fun with this. I am not going to get frustrated, I am just going to go over these one at a time, and point out their fallacies as I would a student.

We will just assume that these quotes are all indeed by Darkling, OK?

quote:

This page is full of Misinformation


Wrong, but that's OK, because you tried to give us evidence of that conclusion.

quote:

-Obviously, this guy has never picked up a dictionary. Let's see, what does it say.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Dictionary.com

Fact

n 1: a piece of information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred; "first you must collect all the facts of the case" 2: a statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened; "he supported his argument with an impressive array of facts" 3: an event known to have happened or something known to have existed; "your fears have no basis in fact"; "how much of the story is fact and how much fiction is hard to tell" 4: a concept whose truth can be proved; "scientific hypotheses are not facts"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you can't prove how it happened, then it is Not a fact.


Ahh, so, your main thing is since the mechanism is not completely known, then therefore it is not a fact.

Therefore, since the mechanism is not completely figured out in the theory of evolution, therefore it cannot be a fact and therefore is false.

Do I have that straight? I believe that is your thinking.

So let's go with the the "Theory of Gravity" as an example.

You know that gravity exists, do you not? Apples fall down, not up, right?

quote:

There is no mechanism implied in Newtonian gravitation -- it is just a "spooky action at a distance" to quote Einstein. The information content of the theory is solely in the formula F=GMm/r^2.

It was a successful theory because for a long time it did this correctly -- it predicted many things which were observed but avoided making wrong predictions.

However by the end of the 19th century there was a question mark hanging over it. It was not clear whether it could successfully explain the orbit of Mercury. The long axis of Mercury's orbit precesses about 5000 seconds of arc per century, whereas a naive application of Newtonian gravity suggests zero. In fact corrections (e.g., for the fact that the sun is not exactly spherical) had been found to explain all but 43 seconds of arc per century, but the observations were sufficiently precise that this was an unacceptable discrepancy.

In the event it was overturned and replaced by a new "theory of gravitation," this time based in Einstein's "theory of relativity." In relativity one avoids talking in terms of forces -- gravity is a curvature of space-time. Lumps of matter bend the space around them and a freely falling object takes the straightest path it can in the bent space-time.

It's not clear whether you would call this a mechanism or not. The theory of gravity has been engulfed by a theory of space and time so we now have a "mechanism" for gravity, at the expense of needing a "mechanism" for space and time, whatever that might mean. The information content is now in certain formulae describing the effect of matter on space-time and of space-time on matter.

However we have a more compact set of fundamental principles than before and can make correct predictions about more things than before, so we are justified in calling it progress. It currently makes no incorrect predictions that we know of. We specifically suspect it would break down if the temperature approached 10^32 K, but this could only have happened ridiculously early during the Big Bang.

That is a quote from a friend of mine who is a physicist.

We don't know HOW gravity happens, we have no clue, so you are saying that the theory of gravity is NOT indeed a fact?

I still weigh what I weighed earlier this morning, the earths gravitational field has not changed. It is the same, the theory of gravitation makes predictions, but the mechanism is still not understood. so therefore, according to you, gravity is indeed, NOT a fact.

quote:

Again, here is a factual assumption extracted from the Radiometric Dating theory. To see some facts on this see


ahh, yes, the old radiometric dating controversy, I find this one HIGHLY amusing.

I see alot of "I believe" and "perhaps" on that page, doesn't sound like he's too sure, but then again, he has god, and god is nonfalsifiable, so when you do that to science, it's kind of hard to refute. "God did it that way", is NOT scientific, and cannot be used by science. Kinda puts science at a disadvantage, does it not?

Just go here

It's too funny for me to even try, I am laughing so hard.....

Go to the next page and he states your articles name in reference, I was almost in tears.

quote:

Virtually all methods of measurement represent a combination of scientific or mathematic theories and physical principles or constants. When ignorant YECs differentiate between the "indirect" observations of astronomy or geology and the "direct" observations used in ordinary engineering applications, they are creating a purely arbitrary distinction where none exists. They publish moronic articles like "The Radiometric Dating Game", but that's tantamount to writing "The Temperature Measurement Game", "The Radar Fraud", "The Electrical Multimeter Lie", "The Triangulation Deception", or "The Laser Rangefinder Conspiracy".


Next.....

quote:

Again, stating that something is a fact doesn't make it a fact. You still need supporting evidence!


Oh puhlease, can we get real again please?

by Laurence Moran: It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.

There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with that statement, nothing at all.

Fossils are facts, they sit in the strata in a certain order, each one having similarites to the lower ones, therefore the lower you go, the simpler they get. so, if you start from the bottom of the strata, you get simple life forms, and if the higher strata fossils have some commonalities with the lower ones, they are most likely, as in 99% certainty, are related, and the simpler lifeforms are indeed the ancestors of the more advanced ones higher in the strata.

I haven't lost you have I?

So, if we take the fossils, which are facts, they are physically there, they don't change their appearance day to day. And line them up in a row, form the lowest strata to the highest, we can indeed see evolution at work. What mechanism cuases those changes is still in discussion and debate, but the facts are RIGHT there, staring us in the face.

Example: evolutionary tree(bush) of the modern Horse or Equus

I'll stop there for right now, because I ralize that this post has been rather condescending, and I apologize for that, but the fact of the matter is, that each and every one of your statements is naive in the extreme, and comes right out of the creationist strawman handbook.

Remember, even IF you disprove evolution, which won't happen, because it happened, and there is nothing that you can say that will change that, it does not, will not and can not prove that creationism is true. You are chasing your tail, as all creationists do.

Somehow by trying to disprove evolution, which won't happen, you will somehow give creationism scientific validity, which you won't.

Creationism is not scientific, it is NONfalsifiable. "god did it that way" is not science.

[ 03-01-2004, 02:37 AM: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

What? Did dinosaurs not exist? were they put there by the devil to fool us and lead us away from god?


Ah, you beat me to the punch. I was going to use that in my next post. When I was in high school, I had a part time job in a retail store and the manager was a Jehova Witness. Do you know he said that to me about the dinosaurs and I have never forgoten it. I just shook my head in disbelief.

quote:

Originally posted by Darkling:

I am so sick and tired of everyone saying "There's overwhelming evidence" and yet fed that they don't need to provide this evidence. Everyone loves to say there is plenty of evidence, but then point to more theories to explain.

Is everyone who wants to have a general discussion on Evolution suppose to bring with them the entire global collection of fossils and such? Oy vey! What is your opposition to Evolution anyway. It's like what always happens to scientific discoveries they eventually become embraced by religion. Take for example the Flat earth v. round or the earth centered universe v. Sun centered to the eventual discovery that not even the sun is the center of the universe. People have had their blood shed over these concepts. Good thing that today the religious can't tourch anyone over their ideas. Anyway, religion has now come to embrace these concepts as god's design. Now take evolution, suppose that is god's design also. If you follow the assumption that god is all knowing to get to the creation of man would be just like making soup. What do I mean by this? Say you wanna make chicken soup you start with the ingredients and combine it with water and walla you know what you are going to have and that is chicken soup. Now take god, he takes the ingredients he needs and mixes them in that all purpose substance water and let the brew go thru it's paces. Simple eh? There is nothing to fear from the concept of Evolution. Really there isn't. Don't make the mistakes of the past by fearing scientific discoveries and condeming those that put them forth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by LostInSpace:

Don't make the mistakes of the past by fearing scientific discoveries and condeming those that put them forth. [/QB]

Ahh, you make an excellent point, but alas, it is NOT to be.

You see, Genesis is the TRUE creation story, because if it is not, what else in the bible is false or untrue.

We were going over that in another thread I believe.

But creationist HAVE to have Genesis be the literal truth, or else the rest of the bible is no longer trustworthy in their eyes.

Sad, ain't it?

Problem is that disproving evolution does NOTHING to prove creationism.

Their explanation: God did it, and that's that.

But that is religion, not science, and I find it laughable when creationist try to fight science with religion, because it is like oil and water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like you boys are having fun in here.

Evolution is happening as we speak.

Want Proof?

I will put forth a statement but I will not provide proof ,simply because I do not have access to the research, but, always the big but,

Take a look at the organism that causes the Flu,

Every year they seem to discover a stronger strain of the virus, therefore that virus is adapting to it's environment so that it may proliferate it's species.Evolving if you will.

Evolution has been nothing more than a species adapting to it's environment so that it can survive and continue the species.

Homo Sapiens is not an exception to the rule.

We too are evolving, adapting, and taking from nature what we need to survive, sometimes to excess and the detriment of our environment, so we again will adapt to these changes.

Early man was fairly ignorant of the environment in which he lived, which would naturally lead to the mystical assumption that what was here was just magically placed here by some deity.

We have no way of knowing what the concrete facts of our coming into existence are, since it took a very long time before we evolved beyond grunts and screams to a more tangible form of communication.

Unfortunately, the earliest writings were lost to time, decay, and disaster, or worse yet, the aspirations of manipulative men seeking power over other men for their own ends.

the truth is out there. Somewhere.

For now we have only scientific observation and study of our planet to go on.

To those whose only wish in life is to shove their beliefs down the throats of everyone else They should read the following...

Another member of this forum has a great byline,

I never let my schooling interfere with my education

Samuel Clemens

[ 03-01-2004, 09:01 AM: Message edited by: Wolferz ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

Give me ONE, just one example of a fossil being out of place in the strata, that has not been geologically explained.

Just one....

Skeletons of ten perfectly modern humans have been excavated from fifty eight feet down in the Dakota Sandstone, over an area spanning about 50 by 100 feet. This formation is a member of the Lower Cretaceous, supposedly 140 million years old. It is known for its dinosaurs and is the same formation found at Dinosaur National Monument.

If you would like to read more:

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/malachite-man.htm

http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-13-t-000869.html

Please explain that one away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Wolferz:

Evolution is happening as we speak.

Want Proof?

I will put forth a statement but I will not provide proof ,simply because I do not have access to the research, but, always the big but,

Take a look at the organism that causes the Flu,

Every year they seem to discover a stronger strain of the virus, therefore that virus is adapting to it's environment so that it may proliferate it's species.Evolving if you will.

My eldest son is taller than me, does that prove that evolution exists. No, it proves that he's had better healthcare, better nutrition and a better environment than I did growing up. I grew up hungry, Cold and poor as hell. However my son doesn't have additional fingers, ESP or anything other than what he got from me, same with the flu. Just because it's "Better" doesn't mean that it "evolved" into something new.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by LostInSpace:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

[qb] It's like what always happens to scientific discoveries they eventually become embraced by religion. Take for example the Flat earth v. round or the earth centered universe v. Sun centered to the eventual discovery that not even the sun is the center of the universe.

There are a lot of mistakes that religious leaders have made. Remember the Inquisition? A couple of years ago, the Pope announced that the Catholic Church now embraces Evolution, but says that God directed it. Personally I think the Pope is wrong, just as the church was wrong years ago when they said that the earth was flat. which BTW, the Bible DOESN'T say that the earth was flat, nor does it say that the earth is the center of the Universe. Power crazed religous leaders created their own opinions and wanted to silence everyone that disagreed with them. Today the tables have turned, now it's the Evolutionist that stick to their "Religion" and only want their world view taught and no one elses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by Darkling:

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

Give me ONE, just one example of a fossil being out of place in the strata, that has not been geologically explained.

Just one....

Skeletons of ten perfectly modern humans have been excavated from fifty eight feet down in the Dakota Sandstone, over an area spanning about 50 by 100 feet. This formation is a member of the Lower Cretaceous, supposedly 140 million years old. It is known for its dinosaurs and is the same formation found at Dinosaur National Monument.

If you would like to read more:

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/malachite-man.htm

http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-13-t-000869.html

Please explain that one away.


Malachite man, WooHoo, let's have some fun then.

from this URL

quote:

For months David Willis has argued that a set of green bones referred to as "Malachite Man" was found in situ in Cretaceous sandstone in a copper mine somewhere in Utah. David made the following assertions about Malachite Man, some of which he repeated numerous times.

1. The bones were found 50 feet deep.

2. The bones were encased in extremely hard sandstone.

3. Some of the bones were heavily mineralized.

4. There was no evidence of intrusive burial.

5. The rock encasing the bones is considered 150 million years old by mainstream geologists.

6. The bones were in the same formation as nearby Dinosaur National Monument.

7. The bones were found only a couple years ago (1995 or 1996, depending on the email message)

8. Malachite Man is different from the "Moab Man" and "similar" finds of years past.

In case anyone wishes to challenge whether these assertions were made, they are documented at the end of this post with excerpts from relevant messages.

In was evident from several of David's statements that the source of David's information about this find was Don Patton. Patton is also named as the person to whom questions should be directed about the material at the web site


That looks like a reference to your website Darkling.

quote:

Although I hate to spoil the plot, in order to pique everyone's interest let me announce from the start that a careful review of the evidence indicates that none of the 8 assertions enumerated above is true. Not only are they lacking in empirical support, but they are contradicted by the available evidence (which I will get to momentarily).

While David was making the above claims, I and others asked for verification of them in the form of detailed documentation, which is only reasonable. We explained that before the find could be confirmed as a non-intrusive burial we would need to see results of comparisons between the bones and others in the formation--in terms of color, composition, type and degree of fossilization; as well as comparisons of the matrix contacting the bone with that farther from it. Others requested documentation regarding the geology and mapping of the site, dating of the bones, etc. However, nothing approaching this kind of documentation was ever provided.


Ohh, that doesn't sound very promising.....

quote:

David repeatedly suggested we should be able to just look at the web site photos and confirm his statements about the bones and matrix. However, as has been pointed out before, such claims cannot be determined from photos alone. And regardless, the basic questions about the find must be answered in order for it to garner any scientific credibility. I'm sure David would demand no less from any "evolutionist" find.

David recently complained about me taking "5 months" to address a highly technical article about radio halos which I did not even present, and for which I have no obligation to address--any more than he is obligated to personally address the hundreds of papers on radiometric dating that contradict Gentry's YEC position. In contrast, David himself presented the Malachite Man case to the group as a challenge to "open minded evolutionists." Yet almost a year has gone by since he presented this find, without answers to the some of the simplest questions about it. Something doesn't add up.

Members who have written to Don Patton directly were no more successful in obtaining the answers. David did forward a message from Patton to the group about the find, but it addressed other issues, without answering the basic questions.

One of David's rationales for this situation was that the information might be used to "discredit Patton." This stands logic on its head. Answering the answers would only bolster the credibility of the find and make it more difficult for anyone to challenge--assuming the original claims and answers were sound and consistent. Of course, if they were not, this would be equally important to know. Personally, I don't understand why David presented the find to the group without first finding out these basic facts for himself.


Now that doesn't sound very good at all, what's your guy hiding?

quote:

Since we could not get these answers from the DW/Patton team, some of us decided to do some "digging" on our own. Even though the information provided was sketchy, I immediately I noticed a striking similarity between this case and the well discredited "Moab Man" from years past. Both were said to involve:

- Green human bones (relatively rare)

- Major portions of two skeletons.

- A copper mine in Utah

- Cretaceous Dakota Sandstone.

This started me wondering: could the finds be from the same mine and even the same burial plot? If so, it would seem that the Moab Man and Malachite Man bones might have other features in common as well. Then an even more interesting thought occurred to me: could the "Malachite Man" bones shown on the web site actually be the same Moab Man bones found over 25 years ago? --despite DW's insistence that the finds were different? At first this seemed far fetched, but then something interesting developed. Before I describe that, it will be useful to summarize the history of the Moab Man find.

The "Moab Man" or "Moab skeletons" as they came to be known, consisted of the major portions of two greenish-colored skeletons found in Big Indian Copper mine near Moab, Utah in 1971. The discoverer was a local rockhound named Lin Ottinger, who stumbled on the bones while leading a field trip of mineral collectors in the mine. A bulldozer there had recently removed about 15 feet of overburden, revealing the bones and damaging some of them. Within days the find was investigated by John Marwitt, who was then the Field Director of the Utah Statewide Archaeological Survey. Marwitt led the remainder of the excavation, and described the bones as resting in loose, poorly consolidated blowsand and sandy matrix, not consolidated rock or hard sandstone. Marwitt indicated that all the bones were completely unfossilized, and in postures reminiscent of known Indian burials. The bones were stained a bluish-green color from contact with copper bearing sediments. Marwitt concluded that the bones were unquestionably intrusive burials, and were probably only hundreds of years old.

Marwitt conveyed his observations to a local reporter from the Times Independent newspaper in Utah, who also came to review the find. Unfortunately, as Marwitt later lamented, apparently the reporter was more interested in a "story" than the truth, and ended up presenting the find as a geologic "mystery" and ignoring much of what he described about it.


The plot thickens, let's continue....

quote:

Among the literature and correspondence in my Moab Man file was a copy of the 1975 Desert Magazine article, which features several photographs of the Moab Man find. As I pored over these photos, something seemed eerily familiar. I decided to access Patton's web site and compare them to the "Malachite Man" photos there.

By now many of you may be a step ahead of me. Not only did the photos at both the web site and in the magazine confirm that the burial site was the same, but upon closer inspection, it was clear that the bones shown in both sets of photos (at least all those shown in matrix) were in fact the very same bones. The bones are laid out in the exact same positions and orientations as in the magazine photos. In fact, they can be matched bone for bone--with only slight differences in camera angle. Further, the man pictured in both sets of photos was none other than Lin Ottinger, the discover of Moab Man. In both photos Ottinger is shown leaning over the bones in a similar manner, with the same wisk brush, sporting the same hairdo, and wearing the same plaid shirt.

I only had black and white photocopies of the Desert Magazine photos to work with, but they are clear enough to demonstrate the above statements. (I am attempting to obtain copies of the original photos, in case anyone cares to question this). A comparison of two photos in particular seem to say a thousand words: a photo from the web site and one from the magazine that each show Ottinger and the bones together, which are provided below for your convenience. As Marwitt and others also pointed out, one can see that Ottinger was working with a hand trowel and brush--which would not be very useful if the matrix were hard sandstone.


Whoops, oh now that is kinda weird, the pictures of Malachite man, are the exact same pictures as MOAB man? Ooohh, now that's rather strange, what's happening here?

quote:

The ramifications of this are staggering, regarding the major discrepancies between what David and Patton led us to believe about the pictured bones, and what was reported by the only scientist who studied and excavated the pictured bones on site. Perhaps a chart will best summarize the stark differences.

Willis/Patton claims Evidence reported by Marwitt

------------------------ ----------------------------

Bones 50 feet deep Bones approx. 15 feet deep

Bones in extremely hard Bones in soft, sandy matrix.

sandstone.

Some bones heavily mineralized All bones unmineralized

(not fossilized at all).

No evidence of intrusion Clearly intrusive

Bones found c. 1995 Bones found in 1971

Different from Moab Man Same bones shown in web photos

of "Malachite Man" and 25+ year

old Moab Man article.

The bones are in situ in The mine contains Dakota Fm.

Dakota Formation. but the bones are intrusive

(unrelated to age of formation)

Dakota Fm is considered The Dakota Fm is regarded as approx.

150 million years old by 90-115 million years old (late

mainstream geologists (late Aptian-Cenomanian), straddling

the Early Cretaceous and Late

Cretaceous. In central Utah, the

Dakota Fm. is dated at approx.

92-95 my (Kirkland, 1998)

Bones are in the same Dinosaur National Monument

formation as Dinosaur is nearby, but DNM is in the

National Monument Morrison Fm, which is Jurassic.

No info on comparison to Composition and appearance of the

other bones in formation bones was unlike others in nearby

formations.


Whoops, Houston, we have a problem.....

quote:

Another interesting inconsistency concerns David's comments on the articulation of the bones:

(2-27-97) "The skeletons are fully articulated"

(4-16-97) "You will see that the human bones are disarticulated."

As to what the implications of all this are for DW and his information source, I don't think I have to say much more.

However, there are still a few loose ends to the story that should be tied up. None do anything to salvage their credibility on the case, but they should be discussed to complete the picture.

While researching this case I located Dr. Marwitt, who is now retired. Dr. Marwitt indicated that some similar human bones were found at the mine about 8 years ago, very near the location of the original Moab skeletons. Apparently they were part of the same burial plot. Marwitt further explained that these bones were investigated by a female archaeologist from the Utah BLM (whom I am in the process of contacting now). He indicated that the bones in this second find were reported to be consistent with those of the original "Moab skeletons", namely that they exhibited greenish stains but were entirely unfossilized, and embedded in poorly compacted, sandy matrix, which was much softer than the hard sandstone of the Dakota formation which surrounded the burial void.

Although the date of this second find seems to be reasonably consistent with DW's comment about a similar 1990 find, unfortunately it does nothing to resolve the serious discrepancies listed above. We are still left with web site photos attributed to a recent Malachite Man find that were actually taken of the original Moab Man find over 25 years ago. We're still left with numerous assertions by DW/Patton that utterly contradict the evidence reported by the scientist who studied and excavated the bones shown in matrix at the web site, or the observations of another scientist who studied the 1990 find, who indicated that the properties of the second set of bones were (not surprisingly) very much like the first.

Even if DW and Patton were to now suggest their assertions match some other find we have not seen yet (at this point I doubt anyone would have the patience for that), they'd still be obligated to produce the detailed documentation for that. And they'd still have resolve the serious discrepancies noted above. They should also explain why they never mentioned any of publications or information sources available on the known finds at the mine. The bottom line is that we don't have one shred of evidence to support their assertions as listed at the start of this essay, and much evidence that contradicts them.

At some point we have to consider the implications of all this in terms of credibility and integrity. Even before this, David's favorite source had less than a stellar track record. Patton has had a long string of claims and promotions that are considered dubious, false, or downright embarrassing even by most creationists. Examples include the "Burdick track" (a carving, and not even a good one), other "man track" claims, another example was a supposed Cretaceous "human tooth"--which turned out to be a fish tooth (Hastings, 1995), the Creteceous "hammer" and "finger" not documented in-situ, a supposed Japanese "plesiosaur"--actually a decayed basking shark (Kuban 1998), a pterosaur walking behind a human at the Taylor site (promoted in a video tape by Baugh and Patton), and others.


Your boy has major credibility problems with scientists, and creationists.

I would not use anything he says as any kind of credible source.

Your Malachite man is actually Moab man, which of course has been explained thoroughly.

So you wish to try again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


Here's something that evolution predicts, and an example, now show one example that shows that it is NOT true.

Darwin pointed out that the Madagascar Star orchid has a spur 30 centimeters (about a foot) long, with a puddle of nectar at the bottom. Now, evolution says that nectar isn't free. Creatures that drink it pay for it, by carrying pollen away to another orchid. For that to happen, the creature must rub against the top of the spur. So, Darwin concluded that the spur had evolved its length as an arms race. Some creature had a way to reach deeply without shoving itself hard against the pollen-producing parts. Orchids with longer spurs would be more likely to spread their pollen, so Darwin's gradualistic scenario applied. The spur would evolve to be longer and longer. From the huge size, the creature must have evolved in return, reaching deeper and deeper. So, he predicted in 1862 that Madagascar has a species of hawkmoth with a tongue just slightly shorter than 30 cm.

The creature that pollinated that orchid was not learned until 1902, forty years later. It was indeed a moth, and it had a 25 cm tongue. And in 1988 it was proven that moth-pollinated short-spurred orchids did set less seed than long ones


Isee not problem with this statement since it's microevolution, the orchid didn't become a new type of plant, just the plant with the more effective trait became more common. Just because Darwin used some reasoning to guess the existance of the moth doesn't make it evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by Eclipse:

Isee not problem with this statement since it's microevolution, the orchid didn't become a new type of plant, just the plant with the more effective trait became more common. Just because Darwin used some reasoning to guess the existance of the moth doesn't make it evil.


Microevolution, yes, but at the same time, it was a prediction, that turned out to be true.

The prediction was the point, not the fact that it is microevolution.

Evolution makes predictions, scientific theories MAKE predictions, that is what helps make them scientific theories, instead of hypothesis.

Macroevolution is a fact, just as microevolution is a fact. Fossils show macroevolution as a fact.

Here:

quote:

There is no difference between micro- and macroevolution except that genes between species usually diverge, while genes within species usually combine. The same processes that cause within-species evolution are responsible for above-species evolution, except that the processes that cause speciation include things that cannot happen to lesser groups, such as the evolution of different sexual apparatus (because, by definition, once organisms cannot interbreed, they are different species).

The idea that the origin of higher taxa, such as genera (canines versus felines, for example), requires something special is based on the misunderstanding of the way in which new phyla (lineages) arise. The two species that are the origin of canines and felines probably differed very little from their common ancestral species and each other. But once they were reproductively isolated from each other, they evolved more and more differences that they shared but the other lineages didn't. This is true of all lineages back to the first eukaryotic (nuclear) cell. Even the changes in the Cambrian explosion are of this kind, although some (eg, Gould 1989) think that the genomes (gene structures) of these early animals were not as tightly regulated as modern animals, and therefore had more freedom to change.


Macroevolution has also been seen in modern times, we don't have JUST fossils to show it for a fact.

Just a few examples.

quote:

.1.1.1 Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)

While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.

5.1.1.2 Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis)

Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and P. floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. The new species was named P. kewensis. Newton and Pellew (1929) note that spontaneous hybrids of P. verticillata and P. floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three occasions. These happened in 1905, 1923 and 1926.

5.1.1.3 Trapopogonan

Owenby (1950) demonstrated that two species in this genus were produced by polyploidization from hybrids. He showed that Tragopogon miscellus found in a colony in Moscow, Idaho was produced by hybridization of T. dubius and T. pratensis. He also showed that T. mirus found in a colony near Pullman, Washington was produced by hybridization of T. dubius and T. porrifolius. Evidence from chloroplast DNA suggests that T. mirus has originated independently by hybridization in eastern Washington and western Idaho at least three times (Soltis and Soltis 1989). The same study also shows multiple origins for T. micellus.

5.1.1.4 Raphanobrassica

The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. Despite the fact that the plants were in different genera, he got a sterile hybrid. Some unreduced gametes were formed in the hybrids. This allowed for the production of seed. Plants grown from the seeds were interfertile with each other. They were not interfertile with either parental species. Unfortunately the new plant (genus Raphanobrassica) had the foliage of a radish and the root of a cabbage.

5.1.1.5 Hemp Nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit)

A species of hemp nettle, Galeopsis tetrahit, was hypothesized to be the result of a natural hybridization of two other species, G. pubescens and G. speciosa (Muntzing 1932). The two species were crossed. The hybrids matched G. tetrahit in both visible features and chromosome morphology.

That's all that I will do right now, but the fact of the matter is, macroevolution is as proven as anything else in science. It happens, has happened, and continues to occur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest $iLk

As a person who believes in divine creation, I do not have any problem whatsoever with adaptation of traits of living creatures.

And as far as evolution describing changes over time, I don't really have a problem with. But trying to tie in evolution as the creation process baffles me a bit.

I cannot see how living cells, etc. were formed from inorganic materials which would have comprised the Earth 4.5 billion years ago.

A big problem also is taking the scriptures literally as opposed to useage. When the Bible says that God created the earth in 6 days, does it literally mean 6 24 hour days, or as in the biblical sense - in the book of Revelation the term day was used interchangeably to refer to terms which did not exist such as millenia or simple years.

That's something I haven't had time to determine from my readings and am just posting the question if anyone has an answer. I do not believe that the theory of Evolution is a fact - but I believe that the theory has brought together an accumulation of scientific data in order to form assumptions based on the incomplete data. More specifically, from my readings it appears that science is looking for answers other than divine creation and discounts anything to do with it in the search of their own answers.

It is also my understanding that the theory of Evolution is constantly changing to fit in with all data that forces it to change - I assume in the hopes that the final piece of the puzzle will be found so they can quit "evolving" the theory.

But it seems to be the anchor upon which they are clinging and all data that comes in which calls into question merely causes a redefining of the theory and the upholding of the "fact". Naturally that's the nature of the game of science - and I do not believe one can scientifically "prove" either Evolution or Creationism - Creationism mainly because - as I don't believe anyone has brought up the argument that the book of Genesis was not written by a scientist or a commitee in explaining the full workings of geology or biology or whatever inherent in the creation of the Earth. Whatever the simple nuances and traits if the Word were to include every single answer Genesis Chapter 1 would have been much much longer - and it's probably safe to assume that the details weren't as important as the end result. The Bible was written to chronicle the fall from grace and as a history of God's chosen people and the lineage and prophecy leading up to the Messiah - and the New Testament was/is the New Covenant which chronicles the life and future events of Jesus. I doubt it was meant to be a science book - because it's much deeper than that.

Science doesn't tackle the complexities of human beings, or our moral qualities, or the interdynamics of spirituality and emotion. It's simply not doing either justice to try and compare them on a side-to-side list. Much science is interesting, but most is assumption. Nothing scientific I have read has touched me as profoundly as the word of God, and that is all that I need to know about it honestly.

I sincerely doubt the word of the many scientists who base their theories to fit their agenda - or to win a prize. And there are many statistics that are quoted on the articles listed - which I'm sure all of you are aware of the saying -

There's lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I have never stated that evolution is the creations process, that is abiogenesis, and evolution has nothing to say about it.

At some point life began, was created, appeared, whatever you want to believe, and once that occurred, evolution kicked in.

The theory of evolution changes in only the fact that the mechanism is in question, NOT the fact that it has occurred, is occurring and continues to occur. Evolutions mechanism is what is the debate in science circles, not the fact that it happened.

There is a LOT of confusion with this point.

The fact that evolution occurred is a fact, it happened, there is no way around that, BUT the mechanism for that change is what is in dispute and continues to be debated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest $iLk

One of the biggest misconceptions is the fact that the term evolution can mean many different things depending on which definition you use.

The current definition of "changes over time" is not disputable but it pretty much equates to adaptation. The origin of species has a different tack on evolution however so I tend to knee-jerk disagree when someone says "Evolution is fact" when the term itself has changed so drastically.

And I wasn't responding to you specifically when I discussed creation - I was simply inferring the general opinion and overview of several of the sources listed in this thread, as well as other sources I read before replying. I've read most arguments for and against evolution - and nothing on either side has given me pause to 'scientifically' go one way or the other.

I disagree with the term Evolution simply because of the ambiguity of which definition you are involving yourself with when discussing it. I could say "Yeh I agree" if you are using the watered down term that is used currently in the dictionary - synonymous with adaptation. However the person could then whip out Origin of the Species and poke it in my face and yell HAHA you turned your back on your God F00! I am ub3r l33t and have tr1ck3d you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by $iLk

The current definition of "changes over time" is not disputable but it pretty much equates to adaptation. The origin of species has a different tack on evolution however so I tend to knee-jerk disagree when someone says "Evolution is fact" when the term itself has changed so drastically.


Whoa, freeze frame and back up, Origin of the species has EVERYTHING to do with adaptation. so where this different tack came from is beyond me.

The evolutionary mechanism is basically ALL about adaptation, that was Darwins MAIN point.

Please explain to me the different tack, because you totally lost me, because it is not different at all.

The definition of evolution has remained the same, the mechanism is what is in debate, how do the creatures change, how do they adapt? What makes their DNA change to fit the new environment? Is it indeed accidental, as in when a creature gets a certain mix up in genes and is successful, they proliferate and will either replace the parent species, or become a different species all together?

Is there some plan within DNA that helps it change so that the creature with the change will survive better in the new environment?

Or, is there a divine being out there that controls all of it and changes it to his liking?

That last 1 is scientifically unverifiable, so science MUST ignore it. it is nonfalsifiable, therefore it is useless as a hypothesis or anything else.

The 2nd to the last MAY be scientifically verifiable, but first we have to get down deep into the DNA to se if there is indeed something at work that allows the DNA to figure out what changes need to be made in order for the creatures offspring to survive, because DNA within a creature is pretty solid, cannot be changed, but during gestation, or before gestation, is the time for DNA to change things so that the next generation is more able to survive.

So, is evolution indeed just luck of the draw, or is there some heretofore unknown mechanism within the DNA itself that makes the changes?

Ya see, I am pretty open minded about the mechanism, as long as it is scientifically verifiable and falsifiable.

Anything less is religion, and has no place in the scientific arena.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest $iLk

It's been awhile since I tackled Origin of the Species (5 years I think) but from what I remember, a good part of it focused indeed on adaptation, but the general view of Darwin himself is what I was referring to.

This is the discussion on disparaging definitions that I was speaking of.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

This is a 'current' definition of terms I guess: http://biblephysics.com/index2.cfm?page=definitions

There seems to be a bit of confusion as to exactly what is meant by Evolution... considering that microevolution is somewhat plausible, but macroevolution is not from understanding.

There seems to have been more pinpointing and defining the theory than I remember - but in school we were taught a basic all-encompassing theory. Dividing up and tackling parts of the theory seems more useful - though I still can't buy it as a whole unto itself. *shrug* I'm going to read up on it some more so don't take my posts as big challenges because I haven't bothered studying the latest changes to the theory until today. But it seems to have changed a lot from what I was taught.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Shingen

Ya know, it baffles me really that there is even a debate between "creationists" and "evolutionists".

It's obvious to even a biology student that "evolution" is a "fact" simply by placing some bacteria in a dish, waiting several months/years and discovering that the bacteria now isn't exactly like the bacteria then.

Physical science is full of empirical evidence the evolution is a fact.

What baffles me is that even though evolution is obviously happening, why isn't it considered a CREATION as well??

If God created everything, and everything ( that we can classifly and understand ) has a logical course through time, then why can't we say the God created the laws, and science is the proof that God is sentient, intelligent, and logical?

Sure there are things were DON'T know, nor explain, but it doesn't mean it wasn't "created" by God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest $iLk

quote:

Physical science is full of empirical evidence the evolution is a fact.

I guess the real disparity is that the definition of fact and the definition of scientific fact are two different things.

It's semantics, but it's also important to note.

As to the rest of your post, it's all well and good except that while those who are proponents of the Evolution theory tend to focus half their data attempting to cast doubt on Divine Creation as opposed to using real science to further understanding of true fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by Wolferz:

[QB] Looks like you boys are having fun in here.

Evolution is happening as we speak.

Want Proof?

I will put forth a statement but I will not provide proof ,simply because I do not have access to the research, but, always the big but,

Take a look at the organism that causes the Flu,

Every year they seem to discover a stronger strain of the virus, therefore that virus is adapting to it's environment so that it may proliferate it's species.Evolving if you will.

Evolution has been nothing more than a species adapting to it's environment so that it can survive and continue the species.

Homo Sapiens is not an exception to the rule.

We too are evolving, adapting, and taking from nature what we need to survive, sometimes to excess and the detriment of our environment, so we again will adapt to these changes.


That is not the issue here if I've read things correctly. No one will disagree that microevolution occurs, as your example pointed out, but where the issue lies is when one organism becomes a totally different organism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×