MY FINDINGS

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Exmormon.org- Honest Inquiry Message Board ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Pohl on November 22, 1998 at 21:37:24:

In Reply to: Study more; visit museums. posted by Xavier on November 20, 1998 at 18:16:17:

Q: Since when have the origins of life (AKA "big bang"?) been considered as an example of spontaneous generation? A: You're right I was getting into another area.
Q: Did your molecular biologist ever do research into evolution?
A: No idea but you are right, this is the wrong subject. Sorry.
Q: Please explain to me the relation of his ideas concerning steady state theory to those of evolution.
A: I was just stating this to help you understand who he is and was not implying that he was involved with evolutionary theory.
Q: Did you link to www.talkorigins.org?
A: Yes, in fact, I looked at both sides in finding about a third of my data.
Q: I fail to comprehend your use of the term "natural theology", since theology is the study of the nature of God and religious truth.
A: I was only using theology in terms of one's answer as to how we got here. Thus implying that nature is your answer as to how we got here. But you can substitute philosophy if theology offends you.
Q: Who or what is the God you claim I follow? What supernatural being is involved in the scientific study of evolution. The Creationists have tried this trick in the courts before, of attempting to paint evolution as a religion, in a failed effort to claim that the teaching of evolution in public schools was a sponsoring of religion. Fortunately for us, cooler heads prevailed and the Creationists lost.
A: My point is that in regard to abiogenesis, the odds suggest that anyone who claims life originated by itself on earth might as well believe in a fantasy, such as a God. In fact one of the cofounders of DNA believes this also. And so he believes that life came from outside this planet, perhaps from another planet. This would seem a better belief. But it just delays the answer until one finds that planet.
Q: Since you are so concerned with evidence, how about if you list some of the evidence that may suggest a viable alternative to evolution. Is there scientific evidence in support of special creation?
A: http://interface.cac.psu.edu/origins/faqsci.htm Let me know if this is worth anything. P.S. I don't know if I agree with them but maybe there is some scientific evidence which you are asking for.

First, I must tell you my belief about the scientific community. My belief has been shaped by other
groups but all groups have the same tendencies. Every group, whether philosophical, financial,
political, etc., work with basic fundamentals (e.g. philosophical < given precepts using the rules
of logic>, financial < financial ratios>, and political-).
But the vast amount of time is spent guessing, estimating, and predicting what these fundamentals really mean.
At least half of which has to be crap because there are at least two sides on almost every issue in each of these fields
(e.g. fate-freewill, bull-bear, gun control-2nd Amendment). As Socrates believed in the Socrates Defense, more
people claim to know than they actually know. Therefore, when I look at debates in science, I see the same
thing. Everyone assuming his or her position is proven and the other guy might as well not exist. So I of course
take both sides of every argument with equal credibility until the evidence forces me to come off the fence.
And of course so should you.
You guys seem to strongly believe in evolution. But have you ever wondered,
if you would still believe in evolution if you had been born in a religious family in Iran. I'd bet against it. You would
be a Muslim. Now you are saying to yourself, no, not me. I would be much more educated. But education gets you nowhere. You would probably use every educated argument against evolution you could find because of your upbringing and preconceived beliefs.
So when one of you asked me why I don't find credible evidence for evolution, its makes me wonder if you've ever taken a step back to see how people could possibly disagree with you and still be in their right mind.
The reason is: there are plenty of fundamentals for all to manipulate. Just look at the debates about what should constitute impeachment. One after another expert came before the judicial committee and disagreed with the last expert. Everybody gets to believe what he or she wants. Why do you think doctors of economics still disagree with respect to the Laffer Curve? Its because nothing is certain, except what the Scientific Hypothesis proves and facts. And these rarely do anything but lead to more conjecture (crap). THEREFORE, one must be careful what one wishes to believe and if nothing else, it's wisest to claim ignorance, like Socrates, in The Socrates Defense. That's my general philosophy on the world.

Now as to my findings (quotes included).

I read Tim M. Berra. He had an article on the Grand Canyon and he was criticizing some religious person's theories on how the Grand Canyon was created in a flood. Of course this is a theory I do not support or even care about. So I moved on.
Then I read an article listing Richard Dawkins and Charles Simonyi at the top. It appeared in Journal of the Alabama Academy of Science, Vol. 68, No.l, January, 1997.
Here he stated "… the total time available since life began. That's about four thousand million years.
No idea how he picks this number but I'm assuming this is believed by many.
He later states, "Well, 100,000 years is too short to be detected on the geological time scale for most of geologic history."
This makes sense if you are assuming the 4 billion years for all life. This is just .000025 percent of all time.
He then explains natural selection, which makes sense and then the Cambrian Explosion. He seems to be stating that soft fossils were found here from the Cambrian Era (500-600 million years ago). He also seems open minded as to whether this was a period of rapid evolution of rapid phyla or no evolution at all, " There is some recent evidence from molecular comparisons among modern animals which suggests that there may not have been a Cambrian explosion at all,…"
He then seems to favor comparative studies of modern animals over fossil evidence as far as backing up his claims. I'll have to read up on this.
He then states rapid gradualism. This is the term he prefers. I'll have to read up on this.
He quotes Stephen Gould, " Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level but they are abundant between larger group forms." Interesting.
He states, " We can all look back through the generations, through 4000 million years to a tiny bacterium who lived in the sea and was the ancestor of us all." The real question is how did it get there? But I'm not allowed to talk about that because that's something called abiogenesis. JK.
He states, " This constitutes the end of an arms race in which fish that did not look like seaweed were eaten, whereas fish that did look like seaweed swam on to reproduce another day." My question is if they are so successful, then what is eating them now? Didn't they end up right back where they started? This doesn't seem very progressive. It reminds me more of the Iraq crisis (a stalemate and non-progressive). And Dawkins seems to be using this as an example of a successful progression to the end of an arms race. Explain this one to me.
He then states, " Fossil evidence shows that our brain has blown up like a balloon during the last 2 or 3 million years as our evolution passed through the ancestral stage Australopithecus, Homo erectus and finally Homo sapiens. An excellent points if there is proof. I'll have to research this as well.
In summary this article was very helpful.

Now I decided to do some internet research (I highly recommend Metagopher) on the brain blowing up; mentioned above. Here's what I found. First I found something by Richard Milton called Shattering the Myths of Darwinism. He talked about this brain. So now another side. Who know how many other sides are out there.
He states, "Homo Habilis is calculated to have had a small brain: perhaps only half the size of the average modern human's….while Darwinists concentrate their attention on interpreting finger bones and vertebrae at Olduvai Gorge, attempting to establish the creature's credentials as a missing link, they appear to have overlooked the fact that only a few hundred miles to the east, in the forests of Zaire, are the Mbuti people who are on average only four feet six inches tall and who, in stature, brain capacity, and even way of life, are comparable to Homo habilis.".
Do you guys know anything more about this. Just curious.
He also mentions that Dr. Charles Oxnard, professor of anatomy and human biology at the University of Western Australia ( a Darwinist), who in 1984 conducted a computer analysis of Australopithecus concluding that it is an extinct ape (published in his book The Order of Man 1984).
At this point I don't know whether Richard Milton is saying that Homo habilis is an extinct ape or a Mbuti.

But my next research should be what did scientists think about this computer analysis done by Dr. Charles Oxnard.
I found this, "CHARLES E. OXNARD, Dean of Graduate School, Prof. of Biology & Anatomy, USC, "....conventional wisdom is that the australopithecine fragments are generally rather similar to humans....the new studies point to different conclusions. The new investigations suggest that the fossil fragments are usually uniquely different from any living form: when they do have similarities with living species, they are as often as not reminiscent of the orangutan, ...these results imply that the various australopithecines are really not all that much like humans. ....may well have been bipeds, .... but if so, it was not in the human manner. They may also have been quite capable climbers as much at home in the trees as on the ground..", The American Biology Teacher, Vol.41, May 1979, pp.273-4 .".

I then found this site http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html .
At this site it explains," As this table shows, although creationists are adamant that none of these are transitional and all are either apes or humans, they are not able to tell which are which. In fact, there are a number of creationists who have changed their opinion on some fossils. They do not even appear to be converging towards a consistent opinion.”.
And then," It could be pointed out that evolutionists also disagree on how fossils should be classified, which species they belong to, etc.".

Then I found a site disagreeing with Charles Oxnard http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_piths.html
Here it states, " Finally, there is "an overwhelming body of evidence", based on the work of nearly 30 scientists, which contradicts Oxnard's work. These studies used a variety of techniques, including those used by Oxnard, and were based on many different body parts and joint complexes. They overwhelmingly indicate that australopithecines resemble humans more closely than the living apes.”.

Then I found a site agreeing with Charles Oxnard - http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/apeimage.htm
Here I found this comment, "evolutionists now consider both Australopithecus africanus and robustus to be an evolutionary dead end and few consider them in any way ancestral to man.".
I want to know if this is true or not. So if you guys could tell me if there is a consensus and where I could find it. Keep in mind it must state that this is a consensus.
At this point I am going to end my research because of time restraints and I don't want to post too much. I am going to need more time to read everything.
If you have any comments to make regarding this subject, let me know.

Follow Ups:


[ Honest Inquiry Message Board ] [ FAQ ]

Google
  Web exmormon.org