Monday, December 14, 2009

Darwin's Theory

So much has been made of Darwin's Theory so I found this summary:

Summary of Darwin's Theory of Evolution
• A species is a population of organisms that interbreeds and has fertile offspring.
• Living organisms have descended with modifications from species that lived before them.
• Natural selection explains how this evolution has happened:
— More organisms are produced than can survive because of limited resources.
— Organisms struggle for the necessities of life; there is competition for resources.
— Individuals within a population vary in their traits; some of these traits are heritable -- passed on to offspring.
— Some variants are better adapted to survive and reproduce under local conditions than others.
— Better-adapted individuals (the "fit enough") are more likely to survive and reproduce, thereby passing on copies of their genes to the next generation.
— Species whose individuals are best adapted survive; others become extinct.

One of you quoted from answers to Jonathan Wells "The peppered moth photos are...not scientific evidence for natural selection."

However the complete quote is: The peppered moth photos are the same sort of illustration, not scientific evidence for natural selection. This is the problem I have with many of your arguments and others on the blogs for creationism, misquotes and quotes out of context as well as partial quotes. If you go back and read the response the author is explaining that illustrations are used to demonstrate a point not to prove a theory.

Last night I watched a segment of 60 minutes that recounts the progress made in regeneration of body parts. Livers, hearts, kidneys and even ears! Wow! One of the stories was about a man who had received "pixie dust" a substance from pig bladders called Extra Cellular Matrix, and actually grew a new esophagus and another who grew new muscles. Story Here

These studies are amazing and may someday save your life or the life of someone you love.

I think all this is due to Darwin's Theory and the continued study of how life exists.

I don't "believe" in Darwinism I accept the facts found through scientific study every day,that proves that all living matter is genetically similar.

Learning is a continual process. It isn't about accepting the answer because someone says it is so. It is a process of discovery and correction. Science isn't always right...they don't get it right every time but science never stops searching for the answers. Someone stated that creationism is a "done deal" 6 days and it is done. Science will never be done; there much to learn.


rick b said...

Interest said This is the problem I have with many of your arguments and others on the blogs for creationism, misquotes and quotes out of context as well as partial quotes.

Funny thing about this statment, I find the same thing from Atheists towards the Bible and those who believe in Creation, and when show where how and why they do this, they go silent and never admit it or try and correct it.

If your going to say this about us, then think about things before you speak. Rick b

Interested said...

Rick you are right in that those on both sides of the argument misquote, and quote out of context; I could have stated that better. But remember this is a blog; mine. I am allowed to say whatever I wish with or without thinking....

rick b said...

So you then admit you can and do lie. Rick b

Interested said...

Rick why do you insist on insulting me? If I have insulted you personally I sincerely apologize. You have an open invitation to insult my opinions but please stop calling me a liar. I really don't appreciate it.

You asked me about Beast and reminded me that he often insulted you; he isn't here anymore.

rick b said...

As I have told you before, I do not call you a lair simply to insult you or for the fun of it, I call you a liar because you are. I have time and time again told you how you lied and where you lied and how to go about not doing it and you have not changed anything.

Then you also never said, Rick your wrong, I never lied, here is where you are wrong or how you are wrong, you never challenge me on it.

On my Mormon blog, many times I have had Mormons flat out call me liars, unlike you I did not say stop it, I challenged them, I said, if your going to call me a lair, then give me the exact topic and exactly what I said that is a lie, Not once could they do it, Many times the people that accused me of lying went away after I called them out.

Also as you know from your daughter being Mormon and going to mormon coffee, you see many mormons claiming we mis quote them or even give partial quotes, not me. If you want you can check out what I did, I scanned pages and pages from books onto my blog I even put 2-3 pages for, before and after context to just one quote.

I go out of my way to give as much info as possible so I cannot be accused of mis quoting or lying. So if you think I am simply being mean or unfair then so be it, but I have stated over and over exactly where how and why you lied, and since doing it, Shelli, Jeff and Nicole have been here, so I cannot say for 100 percent certain, But I believe they have read what I wrote and read how I come to the conclusion I do.

So to some degree I have witness that read me pointing out why I say what I do and not simply saying thing for the sake of being mean or cruel. Once you start posting both sides of the story or simply stop posting stories then I will stop calling you a liar.

Now let me leave you with one example to refresh your memory. When you or other atheists claim God is mean and cruel because he flooded the earth and killed possibly 6 billion people, you guys leave it at that.

You forget to add that before God did it, He had Noah telling everyone for 120 years about the doom to come, he even was building an ark. To me thats grace and love from God, warning everyone for 120 years, it's not like God said, ok everyone, Today I am telling you all repent or die tomorrow, Tomorrow comes, God drops an ark from the sky, snaps His fingers and Noah and the animals are on the ark and then He kills everyone else.

Again, God gave them 120 years, thats a long time, I dont care if you dont believe the Bible, you sure seem to believe it enough to point out the Killing but not enough to point out the grace that came before killing. I pointed out a Dictionary definition and that was, purposely leaving information out, And that is what you have been doing. Until that changes I will call you a liar.

I also pointed this out and you pretty much blew me off, this shows you understand what I said and refuse to change. I also told friends about how you claimed you were honestly seeking answers so you said, years ago but claimed no one could ever answer you, well I could and did answer you, but you did not want to hear what I said, so that tells me you really were not seeking honest answers, many people agree, not that you care.

Like it or not and believe it or not I really care enough about you that I wont pull any punches with you, I think even if it bothers you you at least respect the fact that I am being real and honest with you, unlike others who wont tell you the hard truth, they will simply give you warm fuzzy feelings. Rick b

rick b said...

Interested, just a side thought here, on your home page you say about yourself Interested
I love a challenge. I crave the battle. I need the struggle.

Part of me wonders if your serious. I say that because I am challenging you and am a challenge for you, you dont seem to like it. Then like you or so you say,

I love battle, I am battling against the forces of darkness that have over taken you, but like the Bible says, I dont do it with flesh and blood and in my own strength, I do it with prayer, the word of God and the power of the holy spirit. Then I am giving you a struggle, but on all these points, If I did not know any better I would say your not as interested as your hope page says, But thats just my take on it. Rick b

Interested said...

One is not lying when one states what one believes. It is only a lie when one knows the truth and states something differently.

Rick why have you not posted to your own blog lately? I went over and read some of you postings and I think liar is your favorite word.

rick b said...

As far as my mormon blog goes, I am still active with talking to mormons. I go to other blogs and website. As far as mine goes, I pretty much covered all the major points of doctrine, I dont want to start talking about minor things that amount to nothing.

Plus I have a food blog that is active and I am back in school. I have been in the restaurant/bakery for 24 years now and have my own spice line.

I make 3 kinds of hot spice, Jeff who posts here has all three and tried one of them, He really likes it, 2 of my spices have taken first and second place, my third has not been entered yet.

I'm back in school for 21 months for culinary arts and am pulling a 4.0gpa. I dont know it all and really need that piece of paper to get a better job even with all of my experience.

My newest post on my food blog is pictures of people holding my spice or placing it in front of signs showing it getting around the world. It has made it to 4 or 5 countries and about 17 states. I still am waiting to get more pictures from people and have a few more still to post.

If you want to see the food blog and pictures of Jeff holding the spice, my blog is,

Now onto what you said, One is not lying when one states what one believes. It is only a lie when one knows the truth and states something differently.

This is not exactly true and here is why. You say you do not believe the Bible and you do not believe in God. So since you dont believe you simply cannot say, I believe God to be cruel. How can you claim you believe a God to be cruel when you claim to believe He does not exist?

Then you cannot say, I dont believe in God, but I believe Him to be cruel when you were shown exactly where and How He shows mercy. So your purposely choosing to leave out certain information.

You say it's a lie only if you know the truth and state something differently. Well you know the truth because I have told you and pointed out the verses. For you to be totally fair and honest you should say, I believe God to be mean and cruel and here's why, and state the verses you have.

But then you need to go onto say, but their are people who feel God really is loving and merciful and this is why they believe that, Then give the verses that show God gave people ample warning or ways to escape. Then if you still dont feel that God is loving or shows mercy despite those verse then explain why.

If you do that I can promise you I will tell everyone I know your the most honest atheist I ever meet, because you show both sides, and admit you still dont believe. I wont call you a liar if you state why you feel God is mean and cruel if you show the verses that state how He showed mercy. Then went on to say you still dont see love and mercy.

If you want to, before you post bible quotes and topics your more than welcome to run the verses by me and I can give you the verse needed to show the other side, I wont tell you not to post the verses you want or try and talk you out of it, I will simply tell you the verses that you need to be fair and balanced, then once they are posted to your blog, we can debate from their, But then again then ball is back in your court. Rick b

Anonymous said...

According to Genesis, the human beings that live today all descended from the three sons and wives of Noah. That is, all the different peoples on Earth came from the variety available in the genetic code of Noah's family. All other genetic lines were wiped out. The Bible also describes races of humans after the Flood that are apparently no longer around.

Paleoanthropology is the fascinating study of ancient humanity through the excavation of bones and evidences of human culture from thousands of years ago. Of course, the majority of paleoanthropologists long to find out not only about ancient humanity, but also about the descent of mankind from the apes. This motivation to find missing links colors every new hominid discovery. From Lucy to Turkana Boy to Peking Man, paleoanthropologists believe they have found pieces of humanity's ancient ancestry - the links between the apes and modern day humans. But, do any true missing links exist? Or is tree of ancient humanity really just a pair of two separate bushes – one of apes and one of humans?

We cannot begin to go through all the hominid finds made over the past 150 years in this short article, but we can touch on the most familiar.

The term "Neanderthal," still brings to mind a thick-skulled knuckle dragger with far more brawn than brain power. The Neanderthal man had heavy bones and those distinctive heavy eyebrow ridges. His chin was smaller and rounded, the center of his face jutted forward, and his skull was low and elongated. It was easy to portray him as a primitive man, closer to the apes. Today, though, scientists generally agree that Neanderthal was a highly intelligent, creative, true human being. In fact, Neanderthal had an average cranial capacity (and therefore brain size) of 1,485 cc, with a range of 1,245–1,740 cc, slightly larger than the modern human average of 1,350 cc. While greater cranial capacity doesn't necessarily equal higher intelligence, it does look good on Neanderthal's resume.

In his book Buried Alive, orthodontist Jack Cuozzo describes the poor reconstruction of certain original Neanderthal skulls to make them appear more ape-like and "primitive." For example, he argues that the Le Moustier specimen was reconstructed in a way that made the jaw appear more ape-like than it would have been naturally. Cuozzo also makes the very interesting argument, based on his knowledge of jaw and tooth growth, that it appears that Neanderthals lived to be several hundred years old.

According to Live Science November 15, 2006, "[E}xcavations and anatomical studies have shown Neanderthals used tools, wore jewelery, buried their dead, cared for their sick, and possibly sang or even spoke in much the same way that we do. Even more humbling, perhaps, their brains were slightly larger than ours." There is no question that Neanderthal was a fully functioning human.

Homo Erectus:
Many different hominid discoveries fall into a broad Homo erectus classification. These humans include Peking Man, Java Man, and early African Homo ergaster specimens like Turkana Boy. H. erectus was a smaller person, with an average cranial capacity of 973 cc. This falls into the low end of modern human range, which is about 700–2,200 cc according to Molnar's Races, Types, and Ethnic Groups (1975). H. erectus bodies are generally described as very much like modern humans, though thicker boned. It is the H erectus skull that has been particularly classified as more primitive. The large brow ridges and flat, receding forehead, the smaller, forward-jutting jaw and large teeth all are considered primitive characteristics - as is the long, low-vaulted cranium and occipital torus.

Yet, these are features that Neanderthal also has, and Neanderthal is regarded as fully human. It can be argued that Homo Erectus is in fact just a small version of Neanderthal.

Anonymous said...

Harry Shapiro writes in his 1974 book Peking Man, (George Allen & Unwin Ltd, London, p. 125):

'But when one examines a classic Neanderthal skull, of which there are now a large number, one cannot escape the conviction that its fundamental anatomical formation is an enlarged and developed version of the Homo erectus skull. As in Homo erectus, it has the bun-shaped protrusion in the occiput, the heavy brow ridge, the relatively flattened crown that from the rear presents a profile like a gambrel roof. Its greatest breadth is low, just above the ears, and the absence of a jutting chin is typical.'

He wrote that back when Neanderthals still had a fairly brutish reputation, but that doesn't change the basic implication. H. erectus has generally been considered a couple of steps closer to the apes than we are, but if he was rather like a smaller version of the Neanderthal, his features should not necessarily be considered primitive. In fact, modern day Australian Aborigines also display many of these features, and they will be quick to assure us that yes, they really are humans too.

H. erectus also had the intelligence and technology of humans stuck out in the wilderness. For instance, stone tools found with Peking Man show that he cut down trees, trimmed his wooden clubs and dismembered the animals caught as food. Peking Man also made use of fire. It appears that in the search for missing links, H. erectus has too quickly and erroneously placed in the less-than-fully human category.

The first australopiths were uncovered by Mary Leakey in Tanzania in 1959, and the Leakey family has uncovered many more specimens there in the Olduvai Gorge since. The name australopithecine means "southern ape" and Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis), discovered by Donald Johanson in 1974, was likely about as bright as chimpanzees today. The estimated cranial capacity of A. afarensis was between 375 and 540 cc and it has the large jaws and small brain cavity of apes. Lucy also has the short legs, long arms and pot belly of an ape. The thing that excites paleoanthropologists is some analysis that argues Lucy walked upright.

Yet, as we noted in our article on Ardi in October, 2009, Anatomist Dr Charles Oxnard used multivariate analysis to show that Lucy's big toe was opposable, just like in chimpanzees. B.G. Richmond and D.S. Strait also reported in Nature in 2000 that Lucy's wrists indicated she was actually just a knuckle-walker like other apes. Lucy is often portrayed with human feet and standing upright, but not necessarily because of her actual morphology. Human footprints have been found in the hardened ash at Laetoli, near where Lucy was found. The footprints were dated to the time of Lucy using K/Ar testing, and since evolutionists have already decided humans and Lucy did not co-exist based on their evolutionary model, they have concluded that Lucy must have made the prints herself. This is one of many examples in which evolutionists allow their pre-held beliefs to shape their conclusions, rather than depending solely on the evidence at hand.

And Others?
Cro Magnon – modern day man
Toumai (Sahelanthropus tchadensis)– an ancient ape that is dated older than Lucy but with features "younger" than Lucy's. Definitive conclusions on Toumai are hard to come by.
Ardi (Ardipithecus ramidus)– an extinct ape whose skeletal remains were horrible crushed.
Homo habilis – arguably an invalid taxon made up of a mixture of fossils from both apes and humans

New hominid remains are found every year, always with much fanfare. Rather than clearing up the question of human ancestry for evolutionists, though, these always seem to just add another twig on the already-twiggy branches of either humans or apes. They don't ever provide a true trunk that links the two branches together.

Interested said...

Yes, anon, I read that on Koinonia House. I think there are better less biased sources.

However, that said, I really do not wish to argue evolution. I am not qualified.

rick b said...

Interested said better less biased sources.

Like the sources you use have no bias. Rick b

rick b said...

interested said However, that said, I really do not wish to argue evolution. I am not qualified.

Funny how you say that since you talk about a lot of stuff that your clearly not qualified to argue about, but yet you do it anyway. Rick b

Rick b said...

I know you cannot answer this question, but then again neither can all the people that believe in evolution.

Evolution teaches that we all started out as single cell simple life forms. It does not matter if we started out with one or a million single cell creatures.

The questions are, How can a creature that never had eyes or ears or arms, etc all of a sudden evolve them? If they dont need them and dont know what they are then how can they develop them.

Then even more curious how can one type of life "evolve" into so many different life forms, Like plants, cats, birds, fish ect. Then add to that how can they all of a sudden develop defense ability's?

Something as simple as an artichoke has the choke in it, or frogs that have poison on the skin, or any of the creatures that have strange ways of defense.

All of this just happened by random chance, even just so happens that we have male and female so as to procreate and allow for life forms to thrive. Single cells can split into two, yet once they evolve, how do they know to evolve into male and female so as to procreate?

You guys are willfully blind because you simply cannot explain any of this, yet you have full faith it just happened. Rick b

Interested said...

"How can a creature that never had eyes or ears or arms, etc all of a sudden evolve them?"

It happens in 9 months every time a baby is conceived.

Interested said...

"Funny how you say that since you talk about a lot of stuff that your clearly not qualified to argue about, but yet you do it anyway. Rick b"

Like what? I do state a lot of opinions.

rick b said...

Interested babies do not evolve.

you claim you state opinions, but yet you act as if they are truth, but yet you lack seriously in defending them, are you going to answer me under your newest topic? Rick b

anakalianwhims said...

Interested, I stumbled across your blog from noreligion's site. I wanted to tell you that I appreciate your sharing of information and that I posted the summary of Darwin's Theory of Evolution on my book club discussion post with your url. Of course, I was being nosy and read more of your site and wanted to tell you that I'm sorry you were sick/ in pain recently. That's not fun for anyone when people are in pain. And that I am glad you are proud of your children :-) I watched the new video you posted and I found it interesting, but am glad that he cleared up at the beginning of the post that there are a lot of different kinds of Creationists out there because a lot of what he said didn't apply to my beliefs. I totally believe in adaptation. (But you told that other guy you weren't up for discussing evolution so I'll drop it - I'm just fascinated with the debate right now!) I did, however, want to back you up by saying its not lying to state what you believe - no matter how wrong or right that belief may be. Lying is 100% intentional deceit. You don't strike me as a deceitful person. Please stop by my blog anytime... I shall be stopping by yours. (Mine is mostly book reviews.) My apologies if that post just came off as insanely nosy! - AKK

Interested said...

Welcome AKK. You are welcome here anytime and we thrive on nosiness!
I did check out your blog and will return. I read incessantly about a variety of subjects which interest me. I am still learning so new material is always welcome.