# evolution vs creation **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 3, 2003, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-vs-creation/211231 "2003-11-03T23:09:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2003, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-vs-creation/211231/81 "2003-11-14T03:18:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by John Mace \* > \*\*You are making the mistake of thinking that evolution is moving along a path. Nothing is “transitional”. Every species that every existed was a bona fide species in its own right. It wasn’t “going” anywhere. > > In retrespect, we look back and say species A evloved into species B which evolved into sepcies C. That doesn’t make species B “transitional”. > > If you look at the fossil record of whales, you will clearly see what you would call “transitional” species. Heck, if you look at a fossil of an Australopithicine, do you not see something that is somewhat ap-like and some-what human like? \*\* Since we’re on “evolution basics” here. Isn’t the chimp closer to us in DNA(markers?) than the Australopithicine? After spending years hearing why evolution couldn’t be possible, I’m trying to weed out the old tales. IWLN ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2003, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-vs-creation/211231/82 "2003-11-14T04:10:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by stuffusbus \* > **So if there are no unknown snags or puzzels, the fact that no fossils of animals in there transitional stages is only a minor detail?** Sure, there are puzzles. Just as there are in any field of science. That such puzzles exist is why people continue to do research in those fields. As for the “transitional stages” bit, there are a couple of things you need to consider. One is that immediate ancestors (the standard creationist version of a “transitional form”) are very diffcult to pin down precisely because of the bias in the fossil record. As **tomndebb** mentioned, fossilization is a rare process indeed, particularly for land-dwelling vertebrates (aquatic organisms, especially invertebrates, tend to live in environments in which fossilization is more likely; thus the plethora of shelly fossils compared to, say, bird fossils). The second is that “transitional form”, as used by paleontologists, generally means just that: the _form_ is transitional, even if that particular species is not _ancestral_. What this means is that the organization and form of a particular fossil species is representative of the changes from one taxonomic category to another. _Pakicetus_ is a transitional form in the evolution of whales, even if modern whales did not evolve directly from _Pakicetus_. This is a rather subtle point that is lost on many a creationist (and, indeed, some evolutionists!). Another exmaple is _Archaeopteryx_. Archie itself was essentially an evolutionary dead-end – modern birds did not evovle with _Archaeopteryx_ as a direct ancestor. However, _Archaeopteryx_ is representative of the change in _form_ between theropod dinosaurs and modern birds. Whatever lineage that _did_ eventually lead to modern birds very likely went through stages very much like what we see in _Archaeopteryx_. Thus, it is not ancestral, but remains an example of a transitional form. > [@](#): > > **And lacking this evidence cannot threaten the evolutionary theory at all?** Not at all. Lack of evidence within the fossil record does nothing to evolutionary theory. What matters is that what _is_ present is very much consistent with evolutionary theory. What _would_ matter is if we found something in the fossil record which directly contradicted our notions of common descent (finding, for example, human fossils in Triassic rocks). > [@](#): > > **It seems to me that most of the evolutionists here are very confident that the evolutionary thoery is a proven fact, and the way many of you make it sound is that there isnt a single questionable part of evolution.** It is not questionable that it happens (unless one wishes to posit that God is constantly and continuously creating, which opens up several cans of theological worms). It is questionable which mechanisms operate under which conditions, and which mechanisms migth operate at all. It is also questionable whether we have the tree of life figured correctly; systematists are constantly revising relationships between species based on new evidence. We have the big branches pretty well figured out, but the smaller twigs can prove troublesome. > [@](#): > > \*\*I would think that if there is anything at all questionable then it would not be referred to as fact. I know that there are loopholes and many unanswered questions in creation science, that is why I do not refer to it as a fact because it is not yet fully proven, and neither is evolution. \*\* That there are questions is indicative that the science remains healthy. Once there are no more questions, dogma replaces science, and the field stagnates. Such is not likely to happen any time soon. New discoveries raise new questions, which spur new research. As others have mentioned numerous times, however, “creation science” is an oxymoron. There is nothing “scientific” about creationism, as it depends wholly on an unverifiable premise. Evolution can occur with or without a deity. Creation _requires_ one. ---
**Author:** ![stuffusbus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a183cd/32.png) [@stuffusbus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stuffusbus)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2003, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-vs-creation/211231/83 "2003-11-14T05:18:52Z")
I just went to borders and picked up darwins black box, hopefully its good… mabye ill have some scientific quores or something to use other than my opinion. Geeze Darwin’s Finch, you sound like a very intelligent mistake. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2003, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-vs-creation/211231/84 "2003-11-14T05:57:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by John Mace \* > \*\*You are making the mistake of thinking that evolution is moving along a path. Nothing is “transitional”. Every species that every existed was a bona fide species in its own right. It wasn’t “going” anywhere. > > In retrespect, we look back and say species A evloved into species B which evolved into sepcies C. That doesn’t make species B “transitional”. > > If you look at the fossil record of whales, you will clearly see what you would call “transitional” species. Heck, if you look at a fossil of an Australopithicine, do you not see something that is somewhat ap-like and some-what human like? \*\* I guess it’s purely a semantic thing but I would argue that a_all_ species are “transitional” in the sense that no species is ever static or “finished.” They are all just snapshots of a fluid process. You are correct in that there is no goal or intent for the evolutionary process and that no species is a “step” on the way to some pre-conceived end-species but every species is _always_ in transition. Maybe it’s more reasonable just to say that there is no difference between a species and a “transitional” species. Any perceived distinction in popular perception is biologically meaningless. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2003, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-vs-creation/211231/85 "2003-11-14T06:00:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by stuffusbus \* > \*\*I just went to borders and picked up darwins black box, hopefully its good… mabye ill have some scientific quores or something to use other than my opinion. Geeze Darwin’s Finch, you sound like a very intelligent mistake. \*\* Fair warning: Behe will get knocked out of the park around here. ---
**Author:** ![stuffusbus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a183cd/32.png) [@stuffusbus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stuffusbus)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2003, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-vs-creation/211231/86 "2003-11-14T06:09:10Z")
I read a discussion about the book in on of the links I was given in the last page of replys, from what I got from it was that most of you were trying to change the discussion to who behe is rather than his idea of irreducible complexity. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2003, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-vs-creation/211231/87 "2003-11-14T06:14:10Z")
Read more carefully. IC has been debunked many times on this forum. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2003, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-vs-creation/211231/88 "2003-11-14T06:36:58Z")
**DtC** : I guess you could say that all species are transitional or that none are. Either might be considered correct. As long as you don’t say that some are transitional and some are not. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IWLN \* > Since we’re on “evolution basics” here. Isn’t the chimp closer to us in DNA(markers?) than the Australopithicine? After spending years hearing why evolution couldn’t be possible, I’m trying to weed out the old tales. **There has been no Australopithicine DNA recovered to date,** but if there were it would be expected that _Homo spaiens_ would be closer to Aust than to Chimp. Think about it. Australopithicines appeared in the humnan line **after** the human/chimp split. So, humans should be closer genetically to Aust than to chimps. But it might be possible that Aust would be coser gentically to chimps than they are to humans. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2003, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-vs-creation/211231/89 "2003-11-14T06:40:16Z")
I do believe that chimps and humans are closer than chimps and gorillas though. Am I mistaken? ---
**Author:** ![edwino](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@edwino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/edwino)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2003, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-vs-creation/211231/90 "2003-11-14T06:59:27Z")
Yes, modern genetics apparently bears that out. Chimps are close enough that some propose that they are really just another species of _Homo_ (or we another species of _Pan_). The genus dividing line is not well drawn genetically and morphologically, as far as I’m aware, and it has less relevance in modern cladistics (again I am no phylogenist, so I may be wrong). Just for example, the genus that I work on has animals as genetically separated as mice and humans all within _Drosophila_. Perhaps **Darwin’s Finch** could enlighten me. ---
**Author:** ![Urban\_Ranger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Urban\_Ranger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urban_Ranger)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2003, 7:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-vs-creation/211231/91 "2003-11-14T07:18:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by stuffusbus \* > I read a discussion about the book in on of the links I was given in the last page of replys, from what I got from it was that most of you were trying to change the discussion to who behe is rather than his idea of irreducible complexity. I don’t think most of us need to find out who Behe is, or _what_ he is. We already knew. Just to let you know that his “irreducible complexity” idea has been shard to little bits. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2003, 7:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-vs-creation/211231/92 "2003-11-14T07:18:54Z")
Yes, by the standard measure of “genetic distance”, the chimp is more closely related to humans than it is to gorillas. Which implies that humans and chimps shared a common evolutionary path for some time **after** the gorilla line split off. Gorilla is of the genus _Gorilla_ and chimp is of the genus _Pan_, so neither of the three species is considered to be in the same genus. If you put chimps in with humans (presumably into _Homo_ since that genus was described first), you’d have to also relable every non-_Homo_ hominid ancestor as well. This is unlikely to happen short of data showing that humans and chimps can successfully hybridize. There is a strong argument to be made that, regardless of the genetics, humans and chimps have evolved such different survival strategies that that alone would justify putting them in different genera. And if there is no hybridization in nature, then even contrived hybridization would not necessitate combining the two species (or genera) into one. ---
**Author:** ![Urban\_Ranger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Urban\_Ranger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urban_Ranger)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2003, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-vs-creation/211231/93 "2003-11-14T07:20:12Z")
Make that …_shredd_… :smack: ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2003, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-vs-creation/211231/94 "2003-11-14T07:24:15Z")
IANA biologist but IMHO you don’t have to look at fossils for examples of transitional species. There are living examples where you can see every “step” of the entire gradual process of change from one species to another. What I’m talking about are “ring species”. There’s a good succint explanation of the concept here: [Ring Species](http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/ring_species.html) A longer discussion can be found here: [Ring Species: Unusual Demonstrations of Speciation](http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html) You can find a lot more info just by Googling “ring species”. It seems to me that these are real living undeniable concrete demonstrations of how micro-evolution can indeed lead to macro-evolution and speciation. ---
**Author:** ![Ca3799](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9f8e36/32.png) [@Ca3799](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ca3799)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2003, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-vs-creation/211231/95 "2003-11-14T15:12:26Z")
I think the difference is that “if a puzzle is filled with god did it”, then there is no reason to ask any further questions. Perhaps you are content with that, but I am not. But “if a puzzle is filled with i dont know”, the interesting possibilites are practically endless. Also, just because you don’t know the answer does not mean that god did it. Would god really appreciate you believing in him just because you didn’t have anything better to do? It is important that you make a fully an informed decision as you can. When I hear creationist/ID’ers say that “evolution is just a theory” I usually think (but I’m too polite to say) “I don’t know which word you understand less: ‘evolution’, or ‘theory’”. I try to be understanding because I know that if you are getting all your biology lessons from the pulpit, you are bound to be misinformed. The church is not well known for disseminating current information. If I’m not incorrect, it took the church about 453 years to admit that the earth revolves around the sun as opposed to the sun revolving around the earth. At least they quit torturing and killing scientists. This kind of stuff makes me suspicious of the churches motives. If I may make a polite suggestion, and of course if you are really interested, why don’t you get a biology textbook from the used book store. I think you will find it easier to follow than [talk.org](http://talk.org) because you can review the chapters that lead up to the chapters on evolution, etc. It is very helpful to brush up on the basics and most people I know have forgotten alot of the science they learned way back when. Besides, biology is fun to read about and there have been some changes made since I was in school. The duck billed platypus is a cool aminal to know about and remember the three kingdoms (aminal, plant and mineral)? Well, there are 5 of them now! Welcome to the boards. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2003, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-vs-creation/211231/96 "2003-11-14T17:15:43Z")
Actually, humans _are_ a transitional species: our skeleton is not fully adapted for walking about upright, and retains several features (toes, curved spine, etc.) from our quadrupedal past. btw, **Darwin’s Finch** , I’m jealous! I want to sound like an intelligent mistake too! Trinopus ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2003, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-vs-creation/211231/97 "2003-11-14T17:53:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by stuffusbus \* > \*\*I read a discussion about the book in on of the links I was given in the last page of replys, from what I got from it was that most of you were trying to change the discussion to who behe is rather than his idea of irreducible complexity. \*\* You might want to read a book on evolution first so you can discuss it a bit more intelligently. Your question on transitional species makes me think that you have either not read or not understood the links you were given. BTW, what is _your_ definition of transitional species? Some creationists give absurd, strawman definitions. In fact, many, many, transitional species have been found. If you insist on reading Behe, please look for the following information: Who is the intelligent designer? When did they do the design? How did they do the design? Is the intelligent designer busy working today? Things are still evolving after all. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2003, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-vs-creation/211231/98 "2003-11-14T17:57:20Z")
> [@](#): > > _Oriuginally posted by stuffusbus_ > **Geeze Darwin’s Finch, you sound like a very intelligent mistake.** Uh…wha…? _Mistake_…? (I do hope you are not making a reference to the idea that evolutionists believe that all of life is an “accident”…such is not the case, I assure you.) > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by edwino \* > **The genus dividing line is not well drawn genetically and morphologically, as far as I’m aware, and it has less relevance in modern cladistics (again I am no phylogenist, so I may be wrong).** Genera, like any higher Linnaean categories, are fairly subjective groupings of species. In general, one would expect a genus to represent a natural clade (otherwise, why group them together?), but there isn’t any obligation for a clade containing members of one genus to only include members of that genus. If species are moved from one genus to another, however, problems _can_ occur: One could very well re-examine both _Pan_ and _Homo_ and decide that one is synonymous with the other (_Homo_ would have priority in this case, so chimps would have to be moved into that genus, should such transpire). Since _Pan_ really isn’t the sister clade of _Homo_, though, I doubt that’s likely to happen. Such would require Homininae (_Ardipithecus_ + _Australopithecus_ + _Paranthropus_ + _Homo_) to be redefined, since _Pan_ currently falls outside of that group. While renaming chimpanzees wouldn’t necessarily alter the actual cladogram, it would cause a fair amount of confusion since you would then have some species of _Homo_ within Homininae, and some outside of it. That would in turn make Homininae paraphyletic, and _Homo_ would become polyphyletic – which would cause all sorts of other problems. Unless you just redefine _Homo_ to be the current _Pan_ + Homininae, which seems kind of pointless. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2003, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-vs-creation/211231/99 "2003-11-14T18:01:17Z")
> [@](#): > > If I’m not incorrect, it took the church about 453 years to admit that the earth revolves around the sun You are incorrect. Your claim of torture and killing of scientists is also a fantasy that never occurred. (Bruno was burned for his theological positions on the Divinity of Jesus, not for any scientific speculation in which he may have engaged.) The church has definitely had periods of opposition to as well as periods of support for science and a case can be argued that there has been more opposition than support, but your specific statements are in error. Do a search in **GD** for “galileo” to see several discussions of the topic. ---
**Author:** ![stuffusbus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a183cd/32.png) [@stuffusbus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stuffusbus)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2003, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-vs-creation/211231/100 "2003-11-14T23:42:25Z")
Well then please enlighten me as to why the evolutionary theory says these mutations happen if not randomly or by accident. I would prefer that i dont go blabbing along about the evolutionary theory if I am wrong about it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-vs-creation/211231.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-vs-creation/211231.md?page=6)