(782) Mon 05 Oct 92 12:16 By: David Rice To: All Re: Facts about evolution I am going to

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

(782) Mon 05 Oct 92 12:16 By: David Rice To: All Re: Facts about evolution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I am going to restrict my reading of this echo to only messages addressed to me, and only messages that concern evolutionary science. At the moment I read over one million bytes of mail each day (!) excluding this echo, and Holy Smoke is not worth the disk space it holds, let alone my time to read it all. One MAJOR problem folks who are against evolution is their belief that it is somehow against their religion. This is wrong. Evolutionary science does not make a case against or for the existance of God. Evolution does not preclude God. Most Christians know evolution is true, and yet they have retained their belief and worship of God. However, evolution theory explains how we have come to be, without resorting to magic and occultism (i.e. God). That we have evolved via common decent from previous organisms is beyond any question or doubt within the scientific community. Also, there is a massive amount of known transitional fossils, and more are being discovered daily. Scientists have an accurate K-ar dating scale that dates from 200 million years ago, and is 25 million years long. With this scale, which is beyond all doubt and refutation, fossils may be dated with extreme accuracy based upon K-ar in the rocks the fossil is found in. "In recent months a 25 million year long record from the triassic (about 200 million years ago) has been obtained. The rock is banded, and the bands form quite regular groupings. The smallest bands contain about 20,000 varves (annual layers) - and the precession cycle at that time was about 20,000 years long. Coincidence? Well, the precession cycle is modulated by the 100,000 year eccentricity cycle so the bands should occur in groups of five, with slightly different characteristics within the group. They do. Not enough? There is also a 400,000 year eccentricity cycle, so the large bands should be bunched in groups of four. AND THEY ARE! Using other dating techniques on the same sample as cross checks, measurement PROVES all well-applied dating techniques are accurate. Alas, the Creationist lost the war over 100 years ago, and still doesn't know it. One exciting, rather new technique is DNA sequencing, and even mapping (!). Insects caught in amber many millions of years ago have their DNA compared to decendant species--- a highly accurate evolutionary bush is created based upon DNA changes over time. For instance, if you copy a program one million times, a bit might be swapped--- resulting copies of THAT copy will have that bit swapped, so it may be placed upon a bush as a decendant. When a decendant has another bit swapped, the bush gains another twig. Keep in mind that while decendants are being copied, the original, as well as the successive bit-swapped and bit-bit-swapped, and bit-bit-bit-swapped (etc.) NEED NOT HAVE DIED OUT if the nich is large enough for all copies (i.e. species). That is, even if a copy has gone through a dozen bit-swapped, the original can (and will) eventually produce a copy that has a bit swapped, ENTIRELY DIFFERENT than all other decendants. That is exactly what happened in real life. An error many make is that evolution is a "tree," and that one species is directly decended from another. Creationists like to say that "Evolution teaches humans evolved from apes." THIS IS NOT TRUE, and evolutionary scientists DO NOT say so. Creationists love to decieve people, to further their occult agenda. Evolution did not happen like this: ape ----------> human or fish ---------> amphibian --------> reptile but like this: ape human \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \/ ape/human common ancestor / / mammals or fish amphibian reptile \ \ / \ \ / \ \ / \ \ / \ \ / \ \/ \ Amphibian/reptile common ancestor \ / \ / \/ Fish/amphibian common ancestor / Indeed, there is very good reason for =NOT= placing humans in their own family, outside some other primates. Only our vanity places us apart from the chimpanze--- humans and chimps are so close on the evolution bush, some biologists want to reclassify our species. orangutan gorilla chimp human | | | | \ \ | / \ \ | / \ \ \ / \ \ / \ | \ / / / --- * Origin: The Skeptic Tank (1:102/890)

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank