I should start of by saying that I'm very open to the fact that evolution may be correct. I feel it should be taught in classrooms and I strongly feel that any type of creationist/intelligent design argument has no place in the science lesson. At the same time I feel that if students want to voluntarily learn about creationism/intelligent design in separate classes they should be allowed to without any complaint from anyone and without being stigmatized.
Great, then we agree , as long as you keep an open mind and dont want it to impede on scientific progress because of your own supernatural beliefs then I cant argue with that. Its creationists that recklessly sabotage scientific knowledge by a crass understanding of science is what usually gets my goat. The "you dumb ass, why do apes still exist if we evolved from them" variety
Since every member of the complex appeared to be critical for DNA repair activity in lower vertebrates such as zebrafish it did not make sense at all that the six proteins would suddenly appear together apparently 'from out of nowhere' since none of these proteins are found in closely related non-vertebrates.
Doesnt sound that convincing to me, but then I recognise the fact that your overwhelming knowledge in this field might make you see it as more of a miracle than a very small percentage chance . As the ecoli experiment showed, over a period of months the ecoli evolved the ability to digest nitrates. This process required a non-beneficial primary mutation. In your scenario we have the privilidge of millions of years for such events to unfold.
At this point I still knew that there was masses of evidence in the fossil record and in DNA that supported evolution theory as a whole. But the creationists would always argue that God created organisms in stages and that similarities in DNA for example could just easily indeed indicate common design i.e. if two organisms are very similar of course God would create them with a similar genetic make up. In my gut I knew this was true and there was no way round it. I knew there were many big gaps in the fossil record but still knew that there were many transitional fossils that existed.
They are not big gaps if you look over the whole of the fossil record, you have to bear in mind that most skeletal remains will decompose over millions of years and I am actually quite surprised we have as many as we have
However I was also aware that there were not near as many transitional fossils as one would have hoped for and even then the history of transitional fossil had been marred by controversy ranging from hoaxes to massive blunders. Although I knew I shouldn't treat all transitional fossil finds with skepticism just because of these unfortunate cases it still did little to install me with confidence. Even more recently I'm sure a lot of you are aware of the Darwinius masillae(Ida) incident. When this fossil was found last year it was claimed to be the missing link between modern higher primates and more distant species - their was a massive hoo-haa about it and numerous articles were written and numerous documentaries were made (including a special BBC documentary featuring Richard Attenborough) all hailing it to be a massive step in confirming evolution.
You're right the hoo-ha became a media frenzy, and to be fair it was a close call. However leaving aside serious scientists were sceptic, you will note here (run a search for Ida) I remember when Osmanthus first heard about it he wanted to see the original paper. When he did that he called it for what it was worth, not frenzy here I'm afraid and it soon died down within a few days in the media too. So no, nobody made any reliable conclusions or was fooled after the media hype died down
More recently a fossil find has shown that the Ida fossil is likely no such missing link at all and that it belongs more closely to lemurs than to monkeys, apes or us. This whole episode and others like it are embarrassing and only make evolutionists seem desperate.
No, the only people who were embarrassed were the media and a few lone rangers, in any case it did not last very long to make any serious impact on the scientific community as a whole
The gold standard of any scientific theory should be that it can make testable predictions which are later proven correct.
Predictions have already been made, what more do you want/ if you put together a realistic scenario I will even look it up for you as I am pretty sure that its been done.
only possible historical explanation is that an entire population of 48-chromosome humans became extinct and was replaced by a 46-chromosome human race. For this scenario to have occurred, a very strong positive selection must have favored the diploid number of 46 over that of 48. Apes, however, maintained a chromosome number of 48. Because of the known problems of infertility that go along with large genomic rearrangements, natural selection would actually operate against this proposed chromosomal fusion. The fitness for survival for such individuals would be extremely low.
Yep, but they were fused? You write it here is as if the chromosome just disappeared into thin air, and you know thats not what the genticists are saying. They didnt, they joined together so the information contained within the chromosomes remained pretty much intact.
Unfortunately for evolutionists, the paradox is that the same selection would be expected for the other apes as well.
Taken together, the evidence supporting common ancestry between humans and chimpanzees via chromosome 2 fusion is very questionable.
Not really. Here's one scenario, but can think of quite a few. Enviormental factors at the time of the change may have made it difficult for humans with their exclusive & different foraging behaviour to apes to exist, yet it did not affect the apes to exist with 48.
Another major concern that I have is that evolution could not have occurred without life first appearing on earth. In this sense the question of abiogenesis is very relevant (don't let anyone ever try and tell you otherwise - evolutionists sometimes try to insist abiogenesis bears no impact on their own theory). In my view there is nothing close to a credible theory at the moment explaining how life first came about on earth.
By self-replicating proteins, once this happens and their offspring survive, your obviously going to overpopulate. Remember the Triffids and how they took over the earth
Other major issues also remain unexplained i.e. how human consciousness evolved, where our morality comes from, why we sleep etc. I will just say that people who accept the current theories put forward are very easily pleased.
Again a bit confused by your point here and whether its related to evolution ? apes and many other primates exhibit conciousnsness (imo conciousness is just a combination of eyes, ears, brain, memory, working in sync. Nothing more, spirits need not apply
), morality (is a theistic concept, so I mean code of behaviour), sleep
I mentioned early on in this very long reply (sorry!) that 95% of my colleagues accept evolution whereas I have sincere reservations in my gut as a scientist.
If this is all you are going by then I suspect this 'gut reaction', perhaps even unbeknownst to you consciously, is actually being driven by your theistic upbringing. Supreme creator and all that.
Its easy to find holes in a theory. If I looked up criticisms of the theory of relativity on google, I would also find refutations but this does not make the theory defunct nor make me question it until they are serious ones that counteract the proofs in an opposite way.
I dont believe your points here do so, and I believe if you spent more time looking at all the overwhelming evidence in support of evolutionary theory then you would see it like I do. The fused DNA is just the tip of the iceburg! We still have the DNA for tails trapped in our genomes, here's a photo of a baby for whom it was activated
The coccyx, or tailbone, is the remnant of a lost tail. All mammals have a tail at one point in their development; in humans, it is present for a period of 4 weeks, during stages 14 to 22 of human embryogenesis. This tail is most prominent in human embryos 31-35 days old. The tailbone, located at the end of the spine, has lost its original function in assisting balance and mobility, though it still serves some secondary functions, such as being an attachment point for muscles, which explains why it has not degraded further.
Sources:
- Fallon JF, Simandl BK (1978). "Evidence of a role for cell death in the disappearance of the embryonic human tail". Am. J. Anat. 152 (1): 111?29.
- Dao AH, Netsky MG (1984). "Human tails and pseudotails". Hum. Pathol. 15 (5): 449-53.
- Dubrow TJ, Wackym PA, Lesavoy MA (1988). "Detailing the human tail". Annals of plastic surgery 20 (4): 340-4. I think I have answered all your points here, but if I have missed any out then please let me know.
I'll merge my other posts here too, in the hope that you will reply to them together
a) what more you could reasonably expect from this theory before you are willing to accept it
b) you have critiqued my stance, so how do you think we evolved? Which parts of evolution do you accept and which animals/organism are affected
c) what do you know that 99% of the specialists in the scientific community dont (leaving aside the theists who have a vested non-scientific approach to all of this)
d) I accept faith is just faith. I am not asking you to make a scientific assessment of your faith. I am asking you to make one based on the scientific method & free enquiry.
Now if you were to investigate using there 2 critieria alone given the knowledge you currently have in-hand, then do you accept your findings at the very least would be inconclusive i.e. agnostic?
Topic: Stories of the Qur'an - Solomon