Icons of Evolution

In the thread Evidence for Intelligent Design-is there any? Beretta wrote in his opening post: I wrote further down the thread I would be interested in discussing this topic in a different thread, since it would be off-topic in that one. Beretta agreed, and so this is my opening post.I'm am currently 26 years old, so not too long ago, I went to highschool, where I of course got taught Bioligy among others. I never heard of these so called Icons of evolution before, in fact the first time I heard of them was when I watched a creationist video. Never before that had I heard of Piltdown man, Nebraska man, Archeoraptor, or any of the others mentioned. So, it seems these "icons" aren't being constantly rehashed. Or was my school just so much better?I don't think discussing all of the icons at the same time is going to give a good topic, so I would suggest picking one or two and then discuss them here, we could always get more in later. So Beretta, or anyone else, if youre up for it, please pick one or two of these "icons" and let's discuss them.Edited by Huntard, : Clicked submit instead of preview button

Hmm I see. Some of those were indeed mentioned in my lessons, though I don;t really see what the problems are with these, they seemed supportive of Evolutionary theory. Any idea what these problems are, or a link to somewhere I can read about them? Don;t have access to the book. Thanks in advance.

Alright, I'd still like to read up a bit on this myself, so I can arm myself against this, any idea where this could be done. It seems the talkorigins website Coyote refered to is very helpful here, thanks for that.

Ok, after reading up on this stuff a bit, I must say I'm a bit dissapointed. I thought there were some actual problems with these things, but everything I read points to misrepresentation of the facts. Ah well, I'll await an ID proponents view on the matter and then comment further.

Hey beretta, thanks for your reply.First of all, this one doesn't seem to be related to evolution, but rather to abiogenesis, but fine let's go with this one for now.I was taught in school that this experiment was designed to test if life could arise in simple conditions, not specifically conditions of an early earth, but simple conditions, and it seems to have done that.It would indeed be a shame if it was taught like you said it was in the schools, but as I have said, I never was taught it in that way, in fact in the way I was taught it, it is completely true.Now, even if life could not have originated in this way on earth, that doesn't mean evolution is wrong, since that comes only into play after life starts.Let me state again that if it is indeed taught that this is an experiment to show that life could arise on an early earth, I am against that. If however it is taught that this was an experiment to show that the building blocks of life could arise in a simple environment, well, that is nothing short of the truth, now is it.

One thing I forgot to mention in my post is that I never had a textbook on evolution to begin with, I had a textbook on biology, and you can hardly deny this is part of Biology.The way this got explained to me is like this was a hypothesis on how life could have started. I was also told we didnt yet know exactly how this happened on earth, but that there were more experiments being done to test this. Now, I never studied biology any further then that, so I never got to read about these further experiments.I am also not an "evolutionist" I don't care if evolution is true or not, but everything I've come across so far seems to support it. I've read up on wells' book on the talkorigins site, seems pretty damning to me. Dont worry, I'll also read Answers in Genesis on the subject and see which one has the strongest case.

Hey Beretta, I'm back after reading up on all this stuff a bit. Science only includes stuff for which there is evidence, if we were to include every possibility there is, we could fill the entire curriculum with only science lessons, since the possibilities are literally endless.As to your other statements, I assure you I'm not a "naturalist", "evolutionist" or any kind of other stuff you seem to like to call those that don't agree with you. I only look at the evidence.As for abiogenesis, you have to agree that the Urey-Miller experiment shows that it is possible. Not on planet earth's early atmosphere, but this does not matter. Why not? I'll try to explain.For now, there is no conclusive evidence of how life started on Earth, however, the Urey-Miller experiment showed that the building blocks for life do form spontaneously. This could've happened on another planet, in which the composition of the atmosphere does conform to the one used in the experiment. Now, if amino acids formed on this planet, they could've gotten to Earth via panspermia.I'll admit there is so far no evdience for this, but it is a possibilty, should this also be taught in the classroom? This is not an assumption, there is evidence for this. Not in the least in the genetic record.Haeckel's embryo's were bad, I admit that, but again, the truth of the matter is that early embryo's ARE very similar. Not as similar as Haeckel's, but similar nonetheless. Also, I never saw Haeckel's drawings in my textbook, I only saw the actual microscopic images.

So you say, I can assure you that I have several theories lined up, all of which I'd like discussed, and all of them do not include intelligence. There is a thread active right now to present that evidence, so far I haven't seen any. Modern cells are nothing like the earliest cells. They were much simpler in makeup. I don't "believe" any evidence, I look at the evidence and draw a conclusion wholly supported by that evidence. I also like to stress again that there is an active thread to deal with any and all evidence you have for ID and again I say, I haven't seen any. Is he a prankster then? Putting the same RVA's in humans and chimps so that it looks like we evolved from a common ancestor? Maybe he ain't so bad afterall, fooling an entire planet's rather funny in my eyes. I need to look up a bit more about early embryo's it seems. So the early stages aren't similar, later stages are. Sounds to me they're similar in their development then later on. Which is sill a strong indicator.

---

I hunt for the truth

How do you?