Afarensis is a 3.5-2.8 million year old hominin from the Kada Hadar member of the Hadar formation in the Middle Awash, Ethiopia. He is approximately 41 inches tall, weighs approximately 60 pounds and has a cranial capacity of a whopping 410 cc (approximately). Afarensis is currently considered to be transitional between apes and humans and displays some traits of both. Since he spends a lot of time on the couch watching monster movies, some observers question whether he is an obligate biped (although no one has observed him climbing a tree). He also has a blog called 
Just when I thought it was safe to go to Alaska I find this news via Evolution Research - General Evolution News:
The volatile issue of teaching creation science in public schools popped up in the Alaska governor's race this week when Republican Sarah Palin said she thinks creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the state's public classrooms.Palin was answering a question from the moderator near the conclusion of Wednesday night's televised debate on KAKM Channel 7 when she said, 'Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.'
The Anchorage Daily News has more:
In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms:"I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."
She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum.
Members of the state school board, which sets minimum requirements, are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Legislature.
"I won't have religion as a litmus test, or anybody's personal opinion on evolution or creationism," Palin said.
*snip*
Palin said she thought there was value in discussing alternatives."It's OK to let kids know that there are theories out there," she said in the interview. "They gain information just by being in a discussion."
That was how she was brought up, she said. Her father was a public school science teacher.
"My dad did talk a lot about his theories of evolution," she said. "He would show us fossils and say, 'How old do you think these are?' "
Asked for her personal views on evolution, Palin said, "I believe we have a creator."
She would not say whether her belief also allowed her to accept the theory of evolution as fact.
"I'm not going to pretend I know how all this came to be," she said.
Doesn't like someone I would be much interested in voting for if I lived in Alaska...
Update 1: Wow, who knew this old post would suddenly become relevant again. At any rate, when I got home from a long day at work and a function to attend afterward I discovered that it had. A few comments were caught by the spam filter because of links and I have published them. Josh offers his take on the subject as does Wesley both are worth reading.
To those who are trying to argue that the fossil record does not support evolution I can only say that you know absolutely nothing about the fossil record. You should take the time to become acquainted with the fossil record before saying such things, It will save you a lot of needless embarrassment. Since the primary focus of this blog is human evolution you can start here or here.
Update 2: Also Jason here and Bora has collected some links here. Brian has his say here.
Comments
I'm still waiting for someone on the other side, anyone, who supports evolution, after hearing this deliberately created line "..alternative views should be allowed to arise in classrooms.." actually respond that:
1. Alternate views have to be legitimate first and proven.
2. That just because someone proposes that 1+1=5 doesn't mean it has the right to be pushed in classrooms.
and finally...
3. If we allowed ID or creationism in schools then we might as well allow cabbage patches and stork deliveries into science classes as alternative theories to human reproduction.
Both are just as valid as sex so why not? Teach the !@#$&! controversy! YOU WERE BORN IN A CABBAGE PATCH!
MYOB'
.
Posted by: MYOB | October 29, 2006 10:08 AM
And John McCain wants her to be the Vice President.
Posted by: freelunch | August 29, 2008 11:51 AM
I'm fine with creationism being taught in school, as long as they add a unit on Lamarckian evolution, and also require all churches to dedicate services to reading from On the Origin of Species.
Posted by: Dick Leakey | August 29, 2008 11:59 AM
Where's the Phlogiston Theory of Combustion in my chemistry class?
Posted by: Carey | August 29, 2008 12:16 PM
"FoxNews source releases information that Governor Sarah Palin is McCains VP pick. Fox News claims McCain Camp has verified by email. "
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/29/mccain-to-name-running-mate-on-friday/
Febble made these points at Talk Rational:
--She won't bring in Hillary supporters because she's anti-abortion.
--She disables the attacks on Obama's lack of experience because she doesn't have any.
--She's embroiled in a scandal.
--She's rich.
--She disables the attacks on Michelle Obama for following the campaign trail because she's got small children, including a baby with Down's.
--Her lack of experience counts especially because McCain is old and sick.
--Biden will make mincemeat of her in a debate.
And she supports the teaching of creationism in schools.
http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=145404#post145404
Posted by: deadman_932 | August 29, 2008 12:20 PM
Wow, if you people would actually bother to read what she said she basically said that if a student asks about creationism it should be open to discussion. Only a closed-minded zealot should have any problem with that.
Posted by: Mr. Reading Comprehension | August 29, 2008 12:28 PM
Wow, if you people would actually bother to read what she said she basically said that if a student asks about creationism it should be open to discussion. Only a closed-minded zealot should have any problem with that.
And just what exactly would the discussion be???
Student: "Did God create everything in seven days?"
Teacher: "No."
End of discussion.
Seriously, what is a science teacher supposed to discuss about creationism? It doesn't come into play at all regarding evolution. If someone wants to teach their kid that evolution is false then so be it, but just because people want to believe wacky things doesn't mean that science has to give it any credence whatsoever.
Posted by: Bruce | August 29, 2008 12:34 PM
I certainly don't want to appear to be defending teaching ID in schools but I seems to me Palin's position is pretty mild. I mean, let's summarize:
First she says teach both. That's concerning but then she quickly backs off and makes it clear that she only meant that it shouldn't be prohibited in debate. She specifically states "It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum." She then goes further by stating that it wouldn't be part of her agenda to push teaching ID in classrooms. Nor would one's views on the subject be a litmus test for her when appointing people to the state school board.
I'd agree that her "teach both" comment and her apparent willingness to treat both as equally valid scientific theories is a bit worrisome. But she hardly seems dogmatic about it.
Posted by: Bill C | August 29, 2008 12:37 PM
Many Hillary supporters supported her solely because she was a woman and very few listed Hillary's pro-abortion position as the primary reason for her support. Hillary has waffled on that position throughout her career.
As for experience, experience as a mayor and governor trumps that of a Jr. Senator who's never actually there.
Her scandal is nothing in comparison to Obama's relationships with racist Rev. Wright and terrorist Bill Ayers.
Obama is rich. Most people in the US view being rich as a measure of success. Only dolts that are miserable failures themselves hold it against someone.
Biden is a complete non-factor. A pro-abortion Catholic? Get real. He's a joke and a terrible choice. That's why he was a non-factor when he was a candidate to begin with.
Posted by: Get a Clue Brain Dead Libs | August 29, 2008 12:37 PM
There's literal Creationism and then there's the belief that there's a God behind all of creation. They are 2 very different things. Literal creationism has been proven false by science. I'd have no problem with schools teaching that contrary to that some people still believe in it - as long as there's a pretty inclusive list of all the science that's being dismissed as part of the conversation.
The idea that an intelligent being is behind all of creation can neither be proven or disproven conclusively. There's nothing wrong with teaching just that.
Posted by: Get real | August 29, 2008 12:41 PM
I do not care for the idea of American children being permitted theological debates in public school settings. If parents are interested in making sure their children learn religious points of view, they need to do it in the home or in the church. There is a time and a place, but I would not want my child to have to sit through such a debate in class, because personally, I believe in none of it, and I would rather they spend the time on empirical science.
Posted by: Travis | August 29, 2008 12:41 PM
Science teachers are educated in the 'theory' of evolution but what education do they have to facilitate a discussion on creationism? Did they major in Science and minor in Theology? Teachers in a public school can't be expected to have this background, that's what Catholic or private religious schools are for.
Posted by: Jason | August 29, 2008 12:44 PM
"Her scandal is nothing in comparison to Obama's relationships with racist Rev. Wright and terrorist Bill Ayers."
You're telling me that there is more that concerns you in the fact that Obama listened to another person's opinion than there would be in the potential of electing another Republican who has shown a willingness to abuse the power of their office for personal gain?
You must be one of the few people in the country who benefited from the Bush years. I don't fear your kind, because you are a Parrot.
Posted by: travis | August 29, 2008 12:50 PM
No one, especially Palin is suggesting that ID or Creationism become part of the curriculum, that the classroom is hi-jacked for some long-winded debate or that any theology is taught (although technically evolution is theology). All one poster merely suggested is the acknowledgment that many people believe that there is a god responsible for creation.
Posted by: Hello | August 29, 2008 12:52 PM
We need to keep religion in the churches and science in the classroom.
Posted by: ken | August 29, 2008 12:57 PM
@Hello - "...technically evolution is theology"
How do you figure? Evolution is the process that describes change over time of living creatures. Theology is studying god and religion. I fail to see the connection.
Posted by: CyberLizard | August 29, 2008 1:03 PM
"Many Hillary supporters supported her solely because she was a woman and very few listed Hillary's pro-abortion position as the primary reason for her support. Hillary has waffled on that position throughout her career.
As for experience, experience as a mayor and governor trumps that of a Jr. Senator who's never actually there.
Her scandal is nothing in comparison to Obama's relationships with racist Rev. Wright and terrorist Bill Ayers.
Obama is rich. Most people in the US view being rich as a measure of success. Only dolts that are miserable failures themselves hold it against someone.
Biden is a complete non-factor. A pro-abortion Catholic? Get real. He's a joke and a terrible choice. That's why he was a non-factor when he was a candidate to begin with."
Spoken like a Spoon Fed Faux News Republican. Put down the Rush for a second. Palin's experience trumps Obama's experience? Really, based on what? Being involved with misusing authority pales in comparison to knowing a few so called 'radicals', really? I doubt you know what most people in the USA think. I won't claim to. Obama doesn't come from Money or Privilege, he wrote some books that sold pretty well. You may be correct about the PUMAs, all 2 or 3 dozen but otherwise, you and John McCain are wrong.
Posted by: Steve | August 29, 2008 1:05 PM
"All one poster merely suggested is the acknowledgment that many people believe that there is a god responsible for creation."
On behalf of all of us who support teaching evolution as science, and continuing the thousands-of-years-old practice of letting families and religious communities teach their views on their own time, to people who choose to hear it...
We hereby acknowledge that you believe there is a God responsible for creation.
Now, leave the children of everyone else alone. This should end the discussion right?
Posted by: Travis | August 29, 2008 1:12 PM
Here's a woman, now vote for me!
- John McCain
Posted by: Pete | August 29, 2008 1:17 PM
There's literal Creationism and then there's the belief that there's a God behind all of creation. They are 2 very different things. Literal creationism has been proven false by science. I'd have no problem with schools teaching that contrary to that some people still believe in it - as long as there's a pretty inclusive list of all the science that's being dismissed as part of the conversation.
The idea that an intelligent being is behind all of creation can neither be proven or disproven conclusively. There's nothing wrong with teaching just that.
Evolution doesn't deal with the "beginning of time" or "what's behind all of creation" that you are alluding to. So that topic is irrelevant to the conversation and still doesn't belong in science class alongside Evolution. So your entire point is moot.
Posted by: JimW | August 29, 2008 1:29 PM
I have to say the "let them debate" stance makes my skin crawl because it does nothing to stop a wacko bio teacher from telling all the kids that, evolution is just a theroy anyway and we all know that God made everything is 7 days.
Posted by: The Backpacker | August 29, 2008 1:41 PM
So, to be fair and balanced would any religious gatherings that teach Creation be required to also have an E&E prof from a reputable university in to teach evolution. (Yeah, I know... Just making a point.)
Religion says, "Trust me on this."
Science says, "Make me prove this."
Posted by: Sukie Davis | August 29, 2008 1:49 PM
First she says teach both. That's concerning but then she quickly backs off and makes it clear that she only meant that it shouldn't be prohibited in debate.
Exactly: she panders to the Christian Reich, then weasels out of it, as her political convenience demands. Just like Bush and McSame.
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 29, 2008 1:49 PM
Creationism is a religious belief, not a scientific one. It depends on accepting certain untestable truths. Evolution depends, as all scientific theories do, on whether or not there's any evidence for it.
Because Creationism depends on the existence of a God Who transcends time and space there is, by definition, no evidence available (since, again by definition, evidence does have to exist in time and space).
K-12 teachers don't get training in "creationism" for the same reasons they don't get training in "Flat-Earth Theory" or in teaching the creation stories from the Bible -- or in the real truth that, of course, the world is suspended in the infinite branches of the great Ash Tree Ygdrasil. None of these stories or content areas are required nor appropriate to a science class curriculum.
*I* teach creationism in logic classes as providing wonderful examples of fallacious reasoning -- most fallacies are designed to deceive the listener. The kinds of fallacious reasoning used in Creationist arguments have the added dimension of deceiving the speaker as well.
I guess the real question is whether we want a Vice President who doesn't even understand the pretty simple set of positions I just outlined -- and I have a high school education.
hiho
Posted by: Mpeterson | August 29, 2008 1:53 PM
You are ALL missing the point.
McSame picked Pallin because she makes his reported 5'7" (5'5") look almost tall.
(McSame WOULD have been taller but he was a POW).
Posted by: JobsRevenge | August 29, 2008 2:12 PM
McCain's choice of Palin is a "Hail Mary pass."
Posted by: Zeno | August 29, 2008 2:17 PM
How have so many people forgotten reality?! It is the THEORY of evolution, not the fact of evolution. This belief system requires FAITH, just like every other theory. Those who hold to one particular theory tend to count that theory as fact or truth. Doing the research - unbiased research - will reveal the truth behind the theory of evolution and the many, many holes in it that discredit it's trustworthiness. It's shameful that the public school system can't admit it's mistake in teaching this belief system as fact. What happened to teaching information? Leave the belief systems to individual discern and choice of faith!
Posted by: MH | August 29, 2008 2:29 PM
evolution is a religious belief, not a scientific one. it is the creation myth of atheism. As miller admitted:
"Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless--a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us." (Biology: Discovering Life, by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st edition, D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; emphasis in original)
Posted by: t | August 29, 2008 2:38 PM
as far as evidence, there is none for evolution. The fossil record does not show it, thus the need for punctuated equilibrium, and the biological big bang. Nor can it be seen today. examples of 'evolution' such as bacterial resistance to anti-biotics, are merely 'micro' evolution which does not add up to 'macro' evolution.
the best that a Darwinist as prominent as Professor Francisco Ayala of UC Irvine could come up with as examples of evolution in action was: (1) bacterial resistance to antibiotics; (2) insect resistance to pesticides; and (3) the evolution of fur coloring of desert rodents. (Ayala, "Darwin's Greatest Discovery: Design without designer," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (May 2007).)
there is no there there. except the faith of atheism
Posted by: t | August 29, 2008 2:42 PM
MH-
I don't know if you just kidding or what but I am going to go in to this because work is boring. Evolution is a FACT, we know this because wild Poodles never roamed the earth. The theory part you so foolishly discard is Natural Selection. A theory is science is GREATER then a fact, a theory is a working explaination for why something is a fact or why something is. The theory of evolution is a strong one supported by MASIVE amounts of evendence. Are there things we don't understand or are unsure of hell yes that is what makes Science fun. Some day we will figure those things out so a whole new world of problems can be sovled.
Posted by: The Backpacker | August 29, 2008 2:44 PM
Hey, Backpacker! Did you read "t"? Hmmm, perhaps you should RE-research your "facts" before exposing your faith in evolution as "truth" with "MASIVE" amounts of "evendence". It's a wonderful thing that you get to express your religious beliefs, just don't expect everyone else to adhere to your version of "truth". Your exert MORE faith to believe in evolution than those who place their faith in God. Think about it. If you want to disprove creationism, then do the necessary work a scientist would to disprove a theory. And you must not forget that the research shall be UNBIASED!
Posted by: MH | August 29, 2008 2:58 PM
@MH...are you daft? That evolution happens is a FACT. The scientific "theory" of evolution by natural selection and common descent is so much stronger of an idea and ranks up there with the "theory" of gravity and the germ "theory" of disease, both of which you enjoy the benefits of today. Put down the bible and pick up a science book and stop spouting what you learn in church, whilst looking like a fool. Alas, another ignoramus who doesn't know the definiton of scientific theory. Cheers.
Posted by: JW | August 29, 2008 3:02 PM
t-
What stops micro evolution + time from turning in to Macro evolution. And I hate to say it to you but that crap about the fossil record not showing evolution is all Lies. Tektalic to name one example. There are also a whole slew of creatures from the same place in Canada that illistrate evolution veary well. The evolution of the human skull is another good one even though you need to know some stuff to see it in the skulls.
Posted by: The Backpacker | August 29, 2008 3:05 PM
There's a deeper issue than Gov. Palin's preference to have Intelligent Design taught or maybe just discussed in public schools; she believes in it. After eight years of an administration that has done serious violence to scientific investigation, would we want to have as vice president (or maybe president) a person who rejects modern scientific theory?
Posted by: Bill Snyder | August 29, 2008 3:14 PM
I thought that is why people voted for republicans. Reality is scarry better to not except it.
Posted by: The Backpacker | August 29, 2008 3:19 PM
@MH
Your last post is full of assertions without any evidence to justify your claims.
In common usage, theory is typically synonymous with 'conjecture.' This is not the case with the scientific meaning of 'theory'. A theory in science is an explanation that has predicative power and has been verified through experimental data. What you are referring to is called a hypothesis in the scientific lexicon.
You cannot keep harping that its called the 'theory' of evolution (technically the theory of evolution by natural selection) because you are misrepresenting the meaning of the term.
I would suggest that you read the wikipedia entry on the topic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact
Posted by: Chris | August 29, 2008 3:22 PM
If she's open to teaching alternatives, she should also be in favor of teaching that the world was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. His Noddliness accepts that other ways may be taught, but knows that none except His way are true.
Posted by: Pastafrian | August 29, 2008 3:29 PM
McCain picked her to appear more liberal. This doesn't help him.
As long as the majority of voters are educated and don't follow aimlessly behind a party leader, I think we've got a good chance at avoiding 4 years of McCain and Palin.
Posted by: Aphorism | August 29, 2008 3:36 PM
McCain himself has used Creationism-friendly language:
Posted by: Tegumai Bopsulai, FCD | August 29, 2008 3:38 PM
A few points - it's called the "Theory of Evolution." It's a theory specifically because it's not proven fact. Theology is the study of theory.
There are a lot of scientific theories that theorize a creator. Science does not preclude the possibility of a creator. Anyone that thinks it does is simply a zealot.
Posted by: Reality | August 29, 2008 3:40 PM
BTW, evolution also depends on untestable truths.
Posted by: Reality | August 29, 2008 3:42 PM
Wow. As I peruse all the previous posts, it's interesting how many spelling/grammatical errors appear in the posts of those who support evolution. I guess the defense of "science" is not necessarily an exercise in the other rigors of academia...
Oh, and by the way; I'll be enjoying eternity in the blissful presence of my Creator, and learning the infinite intricacies of REAL science. Y'all be sure an' write...
Posted by: Steven | August 29, 2008 3:48 PM
There seem to be some ideas, coming from IDers, that "theory" is a synonym for "dogma."
Theories are testable -- and scientists test them all the time -- including testing evolution (which holds up under test very well).
Dogmas are either untestable, or their adherents have faith and refuse to test them. When others test them (where amenable) and disprove them, the dogmatists generally -- and repeatedly ignore the evidence (aka "delusion").
Now that's cleared up I'll mention that, IMHO, Palin is just a cute Huckabee!
:-(
Posted by: Jimbob | August 29, 2008 3:57 PM
@Reality (ironic name by the way)
Here we go again...Evolution is a proven fact. The umbrella idea under which it falls is the called the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. Do your research. Gravity is a scientific theory. Germs causing disease is a scientific theory. Why does nobody call these only a "theory" and not a fact? Scientific theories are stronger than a few proven facts. Your misunderstanding of the definition of scientific theory (or just theory for short)really shows your ignorance. There are 0 (zero) scientific theories that propose a creator simply because science, by definition, only includes natural causes. You people are killing me with your trolling on a science blog.
Posted by: JW | August 29, 2008 3:58 PM
Anyone familiar with Inuit and Athabaskan creation myths? Those must be the two she's talking about, right?
Posted by: Sili | August 29, 2008 4:01 PM
Steven: It's basically just Backpacker you're referring to, I think. By the way, your creator is an asshole I wouldn't want to spend 5 minutes with, let alone eternity.
Posted by: aleph1=c | August 29, 2008 4:16 PM
Give me a break on the spelling and grammar canard. This is a blog, no one cares, least of all me. If you really think you are going to die and then wake up in a new place where everything is happy you have bigger problems then spelling.
Posted by: The Backpacker | August 29, 2008 4:21 PM
"Oh, and by the way; I'll be enjoying eternity in the blissful presence of my Creator, and learning the infinite intricacies of REAL science. Y'all be sure an' write..."
With all you looney bible-thumpers supposedly going to your so-called "heaven", please... sign me up for hell.
Posted by: Dan D | August 29, 2008 4:37 PM
Bush is to Harriet Miers
as McCain is to Sarah Palin
Posted by: Leon L. Peterson | August 29, 2008 4:45 PM
Evolution is not a proven fact. It's theory. It's a theoretical explanation for a series of facts. If it were completely proven then man would be able to create life from non-living organisms or at least explain how it occurred. We can't.
Posted by: Reality | August 29, 2008 4:49 PM
Exactly: she panders to the Christian Reich, then weasels out of it, as her political convenience demands. Just like Bush and McSame.
I suppose that's one way to look at it. Who knows what is in her heart. My take was that she simply made an off-the-cuff remark during the debate that she probably just thought of as pragmatic. Then upon realizing that her response was being taken more literally than she intended, she clarified her position.
Yes, it's true politicians often weasel as you describe. But it's also true that they sometimes stick to their guns and are unapologetic about issues that they feel strongly about. I think it's significant that she didn't do that here.
In any case, nothing in the article suggests to me she's a raving fundamentalist about the issue.
Posted by: Bill C | August 29, 2008 4:58 PM
Gravity is not a proven fact. It's theory. It's a theoretical explanation for a series of facts. If it were completely proven then man would be able to levitate or at least explain how gravity occurs. We can't.
Posted by: MattR | August 29, 2008 5:12 PM
Going back to the chicken and the egg debate again? Now where did that first egg come from? From some primordial snot that was struck by lightning? LOL, and Superman really came from Krypton? LOL! and there really is a giant flying saucer up there waiting to take us all and save us? LOL! Hey! watch out for "Manbearpig". LOL again! Tell me this, if a 10 ton dinosaur can "evolve" wings, and they are my ancestors (LOL) then why can't I fly? We wouldn't be dependant on foreign oil. What other creature has to bundle up in heavy clothes every winter? Where's my fur? We wouldn't need Carharts. If rabbits have been chased and eaten by just about every carnivore, why haven't they evolved ripping and tearing teeth, and sharp claws for defense? Hmmm? That would be a beneficial evolution, wouldn't it? You don't believe that God created the "chicken", the "chicken" produced, nurtured and hatched the "egg", and fed and raised its young? Too far-out for you, I guess. But, you believe in evolution...ROFLOL (rolling on the floor). Ah Gheez, I can hardly breathe, Haw Haaawwwwwwww!!!
Posted by: The Skipper | August 29, 2008 5:17 PM
BTW, Miss Cogeniality also does not believe in global warming (surprised?) She sued the Feds to stop listing polar bears as an endangered species. Forget the melting ice cap and diminution in food supply and livable environment for the bears. I suppose she appeals to the "conservative base" because she continues their tradition of ignoring scientific fact, and attempting to construct theories that are contrary to the world we live in
Posted by: MIke A | August 29, 2008 5:24 PM
Evolution is an observed fact, and the theory of evolution is the theory that explains evolution.
Gravity is an observed fact, and the theory of gravity is the theory that explains gravity.
Evolution means "descent with heritable modifications".
Theory means "well-tested explanation of a wide variety of facts".
Go here, MH and your sockpuppet t, and learn. You should be ashamed of not knowing any basics, and mightily angry at your highschool teachers because they didn't teach you any basics.
I'm a paleobiologist, and to claim that the fossil record doesn't show evolution is laughable. In the real world most of us live in, the fossil record doesn't make the slightest sense without the theory of evolution, and fits that theory perfectly. For a start, go here -- if you want more examples, just tell me.
Like most people who aren't evolutionary biologists, you have misunderstood what punctuated equilibrium means. It is the hypothesis (see the first link to learn what this word means) that, when looked at in very, very great detail (timescales of tens of thousands of years, instead of millions), lineages evolve at two different speeds, one very slow, the other faster. Both punk eek and strict gradualism occur in the fossil record (pdf).
What can stop "microevolution" from adding up to "macroevolution"? A lack of time could. Are you a YEC?
Well, duh. Stupid design. Ever contemplated why your eyes are inside-out? Why we are born through a ring of bone? Why our hereditary information is stored in DNA, a substance that falls apart when stored in water, so that we spend lots of energy constantly repairing it -- and sometimes making mistakes (mutations) in the repair process?
Warning: if you say the Designer is ineffable, you have left science. If you appeal to the Fall, you'll have to demonstrate that any such thing can even happen -- good luck.
Name one.
Indeed not. Instead, it makes the hypothesis that a creator exists unnecessary.
Name one.
How do you know?
You don't. You believe. You don't know.
It would be so easy, oh cdesign proponentsists. Find a single rabbit skeleton in Silurian rock, and the theory of evolution would be in deep, deep trouble. What are you waiting for?
Posted by: David Marjanović | August 29, 2008 5:27 PM
"Going back to the chicken and the egg debate again? Now where did that first egg come from? From some primordial snot that was struck by lightning? LOL, and Superman really came from Krypton? LOL! and there really is a giant flying saucer up there waiting to take us all and save us? LOL! Hey! watch out for "Manbearpig". LOL again! Tell me this, if a 10 ton dinosaur can "evolve" wings, and they are my ancestors (LOL) then why can't I fly? We wouldn't be dependant on foreign oil. What other creature has to bundle up in heavy clothes every winter? Where's my fur? We wouldn't need Carharts. If rabbits have been chased and eaten by just about every carnivore, why haven't they evolved ripping and tearing teeth, and sharp claws for defense? Hmmm? That would be a beneficial evolution, wouldn't it? You don't believe that God created the "chicken", the "chicken" produced, nurtured and hatched the "egg", and fed and raised its young? Too far-out for you, I guess. But, you believe in evolution...ROFLOL (rolling on the floor). Ah Gheez, I can hardly breathe, Haw Haaawwwwwwww!!!"
Wait let me get this straight, Your saying that the the idea of god one day deciding to create some chickens and shit them out of his ass is more reasonable then the possibility of evolution over the billions of years that the earth has exsisted. Makes alot of sense.....
Posted by: ryan v. | August 29, 2008 6:12 PM
When I was pregnant with my second child and found she had a genetic disorder, my husband and I made a CHOICE to continue the pregnancy and also made a choice that I would quit my very demanding job as a county official in the rural Rockies in Colorado. We decided that our family and the welfare of both of our children came first.
Frankly, I'm surprised that the Republican party as it exists today supports an adulterer and a mother who puts politics before her 5 children including one with a genetic abnormality.
I've been all but driven out of the Republican party because I am not a Christian. I don't get my morals from the Bible, but I know that McCain and Palin are highly immoral people by the standards of anyone who is TRULY pro-family.
*********** This is for the strident Christians -----
Steven, Skipper, the government of Iran believes in Creationism as well! They know for a fact that they are going to heaven while Christians, Jews, atheists, Buddhists etc are all going to HELL!
The Imams and Mullahs all ROFLOL at YOUR ignorance.
So keep looking forward to your deaths and your heavenly reward. (roflol) You are pretty darn funny.
(Skipper, you would look more intelligent if you weren't so ignorant about evolution -- but then I guess you are making it up as you go along -- sort of like the men who wrote your holy book.)
Posted by: Sherry | August 29, 2008 6:16 PM
I think we should also teach both theories of where babies originate, the theory of gestation and the theory of stork delivery.
Anyone who cannot enrdorse a basic premise of science, who denies global warming and who thinks drilling will bring down energy prices is a dangerous ideologue. It makes her very Bushlike.
Posted by: Ken R | August 29, 2008 6:21 PM
i know, i know. knock you over with a feather, right?
Posted by: skyotter | August 29, 2008 6:31 PM
"Palin was answering a question from the moderator near the conclusion of Wednesday night's televised debate on KAKM Channel 7 when she said, 'Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.'"
What was the question? Her followup appears to be backpedalling away from a suggestion that creationism should be taught in schools.
Posted by: Jim Lippard | August 29, 2008 7:05 PM
Even conservapedia acknowledges that micro and macro evolution both do happen.
When your "science" is worse than their "science"...
Seek help?
Posted by: Fradgers | August 29, 2008 7:05 PM
I found the news article quoted:
http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html
From Libertarian candidate's response ("who intelligently designed the intelligent designer?"), the original question might have been something like "Should intelligent design be taught in public schools alongside evolution?", but the article never actually supplies it. The Democrat's response, as well as the news article's opening paragraph (which you quoted) suggests that the original question could have included the term "creationism."
Posted by: Jim Lippard | August 29, 2008 7:14 PM
Evolution is fact. We can see fossils changing in successive geological strata, so species evolve. Darwin proposed a theory of evolution by means of natural selection. There is a lot of supporting evidence, but there are other proposed mechanisms, such as neutral shift. One good example of evolution is the polar bear. No one would confuse a polar bear and a brown bear, but basically they are still the same species. They are able in zoos to interbreed and produce fertile offspring (unlike the sterile mule hybrid of a horse and a donkey). How else can you explain this except by evolution and that polar bears and brown bears had a common ancestor perhaps 200,000 years ago?Scientific theories is what interests scientists. Theories explain facts. Without a theory, all you have is a large body of unconnected facts. Theories have to be based on more than ignorance and wishful thinking (such as ID and creationism), and the facts must not contradict theory.
Posted by: Wayne Robinson | August 29, 2008 7:56 PM
It's very obvious that the pro-Palin influx does not represent regular scienceblogs.com readers (or science anything readers, for that matter).
Is anybody willing to reveal which creationist/conservative blog/news-site posted the link to afarensis that brought y'all here?
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 29, 2008 8:15 PM
In the common usage, "theories" become "facts" when they are "proved." In other words a fact is a "true" theory.
This not how science uses the terms. To quote the late Steven J. Gould:
It really doesn't matter how you define theory or fact because when scientists refer to the "Theory of evolution (by natural selection)" they use the scientific definitions not yours.
You can still argue for creationism if you want, but please retire this argument because it is pure equivocation.
Posted by: Chris | August 29, 2008 8:17 PM
Moreover, proof is something you can do mathematics and logic but in science, no such concept exists.
Posted by: Chris | August 29, 2008 8:28 PM
I felt my comment from not long ago required some clarification.
Some facts from conservapedia's articles:
- Macroevolution theory says that natural selection can lead to speciation.
- Creationists accept natural selection.
- Speciation is when microevolution on sub-populations of a species gets to the point of preventing reproduction between the sub-populations.
- Creationists accept speciation.
- So we have microevolution leading to speciation, which is (almost) conservapedia's definition of macroevolution.
All that using only the introductory paragraphs of the conservapedia articles:
"microevolution", "macroevolution", "natural selection" and "speciation".
Am I missing something? Any logical fallacies anyone can point to?
Seems too good to be true.
.
Posted by: Fradgers | August 29, 2008 8:35 PM
"How have so many people forgotten reality?! It is the THEORY of evolution, not the fact of evolution. This belief system requires FAITH, just like every other theory."
Wrong. "Faith" is NOT required where evidence is present. Evidence and 'fact' are the same thing. Creationism has neither. Christians who try to make evolution into "theory" are making the same "Hail Mary" play that McCain did when he chose Palin.
Posted by: Doug O'Bannon | August 29, 2008 8:45 PM
I was at first surprised by the vice presidential choice by McCain, and as I learned of her beliefs sickened. She is anti abortion, pro guns, a global warming skeptic, and worst of all a creationist. As a public school teacher I am already shocked at the lack of education in the area of science in this country. We can not take a step back into the dark ages and stop teaching a proven theory that has been around for over 100 years. The earth really is 4.5 billion years old and regardless of what some Christians want to believe this is what must be taught in public schools if we, as a country have any desire to keep up with the rest of the world in the areas of science and technology. The only viable choice for president, for those who desire a real education for their children is Barack Obama. I am a church attending Christian who believes in the theory of evolution because I have investigated the fossil record, both personally and through many books, articles, and science journals. I have no problem believing in a god who made evolution possible without divine intervention at any juncture. I do not believe my personal beliefs should be imposed on anyone else in a public school setting, only facts should be presented there.
Posted by: Robin | August 29, 2008 11:26 PM
Karl Popper is rolling over in his grave.
Posted by: David Warner | August 29, 2008 11:40 PM
Paleobiologist or some other scientist, please come back. It seems there are 2 basic things the majority of the country doesn't understand and I think it would be worth having a major media blitz about them in some way.
1. Theory in the scientific method is not fanciful or a product of the imagination. (Look it up, y'all.)
2. Intelligent Design "Theory" is not just evolution + belief in God. Because it posits an intelligent cause, it does not allow for the trial and error of natural selection or for the fact that what's lovely and bright isn't necessarily what is most adaptable and therefore survives.
It doesn't allow for (or account for) the complexity of natural phenomena and it infuses organic life with some kind of morality.
Scientists, please come back and discuss this better than I can!!!
Posted by: Professor Zero | August 30, 2008 12:15 AM
Gravity is a fact. The theory of gravity, often called gravitational theory explains WHY gravity happens. That it happens is a fact.
Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution, often called Natural Selection, explains WHY evolution happens. That it happens is a fact.
Posted by: qedpro | August 30, 2008 12:55 AM
Well, if I were you, I'd ask for my money back if you paid for your education...
Posted by: gwangung | August 30, 2008 1:15 AM
Oh my goodness! The morons are out in force, aren't they? It's called a THEORY, gwangung, because ALL scientific facts are developed through theories, you great Wally!! There's also a "THEORY of gravitational force" -- I suppose you don't believe in THAT one, either, do you, you moronic mouth-breather?? I hope a great anvil falls from the sky to wake you up to yourself.
Posted by: Real McCoy | August 30, 2008 4:50 AM