LJWorld.com

devobrun (Anonymous) says…

The scientists is often confronted with the question “why?”.
The scientist breaks this up into who, what, when, where, how, etc. These questions can often be answered while the why question cannot.

There is another question that is avoided by lazy university scientists. It is “So what?”.

I'm askin': So what?

If I reject evolution and ID, what will I have to give up?

Bottled water? Flannel shirts? Air travel? Watching the Simpsons? Nope.

ID vs evo is an utterly philosophical argument without any material fecundity.

Id? So what. Evolution? So what.

What a waste of resources by a lot of people on something that cannot be changed, nor used for any material purpose.

This is an argument over the primacy of ideas. Politics.

BOE (Anonymous) says…

If I reject the Gravitational theory or the Theory of Relativity , what will I have to give up?

Bottled water? Flannel shirts? Air travel? Watching the Simpsons? Nope.

overthemoon (Anonymous) says…

devo…hold onto that flannel shirt, here's an answer for you:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/558…

Sometimes satirical fiction is just as believable as the real news.

I do allow for the mysterious side of the debate…that's what fuels science. To say that the mystery replaces or negates the science is to limit the very nature of human intelligence. To suggest that decuction without experiment validifies the ID proposition is to confuse science with philosophy. Both are completely valid disciplines that can inform one another as they have throughout history. The philosphs of the ID camp have allowed semantics to define their position and have turned the work “theory” into a pegoritive that is thrown out to suggest that a theory is a static notion has no proof.

God or no God? Maybe we can just keep calling it Mother Nature and leave it at that.

ksmattfish (Anonymous) says…

Quote: “”For example, random mutation and natural selection can’t explain how complex mechanisms, such as the whiplike flagella “motors” that propel bacteria, developed, he said. So that leads to one controversial conclusion: They were designed that way, he said.”

So God created those irreducibly complex motors for bacteria to help them be more efficient in infecting us? Maybe Phred is right about God after all?

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/I…

craigers (Anonymous) says…

Nice twist ksmattfish.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

“He said “everyone agrees” that aspects of biology include the appearance of design.”

The sun appears to “rise” in the east, too. Flat-earthers and ID'ers are of the same cloth.

prioress (Anonymous) says…

Take the magical mystery tour…….. I.D. is cute when it smiles, but there's nothing behind the facade.

craigers (Anonymous) says…

ID is true and I am glad Behe isn't discouraged to come to Lawrence. The premise of his complex machine argument is saying that if parts A, B, C, and D are needed to make the machine function and A, B, C, and D provide no advantage apart from each other or in any other combination than ABCD, then how could evolution be the reason that this complex machine came to be? The combination of ABCD provides a complex machine that works better than anything we have put together, but A is useless, B is usless, C is useless, ABC is useless. How can we have A, then gradually adapt to having AB and so on until ABCD occurs when evolution says we change in order to be better suited for our environment and the individual parts are useless until we have the end product ABCD.

fossilhunter (Anonymous) says…

Devo -
what you'll have to give up is: updated vaccines — after all, it viruses don't evolve, there's no need to update anything. They'll still work.

You'll have to pay more for food. Genetic engineering, using the basis of evolution, has created disease and insect-resistant corn and wheat….

ControlFreak (Anonymous) says…

Behe is making an either/or argument which is inherently false. By saying that one option does not explain something does not automatically mean that the other option is the answer.

A good but simple example is this:

You see a girl in the morning drinking something. You know that it is too light to be coffee so you say, she must be drinking tea. Is the girl really drinking tea? Without asking her, or tasting the drink yourself, there is no way to know for sure. She could be drinking a light coffee (heavily creamed) or a juice. Eliminating coffee as a possibility does not mean she is drinking tea. She could be, or she could not.

ControlFreak (Anonymous) says…

craigers,

That is not how natural selection works. This is a common mistake among people who do not understand the mechanism.

compmd (Anonymous) says…

ControlFreak, you and your reason. :)

If you give up the law of gravity, you give up basic mechanics, which means you give up calculus and other forms of simple mathematics. Have fun with that.

kestrel (Anonymous) says…

It should be pointed out that Behe is NOT a professor of biology and has no significant training or research background in evoloutionary biology. He is a professor of biochemistry, a significantly different dicipline. It was due to that shallowness of knowledge concerning biology that his arguments were completely and embarrassingly dismantled in Dover.

dirkleisure (Anonymous) says…

craigers - how, then, would you explain those occurances in nature where ABC occurs in a situation where ABCD was both expected and preferable?

Because it happens. We refer to it as, generally, as a “birth defect.”

pilch (Anonymous) says…

Guy was a real whiner, nothing more than a festering open sore on the a$$ of society.

75x55 (Anonymous) says…

AH, the harmonious melody of the open-minded… LOL!

MyName (Anonymous) says…

I'm glad Behe came to Lawrence, but ID is as accurate and scientific as astrology.

>The premise of his complex machine argument is saying that if parts A, B, C, and D are needed to make the machine function and A, B, C, and D provide no advantage apart from each other or in any other combination than ABCD, then how could evolution be the reason that this complex machine came to be?

First of all, I don't think that's how ID works, as I understand it anywas. Secondly, I can't think of any example of this actually occuring in nature. Name one instance where having an arm that kind of works is less advantagous than having no arm. Finally, it is not the things that are an evolutionary non-issue that are selected out, but rather things that are advantageous or disadvantageous.

Take ear lobes, for example, some people's are attached, others are not. This difference is unimportant now, which is why it doesn't effect selection, but what if a mutation occurs that improves hearing, but it only occurs in people who have attached ear lobes. Suddenly, attached lobes are important, and detached are selected out. Suddenly, you have A and B occuring, but not being an issue until C is added. Some things in nature could have occured in exactly the same way, as something that was evolutionary unimportant, until the final piece was added which made it advantageous.

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Cute but worthless comment 75. Do you anything to say that actually has substance to it or are you just a troll. Have you been to any flat earth meetings lately? What no…..hmmm not very open-minded are you 75…..

kestrel (Anonymous) says…

craigers wrote:

Brush up on the concepts of co-option & gene duplication. One can go from A, to AE, to AEF, to ACE, to ABCE, to ABCDE, to ABCD, retaining and improving function at each step and arriving at an apparently “irreducably complex” result. This has been made painfully clear to Behe on numerous occasions. He prefers to maintain his fantasy and ignore logic.

BOE (Anonymous) says…

Posted by craigers on December 8, 2006 at 8:21 a.m.

” The premise of his complex machine argument is saying that if parts A, B, C, and D are needed to make the machine function and A, B, C, and D provide no advantage apart from each other or in any other combination than ABCD, then how could evolution be the reason that this complex machine came to be? ”

====

The premise of Behe's arguement is rhetorical.

He's isn't searching (or researching) for an answer.

Which begs the question: Where does all that talent for the rhetorical disappear to when Behe is sitting in the tub, contemplating his nipples?

75x55 (Anonymous) says…

Stalking me again, eh, Kodiac? That seems to be the more 'troll'-like behavior. I'm so flattered.

craigers (Anonymous) says…

kestrel, how does gene duplication create anything but a replica of the other gene, not a gene with a completely different function?

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Stalking? Hmmm. Not sure what you mean there 75. Oh and nice sidestep there on the issue without really offering anything with substance. Pretty much your MO.

However if you feel threatened by me then please let me know and I will leave you alone. I will not make any references to your specific replies anymore.

MyName (Anonymous) says…

craigers: To quote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_duplic…

“Gene duplication occurs when an error in homologous recombination, a retrotransposition event, or duplication of an entire chromosome leads to the duplication of a region of DNA containing a gene [1]. The significance of this process for evolutionary biology is that, unlike a single functional gene, which is usually subject to purifying selection and thus has a slowed mutation rate, one copy of a duplicate set of genes is often freed from selective pressure, allowing it to freely mutate. This is because with two copies of a gene present, mutations in just one copy of the gene often have no deleterious effect on the organism; thus, the second copy is free to “explore” the sequence space by mutating randomly. The duplicate gene may either (a) acquire mutations that lead to a gene with a novel function or (b) acquire deleterious mutations and become a pseudogene.”

Basically, what it's saying is that duplication is usually the first step towards in increased mutation rate which can eventually lead to new proteins.

craigers (Anonymous) says…

Thanks for the information MyName.

kestrel (Anonymous) says…

craigers wrote:

It starts out as a duplicate. Through further variations and, as I mentioned co-option, it is utilized for another function. For in-depth explanation, I'd suggest reading “Endless Forms Most Beautiful” by Sean Carrol or search the TalkOrigin archives.

don_burgess (Anonymous) says…

I havent read this guys book, but he seems like a smart person.

Unlike some other hard-core, religious, neo-christian fundamentalist wackos, he at least accepts the obvious truth that evolution exists on some level…

Like global warming, this topic has been so polarized that both sides have grown completely blind to eachother's view.

A realistic person must view the natural world from a scientific perspective dispite their religious beliefs.
just like every good scientist must have a bit of recognition in the complexity of biology on a spiritual level.

As far a public schools are concerned - keep intellignet design where it belongs - in a theology class or at sunday school.

fossilhunter (Anonymous) says…

Don -

“Unlike some other hard-core, religious, neo-christian fundamentalist wackos, he at least accepts the obvious truth that evolution exists on some level…”

From what I understand, this is a new development, and I imagine has more to do with the audience than his actual opinions.

optimist (Anonymous) says…

The question to ask is: what came before that?

kestrel (Anonymous) says…

don_burgess:

Yes, he's smart, he's just foolish and stubborn. And he has a bit of a problem in the area of honesty.

Not really. He acknowledges the existence of what creationists call 'micro-evolution', but most creationists do as well. Just as creationists do, he denies the possibility of speciation and the development of novel features (called 'macro-evolution' by creationists)

I disagree. I am a Catholic and what some people would describe as a 'theistic evolutionist', but I see no intrinsic need on the part of biology for spirituality, any more than I see a need for it in plate tectonics or beer brewing. I may CHOOSE to view the biological world in a spiritual light, but that does not make biology as a science dependant on spiritual belief.

Well, I certainly agree with you there. I also would not be worried about seeing it in a comparitive religion class, but I think it would be irrellevant in such a setting: it depends on evolutionary theory to act as a foil against: it has no utility otherwise. Perhaps in a Philosophy of Science class.

jonas (Anonymous) says…

The problem with ID is that it stops the questioning. Once you settle on the idea that everything that can't be explained is the product of some intelligent creator then the search for understanding goes no further. The questions I never see being asked afterwards are where we go from the premise that it was created with design.

Who created them, where are they now, and how do we get in contact with them?

What is the method that they used to create complex systems and forms of life, and how do we duplicate it?

What knowledge or benefit is gained from understanding of the presence of a designer?

In other words, what's the POINT of believing that there was an intelligent designer? Even acceptance would make is seem like either an afterthought, or even worse a cut-off of ideas coming from our current inability to understand what makes some things work.

Can any of the ID proponents answer any of these questions?

jonas (Anonymous) says…

Or at least let me know about further developments in these areas by the many people who already accept ID as truth.

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…

“• The intelligent design argument is “not a mystical conclusion.” He said the design argument is a recognition there is a “purposeful arrangement” of the parts that make up an organism.”

––––––

Sorry, Mr. Behe, but if you are including “purpose” in ANY discussion of the arrangement of the Universe, you have just introduced “mysticism”.

You might as well say, “I'm not saying God caused the Universe, just that some all-knowing, all-powerful being intentionally created the Universe.”

========================================

“• He said “everyone agrees” that aspects of biology include the appearance of design. Cells appear to be arranged as a collection of complex molecular machines, he said.”

–––—

Even IF everyone agrees on that fact, the “apperance of design” as the basis for a scientific theory is, at best, misguided, and at worst, a complete departure from scientific standards and practices. The Sun “appears” to rotate around the Earth without further inspection and analysis.

========================================

“• He said he recognizes evolution has occurred but it doesn’t explain everything.”

––––—

Most scientifc theories don't “explain everything”, because it is not the goal of science to find a final, all-encompassing explanation to everything, but rather to find explanations that will most likely change as new evidence is discovered. One of the problems with ID is that it is impossible to find evidence that would disprove the theory, making it unable to pass scientific muster.

At any rate, I thought finding a final, all-encompassing explanation for everything was a goal of religion—oh wait, I guess ID is the religious extremist's “science” of choice.
========================================

“A professor of biology at Lehigh University, Behe’s main argument was that…”

–––––—

More than anything else, this article is a warning to those interested in science to AVOID Lehigh University.

calvin (Anonymous) says…

It is always fun to see the same people making the same old worn out arguments everytime the LJW has a 'newsworthy' article about this subject of ID vs Macro-evolution. Only one of the theories makes sense and is what I believe, but honestly who cares? But kudos to the LJW crew for trying to keep the topic alive!

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Kudos to Calvin for his usual post complaining about having to read something he didn't have to read or even respond to. But hey honestly who cares? Right Calvin?

white_mountain (Anonymous) says…

ID does not seem to be testable, able to be negated, or able to make predictions about data.

The ID'ers call for a redefinition of “science” because they know ID does not fall within it.

kestrel (Anonymous) says…

calvin wrote:
“It is always fun to see the same people making the same old worn out arguments everytime the LJW has a 'newsworthy' article about this subject of ID vs Macro-evolution. Only one of the theories makes sense and is what I believe, but honestly who cares? But kudos to the LJW crew for trying to keep the topic alive!”

We'll stop making our 'old worn out arguments' when the IDC crowd quits taking the same 'old worn out arguments' out of the creationist literature and does something genuinely useful. Like something scientific.

There's no point in making up shiny new refutations of the IDC claims when the 'old worn out arguments' make mincemeat out of them perfectly well.

calvin (Anonymous) says…

Kodiac - thank you for picking up on the sarcasm!! I am glad someone got it. I don't usually make comments at all, and actually enjoy reading the local news since I live so far away.

devobrun (Anonymous) says…

calvin, there are many theories that make sense. ID makes sense if you are religious. Evo makes sense if you are an evolutionist.

Here is another one. All the world is chaos. A Mandelbrot space. Anything that can happen has, is, or will. What can happen? Anything that exists within the boundary of physics. Conservation of energy, mass, momentum, etc.

Proteins can exist in an uncountable number of energy states. Thus, there are a lot of them. How is it that a flu virus mutates every year. Because it can.

Sounds scientific, doesn't it? My theory above can be supported by evidence. It is not science because it cannot be tested. Nor can ID nor evolution.

Oh, little parts and pieces can be. But when an IDer claims that an intelligence is responsible, I say test it.

When an evolutioner says that Angelina Jolie shares a common ancestor with Bonzo, the chimp, I say fine, give us another one.

Can't do that which you theorize? Then you are engaged in story telling. Not science, which requires the test.

Claude Shannon's theory of information is being used to encode this message. Maxwell's theory is used to design the hardware that relays the message to your eye as you read this. These are theories that are tested billions of times a day by stuff that people create and use.
There is no question that we are all here. How it is that we are all here is a great big dunno. Anyone who invokes science to tell you the answer to that question is a lier. And chances are that the first lie they told was to themselves.

calvin (Anonymous) says…

Devobrun- I agree with you 100%. I believe in ID and I believe there is evidence to support it. But you can also see evolution has occured. But I agree with you, neither can be tested, it just comes down to which one you want to put your faith in, and as I said earlier does it really matter? I don't know that it does. I am a Christian and that does influence my belief, but I hope you can tell I am not of the right wing nut job variety!! Good post.

white_mountain (Anonymous) says…

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/…

For those who believe evolution cannot be tested, it might be worth taking some time to read through this article before making up your mind.

jonas (Anonymous) says…

Calvin: I'll stop asking the same questions when someone answers them with something other than: “well, we'll never really know, will we?” The whole freak'n point of science is to find out what there is to know about what we don't know.

calvin (Anonymous) says…

I didn't say we'll never know. We will all know after we die. I'm pretty confident in my belief and ready to meet the Intelligent designer.

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Hey Devo,

Long time no see. I see that you are back with your useless theory claims. Sorry you can't seem to shake me but I figure I will eventually get you to get off of your creationist views and open your mind a little. Maybe that is a pipe dream it is worth a try…

From the talkorigins site we have…

“Evolutionary theory has been put to practical use in several areas (Futuyma 1995; Bull and Wichman 2001). For example:
Bioinformatics, a multi-billion-dollar industry, consists largely of the comparison of genetic sequences. Descent with modification is one of its most basic assumptions.
Diseases and pests evolve resistance to the drugs and pesticides we use against them. Evolutionary theory is used in the field of resistance management in both medicine and agriculture (Bull and Wichman 2001).
Evolutionary theory is used to manage fisheries for greater yields (Conover and Munch 2002).
Artificial selection has been used since prehistory, but it has become much more efficient with the addition of quantitative trait locus mapping.
Knowledge of the evolution of parasite virulence in human populations can help guide public health policy (Galvani 2003).
Sex allocation theory, based on evolution theory, was used to predict conditions under which the highly endangered kakapo bird would produce more female offspring, which retrieved it from the brink of extinction (Sutherland 2002).

Evolutionary theory is being applied to and has potential applications in may other areas, from evaluating the threats of genetically modified crops to human psychology. Additional applications are sure to come.

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

continued from above….

Phylogenetic analysis, which uses the evolutionary principle of common descent, has proven its usefulness:
Tracing genes of known function and comparing how they are related to unknown genes helps one to predict unknown gene function, which is foundational for drug discovery (Branca 2002; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).
Phylogenetic analysis is a standard part of epidemiology, since it allows the identification of disease reservoirs and sometimes the tracking of step-by-step transmission of disease. For example, phylogenetic analysis confirmed that a Florida dentist was infecting his patients with HIV, that HIV-1 and HIV-2 were transmitted to humans from chimpanzees and mangabey monkeys in the twentieth century, and, when polio was being eradicated from the Americas, that new cases were not coming from hidden reservoirs (Bull and Wichman 2001). It was used in 2002 to help convict a man of intentionally infecting someone with HIV (Vogel 1998). The same principle can be used to trace the source of bioweapons (Cummings and Relman 2002).
Phylogenetic analysis to track the diversity of a pathogen can be used to select an appropriate vaccine for a particular region (Gaschen et al. 2002).
Ribotyping is a technique for identifying an organism or at least finding its closest known relative by mapping its ribosomal RNA onto the tree of life. It can be used even when the organisms cannot be cultured or recognized by other methods. Ribotyping and other genotyping methods have been used to find previously unknown infectious agents of human disease (Bull and Wichman 2001; Relman 1999).
Phylogenetic analysis helps in determining protein folds, since proteins diverging from a common ancestor tend to conserve their folds (Benner 2001).

Directed evolution allows the “breeding” of molecules or molecular pathways to create or enhance products, including:
enzymes (Arnold 2001)
pigments (Arnold 2001)
antibiotics
flavors
biopolymers
bacterial strains to decompose hazardous materials.
Directed evolution”

Of course you wouldn't know about any of this since you are not a biologist nor do you do any research in these fields. Your idea of what is testable and what is not would eliminate every scientific theory in existence. Evolutionary theory is no different that Maxwel's or Shannon's theory and it is a theory that is tested constantly as well. As far as all of us being all here and saying I don't know, there is that creationist in you coming out again. Evolution isn't about abiogenesis no matter how many times you try to make that false connection Devo. And finally, because of our good friend Gr and out of respect for her, I have decided to stop calling people “liars”. It is counterproductive and doesn't get us anywhere.

jonas (Anonymous) says…

“Posted by calvin (anonymous) on December 8, 2006 at 5:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I didn't say we'll never know. We will all know after we die.”

Yes, except that, since no one here ever talks to dead people, then it doesn't make any difference to us currently living here, which makes it, as a belief, useless for this plain of existence. And since either way it is ultimately unprovable, there is no point in considering it as a viable option.

“I'm pretty confident in my belief and ready to meet the Intelligent designer.”

That's nice, except that I'm not confident in your beliefs at all as truth, so I'd really need to see some evidence. Or, if you could tell me where you go, so I could find a way to get there before i die, so I can get the information and come back here and let everybody know, that would probably be sufficient.

Thank you for proving my point, though, that ID seeks to shut off questioning, rather than furthering true understanding.

devobrun (Anonymous) says…

Jonas, the point of evolution theory is to pontificate about that which cannot be known, at least scientifically.

The ID guys can come up with explanations all they want, if they do not claim science.
Ditto evolution.

white_mountain: Ok, I looked it over. Didn't memorize it, because I didn't find a test for the statement: “all humans decend from a common ape-like ancestor”. I found lots of complicated evidence that e.g.,our DNA shares common traits. This is a necessary but insufficient argument.

What is sufficient? Do it. Next week, please. Too complicated? Well then it is also too complicated for me to put any credence in. It's meaningless. It's just a story without any use to me other than to give me comfort in the face of death, kinda like Jesus. It's religion.

Oh, how 'bout you reading QED by Richard Feynman. Its shorter than your link and gives the basis for quantum electromagnetics. I can show that to you right now. If you are using a CRT screen, a space charge is created by the filament at the back of the tube. This charge is accelerated toward the front of the tube where phosphors collect the energy and reemit this energy as light. The intensity and color of the light, the emission of the electrons at the cathode, and the electric and magnetic fields used to send a beam of electrons at the screen are all governed by quantum electrodynamics.

Transistors, microwave ovens, cell phones,etc. all serve to give science a good name. The average Joe thinks that evolutionary science is the same thing. It is not!

Every new electronic gadget, transportation system, or communication device serves to boost the good name of science. Evolutionists claim to be scientists and benefit from the term.

They break out the Greek and Latin books, snow the scientific proletariat, and turn stamp collecting into science.

I don't buy it 'cause I don't have to. I don't have to give up a thing.

jonas (Anonymous) says…

That's an… err… rather cynical viewpoint. I, personally, like to think that, in terms of science, most people don't do what they are doing, in whatever field, solely for their own benefit, but in an attempt to bring greater understanding to our existence. The point of evolutionary science is not truly to explain where we were, and how we got to this point, but to predict, if we can, where we are going to go from here in the future, in terms of the physical world in which we live. I'm sure there are scientists who take advantage of what they do to personally benefit from it, but I don't believe that it is a representative sample of the whole population. I also think the same thing about people who believe in ID. I admit that I still like the idea of an intelligent designer, at some fundamental level of reality, but I don't think there is any room in a scientific argument in which to express it, other than as an afterthought.

At any rate, if you're not worried about where we came from, why are you talking about it?

white_mountain (Anonymous) says…

devobrun wrote:

I didn't find a test for the statement: “all humans decend from a common ape-like ancestor”.

––––––––––––-

Look closely at this section, you'll find a test for that statement.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/…

jonas (Anonymous) says…

man, life sucks right now! Froggin finals!!!

gr (Anonymous) says…

From the above link attributed to Darwin:

“In each great region of the world the living mammals are closely related to the extinct species of the same region.”

Talk Origins “Potential Falsification”:

“We do not expect to ever find any Australopithicus, Ardipithecus, or Kenyanthropus fossils in Australia, North America, South America, Antarctica, Siberia, or on any oceanic islands removed from Africa. Any such findings would be catastrophically problematic for the theory of common descent.”

One may ask, of what types of fossils do we find in the Artic and Antartica? Are the living species closely related to the extinct species?

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

“One may ask, of what types of fossils do we find in the Artic and Antartica? Are the living species closely related to the extinct species?” — Gr

Sounds like a good research project for you Gr. Of course such questions fascinated Darwin and Wallace 150 years ago. Why are there polar bears in the Arctic but not in the Antarctic? Why is it reversed for the penguins? Such questions that looked specifically at what you just asked Gr provided excellent evidence for evolutionary theory in the way of biogeography. Very fascinating and an excellent opportunity to educate yourself Gr….

gr (Anonymous) says…

Why one extant species exist at one pole and not the other wasn't quite what I had in mind. I was looking more at: Are living species closely related to extinct species.

For example:
http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/AS…

Either the former or the “latter view”, but if the latter, then how does that relate to the Talk Origins comment?

But then, there's:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/28…

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Gr,

Ah well first off before we deal with your question, just a note to you that you are citing one paper from 1978 and then another paper from 1998. You should look at the more recent reasearch which has found a large amount of evidence for different climates existing at the poles especially before 45 million years ago. There is of course still more evidence coming to light but everything is pointing at different climates existing on the poles.

So I am not sure why you are asking your original question. Most species that existed at the poles are extinct and not many species could live there mainly because of the current climatic conditions. It also makes it hard for scientists to actually look at possible relationships between extinct species and living species. It is quite a feat just to drill down and actually be able to excavate any actual land mass because of the sheer size of the current ice mass. Of course we may not have long to wait due to our love for fossil burning fuels : - )

So your question doesn't become a smoking gun must have been God and creation so we can now stop? Is that what you are trying to do? I don't know. You always pose these questions like they are going to somehow just provide some magical proof or something. I will say it again Gr, those questions you raise are actual questions that have provided massive amounts of evidence for evolutionary theory (common descent of contemporary organisms…..just so we are clear on the matter).

Meanwhile oh Gr there is so much to read and so little time…..tsk tsk

gr (Anonymous) says…

“just a note to you that you are citing one paper from 1978 and then another paper from 1998.”

Why did you say that? What are you trying to say, here? Especially since you go on and talk about different climates existing at the poles in the past. Isn't that what I just said?

“So I am not sure why you are asking your original question. Most species that existed at the poles are extinct and not many species could live there mainly because of the current climatic conditions.”

I believe I was saying that in response to white_mountain's link of what Talk Origins said. If you missed that, what ARE you talking about?

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Gr,

Well now you have me puzzled? What ARE you talking about with your question to white mountain.

You asked…..”One may ask, of what types of fossils do we find in the Artic and Antartica? Are the living species closely related to the extinct species?”

Then you cited an article about pollen found near Antarctica.

What does that have to do with White Mountain's post? What mountain's post is about biogeography. Do you not understand the principles behind it? Do you think there is a problem here? Please be specific about what you think is the problem Gr. I think you are trying to be vague and misleading. Maybe you can clear it up for me.

gr (Anonymous) says…

Pollen?

Are we just confusing each other?

Going to have to show me.

My post of December 11, 2006 at 8:59 a.m. should explain how I see a conflict. You said yourself the climate was different at the poles. I'm not saying it's true or not, just the logic is flawed. If A=B, we know nothing of the relationship of B to C. Africa's climate could be different, and relating to the logic, other area's past climate could be different.

Therefore, “In each great region of the world the living mammals are closely related to the extinct species of the same region”, is probably not always true and, as you pointed out at the poles, is NOT true. Unless you have a specific issue for the word, “mammals”.

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Ah but Gr the statement “In each great region of the world the living mammals are closely related to the extinct species of the same region” has never been shown to be false. If it has please show us. Also I did not say anything about something being “NOT true”. All I said was that there were different climates existing at the poles then there are now. The question th