Cephalopod development and evolution

Indeed, gustatory impression is a perfectly valid character. For example, I believe that phylogenetic analysis of "tastes like chicken" demonstrates that pork beef and lamb are derived, whereas there is a fair chance that dinosaurs tasted like chicken. I am not aware of a published phylogenetic analysis of "tastes like calamari," but perhaps a collaborative proposal to NSF could be worked out involving extensive taste sampling dumped into the latest version of PAUP or perhaps Mesquite?

So eating sushi can be a scientific experiment? LOL

Henry

I had a friend whose reason for ordering jellyfish in a Japanese restaurant was that he wanted to try another phylum.
(and it didn't taste like chicken)

"Tastes like chicken" has its own Wikipedia page with a couple of relevant links.

What does Nautilus taste like, anybody know?

Nemo's submarine? Probably tastes like metal. Oh, you may have meant the animal of that name... :D

'Panda' says:People are always arguing about whether primitive apes could have evolved into men, but that one seems obvious to me: of course they did! The resemblances are simply too close, so that questioning it always seems silly.

Using the 'Panda' logic we should be able to safely assume that a tail, webbed feet, and a snout resembling a duck's bill makes the platypus closely related to a Duck!!!

Resemblance is NOT an way to arrive at who is related to who.

In fact there is NO real scientific way to solve this problem.

The number of chromosomes bounce all over the scale from one type of creature to another. There is NO way to line up the DNA and determine relationship either. It is all pure guesswork, and bad guesswork at that.

James,

What's your "guesswork"? Do you have any evidence that might suggest that "humans and other apes originated from two or more origin-of-life events" is a better explanation? If so, when do you think the lineages originated? Again, "best guesses" will suffice for now. Mere incredulity towards the prevailing explanation will not.

Resemblance is NOT an way to arrive at who is related to who. In fact there is NO real scientific way to solve this problem.

The number of chromosomes bounce all over the scale from one type of creature to another.

Re "Resemblance is NOT an way to arrive at who is related to who."

It's not just similar or not similar, it's the degree of similarity.

Humans and chimpanzees have mostly the same parts, made of mostly the same tissue types, in mostly the same arrangement. That's talking about all or at least the vast majority of parts.

The "resemblance" between platypus snout and duck bill is superficial; in most ways they differ as much as any mammal differs from any bird.

Henry

James:

This may come as a shock, but your thoughts have occurred to many scientists before, and there is an enormous literature devoted to dealing with these very issues. Furthermore, much of this literature has been devoted to critically (and I mean savagely) questioning and evaluating methods for phylogenetic reconstruction. Yet still, in spite such intense criticism, an overwhelming majority of scientists view the exercise as both scientific and remarkably accurate, meaning that it has survived the assault and even grown. Now clearly you must have some special insight into the issues that the scientific community has overlooked. Apart from bald-faced assertions of ignorance (your platypus example is freshman-high-school-biology-first-day-of-class stuff, assuming that anyone taught this stuff in high school anymore), perhaps you would care to elaborate? I'm dying to hear them. Please. We all await. Fire away.

The number of chromosomes bounce all over the scale from one type of creature to another. There is NO way to line up the DNA and determine relationship either. It is all pure guesswork, and bad guesswork at that.

— James Collins

James Collins wrote: Using the 'Panda' logic we should be able to safely assume that a tail, webbed feet, and a snout resembling a duck's bill makes the platypus closely related to a Duck!!!

Yes, dolt, we have a 23 haploid chromosome count, and apes have 24.

— Glen Davidson

Give me a break, similarities are not scientific proof. It is the weakest proof available. Naturalists always try to establish scientific validity for evolution by pointing to suggestive similarities while ignoring the foundational principle of science (genetic entropy) that contradicts their preconceived philosophical bias. For example, naturalists say that evolution is proven true when we look at the 98.8% similarity between certain segments of the DNA in a Chimpanzee and compare them with the same segments of DNA of a Human. Yet that similarity is not nearly good enough to be considered "conclusive" scientific proof. For starters, preliminary comparisons of the complete genome of chimps and the complete genome of man yield a similarity of only 96%. Dr. Hugh Ross states the similarity may actually be closer to 85% to 90%. Secondarily, at the protein level only 29% of genes code for the exact same amino acid sequences in chimps and humans (Nature, 2005). As well, our DNA is 92% similar to mice as well as 92% similar to zebrafish (Simmons PhD., Billions of Missing Links). So are we 92% mouse or are we 92% zebrafish? Our DNA is 70% similar to a fruit fly; So are we therefore 70% fruit fly? Our DNA is 75% similar to a worm; So are we 75% worm? No, of course not!! This type of reasoning is simple minded in its approach and clearly flawed in establishing a solid scientific foundation on which to draw valid inferences from! Clearly, we must find if the DNA is flexible enough to accommodate any type of mutations happening to it in the first place. This one point of evidence, (The actual flexibility of DNA to any random mutations), must be firmly established, first and foremost, before we can draw any meaningful inferences from the genetic data we gather from organisms!! Fortunately we, through the miracle of science, can now establish this crucial point of DNA flexibility. The primary thing that is crushing to the evolutionary theory is this fact. Of the random mutations that do occur, and have manifested traits in organisms that can be measured, at least 999,999 out of 1,000,000 (99.9999%) of these mutations to the DNA have been found to produce traits in organisms that are harmful and/or to the life-form having the mutation (Gerrish and Lenski, 1998)! Professional evolutionary biologists are hard-pressed to cite even one clear-cut example of evolution through a beneficial mutation to DNA that would violate the principle of genetic entropy. Although evolutionists try to claim the lactase persistence mutation as a lonely example of a beneficial mutation in humans, lactase persistence is actually a loss of a instruction in the genome to turn the lactase enzyme off, so the mutation clearly does not violate genetic entropy. Yet at the same time, the evidence for the detrimental nature of mutations in humans is clearly overwhelming, for doctors have already cited over 3500 mutational disorders (Dr. Gary Parker).

"It is entirely in line with the al nature of naturally occurring mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them to be detrimental to the organisms in its job of surviving and reproducing, just as changes accidentally introduced into any artificial mechanism are predominantly harmful to its useful operation" H.J. Muller (Received a Nobel Prize for his work on mutations to DNA)
"But there is no evidence that DNA mutations can provide the sorts of variation needed for evolution... There is no evidence for beneficial mutations at the level of macroevolution, but there is also no evidence at the level of what is commonly regarded as microevolution." Jonathan Wells (PhD. Molecular Biology)

Man has over 3 billion base pairs of DNA code. Even if there were just a 1% difference of DNA between monkeys and humans, that would still be 30 million base pairs of DNA difference. It is easily shown, mathematically, for it to be fantastically impossible for evolution to ever occur between monkeys and man, or monkeys and anything else for that matter. Since, it is an established fact that at least 999,999 in 1,000,000 of any mutations to DNA will be harmful and/or , then it is also an established fact that there is at least a 999,99930,000,000 to one chance that the monkey will fail to reach man by evolutionary processes. The monkey will hit a end of harmful/fatal mutations that will kill him or severely mutilate him before him. The poor monkey barely even gets out of the evolutionary starting gate before he is crushed by blind chance. This would still be true even if the entire universe were populated with nothing but monkeys to begin with! This number (999,99930,000,000), is fantastically impossible for any hypothetical beneficial mutation to ever overcome! Worse yet for the naturalists, mathematician William Dembski PhD. has worked out the foundational math that shows the mutation/natural selection scenario to be impossible EVEN IF the harmful/fatal rate for mutation to the DNA were only 50%. The naturalist stamps his feet again and says that symbiotic gene transfer, cross-breeding (yes they, desperately, suggested cross-breeding as a solution), gene duplication and multiplication of chromosomes, alternative splicing etc .. etc .. are the reasons for the changes in DNA between humans and apes. They say these things with utmost confidence without even batting an eye. Incredibly, this is done in spite of solid evidences testifying to the contrary. Indeed, even if a hypothetical beneficial mutation to the DNA ever did occur, it would be of absolutely no use for it would be swallowed in a vast ocean of slightly detrimental mutations that would be below the culling power of natural selection!
"The theory of gene duplication in its present form is unable to account for the origin of new genetic information" Ray Bohlin, (PhD. in molecular and cell biology)

"Evolution through random duplications"... While it sounds quite sophisticated and respectable, it does not withstand honest and critical assessment" John C. Sanford (PhD Genetics; inventor of the biolistic "gene gun" process! Holds over 25 patents!)

The human genome, according to Bill Gates the founder of Microsoft, far, far surpasses in complexity any computer program ever written by man. The data compression (multiple meanings) of some stretches of human DNA is estimated to be up to 12 codes thick (Trifonov, 1989)! No line of computer code ever written by man approaches that level of data compression (poly-functional complexity). Further evidence for the inherent complexity of the DNA is found in a another study. In June 2007, a international team of scientists, named ENCODE, published a study that indicates the genome contains very little unused sequences and, in fact, is a complex, interwoven network. This "complex interwoven network" throughout the entire DNA code makes the human genome severely poly-constrained to random mutations (Sanford; Genetic Entropy, 2005). This means the DNA code is now much more severely limited in its chance of ever having a hypothetical beneficial mutation since almost the entire DNA code is now proven to be intimately connected to many other parts of the DNA code. Thus even though a random mutation to DNA may be able to change one part of an organism for the better, it is now proven much more likely to harm many other parts of the organism that depend on that one particular part being as it originally was. This "interwoven network" finding is extremely bad news for naturalists!

Naturalists truly believe you can get such staggering complexity of information in the DNA from some process based on blind chance. They cannot seem to fathom that any variation to a basic component in a species is going to require precise modifications to the entire range of interconnected components related to that basic component. NO natural law based on blind chance, would have the wisdom to implement the multitude of precise modifications on the molecular level in order to effect a positive change from one species to another. Only a "vastly superior intelligence" would have the wisdom to know exactly which amino acids in which proteins, which letters in the DNA code and exactly which repositioning of the 25 million nucleosomes (DNA spools) etc .. etc .. would need to be precisely modified to effect a positive change in a species. For men to imagine blind chance has the inherently vast wisdom to create such stunning interrelated complexity is even more foolish than some pagan culture worshipping a stone statue as their god and creator. Even if evolution of man were true, then only God could have made man through evolution. For only He would have the vast wisdom to master the complexity that would be required to accomplish such a thing. Anyone who fails to see this fails to appreciate the truly astonishing interwoven complexity of life at the molecular level. Even though God could have created us through "directed evolution", the fossil record (Lucy fossil proven not ancestral in 2007) and other recent "hard" evidence (Neanderthal mtDNA sequenced and proven "out of human range") indicates God chose to create man as a completely unique and distinct species. But, alas, our naturalistic friend is as blind and deaf as the blind chance he relies on to produce such changes and cannot bring himself to face this truth. Most naturalists I've met, by and large, are undaunted when faced with such overwhelming evidence for Divine Intelligence and are convinced they have conclusive proof for naturalistic evolution somewhere. They will tell us exactly what it is when they find it. The trouble with this line of thinking for naturalists is they will always take small pieces of suggestive evidence and focus on them, to the exclusion of the overriding vast body of conclusive evidence that has already been established. They fail to realize that they are viewing the evidence from the wrong overall perspective to begin with. After listening to their point of view describing (with really big words) some imagined evolutionary pathway on the molecular level, sometimes I think they might just be right. Then when I examine their evidence in detail and find it wanting, I realize they are just good story tellers with small pieces of "suggestive" evidence ignoring the overwhelming weight of "hard" evidence that doesn't fit their naturalistic worldview. Instead of them thinking," WOW look how God accomplishes life on the molecular level," they think" WOW look what , dumb and blind chance accomplished on the molecular level." Naturalists have an all too human tendency to over-emphasize and sometimes even distort the small pieces of suggestive evidence that are taken out of context from the overwhelming body of "conclusive" evidence. This is done just to support their own preconceived philosophical bias of naturalism. This is clearly the practice of very bad science, since they have already decided what the evidence must say prior to their investigation.
I could help them find the conclusive proof for evolution they are so desperately looking for if they would just listen to me. For I know exactly where this conclusive proof for evolution is; it is right there in their own imagination. What really amazes me is that most naturalists are people trained in exacting standards of science. Yet, they are accepting such piddling and weak suggestive evidence in the face of such overwhelming conclusive evidence to begin with. This blatant deception; , dumb, blind chance has the inherent wisdom to produce staggering complexity, is surprisingly powerful in its ability to deceive! That it should ensnare so many supposedly rational men and women is remarkable. Then, again, I have also been easily misled by blatant deception many times in my life, so, maybe it is not that astonishing after all. Maybe it is just a painful and all too human weakness we all share that allows us to be so easily deceived.

Bond, James Bond,

Based on the similarity of this post to your post some weeks ago, I will conclude that you're an ineducable trolling moron. Is that scientific enough?

This "Bond" person doesn't appear to have the slightest clue about how genetics work; lots of red herring garbage in there that entirely ignores... well... pretty much all of science. Good examples of quote mining, though.

James the hit and run creo: Give me a break, similarities are not scientific proof. It is the weakest proof available. Naturalists always try to establish scientific validity for evolution by pointing to suggestive similarities while ignoring the foundational principle of science (genetic entropy) that contradicts their preconceived philosophical bias.

Re "Man has over 3 billion base pairs of DNA code. Even if there were just a 1% difference of DNA between monkeys and humans, that would still be 30 million base pairs of DNA difference. "

Let's see. Five million years or so in each of the two lineages. 30 million base pairs.

30 million base pairs / ( 5 million years * 2 lineages ) = 3 base pairs per year, or about 60 or so per generation.

Average number mutations per generation over the entire genome is over 100, iirc.
(Average within coding regions is between 1 and 2, iirc.)

No contradiction there.

Conclusion: this guy started a multi-page essay without having done the required math.

Henry

His creo-teachers measure quantity of work, not quality.

They have recently ascertained that about 95% of DNA is regulatory. The genome appears to have been created, and the genes are turned off and on to create different beings, for the most part.

How is it that all of our binary programs have to be created, yet nature miraculously did this all on her own?

My gut feeling tells me that we're missing something here.

They have recently ascertained that about 95% of DNA is regulatory. The genome appears to have been created, and the genes are turned off and on to create different beings, for the most part. How is it that all of our binary programs have to be created, yet nature miraculously did this all on her own? My gut feeling tells me that we're missing something here.

They have recently ascertained that about 95% of DNA is regulatory. The genome appears to have been created, and the genes are turned off and on to create different beings, for the most part. How is it that all of our binary programs have to be created, yet nature miraculously did this all on her own? My gut feeling tells me that we're missing something here.

They have recently ascertained that about 95% of DNA is regulatory. The genome appears to have been created, and the genes are turned off and on to create different beings, for the most part.

How is it that all of our computer binary programs have to be created, yet nature miraculously did this all on her own?

My gut feeling tells me that we're missing something here.

Where are the half species: The in-between species when one species mutates into another species?

Or,if that's not how it happens, when did a dog give birth to a half something else, or whatever?

You know what I mean.

I think my ex is a mutant. I told him I would ask you guys what his chances are of finding another mutant like him.

I read somewhere that they only used DNA from like 37 some women to trace the whole female lineage down to the Eve-mother.

Well, I'm sure they missed at least one other lineage. If you tested the DNA from my ex-mother-inlaw, I know that the findings would be different. How can they be so sure having traced so few ancestral genomes?

Last question:

If my mother-in-law's DNA was sequenced, tested or whatever you call it, and it was found that her DNA did not make her quite human yet, or if it showed that she had mutated just a little past being human, how would I go about donating her to a lab for experimental research? I mean monkeys are mostly human - 93% - right? So, if we can do it to monkeys . . .

Anyone???

My gut feeling tells me that we're missing something here.

My gut feeling tells me that we're missing something here

Where are the half species: The in-between species when one species mutates into another species?

— Bev Collins

I read somewhere that they only used DNA from like 37 some women to trace the whole female lineage down to the Eve-mother.

— Bev Collins

If you tested the DNA from my ex-mother-inlaw, I know that the findings would be different. How can they be so sure having traced so few ancestral genomes?

— Bev Collins

Where are the half species: The in-between species when one species mutates into another species?

— Bev Collins

I read somewhere that they only used DNA from like 37 some women to trace the whole female lineage down to the Eve-mother.

— Bev Collins

If you tested the DNA from my ex-mother-inlaw, I know that the findings would be different. How can they be so sure having traced so few ancestral genomes?

— Bev Collins

They have recently ascertained that about 95% of DNA is regulatory. The genome appears to have been created, and the genes are turned off and on to create different beings, for the most part.

Regarding Bev Collins's comments: why do creationists persist in thinking that the theory of evolution proposes that speciation occurs over two or three generations? Of course, if that were actually the case, we'd be dealing with creation, not evolution.

To Bev: What exactly do you mean by a 'half-species'? I think if you try to describe this concept in detail you would realize it does not make much sense. To find a 'half-species' between a herring gull and a lesser black-backed gull (both of which breed around the coast of the UK) try travelling around the world and studying the gulls of the Breing Straits and northern Siberia.

Where are the half species: The in-between species when one species mutates into another species?

They have recently ascertained that about 95% of DNA is regulatory.

The genome appears to have been created,

and the genes are turned off and on to create different beings, for the most part.

How is it that all of our computer binary programs have to be created,

yet nature miraculously did this all on her own?

My gut feeling tells me that we're missing something here.

Where are the half species: The in-between species when one species mutates into another species?

Or,if that's not how it happens, when did a dog give birth to a half something else, or whatever?

You know what I mean.

I think my ex is a mutant. I told him I would ask you guys what his chances are of finding another mutant like him.

I read somewhere that they only used DNA from like 37 some women to trace the whole female lineage down to the Eve-mother.

Well, I'm sure they missed at least one other lineage. If you tested the DNA from my ex-mother-inlaw, I know that the findings would be different. How can they be so sure having traced so few ancestral genomes?

Give me a break, similarities are not scientific proof.

It is the weakest proof available.

Naturalists always try to establish scientific validity for evolution by pointing to suggestive similarities

while ignoring the foundational principle of science (genetic entropy)

that contradicts their preconceived philosophical bias.

Yet that similarity is not nearly good enough to be considered "conclusive" scientific proof.

James Bond wrote: Even if evolution of man were true, then only God could have made man through evolution.

James Bond wrote: Man has over 3 billion base pairs of DNA code. Even if there were just a 1% difference of DNA between monkeys and humans, that would still be 30 million base pairs of DNA difference. It is easily shown, mathematically, for it to be fantastically impossible for evolution to ever occur between monkeys and man, or monkeys and anything else for that matter.

Glen Davidson wrote responding to a similar bit of gibberish: Evolution predicts any number of things, including genetic relatedness where morphological relatedness was inferred. Creationists once denied that this prediction was fulfilled, because they knew very well that if it were not, evolution would not be supported by the overall evidence. Tell me this, fuckwit: What are the chances that unrelated animals would have 95%+ similarity with humans? The chance is practically indistinguishable from zero.

James Bond wrote As well, our DNA is 92% similar to mice as well as 92% similar to zebrafish (Simmons PhD., Billions of Missing Links). So are we 92% mouse or are we 92% zebrafish? Our DNA is 70% similar to a fruit fly; So are we therefore 70% fruit fly? Our DNA is 75% similar to a worm; So are we 75% worm? No, of course not!! This type of reasoning is simple minded in its approach and clearly flawed in establishing a solid scientific foundation on which to draw valid inferences from!

James Bond wrote As well, our DNA is 92% similar to mice as well as 92% similar to zebrafish (Simmons PhD., Billions of Missing Links). So are we 92% mouse or are we 92% zebrafish? Our DNA is 70% similar to a fruit fly; So are we therefore 70% fruit fly? Our DNA is 75% similar to a worm; So are we 75% worm? No, of course not!! This type of reasoning is simple minded in its approach and clearly flawed in establishing a solid scientific foundation on which to draw valid inferences from!

James Bond wrote: Professional evolutionary biologists are hard-pressed to cite even one clear-cut example of evolution through a beneficial mutation to DNA that would violate the principle of genetic entropy. Although evolutionists try to claim the lactase persistence mutation as a lonely example of a beneficial mutation in humans, lactase persistence is actually a loss of a instruction in the genome to turn the lactase enzyme off, so the mutation clearly does not violate genetic entropy.

raven wrote: Those numbers don't look right. Looks like someone just made them up.

James Bond wrote: NO natural law based on blind chance, would have the wisdom to implement the multitude of precise modifications on the molecular level in order to effect a positive change from one species to another.

Only a "vastly superior intelligence" would have the wisdom to know exactly which amino acids in which proteins, which letters in the DNA code and exactly which repositioning of the 25 million nucleosomes (DNA spools) etc .. etc .. would need to be precisely modified to effect a positive change in a species.

For men to imagine blind chance has the inherently vast wisdom to create such stunning interrelated complexity is even more foolish than some pagan culture worshipping a stone statue as their god and creator.

Let me guess: Bond, Bev, and Collins are all one and the same troll.

George Cauldron wrote: Let me guess: Bond, Bev, and Collins are all one and the same troll.

Bond, James Bond--
I'd like to hear more about genetic entropy. Do you have a book out? If you do, how much does it cost? Was it published by a scholarly press? Do you sell it through university book stores? If not, do you sell it at religious book stores? Do you lecture on genetic entropy? If so, do you advertise your lectures at universities? Do you advertise them at churches? Have you ever had a minister bring his flock to hear you? Did you sell books or other written material? I'm just very interested in creationism and its history of fiscal development, so I'd really like to know.

Let me guess: Bond, Bev, and Collins are all one and the same troll.

— George Cauldron

hoary puccoon wrote: I'd like to hear more about genetic entropy.

I have been a long time lurker here at The Panda's Thumb. And it never ceases to amaze me how many times these trolls are allowed to spill their vile filth. I mean it's the same crap thats been discusses over and over, and yet the contributers seem to oblige any id/IDiot wiling to make an ass of themselves.

I suggest from here on out, if an I.D.'er, fundie, or christian don't have ANYTHING unique to say...just ignore them.

They obviously don't care about evidence, or truth!

cadbrowser wrote: I suggest from here on out, if an I.D.'er, fundie, or christian don't have ANYTHING unique to say...just ignore them.

J.Biggs,
Thanks. Wow, another "2nd Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evolution" argument. It's kinda like finding a new Lawrence Welk item at a garage sale, isn't it? Those suckers don't come along every day.

Give me a break, similarities are not scientific proof. It is the weakest proof available.

Well, so much for the "Life forms are like machines, therefore they're designed" argument. You just sank your own flagship, skippy.

Game, set, and match, Bee. Well played.

Raging Bee wrote: Well, so much for the "Life forms are like machines, therefore they're designed" argument. You just sank your own flagship, skippy.

Re "Thanks. Wow, another "2^nd Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evolution" argument."

Besides, if something as firmly supported by evidence as evolution did conflict with a law established in another branch of science, it'd be more likely that said "law" would be revised (or restricted as to what situations it applies) than that they'd discard the supported explanation. (Esp. if typing on a keyboard actually did violate it... ;) )

Henry

Actually, Henry, the 'hard' sciences have a long, sad history of sneering at evolutionary theory and getting egg on their faces when new data came in, confirming the evolutionists.
It started with the great comparative anatomist Richard Owen and included Lord Kelvin and even Erwin Schrodinger among the physicists. (Schrodinger didn't disbelieve evolution but he thought that cells were full of colloids, which would obey unknown laws of physics, instead of large but chemically normal molecules of protein and nucleaic acid.)
And, of course, the geologists laughed at all the fossil evidence showing the continents had moved around until oceanographers trying to map the ocean floor came up with completely unrelated evidence that, yes, the continents had moved around.
So, in fact, scientists haven't been any less skeptical about evolution than the modern creationists are. The only difference is, when the evidence has gone against the scientists, they've been willing to admit they're wrong.

They are screwed either way because if they admit that similarity matters then they have to admit that humans and chimps are much more similar to each other than are humans and things that are designed. If they say similarity is the "weakest proof available" then they sink their whole design analogy. Its a lose/lose situation, but I'm sure they're used to that by now.

— J. Biggs

... the 'hard' sciences have a long, sad history of sneering at evolutionary theory and getting egg on their faces when new data came in, confirming the evolutionists. It started with the great comparative anatomist Richard Owen and included Lord Kelvin and even Erwin Schrodinger among the physicists.

while Kelvin had ulterior religious motives

But to nuance the above slightly, while Kelvin had ulterior religious motives he wasn't a fundamentalist nor was he skeptical for no good reasons. At the time were was no better known mechanism for the suns heat than contraction of stellar bodies, which didn't gave enough time for the then known geology or evolution.

Most of puccoon's examples come from the old guard who had not come to terms with the "new paradigm" (I hate using such clicheed terms, but it actually fits in here).

Lord Kelvin was quite right to criticize the vague, uniformitarian idea that the earth had always existed. His estimate of the age of the earth was much too low, but not because of his religious views. He didn't know of any energy source that could supply the sun with fuel for billions of years. The discovery of atomic energy, of course, changed his viewpoint.
I doubt that many scientists after 1900 did disagree that evolution occurred. But when the implications of evolutionary theory contradicted the accepted 'paradigms' (sorry) in their own field, they almost invariably shrugged off the evolutionary perspective until they got whupped upside the head with some totally unexpected discovery that showed the evolutionary theorists were right, after all.
I'm not sure this was a bad thing, either. It certainly proves that evolution hasn't enjoyed any special aura of infallibility in the scientific community, as creationists like to claim.

Torbjörn Larsson:

Actually, from what I read, Schrödinger's Cat was an attempt of "reductio ad absurdum" - Schrödinger meant it to illustrate absurdities the Kopenhagen interpretation would lead to. I don't think he ever personally thought that the cat would be a non-observer - but according to some of interpretations back then, it would be.

Schrödinger meant it to illustrate absurdities the Kopenhagen [sic] interpretation would lead to.