[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Evolution is not as easily observable as gravitation. Macroevolution has even been never observed but only extrapolated.

In how many years was the earth created?

Replace the word "day" with the word "phase" in Genesis, and you can come to the interpretation that the earth was created in six phases, whose length of time can vary greatly.

From how many humans do we descend?

These arguments are completely meaningless. What you said made no sense at all.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

These arguments are completely meaningless. What you said made no sense at all.

I understood it. *shrug*

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I understood it. *shrug*

No surprise there.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Evolution is not as easily observable as gravitation. Macroevolution has even been never observed but only extrapolated.

I beg to differ. Read this which describes observable evolution happening within a few days. Gravity is also extrapolated. We don't know what it is. We only know what the effects of gravity are. We know what effect it has but we don't know what causes it which is quite similar in the case of evolution.

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

But regardless of what is observable or not, both, gravity and evolution, are enabled, forced and controlled by God, at least imho.

Fine, but I don't see why your faith requires you to deny evolution. Evolution doesn't explain how life was created. It only explains how life that already existed changed. By the same token, the Big Bang Theory doesn't explain where the matter that "banged" came from. It assumes it was there. What I'm saying is that in both these theories, there is room for God.

Hundreds of years ago when scientists started to say that the earth was not the centre of the universe, they were deemed heretics. Now it seems crazy to suggest that this theory was incompatible with religion.

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

In how many years was the earth created?

Not 6,000. This is how science works. A theory is proposed and then the theory is dismissed. Dismissing the theory doesn't always mean that you have to have an alternative theory. If you brought me a fully grown woman with wrinkled skin and greying hair, I might not be able to tell you whether she is 50 or 65 years old but I can certainly tell you that she's not 3 and a half. Let's say I can take one of her teeth and date it as being more than three years old. Similarly, I may not be able to conclusively prove that the earth is 4.5 billion years old (which is the age most scientists give to the earth) but I can prove it is not 6,000 years old because there are bits of the earth that are older than that.

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Replace the word "day" with the word "phase" in Genesis, and you can come to the interpretation that the earth was created in six phases, whose length of time can vary greatly.

As I said, it depends what kind of creationism we're talking about. But even using your theory, the Bible says that fish were created one "phase" before other animals and two "phases" before man. We can prove that this is not true.

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

From how many humans do we descend?

Again, not two. We can disprove that theory even if we can't say exactly how many humans we descend from. Certain genes would have to be present in all of us if we were all descended from the same two people and these are not present. Science suggests at least two different strains of human came into existence around the same time - one in Africa and one in Asia.

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

I agree, but unfortunately only a minority of teachers teach the children the concept of theory-development and instead propagate the idea that the current theories are the be all-end-all-truths.

Well, I think it is fair to say that evolution is far more a scientific truth than creationism is. I think we should be teaching kids that science is a collection of theories that might be wrong but it is dishonest, shortsighted and plain wrong to teach children that religious, philosophical propositions are on a par with science. For the same reason we shouldn't be giving the theory that the earth is the centre of the universe equal footing with the current theory of our solar system, creationism and evolution don't belong on the same footing.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

This is like saying a painting is good without giving credit to the painter.

Except the painting suddenly appeared and where don't know anything about its origins.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

No surprise there.

What is that supposed to mean?

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

Except the painting suddenly appeared and where don't know anything about its origins.

I am sorry, maybe I should have put more s

[Dakar²]

Jokey? Sorry, my bad.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

And you live in.... Germany. Not the US. How does it pertain to me in ANY WAY?

This is just getting obnoxious, and it doesn't even begin to address my post from which I made such a statement.

I'd start a thread saying Osama fell into a hole and you guys would argue if the hole was actually round or square, and if it's a square, should we really be calling it a hole!?

I went to an AMERICAN HIGH SCHOOL, using AMERICAN TEXTBOOKS. At least ****ing READ what I write.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

This is like saying a painting is good without giving credit to the painter.

Except that we have multiple painters trying to take credit ... including one claime that the painting isn't really a painting but rather a bunch of paint that happened to splash onto a canvas.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Troll 

Again, not two. We can disprove that theory even if we can't say exactly how many humans we descend from. Certain genes would have to be present in all of us if we were all descended from the same two people and these are not present. Science suggests at least two different strains of human came into existence around the same time - one in Africa and one in Asia.

Actually, not even the Bible tries to claim that we descended from only two people. When Cain departed, it's said he went off to the "people in the east" and married. So, obviously, there were other people around at the same time as Adam and Eve. They just weren't allowed to live in Eden. And, it would appear that at least some of the human race is descended from these people who weren't allowed in Eden, with the only insertion from Adam and Eve being Cain, a murderer.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

These arguments are completely meaningless. What you said made no sense at all.

How does a god explain the concept of "millions of years" to primitive humans?

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

How does a god explain the concept of "millions of years" to primitive humans?

WTF was he doing trying to explain the concept of eternal life to them if he wasn't able to explain the concept of millions of years?

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Troll 

I beg to differ. Read this which describes observable evolution happening within a few days. Gravity is also extrapolated. We don't know what it is. We only know what the effects of gravity are. We know what effect it has but we don't know what causes it which is quite similar in the case of evolution.

Exactly, and that was my point.

Your link only illustrates microevolution and not macroevolution.

Originally Posted by Troll 

Fine, but I don't see why your faith requires you to deny evolution. Evolution doesn't explain how life was created. It only explains how life that already existed changed. By the same token, the Big Bang Theory doesn't explain where the matter that "banged" came from. It assumes it was there. What I'm saying is that in both these theories, there is room for God.

My faith doesn't at all require me to deny evolution. Quite to the contrary, evolution is in my humble opinion a proof for God's constant work and action.

Originally Posted by Troll 

Hundreds of years ago when scientists started to say that the earth was not the centre of the universe, they were deemed heretics. Now it seems crazy to suggest that this theory was incompatible with religion.

I'm not sure I understand what argument you are expressing here. Could you rephrase it an elaborate a bit on it?

Originally Posted by Troll 

Not 6,000. This is how science works. A theory is proposed and then the theory is dismissed. Dismissing the theory doesn't always mean that you have to have an alternative theory. If you brought me a fully grown woman with wrinkled skin and greying hair, I might not be able to tell you whether she is 50 or 65 years old but I can certainly tell you that she's not 3 and a half. Let's say I can take one of her teeth and date it as being more than three years old. Similarly, I may not be able to conclusively prove that the earth is 4.5 billion years old (which is the age most scientists give to the earth) but I can prove it is not 6,000 years old because there are bits of the earth that are older than that.

You have not really understood my question, which had its context in what I replied to regarding your previous posting. You said: "...we have geological proof that the earth was not created in a week".

And I replied then and asked: In how many years was the earth created?

This is a different question than the one about how old the earth is.

Originally Posted by Troll 

As I said, it depends what kind of creationism we're talking about. But even using your theory, the Bible says that fish were created one "phase" before other animals and two "phases" before man. We can prove that this is not true.

Really? Weren't fish and animals existent before humans?

Originally Posted by Troll 

Again, not two. We can disprove that theory even if we can't say exactly how many humans we descend from. Certain genes would have to be present in all of us if we were all descended from the same two people and these are not present. Science suggests at least two different strains of human came into existence around the same time - one in Africa and one in Asia.

And why does this site say something differently: Global Gene Project to Trace Humanity's Migrations

, ie. that new (2005) DNA-studies show that all humans descended from a single african ancestor?

Originally Posted by Troll 

Well, I think it is fair to say that evolution is far more a scientific truth than creationism is. I think we should be teaching kids that science is a collection of theories that might be wrong but it is dishonest, shortsighted and plain wrong to teach children that religious, philosophical propositions are on a par with science. For the same reason we shouldn't be giving the theory that the earth is the centre of the universe equal footing with the current theory of our solar system, creationism and evolution don't belong on the same footing.

I agree completely, but I hope that teachers do indeed make clear what scientific theories are, namely models that approach reality best, until a better theory approaches reality better...

a sort of a journey to find the truth, and not the truth in itself.

Taliesin

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Exactly, and that was my point.

Your link only illustrates microevolution and not macroevolution.

Yeah guys, get it together! Microevolution is any type of evolution we can observe. Macroevolution is any type of evolution that can't be observed. Therefore by definition, "evolutionary theory" is a lie, since it depends on macroevolution, which can't be observed and is therefore false.

[analogika]

what?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

... by definition, "evolutionary theory" is a lie, since it depends on macroevolution, which can't be observed and is therefore false.

Or, rather, a theory. Just because something can't be observed doesn't mean it is necessarily false. Take God, for example.

Oh, and, evolutionary theory doesn't rely on macroevolution. Macroevolution is extrapolating over time large periods of time evolutionary theory developed from observable microevolution.

Extrapolating the origin of the human species through evolution requires macroevolution. This is a theory, not a "lie".

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Yeah guys, get it together! Microevolution is any type of evolution we can observe. Macroevolution is any type of evolution that can't be observed. Therefore by definition, "evolutionary theory" is a lie, since it depends on macroevolution, which can't be observed and is therefore false.

Comeon, do you need such hyperboles?

I think that the evolution-theory is a great theory and actually the best scientific theory about the development of life.

Nonetheless we have to be exact, and Troll posted a link where scientists could observe, in a time-frame of days, the evolution of bacteria, but the bacteria remained bacteria and didn't become another "species", and that's why it's microevolution, and not macroevolution.

Evolution illustrates imho much more the greatness of God's constant creations and actions, than the old view of God creating everything at a single time in a static form.

Taliesin

[Uncle Skeleton]

Actually, yes, the hyperbole is needed. Bacteria are not a species, they're a kingdom. That's right, not the lowest denomination of life, but actually, the highest, and it's the kingdom with the highest number of species in it to boot. So "bacteria remaining bacteria" is a pretty meaningless statement. New species of bacteria appear all the time.

Just for fun, why don't you describe an outcome (any outcome) of the above experiment that would have counted as "macroevolution?" Would the bacteria have to have evolved into multicellular organisms that already exist, or would they just have to evolve into multicellular organisms that are novel, in order to qualify as "macroevolution" in your book?

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Exactly, and that was my point.

Your link only illustrates microevolution and not macroevolution.

So do you think that micro-evolution exists but not macro-evolution? I don't understand how a creationist can reconcile micro-evolution with their religion but not macro-evolution.

Besides you seem to be making a mistake that a lot of creationists make by assuming that the synthetic theory of evolution is the theory of evolution. It isn't. The synthetic theory of evolution is one theory to explain why organisms demonstrably evolve. If it is wrong, that doesn't mean that evolution isn't happening. It just means the explanation for why and how it happens isn't correct.

The Uncle made the point about kingdoms better than I can.

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

I'm not sure I understand what argument you are expressing here. Could you rephrase it an elaborate a bit on it?

The fact that you've said that you don't think evolution is a threat to your faith really makes this a moot point. I agree with your take that evolution is not a threat but a lot of creationists do see it as a threat. They cannot reconcile evolution with their religious beliefs. The reason they want both the theory of evolution and the doctrine of creationism to be taught at the same time is because they think they are competing to explain the same thing. Which shows a complete lack of understanding for what the theory of evolution is.

That said, what I'm saying to those who feel that evolution challenges their religious beliefs is that at any point in time, religion has an explanation for something that conflicts with the scientific explanation and there are ways for the two to reconcile. As is evidenced by the fact that most Christians would today accept that the earth is not the centre of the Universe.

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

You have not really understood my question, which had its context in what I replied to regarding your previous posting. You said: "...we have geological proof that the earth was not created in a week".

And I replied then and asked: In how many years was the earth created?

Yes, sorry, I didn't read your question properly. I don't know that we have the answer to that. And I think it depends on what you consider as creation of the earth. The Bible implies that it went from nothing to an orb covered with sea and land and plant and animal life within 7 days. As you noted, this is clearly not true. 6 drawn out phases might have resulted in the earth but know that the earth is much older than homo sapiens is.

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Really? Weren't fish and animals existent before humans?

Humans are animals! We know that, for example, there were dinosaurs before there were certain kinds of fish. The Bible makes out as if the whole bang-shoot was there and then man was introduced. We can see through the fossil record that species came into existence and disappeared years before there is any record of man. Look at trilobite fossils for example. It's not like a week after the creation all of the animals were there waiting for man to step in and take dominium over them.

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

And why does this site say something differently: Global Gene Project to Trace Humanity's Migrations

I don't know. Perhaps because there are competing theories. What I've read is that the explanation that we're all descended from Africa isn't sustainable either genetically or technologically (in that there is no way African people could have got from Africa to Asia in the time required).

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

I agree completely, but I hope that teachers do indeed make clear what scientific theories are, namely models that approach reality best, until a better theory approaches reality better...

a sort of a journey to find the truth, and not the truth in itself.

Agreed. Stephen Hawking said something about there being a point where religion and science become one. Science will likely never be able to explain how something came from nothing. Something probably set off the chain of events that lead to the processes that we observe and try to attribute physical laws to. That's why I don't see why some religious people feel a tension between them and science. Irrespective of what theory you follow, science can't explain the very beginning and therefore can't seriously challenge faith. I feel like I'm preaching to the converted here though.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Just for fun, why don't you describe an outcome (any outcome) of the above experiment that would have counted as "macroevolution?" Would the bacteria have to have evolved into multicellular organisms that already exist, or would they just have to evolve into multicellular organisms that are novel, in order to qualify as "macroevolution" in your book?

I'm sick of arguing this crap, so here're my responses from an older thread. Check my last argument which covers most everything.

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...ligent-design/

[Uncle Skeleton]

You may be sick of it, but some of us enjoy it. I really got a kick out of "but they're still bacteria." That was priceless.

[Dakar²]

This debate needs to merge with global warming. Then this thread will be complete.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Link Between Global Warming And Evolution Revealed

We all know that evolution is nothing more than an elaborate hoax designed to trick people into going inside Planned Parenthoods, where they are brainwashed into having abortions. The above article implicates climate change as a back-door strategy to bolster evolution and with it the world-wide academia-elitist abortion conspiracy.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Actually, yes, the hyperbole is needed. Bacteria are not a species, they're a kingdom. That's right, not the lowest denomination of life, but actually, the highest, and it's the kingdom with the highest number of species in it to boot. So "bacteria remaining bacteria" is a pretty meaningless statement. New species of bacteria appear all the time.

Just for fun, why don't you describe an outcome (any outcome) of the above experiment that would have counted as "macroevolution?" Would the bacteria have to have evolved into multicellular organisms that already exist, or would they just have to evolve into multicellular organisms that are novel, in order to qualify as "macroevolution" in your book?

I don't know, I'm not a biologist and obviously not knowledgeable in the field. If what you say is right and the experiment really showed that macro-evolution is observable in a time of days, then so be it and Troll was more exact than me.

Like already said, I view evolution as God's constant action- and creation-process.

Taliesin

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

I don't know, I'm not a biologist

Hardly anybody who questions evolution does, or is.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Troll 

So do you think that micro-evolution exists but not macro-evolution? I don't understand how a creationist can reconcile micro-evolution with their religion but not macro-evolution.

Actually both, micro- and macroevolution can be reconciled with my faith. I merely thought that the experiment you linked to proved that micro-evolution was observed in a time of days. Uncle Skeleton though raised the point that the experiment with the bacteria showed that macroevolution was observeable in a timeframe of days, but since I'm not knowledgeable in the field of biology, I can't argue one way nor the other.

Point is all of evolution shows in my view God's constant action and creation-process.

Originally Posted by Troll 

Besides you seem to be making a mistake that a lot of creationists make by assuming that the synthetic theory of evolution is the theory of evolution. It isn't. The synthetic theory of evolution is one theory to explain why organisms demonstrably evolve. If it is wrong, that doesn't mean that evolution isn't happening. It just means the explanation for why and how it happens isn't correct.

I agree.

Originally Posted by Troll 

The Uncle made the point about kingdoms better than I can.
The fact that you've said that you don't think evolution is a threat to your faith really makes this a moot point. I agree with your take that evolution is not a threat but a lot of creationists do see it as a threat. They cannot reconcile evolution with their religious beliefs. The reason they want both the theory of evolution and the doctrine of creationism to be taught at the same time is because they think they are competing to explain the same thing. Which shows a complete lack of understanding for what the theory of evolution is.

I believe that evolution is occuring, but in contrast to most evolution-propagandists, I think that God is enabling, forcing and controlling all of the steps of evolution and not just acting as the starter at the beginning.

Originally Posted by Troll 

That said, what I'm saying to those who feel that evolution challenges their religious beliefs is that at any point in time, religion has an explanation for something that conflicts with the scientific explanation and there are ways for the two to reconcile.

I don't understand the sentence, or is some part missing?

Originally Posted by Troll 

As is evidenced by the fact that most Christians would today accept that the earth is not the centre of the Universe.

Why shouldn't they?

Originally Posted by Troll 

Yes, sorry, I didn't read your question properly. I don't know that we have the answer to that. And I think it depends on what you consider as creation of the earth. The Bible implies that it went from nothing to an orb covered with sea and land and plant and animal life within 7 days. As you noted, this is clearly not true. 6 drawn out phases might have resulted in the earth but know that the earth is much older than homo sapiens is.

Of course earth is much older than humans, there is much room for interpretation of holy scriptures. People from different ages and with different levels of knowledge can read the scriptures and come to different results. Problems only arise when a certain part of age and people turn their interpretation and reading into a fixed infallible doctrine.

Originally Posted by Troll 

Humans are animals! We know that, for example, there were dinosaurs before there were certain kinds of fish. The Bible makes out as if the whole bang-shoot was there and then man was introduced. We can see through the fossil record that species came into existence and disappeared years before there is any record of man. Look at trilobite fossils for example. It's not like a week after the creation all of the animals were there waiting for man to step in and take dominium over them. .

Like already said, much depends on the interpretation and reading of holy scriptures.

Of course dinosaurs existed way before humans, but I don't agree with your notion that humans are animals.

There seems to be a clear difference, not in the body but in the mind and spirit.

Originally Posted by Troll 

I don't know. Perhaps because there are competing theories. What I've read is that the explanation that we're all descended from Africa isn't sustainable either genetically or technologically (in that there is no way African people could have got from Africa to Asia in the time required).

The topic is far from settled, one year the theory that propagates two different strains of humans prevails, while the other year again the theory of the single ancestor will gain an edge. It's simply too early to make a judgment.

Originally Posted by Troll 

Agreed. Stephen Hawking said something about there being a point where religion and science become one. Science will likely never be able to explain how something came from nothing. Something probably set off the chain of events that lead to the processes that we observe and try to attribute physical laws to. That's why I don't see why some religious people feel a tension between them and science. Irrespective of what theory you follow, science can't explain the very beginning and therefore can't seriously challenge faith. I feel like I'm preaching to the converted here though.

Most scientists believe in a god that set everything off, but they don't believe that a god is necessary to continue the development from then on. I think that God set it off and continues to direct, enable and empower the development according to His plan, ie. I believe in God as a constantly creating and acting diety.

Taliesin

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

I believe that evolution is occuring, but in contrast to most evolution-propagandists, I think that God is enabling, forcing and controlling all of the steps of evolution and not just acting as the starter at the beginning.

That is completely irrelevant to the process of evolution, however. Evolution as a testament to the beauty of God's creation, or evolution as a mechanism completely without God - it doesn't change anything about the process.

Of course dinosaurs existed way before humans, but I don't agree with your notion that humans are animals.

There seems to be a clear difference, not in the body but in the mind and spirit.

Where is that difference, if it is so clear? Research indicates that it might fall somewhere between the great apes, dolphins/whales, and the "lesser" monkeys.

Koko the gorilla was able to learn a language and communicate intelligently.

Is she not an animal?

The distinction is completely arbitrary.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by analogika 

That is completely irrelevant to the process of evolution, however. Evolution as a testament to the beauty of God's creation, or evolution as a mechanism completely without God - it doesn't change anything about the process.

I agree completely.

Originally Posted by analogika 

Where is that difference, if it is so clear? Research indicates that it might fall somewhere between the great apes, dolphins/whales, and the "lesser" monkeys.

Koko the gorilla was able to learn a language and communicate intelligently.

Is she not an animal?

The distinction is completely arbitrary.

Where is the difference between a human and an animal? That's one of the most fascinating topics. Bodily there is surely no fundamental difference, so bodily viewed, we humans are just another animal, but I think there is more to humans than just body and instincts.

I think it's our spirit or if you are religious, our soul, that makes the difference.

To be more specific, the ability to abstract thinking, to selfawareness, to history-creation, memorising of history and communicating history is something that no other animal can do.

It's the one feature, that allowed us humans to develop tools, to use the tools to create other tools, and to use our knowledge and engineering to dominate the world, way beyond our bodily strength and ability.

Taliesin

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Koko the gorilla was able to learn a language and communicate intelligently.

This is the gorilla that calls humans "nipple"? When my dog is hungry, she'll push her food dish around. She's just like the pygmy chimp who is also intelligent.

Is she not an animal?

Pure animal, through and through, with sexual harassment lawsuits to boot. What I've learned from Koko is that if I dress in my gorilla costume, I could go through work grabbing nipples without recourse.

The distinction is completely arbitrary.

meh, not so much. 30 years of handling this animal in a scientific capacity, but where are all the peer-reviewed scientific publications?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Yeah guys, get it together! Microevolution is any type of evolution we can observe. Macroevolution is any type of evolution that can't be observed. Therefore by definition, "evolutionary theory" is a lie, since it depends on macroevolution, which can't be observed and is therefore false.

Forcing a bacteria to mutate doesn't create a new and unrelated bacterial species. By their nature bacterias, viruses and other pathogens have to adapt to survive. There's no real argument there.

With radiation, we can cause mutation as well. While that can create abrupt changes and adaptations as well, unless you believe the comic books, it's not going to turn someone say...from a man to a spider.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Hardly anybody who questions evolution does, or is.

To be fair, hardly anybody who questions Scientology is a member either, but that doesn't make it right.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Forcing a bacteria to mutate doesn't create a new and unrelated bacterial species. By their nature bacterias, viruses and other pathogens have to adapt to survive. There's no real argument there.

With radiation, we can cause mutation as well. While that can create abrupt changes and adaptations as well, unless you believe the comic books, it's not going to turn someone say...from a man to a spider.

Oh good, another rising star of ignorance. You're a perfect candidate to answer the second part of my post:

"Just for fun, why don't you describe an outcome (any outcome) of the above experiment that would have counted as "macroevolution?" Would the bacteria have to have evolved into multicellular organisms that already exist, or would they just have to evolve into multicellular organisms that are novel, in order to qualify as "macroevolution" in your book?"

I'm dying to hear your take on it.

PS. Nobody "forces" bacteria to mutate, they do it just fine on their own.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Actually both, micro- and macroevolution can be reconciled with my faith. I merely thought that the experiment you linked to proved that micro-evolution was observed in a time of days. Uncle Skeleton though raised the point that the experiment with the bacteria showed that macroevolution was observeable in a timeframe of days, but since I'm not knowledgeable in the field of biology, I can't argue one way nor the other.

The distinction between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" is more political than scientific. Evolution is evolution.

The thing about "Well, it didn't turn into a spider!" is missing the point of evolution. When things mutate, they don't mutate fully formed into some set species. Their traits change, and when they change beyond a certain point, we call it a new species.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Troll 

I don't know. Perhaps because there are competing theories. What I've read is that the explanation that we're all descended from Africa isn't sustainable either genetically or technologically (in that there is no way African people could have got from Africa to Asia in the time required).

This is not what I've read. I've read that the Cro-Magnum spread out from Africa in a successive series of "waves," slowly displacing the Neanderthal in Europe and moving East as well. I don't see any problem with them spreading into Asia – on the evolutionary scale, a few thousand years is absolutely nothing, and that's a perfectly reasonable time scale to move across the globe.

The idea that two separate species of "human" arose concurrently tests my limit of the believability of evolution, to be honest.

Originally Posted by Taliesin

I think it's our spirit or if you are religious, our soul, that makes the difference.

To be more specific, the ability to abstract thinking, to selfawareness, to history-creation, memorising of history and communicating history is something that no other animal can do.

I get the feeling that this quote is fueled at least slightly by an incomplete knowledge of the subject. There is amply evidence that higher-order mammals do indeed have a rudimentary self-awareness (it has been proven with apes and more or less with elephants). Furthermore, the idea that animals do not have a sense of history or history-creation doesn't really make sense in the context of their species' niche. Animals communicate what types of food are best, what things are dangerous, what things are good, etc. etc....and furthermore, this "history-creation" is readily adaptable based on environmental circumstances.

To take it into a controversial area, there are higher-order mammals (specifically, the bonobo ape) that regularly have sex for "fun," and regularly practice homosexuality (eg. females will manually pleasure other females). What does this suggest for the rather commonly-heard theory that homosexuality is a human "sin"?

greg

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

To be fair, hardly anybody who questions Scientology is a member either, but that doesn't make it right.

There is absolutely no reason NOT to be critical of Scientology. It's a business worthy of public scrutiny.

Different thread, though.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

The distinction between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" is more political than scientific. Evolution is evolution.

I think that the terms are sometimes used in scientific literature, but only as vague descriptions, not technical categories. Like in the early days of microscopy, "microscopic" was used simply to inform the listener that the thing you're talking about is very small. Like "microevolution," "microscopic" does not imply a qualitative separation between things, other than the arbitrary resolution of human vision. I would go so far as to say that most people who argue against evolution use the term "microevolution" simply to mean "microscopic." They just think that anything that can't be seen without a microscope is irrelevant.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I've read that the Cro-Magnum spread out from Africa...

Just for the benefit of readers who wish to follow this up (not to criticize), the term is Cro-Magnon. Funny mistake though.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by analogika 

There is absolutely no reason NOT to be critical of Scientology. It's a business worthy of public scrutiny.

Agreed, and in fact a major difference between it and science is that science welcomes public scrutiny and is very open with all its findings. On the other hand, hearing nonsensical criticism from people who don't understand the science is the price we pay for that openness. Be careful what you wish for.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Most scientists believe in a god that set everything off, but they don't believe that a god is necessary to continue the development from then on.

Absolutely not. While some scientists can indeed be deists (ie, not believing in a personal god, but not discounting that a "force" set everything off), only about 40% of scientists (and 10% of "eminent scientists") believe in a personal god.

Beliefs among scientists
In one study, 90% of the general population surveyed professed a distinct belief in a personal god and afterlife, while only 40% of the scientists with a BS surveyed did so, and only 10% of those considered "eminent."[2] A recent study in 2005 (the first of its kind in 20 years) by Rice university professor has shone considerable light on scientists religious beliefs [3]. The study concluded that 38% of natural scientists said they do not believe in God. The study consisted of 1,646 faculty at elite-research universities.

A 1998 survey[3] by Larson and Witham of the 517 members of the United States National Academy of Sciences showed that 72.2% of the members expressed "personal disbelief" in a personal God while 20.8% expressed "doubt or agnosticism" and only 7.0% expressed "personal belief". This was a follow-up to their own earlier 1996 study[4] which itself was a follow-up to a 1916 study by James Leuba[5]. These studies have been somewhat criticized by a number of different groups, not necessarily religious. This is as a result of the fact that the study was by mail and received a return rate of 50%.

Sources

[Uncle Skeleton]

These studies have been somewhat criticized by a number of different groups, not necessarily religious. This is as a result of the fact that the study was by mail and received a return rate of 50%.

Oh god
(pun intended)

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Oh god
(pun intended)

They were referring to the USNAS study only, but as you may well be aware of, a 50% return rate is more than statistically significant .

[Uncle Skeleton]

50% as a random sampling is more than enough. I'm not the slightest bit convinced that a mail-in questionaire about religion will receive a random sampling of responses.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Just for the benefit of readers who wish to follow this up (not to criticize), the term is Cro-Magnon. Funny mistake though.

Brainfart

greg

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

50% as a random sampling is more than enough. I'm not the slightest bit convinced that a mail-in questionaire about religion will receive a random sampling of responses.

I agree. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that most often they're only getting the most opinionated, not necessarily the most diverse.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

50% as a random sampling is more than enough. I'm not the slightest bit convinced that a mail-in questionaire about religion will receive a random sampling of responses.

If anything wouldn't it favour the ones who were passionate about their religion?

[- - e r i k - -]

In any case, the first unbiased study is more than enough to prove my point: Most scientists are not religious.

[el chupacabra]

Evolution
Proof with human induced selection:

From cute



To stupid



To stupid 'er

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

If anything wouldn't it favour the ones who were passionate about their religion?

I'd imagine you'd have those, plus those passionately opposed to that religion.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Oh good, another rising star of ignorance. You're a perfect candidate to answer the second part of my post:

Thanks but no thanks.

It's clear from your opening volley that you have no intention of having a civil dialog.

Go find someone else to bully into believing your point of view. It's obvious that you don't think you can do it on your intellect alone.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

If anything wouldn't it favour the ones who were passionate about their religion?

Or favour those that are eager to talk (or debate) about their religion. Those scientists that hold their beliefs personally and sincerely may be loathe to have those beliefs reduced to the subject of so much sociological and political fodder, as if it were no more significant than the yeasts and gerbils of their daily experiments. From my personal experience, those those who are of faith are generally reluctant to have their faith dissected by those who aren't, and those who are eager for it are generally the ones who are more interested in proving themselves right (in their choice of faith) than in following that faith. And those who believe against all faiths, and hold those who are of faith in lower regard because of it, are the most eager of all. Generally, of course.

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

In any case, the first unbiased study is more than enough to prove my point: Most scientists are not religious.

Well the wikipedia can-of-worms aside, the first unbiased study cited Scientific American (not a peer reviewed journal) as its source, and the one after it (which does not exactly support your thesis: "About two-thirds of scientists believe in God" is it's opening line) cited "LiveScience Strange News," whatever that is. Color me unimpressed, and I haven't even gotten to their methods (which of course I can't, because the citations are inadequate).