Tonight I realized what would happen if for some peculiar reason evolution theory would be forgotten totally. The results would be catastrophic, eventually. Who cares how evolution happens, all you need to know at this point that it does, this issue isn't exactly about that. Of course in a perfect world everyone knows the basic principles how evolution works, right?

Too bad that they don't.

Pesticide resistant pests, like the malaria mosquito resistant to DDT might be considered as a proof that evolution works. The same case is antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria, multiple -drug resistant hospital superbacteria in all around the world and antibiotic resistant tuberculosis strains are all worrying examples of evolution taking place.

These examples are not only proof that evolution theory works.

They're also examples of what happens when people are not aware of adaptation in successive generations; that evolution takes place. Just to think of all the ignorant normal people pumping those antibiotics in their bodies or down the drains and the equally ingorant doctors who prescribe these antibiotics for every minor malady. To think of all the good willing farmers
pumping those herbi-/fungi-/pesticides into their fields. Thinking of these people is somewhat frightening: how short-sighted can people really be!

If you want to get rid of a biological nuicance or threat, make sure you exterminate every single reproductive one of them. This, of course, is close enough to be totally impossible. So different solutions should be discovered, and discovering these solutions should be encouraged. Tougher poisons won't work, they'll only kill other, useful living things as well, and eventually they'll take their toll on human lives. This already happens, but the lives are of those with the value of slave labour.

Every school taking ID in their curricula ensure that more ignorant generations of humans will be spawned into this world. Every school doing this ensures that humankind is further way on the road to greater misery. Not only for the sake of the nature and every living, sentient being should the teaching of ID be stopped, but first and foremost for the sake of every single human, healthy or not, old or young. ID should be forgotten for the sake of yourselves, if not for the sake of others.

Thank you

Every school taking ID in their curricula ensure that more ignorant generations of humans will be spawned into this world. Every school doing this ensures that humankind is further way on the road to greater misery. Not only for the sake of the nature and every living, sentient being should the teaching of ID be stopped, but first and foremost for the sake of every single human, healthy or not, old or young. ID should be forgotten for the sake of yourselves, if not for the sake of others Wondeful! Absolutely awesome. Intelligent Design is just presenting Creationism in another way. It should not be taught in schools (unless, of course, the school is specifically religious), and evolution should not stop being taught.

ID is essentially trying to explain everything that we haven't figured out yet by saying "it is too complex for us to figure out because some greater being made it so." Not even one bit of proof, whereas evolution is evident. I agree completely.

I see one major flaw in your thesis. I believe the ID crowd is stating that something started everything, I don't believe they are saying that that something created everything. Who is to say evolution didn't start afterwards. It is like counting; once you get past the number one it takes off on its own, but who created the number one?

Surely there will be those, yes. My argument would be on a safer basis if all the people against evolution theory would be just regular fundamentalists. This, I think, is the very reason why they came up with 'Intelligent Design'.

But how many steps away is a person thinking that Intelligent Design is a sound theory from a religious fundamentalist? How many steps away is a religious fundamentalist from a religious fanatic? How many people believing in intelligent design would say that Bible's Genesis is simply not true and start talking about UFO's and civilizations in galaxies far far away?

There might be a few, I admit, but the discussion about what the people believing in ID are like is a different discussion.

This is about the consecuences what happens when people get the message, that evolution theory is not true.

Every single detail doesn't mean anything to the regular farmer or doctor. But they will understand the message from 'respectable' authorities in schools and universities that evolution theory is false.

By making such big noise in the matter about the origin of life, they dangerously distract people from matters that are important whether you are of any faith, a religious person or not. Good people will suffer as much as the bad, and the innocent will suffer even more. This cannot be in the interest of any person believing in justice, righteousness and compassion; believing that what they do is good. If this should however be the case, then they are seriously misled and blinded in error.

edit: noticed an 'are' and a 'like' that were missing and added these

[ December 07, 2005, 05:24: Message edited by: Ichor ]

I believe the ID crowd is stating that something started everything...No, the idea of ID is a counter to evolution, nothing else.

Who is to say evolution didn't start afterwards.Evolution DID start afterwards; evolution makes absolutely NO claims about abiogenesis.

I might have missed something, but what does "ID" stand for in this context? Something to do with being anti-evolution, I assume.

Intelligent Design... Where have you been, under a rock? ;)

They're also examples of what happens when people are not aware of adaptation in successive generations; that evolution takes place. Just to think of all the ignorant normal people pumping those antibiotics in their bodies or down the drains and the equally ingorant doctors who prescribe these antibiotics for every minor malady. To think of all the good willing farmers
pumping those herbi-/fungi-/pesticides into their fields. Thinking of these people is somewhat frightening: how short-sighted can people really be!This doesn't come from the ID crowd, but scientists that should know that this is going to happen.

Every school taking ID in their curricula ensure that more ignorant generations of humans will be spawned into this world. Every school doing this ensures that humankind is further way on the road to greater misery.I could say the same for every ruling that prohibits prayer in school and teaching religion to school children. The people here at BoM and AoDA wouldn't let me have that so I, by their same logic, say no dice to those claims.

Not only for the sake of the nature and every living, sentient being should the teaching of ID be stopped, but first and foremost for the sake of every single human, healthy or not, old or young. ID should be forgotten for the sake of yourselves, if not for the sake of others.Until the theory of Evolution is clarified, then perhaps it ought to be similarly scrapped. The complaints you make stem not from ID, but from people who ought to know better showing a poor understanding of the Science they've been taught.

I believe the ID crowd is stating that something started everything, I don't believe they are saying that that something created everything. Who is to say evolution didn't start afterwards. It is like counting; once you get past the number one it takes off on its own, but who created the number one? Thank you. Who is to say that the two are mutually exclusive?

My argument would be on a safer basis if all the people against evolution theory would be just regular fundamentalists. This, I think, is the very reason why they came up with 'Intelligent Design'.That's an assumption I will not grant. When you assume, you make an ass out of you and me. I don't need any help making an ass out of myself...

This is about the consecuences what happens when people get the message, that evolution theory is not true.My complaint is simply that the theory is not quite accurate. That's where the ID crowd comes in. The evidence presented is sketchy, and for those of religious persuasion, it contradicts that which they've been taught...

By making such big noise in the matter about the origin of life, they dangerously distract people from matters that are important whether you are of any faith, a religious person or not.Then maybe people pushing these theories ought to examine possibilities that don't contradict each other. I've tried on more than one occasion to find such middle ground, but eventually, what religion teaches is expected to be cast aside infavour of science. As long as that is in place, then this issue will not go away.

No, the idea of ID is a counter to evolution, nothing else.There has to be more to ID than simply "Evolution is bull****".

Evolution DID start afterwards; evolution makes absolutely NO claims about abiogenesis.So you suggest that the disagreement is on where that start point is? Basically, Religion claims that Man was formed from the dust, by the hand of God. Evolution teaches that Man was born to a more primitive primates. As long as that arguement ensues, there will be opposition to Evolution.

But let us assume that there is a designer, and that Genesis, chapter 1 is more or less correct. From there, through genetic diversity, the process of evolution occured, under the guidance of God.

God serves as the designer for ID, and it accounts for the observations that Darwin made.

Until the theory of Evolution is clarified, then perhaps it ought to be similarly scrapped. The complaints you make stem not from ID, but from people who ought to know better showing a poor understanding of the Science they've been taughtBut ID was formed without proof, just to say what religion says, but without the word "God" in it. Evolution has proof, ID does not. That is why Evolution should not be 'similarly scrapped.' They are not similar at all, and thus should be treated differently.

From there, through genetic diversity, the process of evolution occured, under the guidance of God But I thought God created everything as it is right now? (According to the Bible, at least). So if God helped evolution, then he would be contradicting what his little disciples wrote about him.

This doesn't come from the ID crowd, but scientists that should know that this is going to happen.As you might know, science is self-correcting, but not every single hypothesis is uniformly accepted. Scientists, as well as everybody else have found out that pesticide/antibiotic resistant strains are have come into existence. Evolution theory predicts such occurences.

I could say the same for every ruling that prohibits prayer in school and teaching religion to school children.On what basis?

what religion teaches is expected to be cast aside infavour of scienceSo, what does religion teach of the nature of living things that surround us?

Evolution teaches that Man was born to a more primitive primates. As long as that arguement ensues, there will be opposition to Evolution.

But let us assume that there is a designer, and that Genesis, chapter 1 is more or less correct. From there, through genetic diversity, the process of evolution occured, under the guidance of God.How much more or less? And what happens if we assume? Should we make more assumptions? Were would these assumptions take us?

I have no arguments in who or what or when the beginning of life happened. But when people start making claims that the theory of evolution is not correct, it gives the wrong message, for it is understood the wrong way. Who gives a damn if we'd be apes or not, if it doesn't improve the condition of the suffering.

But ID was formed without proof, just to say what religion says, but without the word "God" in it. Evolution has proof, ID does not. That is why Evolution should not be 'similarly scrapped.' They are not similar at all, and thus should be treated differently.But the problem is that people would reject it straight up if the name of God was included. That's the problem. My beef is not that God's words are not heard, but that these scientists rushed a theory out without full understanding or it and those in the public have latched onto it and used it to attack religion.

But I thought God created everything as it is right now? (According to the Bible, at least). So if God helped evolution, then he would be contradicting what his little disciples wrote about him. There were only 2 dogs in the garden of Eden (or Noah's Arc for that matter). How many breeds of dogs are there now? I didn't come right out and deny evolution. Darwin did observe something, but I don't accept all the conclusions that were made.

"Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence."
Source: http://www.arn.org/idfaq/What%20is%20intelligent%20design.htm

That is IT. ID goes no further than that.
Since humans have an opposable thumb which clearly allows us to grip items, it has to be the work of an intelligent designer and not a case that various species of mammals consequtively developed an opposable thumb from it being just another finger via evolution. :rolleyes:

Seeds, plants, trees, fruits, vegetables, incests, mice, monkeys, humans, etc. were created as is. Any minor changes henceforth; like why humans continue to carry an appendix, which is only useful in herbivores; why asians are physically different from europeans or africans are to be proved by the Darwin proposed theory of evolution.

They do not refute evolution. They cannot.
However the one thing that evolution can only surmise, and not actively demonstrate on account of the shortness of human life as compared to the pace of change via evolution, ie. the creation of completely new species, wether from an already existing species or not, is sought to be appropriated by ID.

In other news: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/weekinreview/04good.html

@Gnaff
Next time you are going to leap out of a building do invite me and my camcorder, since the theory of gravity is ... just that, a theory.

The ideas put out in ID are not irresponsible -- ideas and beliefs cannot be irresponsible. It is the people who use these ideas in their own personal agenda that are irresponsible.

The basic premise of ID is a reasonable one -- evolution works, it just needs a push now and then to get the right final product. The idea behind ID is an interesting blend of science and traditional religious belief. Some people go overboard with it (just as some people believe in the religion of evolution and go overboard with that).

However, religion -- be it Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, ID or evolution -- does not belong in a public school classroom (private school can do whatever they wish). Evolution needs to be taught (the basic scientific fundamentals) but not the religion of evolution.

Next time you are going to leap out of a building do invite me and my camcorder, since the theory of gravity is ... just that, a theory. That would be 'Intelligent Falling' :lol:

There has to be more to ID than simply "Evolution is bull****".Actually, not really. Its genesis was as a reaction to evolutionary claims that ran counter to certain people's religious beliefs. Since evolution is taught to their children, they needed to come up with something to counter it. Creationism didn't work for them on the grounds that religion should not be taught in science classes, so they changed tack and cloaked creationism under the scientific-sounding Intelligent Design. The claims of ID are merely to point out very specific structures and claim that "The Darwinists" can't tell us how evolution could have led to such a result, so by default something intelligent must have designed it that way. Unfortunately for the proponents of ID, every structure they have so far pointed out as having to be designed has been shown to be possible through evolutionary means.

So you suggest that the disagreement is on where that start point is?No, I didn't make that claim; I actually countered such a claim.

God serves as the designer for ID, and it accounts for the observations that Darwin made.It can account for any observations, which makes it essentially useless as a scientific tool.

They do not refute evolution. They cannot.Just because they can't doesn't mean they won't try. And because the evidence for evolution can be very deep requiring specialized knowledge and training, it's easy to pull the wool over the layman's eyes with logical-sounding explanations.
However the one thing that evolution can only surmise, and not actively demonstrate on account of the shortness of human life as compared to the pace of change via evolution, ie. the creation of completely new species, wether from an already existing species or not, is sought to be appropriated by ID.Incorrect; there are many documented cases of speciation in nature as well as in the lab.

The idea behind ID is an interesting blend of science and traditional religious belief. Some people go overboard with it (just as some people believe in the religion of evolution and go overboard with that).That's really not it. The ones who are "going overboard" are the ones who started the movement. It may be true that some people think of ID as what you describe, but that is not what the creators and backers of ID are pushing.

ID is not a scientific/religious blend: it is trying to explain what evolution hasn't yet by giving religious reasons without using Christian-specific words.

... these scientists rushed a theory out without full understanding or it ... I must take umbrage with such a statement. Normally, my good sense tells me not to argue with people who support ID instead of evolution as it doesn't do any good. But I can't let a statement such as this go by unchallenged.

When talking about evolutionary theory, it is impossible to separate it from the field of genetics. Both evolutionary theory and genetics got their start about 150 years ago, and have been extensively studied for about the last 100 years. In the past 50 years, detailed experiments by Miller, Watson and Crick have even provided mechanisms for tranfer of genes into subsequent generations, and how life may have got a start on the planet through originally abiotic means. There is nothing about either field that has been "rushed" in any way, shape or form.

In fact, given the conservative nature of science, most new ideas take a really long time to gain momentum. Sorry, but a concept that has been around for 6 generation, a study that has been around for 4 generations, and a detailed scientific understanding that has been around for 2 generations cannot be considered "rushed".

@Aldeth:
I think he was talking about ID. Though I can understand your confusion when he referred to scientists and not theologians(sp?). :heh:

Didn't we already shoot down ID before? Why the renewed interest?

It may be true that some people think of ID as what you describe, but that is not what the creators and backers of ID are pushing. The websites I've seen are fairly recent. The idea behind ID has been around for a very long time (at least 40 years from the writings I've seen, perhaps even further back). It wasn't called intellegent design but it was around. And it was an attempt for the scientific faithful to come to blend knowledge and faith. Other whack jobs have come along since then and perverted it for their own purposes. I would not call them the creators of ID -- pushers, yes.

And I don't believe in ID, either.

[ December 07, 2005, 22:02: Message edited by: T2Bruno ]

Ah, OK then. Intelligent Design (with the caps) is a specific concept, not just the idea that there was an intelligent designer. I have no problem with people who believe there is/was an intelligent designer; it's the specific ID (caps :) ) concept that is being pushed as a scientific theory that I have a problem with.

EDIT: Felinoid - If you look at the context for the statement, you can see he was talking about evolution and not ID. But we already know from previous threads that Gnarff knows next to nothing about evolution and really doesn't want to know about it.

One has to look at the root of the ID "movement" to see their true agenda.

That agenda is that evolution promotes atheism, which promotes lawlessness and imorality in our youth. To teach kids that they are merely pond scum; a cosmic accident is to give them a license to steal, rape, murder, etc. because hey, you're just an ape with slightly less body hair so why not behave like one?

Whether this is true or not seems beside the point for creationists; what matters is that we must maintain a belief system -- even if it's based on myth -- that promotes a well-heeled, civilized nation of upstanding citizens.

Maybe they've got a point? But to me evolution is much like Gallileo's heliocentricism: it's not the most pleasant discovery to make about the universe but it's true nonetheless.

Creationists tend to get laughed off of CNN if they go on there talking about the Earth being but 6,000 years old and Adam having a pet dinosaur, etc. So some nerdy scientist from Pennsylvania says "hey, maybe there was some 'intelligence' that started everything" and the nutty creationists see it as a door; an opening to get their agenda into public schools without getting laughed at.

But we already know from previous threads that Gnarff knows next to nothing about evolution and really doesn't want to know about itSo then Gnarff shouldn't make statements such as the ones Adelth commented on, just as I am not fit to make comments about religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism, which I know nothing about (becuase I forgot it all :( ).


...Right?

Well, he has his opinions based on the little he does know, and strong religious beliefs, so...

As you might know, science is self-correcting, but not every single hypothesis is uniformly accepted. Scientists, as well as everybody else have found out that pesticide/antibiotic resistant strains are have come into existence. Evolution theory predicts such occurences.So for Science to be self-correcting, it has to make mistakes. What you are complaining about is a mistake of science, not the results of ID.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I could say the same for every ruling that prohibits prayer in school and teaching religion to school children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On what basis?
On the basis that when religious teaching isa rejected, it's opposite is embraced. Therefore you get apathy towards your fellow man and a perceived liscence to lie, cheat, steal, screw and kill at whim. Th ere's no direct evidence to say that, but there's just as much evidence that says ID leads to people becoming morons.

So, what does religion teach of the nature of living things that surround us?Religion teaches of Creation, which is the start point. Science needs to pick up from that point, as opposed to trying to re-write that start point.

I have no arguments in who or what or when the beginning of life happened. But when people start making claims that the theory of evolution is not correct, it gives the wrong message, for it is understood the wrong way. Who gives a damn if we'd be apes or not, if it doesn't improve the condition of the suffering.First, many of us who are of religious faith choose to believe in God, who created us in his image. As long as you have people telling us that is bull**** without adequate proof (none has yet been provided), then we will insist that your theory go back to the drawing board...

Since humans have an opposable thumb which clearly allows us to grip items, it has to be the work of an intelligent designer and not a case that various species of mammals consequtively developed an opposable thumb from it being just another finger via evolution.So you have Genesis as your start point, and the same God that created the Heavens and the Earth would also be guiding Evolution as opposed to sheer random chance. You don't get a card house by throwing all the cards int he air, but by carefully placing them.

Next time you are going to leap out of a building do invite me and my camcorder, since the theory of gravity is ... just that, a theory.Actually, Aldeth corrected me on that one in a prior thread. I thought that Gravity was a law. I'll hold the Camcorder while you Gravity is only a theory folks jump out of a window...

The basic premise of ID is a reasonable one -- evolution works, it just needs a push now and then to get the right final product. The idea behind ID is an interesting blend of science and traditional religious belief. Some people go overboard with it (just as some people believe in the religion of evolution and go overboard with that).So the objection to Intelligent design is that they don't like the idea of an Intelligent designer?

Unfortunately for the proponents of ID, every structure they have so far pointed out as having to be designed has been shown to be possible through evolutionary means.You don't build a house without Hammer and Nails. Could Evolution be the means by which the Designer affects the needed changes?

When talking about evolutionary theory, it is impossible to separate it from the field of genetics. Both evolutionary theory and genetics got their start about 150 years ago, and have been extensively studied for about the last 100 years. In the past 50 years, detailed experiments by Miller, Watson and Crick have even provided mechanisms for tranfer of genes into subsequent generations, and how life may have got a start on the planet through originally abiotic means. There is nothing about either field that has been "rushed" in any way, shape or form.So where do the claims of Humans decended from primates? The more controversial points are what I am claiming were rushed.

Didn't we already shoot down ID before? Why the renewed interest?Because someone else started up the ID people are stupid morons Spiel.

But we already know from previous threads that Gnarff knows next to nothing about evolution and really doesn't want to know about it.I know what people try to tell me about it. I tune out the religion is bull**** part.

One has to look at the root of the ID "movement" to see their true agenda.

That agenda is that evolution promotes atheism, which promotes lawlessness and imorality in our youth. To teach kids that they are merely pond scum; a cosmic accident is to give them a license to steal, rape, murder, etc. because hey, you're just an ape with slightly less body hair so why not behave like one?Finally, someone that sees humanity as more than just an animal. This is perhaps the biggest concern I have--when Evolution attacks creationism, it also attacks the rest of religious teachings, ultimately leading to an attack on morals.

Creationists tend to get laughed off of CNN if they go on there talking about the Earth being but 6,000 years old and Adam having a pet dinosaur, etc. So some nerdy scientist from Pennsylvania says "hey, maybe there was some 'intelligence' that started everything" and the nutty creationists see it as a door; an opening to get their agenda into public schools without getting laughed at.Why must they be labeled as religious nuts? Because they actually believe that man is more than just an animal?

So then Gnarff shouldn't make statements such as the ones Adelth commented on, just as I am not fit to make comments about religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism, which I know nothing aboutYou know what people tell you about these things. And when you base your opinions off things that they screw up, then you get what I see. Perhaps the better charge is that people rush to make conclusions that aren't supported by the actual research, thus spreading the things I seem to know and believe that leave Aldeth shaking his head.

The same thing has happened to Religion--people without authority to address the doctrine changing it to suit their own ends to the point where few people really have any clue what it's really about beyond the basics...

You don't build a house without Hammer and Nails. Could Evolution be the means by which the Designer affects the needed changes?Of course, but that is not what the ID proponents are saying. As I have said, ID is an objection to evolution, so its proponents try to point out how evolution does not/can not explain what is found in nature. They have no interest in trying to reconcile religion and evolution since they believe it is irreconcilable, so they attempt to show that evolution is wrong, and have been failing miserably. And that is why I do not want to see ID taught as science: It is basically anti-science.

Perhaps the better charge is that people rush to make conclusions that aren't supported by the actual research, thus spreading the things I seem to know and believe that leave Aldeth shaking his head. * me shakes me head * :toofar:

I have long since given up any pretext of attempting to bring enlightenment upon the strong supporters of ID. It is an exercise in futility :bang: I think I do this more for my own personal mental health than anything else.

I cannot deny that there are scientists over the past 100 or some odd years that have erroneously jumped to conclusions about the evidence of evolution. I cannot give you specific named examples of such, because they are usually heckled by the entire scientific community, party because science demands that you don't rush major statements out the door, and party because we scientists do so ever enjoy heckling people for any reason. :D So their names are largely forgotten.

So where do the claims of Humans decended from primates? The more controversial points are what I am claiming were rushed. And any scientist that claims such is a freakin' moron. Really I mean that. Because no where does evolution state that man decended directly from any type of ape. What evolution does state is that it is likely that all primates descended from a common primate ancestor. Primates are not defined as being an ape, but rather as possessing an opposable thumb, and humans certainly have opposable thumbs, ergo we are primates.

That having been said, no one said it was a one step jump from "world's first primate" to man. To think such is total lunacy. It defies all logic. The problem is many proponents of ID think that is what evolution is saying. They find such a concept impossible to believe - which is good - because with the current understanding of evolution such a possibility IS IN FACT IMPOSSIBLE.

While a detailed language is a charactistic that is thought to be unique to humans, there are many other "human" features that are not unique to us. Modern humans are not the only species to ever exist on the planet that, for example, walked upright, used fire, or made basic wood and stone tools. Early man did all these things, but we certainly weren't the first. There were earlier versions of humans that possessed these things as well.

Gnarff, I'm going to speak in layman's terms here to try to convey my point. The current understanding of human evolution states that modern humans decended from a very human-like precursor. Consider it a "caveman" for lack of a better term. They walked upright, they hunted with wooden spears with stone tips, they cut the meat from their kills with stone axes, they used fire to keep warm, they lived in small close-knit communities in caves, and they buried their dead - just like modern humans. In many ways they were very much like us.

These caveman evolved from yet an earlier caveman, who also walked upright, knew how to use fire and make stone tools, and lived in small communities, although there is no evidence that they buried their dead.

These caveman evolved from yet an earlier precursor, and this is the first time you can look at what you have and say that it is more ape than human. They didn't make stone tools, they didn't use fire, about the only thing "human" about them was that they happened to walk upright.

So it's totally wrong to say humans evolved from apes. If you want to use the words "evolve", "modern human" and "ape" together in the same sentence, it is more proper to state that, "The precursors of the precursors of modern humans evolved from a somewhat ape-like ancenstor, and all of these species evolved ultimately from some very distant and ancient primate relative.

On the basis that when religious teaching is rejected, it's opposite is embraced. Therefore you get apathy towards your fellow man and a perceived liscence to lie, cheat, steal, screw and kill at whim. Why? I'm not religious, yet I feel no over-riding compunction (never mind perceived liscence) to lie, cheat, steal, screw and kill at whim. I also don't beat my wife, or use illicit drugs, or engage in any other type of societally-recognized self-destructive, violent, or otherwise taboo behavior. When you reject God, it does make you God-less and faithless, but it doesn't mean you're wallowing in the depths of every human depravity. *Aldeth presents himself to the jury as exhibit A*

There's no direct evidence to say that, but there's just as much evidence that says ID leads to people becoming morons.I've no desire to label any IDist a moron. They're beliefs are founded in faith, whereas mine are founded in science. While that may mean it is easier to make someone who is uninitiated in any religion or evolution more readily believe evolution than religion, it doesn't mean it's better.

As long as you have people telling us that is bull**** without adequate proof (none has yet been provided), then we will insist that your theory go back to the drawing board...Gnarff, there is a mountain of evidence in support of evolution. There is more than adequate proof. Some people will not believe any proof short of God coming down from heaven and holding a news conference explaining that he didn't make all the species and they all got here from evolution. I don't see that happening for some reason.

Insomuch as ID is anti-science, I firmly agree that it should not be taught in science classes if there is little scientific evidence to back it up.

That said, I do not believe that in science classes the leap should be made from the existence of evolution to the assertion that there is no God. I do not see the two as mutually exclulsive, though the way evolution is sometimes presented it seems they are.

There are many people, excellent scientists, who have found it possible to reconcile cold scientific fact and a belief in the Almighty.

Intelligent Design... Where have you been, under a rock? Never heard of the term before. Is that the latest buzzword for 'Creationism'?

Actually, reading more of these posts, I guess it is.

Man, you guys really get heated up about this, don't you? Why is evolution (of all the many scientific theories) such a big deal for you? Why not argue about gravity, or electricity, or the law of thermodynamics instead? Why evolution (or lack thereof?

here's more fuel for the fire... (http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/12/08/creationism.professor.ap/index.html)

That said, I do not believe that in science classes the leap should be made from the existence of evolution to the assertion that there is no God. I do not see the two as mutually exclulsive, though the way evolution is sometimes presented it seems they are. Agreed. Doing what you describe would be so hypocritical (of the scientists I mean).

Why is evolution (of all the many scientific theories) such a big deal for you? Why not argue about gravity, or electricity, or the law of thermodynamics instead? Why evolution (or lack thereof? I gotta move to New Zealand. That's exactly my point, and I don't know the answer HB. Evolution is just as firmly rooted in science as many of these other "theories" you describe.

I gotta move to New Zealand. Good thinking. I have never come across such heated debate on evolution ever arising here. At least not enough to ever actually make the newspapers.

Ok, evolution and religion, or at least Christianity, are not mutually exclusive. I've said this before, but if anyone wants me to clarify, just ask.
That said, ID and evolution are both attempts to explain observed phenomena. Evolution has some very large holes in it that they are still trying to fill, this is why no one talks about the 'law of evolution', though many would like to. ID looks at the same phenomena and sees a patern that they cannot explain through natural laws or trends. Their explanation of this is that an inteligent mind could have caused such patterns.
I think they should be presented side-by-side in high school.
These theories are mutually exclusive, but the teaching thereof is not.

Evolution has no large holes they are trying to fill, if by "holes" you mean things evolution cannot explain. Nobody talks about the "law of evloution", not because there is inadequate evidence, but because it is a complex and dynamic explanation. Laws are simple and concise explanations for singular actions. In the scientific community, generally both laws and theories are regarded as true.

ID and evolution should not be presented side by side because there is nothing to present with ID; it is completely vacuous.

To be perfectly honest, now that I think about it, I don't remember learning about either evolution OR god-created-everything when I was at school. Maybe my school was completely deficient in that respect.

At what age level are you guys debating this seemingly hot topic? Are we talking about 6 year olds or 16 year olds?

As far as I know, the first introduction to evolution would be in a high school Biology class... But I've been out of school for so long, it's possible that it's earlier these days.

Most people talk about this in high school, but there are a few waccos on both sides that want to indoctrinate kids as early as kindergarten.
Blackthorne:
??? Theories are regarded as true? In what fields? Since when? I can think of lots of theories many scientists will tell you are almost certainly false, most notably String Theory. The only thing that makes these things still theories is the fact that we can't prove they are false.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the basis that when religious teaching is rejected, it's opposite is embraced. Therefore you get apathy towards your fellow man and a perceived liscence to lie, cheat, steal, screw and kill at whim.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why? I'm not religious, yet I feel no over-riding compunction (never mind perceived liscence) to lie, cheat, steal, screw and kill at whim. I also don't beat my wife, or use illicit drugs, or engage in any other type of societally-recognized self-destructive, violent, or otherwise taboo behavior. When you reject God, it does make you God-less and faithless, but it doesn't mean you're wallowing in the depths of every human depravity. *Aldeth presents himself to the jury as exhibit A*
Complete agreement. I am an extreme atheist, and I have done none of these immoral acts.

That agenda is that evolution promotes atheism, which promotes lawlessness and imorality in our youth. To teach kids that they are merely pond scum; a cosmic accident is to give them a license to steal, rape, murder, etc. because hey, you're just an ape with slightly less body hair so why not behave like one? I don't see any atheists acting like apes. Teaching people that they "are merely pond scum" in no way, shape, or form, "give[s] them a license to steal, rape, murder, etc." Atheism is not lawlessness, it lack of faith, and in most cases, reason. Just because religions are moral doesn't mean the lack of religion is immoral.


So basically, I am with Adelth on this one.

Theories are regarded as true? In what fields? Since when? I can think of lots of theories many scientists will tell you are almost certainly false, most notably String Theory. The only thing that makes these things still theories is the fact that we can't prove they are false.As I have said many times before: Theories exist as long as they fit with the observed phenomena. "Truth" and "fact" in the scientific world are not absolutes since we do not have perfect knowledge of anything. Theories are the current best explanations for all currently observed phenomena. Sometimes there are many competing theories that explain the observations equally well; the less data there is, the more likely that will be. Each of them is as "true" as the other; until an observation is made that cannot be explained, a theory is "true". There are certainly differing confidence levels for theories that they will continue to hold true in the future, and that of course depends on how much data there is that the theory explains.

Evolution happens to explain so many observations from so many varying fields that there is NO OTHER theory competing with it. That populations evolve is fact; there is no question. How exactly it occurs, what are the dominant mechanisms, what are the relationships from one species to the next etc. are the questions that scientists are still researching.

But we are not discussing evolution here, we are discussing the merits (or lack thereof) of ID.

AFI: BUt couldn't many of those changes in the "Caveman" be the result of generations of learning as opposed to Genetic change? What I am asking is that it be considered possible that "homo sapiens" be accepted as part of a start point that was "created" by God. From there, evolution would make certain adjustmens, such as different skin colours, different breeds of animals and the like. As long as people seek to use evolution (I'm guessing you believe wrongfully) to discredit my faith, then no progress can be made.

Gnarff, there is a mountain of evidence in support of evolution. There is more than adequate proof.So then the problem must be inadequate knowledge. As long as people keep trying to tell me that Creation and evolution are mutually exclusive, guess which one is getting rejected...

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the basis that when religious teaching is rejected, it's opposite is embraced. Therefore you get apathy towards your fellow man and a perceived liscence to lie, cheat, steal, screw and kill at whim.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why? I'm not religious, yet I feel no over-riding compunction (never mind perceived liscence) to lie, cheat, steal, screw and kill at whim. I also don't beat my wife, or use illicit drugs, or engage in any other type of societally-recognized self-destructive, violent, or otherwise taboo behavior. When you reject God, it does make you God-less and faithless, but it doesn't mean you're wallowing in the depths of every human depravity. *Aldeth presents himself to the jury as exhibit A*
You and Saber (actually, most of the people here at SP) seem to be more intelligent than the mass rabble. The problem is that most people aren't that smart. Further, it's badly off topic, but I believe that morality is taught. Some how you two have learned that these things that you don't do are wrong. But many people don't reach that conclusion.

ID and evolution should not be presented side by side because there is nothing to present with ID; it is completely vacuous.Is it possible that ID sprung forth from the misconceptions about Evolution? Apparently many people have tried to claim that Evolution and Creation are mutually exclusive--which has been established in this thread to be incorrect. Could the Rush of support for ID be the result the more offensive of these inaccuracies?

The general perception is that ID is, at least currently, a thinly veiled front used by creationists to get something close to creationism into the science class instead of that nasty, seemingly atheistic, evolution nonsense. Unfortunately, most of the proponents of ID have no clue that evolution works perfectly fine with most mono- and poly- theistic religions. The only ones that have an actual doctrinal problem with evolution are the ones that insist on a literal reading of such things as the bible. (This has been discussed here enough times that I'm pretty sure no more need be said on that aspect of the topic.)

My personal opinion is that ID/creationism/god has no business being mentioned in a science class, as they have nothing to do with science.

@Gnarf
What do you think ID entails?

The theory of evolution tries to identify and define the natural manner/processes in which species are generated and evolve. There is no mention of God in here since God by definition is a supernatural being.
What does ID try to do? What are its definition, idea & goals? And please just don't link a site, I'd like to know what your understanding of the subject is.

First of all, I completely agree with BTA's explanation regarding scientific laws and theories. What NOG is explaining could more accurately by thought of as a "hypothesis", which is not assumed to be factual until it undergoes some pretty strict testing.

But couldn't many of those changes in the "Caveman" be the result of generations of learning as opposed to Genetic change? What I am asking is that it be considered possible that "homo sapiens" be accepted as part of a start point that was "created" by God. The problem that lies therein is that many of these "cavemen" that I described are not considered homo sapiens, because while the way these "cavemen" brains worked may have been pretty darn similar to ours, there are some pretty big physiological (and especially morphological) differences. I didn't want to get into the scientific names of them, but the two "human-like" ones are Homo habilis and Homo erectus. Note that the "Homo" part identifies them as hominids, indicating that they are pretty much humans, and not ape-like at all. If you go to the third group I listed, they are called (and I'm probably going to completely butcher the spelling) Austrapolopithicus afarensis. Note here that the first word is NOT Homo. This suggests that scientists regard these creatures as more ape than man.

As long as people seek to use evolution (I'm guessing you believe wrongfully) to discredit my faith, then no progress can be made. While I agree with the statement, I do believe this would be a wrongful use of evolution. I do not see how evolution discredits your faith unless you read the Bible as a completely literal telling of the facts. I have said before that the tales in the Bible probably have a kernel of truth to them, but they had to be "dumbed down" so the average uneducated peasant could understand them. Throughout the vast majority of human history, 99% of the populace was uneducated, so you couldn't expect them to grasp detailed concepts. The Bible had to be presented in such a way that these simple people (and I don't mean for that to be construed as an insult) could understand it.

... I believe that morality is taught. Some how you two have learned that these things that you don't do are wrong. But many people don't reach that conclusion.Sadly, I must also agree with this. I also will agree that morality is learned. We just aren't natuarally born as moral people. While I do not doubt that society should have some role in developing people's morality, I do not believe that teaching ID is a means to that end.

Is it possible that ID sprung forth from the misconceptions about Evolution? Could the Rush of support for ID be the result the more offensive of these inaccuracies? While I do not think that is the sole explanation, I think that definitely constitutes a good chunk of the problem. While people of the U.S. today are far more educated that the peasants of the past, most of them didn't take a whole lot of science classes in high school (beyond basic requirements), unless they intended to pursue some scientific discipline in life. The frustration from people in the evolution corner is if we actually do teach evolution as part of basic science, it's a concept many people would understand, or at least they would come away from it with something more than the false statement of "man evolved from apes".

EDIT: spelling and grammar

[ December 09, 2005, 17:46: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

As a non-religious atheist who accepts the Theory of Evolution as the best explanation we've come up with the origin of life, I can't understand how a religious theist -- especially a Christian -- could combine both evolution and their faith.

If God created life to evolve, then what a malevolent creature He must be! Evolution is all about survival of the fittest, eat-or-be-eaten, plague, draught, suffering, pain, etc. Perhaps those of us living in the developed world have gotten a bit too sheltered, but for many humans and essentially all other life forms on Earth, life is a constant, daily struggle to survive. What sort of sick god would create such a place and sit back and watch the last billion years of death and destruction?

Finally -- and most importantly -- if a Christian believes that humans evolved from some primate 7 million years ago that climbed down from a tree, what was Jesus' purpose for dying on the cross? Why do we live in such a world of suffering? What was the point of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross if not to save us from the Original Sin of Adam and Eve? If Adam and Eve didn't exist or were merely some sort of metaphor or symbolism, then Jesus died for no reason!

So it seems to me that to be a Christian one MUST be a strict Biblical literalist and creationist. To believe in both a Creator and evolution one must believe in a malevolent creator. If I had to pick a religion, perhaps I'd pick Gnostism, a form of Christianity that sees the Creator as a sort of mad scientist who tossed us into this world to torture us or perhaps some sort of atheistic Buddhist who simply accepts that Life Is Suffering and leave it at that.

And don't give me that "God wants us to learn through struggle" crap. That's as bad as a parent who tosses their child into a shark-infested pool and says "okay son, learn to swim!... and fast!"

Yes, Sir Fink, I agree with you. I also don't see how you can believe in the bible and evolution, and your points are valid arguments.

Of course, a lot of Christians don't interpret the bible literally, and instead take the values of the lessons that are taught in them. In such cases, they could believe in all of the morals of the bible, but not in genesis, or something.


EDIT: But, considering this topic is about ID, I suggest you move your argument to a new thread about the coexistence of evolution and religion.

The general perception is that ID is, at least currently, a thinly veiled front used by creationists to get something close to creationism into the science class instead of that nasty, seemingly atheistic, evolution nonsense.And the current perception of Evolution is people trying to use science to tell us religious throwbacks that our faith is bull**** because our stories of creation is false. Maybe if the name calling on both sides were to subside, No real understanding can be made.

Unfortunately, most of the proponents of ID have no clue that evolution works perfectly fine with most mono- and poly- theistic religions. The only ones that have an actual doctrinal problem with evolution are the ones that insist on a literal reading of such things as the bible.Unfortunately, even though Evolution makes no claim of a biogenesis, some people claiming to support evolution will claim it contradicts religion's account, then that percetption will remain. Further, If I'm not mistaken, Man was formed from the dust and woman formed from a rib from man. If evolution's supporters will not accept that as a start point, then such disagreements will flourish.

My personal opinion is that ID/creationism/god has no business being mentioned in a science class, as they have nothing to do with science.If Science will refrain from attacking or contradicting religion then that would be okay. You said earlier that Evolution makes no claim to Biogenesis? Make sure that's taught, and ID would lose steam.

What do you think ID entails?Glad you asked. First off, Intelligent design must imply an intelligent designer. This designer (being carefull not to use the word God so as not to make the scientists plug your ears and scream that they aren't listening), engineered the initial creation, then continues to guide the process of evolution. It contradicts the evolutionary claims of a biogenesis, which people here claim doesn't exist but I continue to hear, and reconciles the observations of Darwin and researchers since then with this explanation of Creaton. I regard the adaptation of anti-biotic resistant germs as evidence of an intelligent designer, rather than random chance. Even the human immune system shows this intelligence.

The problem that lies therein is that many of these "cavemen" that I described are not considered homo sapiens, because while the way these "cavemen" brains worked may have been pretty darn similar to ours, there are some pretty big physiological (and especially morphological) differences.Could these primitive primates have been animals that more closely resembled humans, but were not durable enough to survive the rigors of thousanda of years ago and dies out?

I have said before that the tales in the Bible probably have a kernel of truth to them, but they had to be "dumbed down" so the average uneducated peasant could understand them.I prefer simplified. The idea is that "okay the questions of how did we get here and how did the earth and all that's here got her are answered. Now let's get to the important stuff, how to live." That worked for thousands of years, but when we started to get time to think about these things. Then people trying to come up with answers and specifically avoid God came to conclusions that contradict God. What parts of Evolution could be wrong if God does exist?

Sadly, I must also agree with this. I also will agree that morality is learned. We just aren't natuarally born as moral people. While I do not doubt that society should have some role in developing people's morality, I do not believe that teaching ID is a means to that end.Actually this was a tangent that Ichor and I got off on. Basically I likened him blaming the resistances in pests and bacteria on ID to people blaming societies ills on leaving religion out of the classroom. Here in AoDA, I don't get that claim, so I wasn't going to give him his claim.

While I do not think that is the sole explanation, I think that definitely constitutes a good chunk of the problem. While people of the U.S. today are far more educated that the peasants of the past, most of them didn't take a whole lot of science classes in high school (beyond basic requirements), unless they intended to pursue some scientific discipline in life. The frustration from people in the evolution corner is if we actually do teach evolution as part of basic science, it's a concept many people would understand, or at least they would come away from it with something more than the false statement of "man evolved from apes".And as long as both sides are left with their varied misconceptions of the other position, this dispute won't go away, and you're left shaking your head...

If God created life to evolve, then what a malevolent creature He must be! Evolution is all about survival of the fittest, eat-or-be-eaten, plague, draught, suffering, pain, etc.Adam and Eve were originally placed in a paradisical Garden. When Adam and Eve transgressed, they were cast out, and they became subject to physical death. Death was needed so that our souls could progress.

if a Christian believes that humans evolved from some primate 7 million years ago that climbed down from a tree, what was Jesus' purpose for dying on the cross?Actually, I reject the part of Evolution. I have outlined where humans were created as part of that start point. Jesus dying on the cross was so that we may be saved from our sins. That part is way off topic.

What was the point of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross if not to save us from the Original Sin of Adam and Eve? If Adam and Eve didn't exist or were merely some sort of metaphor or symbolism, then Jesus died for no reason!Two things:

First, Adam and Eve did exist. Evolution kicks in After they left the Garden of Eden.

Second, we are accountable for our own sins, and there are more than enough of them that we need to be redeemed from...

So ID believes that there is a definate starting point to human life, which by your Adam & Eve statement would mean to be the rise of Homo sapiens sapiens. And accordingly all the species starting from Ardipithecus ramidus to Homo sapiens neanderthalensis are some different creature and not possibly the forebearers of mankind.
And this is also true for all manners of vegetation and animal species currently found on Earth.


EDIT: All social animals communicate with each other, from bees and ants to whales and apes, but only humans have developed a language which is more than a set of prearranged signals.

Our speech even differs in a physical way from the communication of other animals. It comes from a cortical speech centre which does not respond instinctively, but organises sound and meaning on a rational basis. This section of the brain is unique to humans.

When and how the special talent of language developed is impossible to say. But it is generally assumed that its evolution must have been a long process.

Our ancestors were probably speaking a million years ago, but with a slower delivery, a smaller vocabulary and above all a simpler grammar than we are accustomed to. Perhaps we are decendents of aliens :outta:

He was a metaphor. A classic cultural hero like Prometheus.

There was no Adam and Eve. The Book of Genesis is all metaphor (all the books of Moses are).

Statement like those are OPINION and do not belong in a science classroom. Just like Biblical studies do not belong in school (whether creationism or ID). Evolution is an process, not an explanation.

I've read somewhere that the name Adam is very close to the Hebrew word "man", and Eve "woman." Why could they not be referring to groups of people instead of individuals? The Old Testament is riddled with holes as to who married whom - who did Cain and Abel have children with? Their sisters, who weren't even mentioned? Isn't the whole thing inbred, if there were only two people to start with?

Couldn't Adam and Eve have been of some previous type of hominid? To me it seems the only way the whole thing can make sense is if it was symbolic, dumbed down or something like that. Hasn't it been proven that the earth and the life on it are older than the Bible says? Why cling to creationism and take it literally, especially since the translations used today are quite different from the Hebrew ones?

Actually this was a tangent that Ichor and I got off on. Basically I likened him blaming the resistances in pests and bacteria on ID to people blaming societies ills on leaving religion out of the classroom.@ Gnarfflinger: Well sorry to inform you, that I haven't blamed multiple antibiotic resistant bacteria on ID, or people supporting it. People's ignorance is the biggest problem. People sprayed DDT everywhere even when the debate over ID vs. evolution theory was so heated as it is today.

The problem is that the discussion is made as a discussion over morals. (Sorry about trying to make the title short and catchy.) I know I'm walking a thin line over here, but what I'm trying to say is that the possible consequences are more grave if the theory of evolution is abandoned outright. The problems with those resistances have come about because of people's weak understanding of the mechanics of evolution.

The decisions to use pesticides, antibiotics and whatnot are most usually decisions that are done by people who are not scientists. Although the green revolution did improve crop yields, there was little consideration on longer time-span effects on ecology, biodiversity and the rising of multiple resistant strains, which the evolution theory predicts.

Now how much more would the basic principles of evolution be ignored, if the theory of evolution is said or understood to be wrong?

To most of people, 'not accurate enough' and 'totally wrong, simply not true' is the same thing. This is why I'm worried about teaching ID in schools. By making the debate 'ID vs. Evolution: Which one is The Truth' and a very public debate about it, there's too big a chance there will large misconceptions about the whole subject.

When the discussion has gone past the point of rational argumentation into throwing insults and making fistfights about it I fear little hope for proper understanding to arise.

I remember this movie; Inherit the Wind, based on a real-life case in 1925 called the Monkey Trial, about a school teacher who dared to teach Darwinian theory in his classroom.
I see that sometimes religion behaves like a sect, I mean, is always "this is white and if you say green, you are the devil". I know I may be getting out of topic here but I can't understand why some people are so closed to other ideas or think that everything is 'spiritual'. I know that everybody has freedom to think/believe in whatever they want, so hey, don't discredit what everybody else think/believe.

everybody has freedom to think/believe in whatever they wantIn most cases, yes. But when a persons beliefs/way of thinking is endangering other people, causing unnecessary suffering and making the world a miserable place to live, I definitely don't agree.

The right or wrong of some action is measured by the consequences and the intentions. Ends do not justify the means, if the means are in contradiction with what is sought after.

If one does mean to lessen the suffering of fellow human beings, then the action should be in accordance with this intention. If the goal is met, then one has done good. If one fails, then one reason for this might be that one has not been aware of all the details required to perform the deed properly.

To ignore valid information which helps to do good, or to encourage people to ignore this information, is foolish and little good can come out of it. Only those too much in love with great tragedy might consciously want to do such a thing.

Further, If I'm not mistaken, Man was formed from the dust and woman formed from a rib from man. If evolution's supporters will not accept that as a start point, then such disagreements will flourish.
This type of literal reading of the bible is why evolution doesn't work for you. Put simply, I don't know why you waste your time arguing with its proponents. You and they will never agree because you have completely different starting points that don't meet and can't meet.

But when a persons beliefs/way of thinking is endangering other people, causing unnecessary suffering and making the world a miserable place to live, I definitely don't agree.A: How do you propose to identify someone's way of thinking?
B: How do you propose to alter it?

Inherit the Wind was not a factual account of the Scopes trial. Too bad really, because the people involved were far more complex and interesting than the movie portrayed.

And the current perception of Evolution is people trying to use science to tell us religious throwbacks that our faith is bull**** because our stor[y] of creation is false.

If Science will refrain from attacking or contradicting religion then that would be okay.
Well, the first distinction that needs to be made is whether or not we are talking about evolution in general, or human evolution in specific. The term evolution does not directly contradict Genesis, as evolution does nothing to answer how the earth was formed, or how life originally started. Evolution starts when we alrady have the earth inhabited by life, and the survival of that life is dependent upon passing down genes to subsequent generations.

However, human evolution does contradict the explicit story of Genesis as it regards the creation of the human species. While I agree that scientists should not attack religion, hoping that they would stop contradicting religion is something that won't happen. If you believe in human evolution, then you cannot simultaneously believe a literal interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve.

As an aside - to answer a previous question - there was no inbreeding. God provided additional wives for both Cain and Abel. I don't recall the names, but Gnarff would be the better person to ask on this topic.

Could these primitive primates have been animals that more closely resembled humans, but were not durable enough to survive the rigors of thousanda of years ago and dies out? Wow, that's not a question that has a simple answer, but I'll do my best to be concise. First, I don't know if we want to call them animals. The line between when they were still too ape-like to be human, and when they were human, is generally associated with some advanced tool building. Yes, monkeys will use a rock to break open nuts, or use a twig to get ants out of a hole, but they didn't spend hours sharpening spears for hunting or making stone axes for cutting meat. Other scientists place the dawn of humans with the ability to make fire, as all other known animals have a natural aversion to it. Regardless of which one you pick, the line between animal and human occurs before the split between modern humans and our immediate predecessors.

As to why these more primitive species died out, that is something we don't know for sure, although we seem to have narrowed it down to a few possibilities. If we're talking about modern humans and neanderthals (which incidently are now thought to NOT be modern human anscestors, but rather more like cousins) it appears that neanderthal decline coincided with modern human expansion. Where ever modern human remains appear, neanderthal remains disappear shortly thereafter. Now, the mechanism is unclear. It could be that modern humans, who used slings, bow and arrow and throwing spears were better hunters than neanderthals who didn't make any of those items. The neanderthal method of killing was much more up close and personal, and usually involved a spear thrust. So it may be that they died out due to being less-efficient hunters. Conversely, modern humans may have used their advanced weaponry to actively kill off their neanderthal neighbors.

In almost every instance of human evolution it appears that a more advanced group replaced a pre-existing one. It wasn't that neanderthals weren't durable enough to handle their environment - quite conversely neanderthals thrived for a quarter of a million years, and lived through two complete ice ages in Europe. They were the best hunters and at the top of the food chain until modern humans showed up. It was not a case of them not being well adapted, but a new species (or race if you prefer) showing up that could do everything they did, and do it better.

A: How do you propose to identify someone's way of thinking?
B: How do you propose to alter it?Alright, a persons actions can be judged good or bad and thoughts cannot, if they do not lead to any actions. However some way of thinking, or some views of the world have a tendency to incite actions. Lack of knowledge is not a way of thinking, and it can lead to some pretty devastating results. If a way of thinking consists of hubris and embracing ignorance it can be very dangerous. Ignorance can be corrected by teaching and diligent research.

Ignorance can be corrected by teaching and diligent research. Perhaps, but since many ignorant people are too lazy to try and learn, we end up with stupid people who choose to act on their knowledge instead of learning more, and then acting.

And because there is so many muddleheaded people, public education should not be neglected. Nor should be the teached knowledge be erroneus or misguiding, but such that it helps to alleviate the woes of the world and make it a better place. Illusions and falsehoods may be entertaining and take our thoughts to better places where anything might be possible, but if we fail to see the laws that bind our world and not that of stories and fail to see the consequences of our actions, we'll find ourselves from deeper pits of misery than ever before.

Accurate knowledge of the world brings humility and wisdom, yet there will ever be people who even with large amounts of knowledge fail to be humble or wise. But in larger amounts those with little knowledge are gullible and fall easily as prey for the wicked and those with desires in excess. They trust in their hierarchies and their authorities and fail to question their leaders when they are led to the slaughter.

Evolution is an process, not an explanation.Then any attempt to use Evolution as an explanation must be inaccurate.

I know I'm walking a thin line over here, but what I'm trying to say is that the possible consequences are more grave if the theory of evolution is abandoned outright.I see that more as a rather short sighted mistake made by people who take the word of people who should know better. The people who make the antibiotics and pesticides should know that what they want to kill will ultimately adapt, rendering their product less effective, but either keep quiet about that in the interest of profit or otherwise neglect this for a quick fix. Don't lay that at the feet of the common people, but those that they listen too...

This type of literal reading of the bible is why evolution doesn't work for you. Put simply, I don't know why you waste your time arguing with its proponents. You and they will never agree because you have completely different starting points that don't meet and can't meet.Then who is closing their mind to middle ground?

The term evolution does not directly contradict Genesis, as evolution does nothing to answer how the earth was formed, or how life originally started. Evolution starts when we alrady have the earth inhabited by life, and the survival of that life is dependent upon passing down genes to subsequent generations.So if evolution contradicts the account given in Genesis of the creation of humans then we're back where we start from--with people touting science to tel me that my religion is crap and that I am simply a throwback. It's insults like that that keep generating steam for ID, and until that is fixed, and proper middle ground is found, this controversy will not die.

If you believe in human evolution, then you cannot simultaneously believe a literal interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve.Human evolution is EXACTLY the part I am rejecting. As long as that specifically is included in teaching evolution, you will have people trying desparately to get research grants to try to contradict this research.

First, I don't know if we want to call them animals.So if they weren't human and they weren't animals, then what the hell were they?

but a new species (or race if you prefer) showing up that could do everything they did, and do it better. That is evident throughout human history too. The Egytians took the Israelites into bondage because the Egyptians were better at farming and storing food while the Israelites were starving. How many conquerors thrived by new weapons or tactics that caught less learned tribes and nations unaware? WWII ended when the Americans developed the Atomic Bomb...

Accurate knowledge of the world brings humility and wisdomSo the people who preach evolution and get really arrogant about it really don't know what they are talking about?

But in larger amounts those with little knowledge are gullible and fall easily as prey for the wicked and those with desires in excess. They trust in their hierarchies and their authorities and fail to question their leaders when they are led to the slaughter.But when they do question something, the people thay ask tend to discredit them and tell them that they should get with the program.

Then who is closing their mind to middle ground? There really is not and can not be any middle ground since the one side believes in the fact and the other side believes in the truth. With those starting points it's a bit a difficult to compromise since a compromise would be a fiction and a lie.

On a personal level I think ID is just complete BS, it has nothing scientific to stand on compared to the theory of evolution. It's a hypothesis which exists only to point out flaws in the theory of evolution. That's not the way science is done and therefore it can't be taught as science. There is no theory, there is no evidence. This has however been pointed out by others so it's pretty much useless for me to repeat their words.

When looking at discussions of this kind I must say: How reassuring it is that over here there are no attempts (that I am aware of) to subvert science by infusing it with religious content, robbing science of its invaluable neutrality and freedom of thought in the process. The very idea is unacceptable.

Once religion is allowed into science dogmas are bound to take hold sooner rather than later. With the advent of dogmas science's qualities such as inquisitive curiosity and self-criticism surely go down the toilet bowl. The means by which science constantly questions and improves itself would be lost, rendering it useless to those who want to learn. Pretty much like religion.

Then who is closing their mind to middle ground?

Human evolution is EXACTLY the part I am rejecting. As long as that specifically is included in teaching evolution, you will have people trying desparately to get research grants to try to contradict this research. Gnarff, I need some help with this one, because I just don't seem to get what you are saying. What is this proposed middle ground you are referring to?

It's like you're saying the world is round, and I'm saying the world is flat. How can you reconcile the two thought processes? It's actually worse than this. It's like you had a boat and you used it to sail around the world, and then I STILL maintained that the world is flat, despite having no evidence beyond my unshakable belief that this was so. To put it simply, why would any scientist attempt to find a middle ground, when they have evidence that to them proves they are right?

So if they weren't human and they weren't animals, then what the hell were they? They are hominids (or to put it bluntly, that means they are ALL humans). They just aren't modern humans. Just like gorillas, chimps, and orangutans are all monkeys - Homo erectus, Homo habilis, and Homo sapiens are all members of the class of hominids (and hominid is scientist-speak for human). That's what I've been trying to get you to understand from the begining - modern humans did not evolve from apes because there have been other hominids (i.e., humans) that walked to earth before modern humans did so, and we evolved from them.

I'm having difficulty understanding why you are so against this concept. The thought that humans evolved from another hominid instead of a monkey - I thought you would find this more palatable.

So the people who preach evolution and get really arrogant about it really don't know what they are talking about?
Perhaps, almost as arrogant and ignorant as those who, just as vehemently, preach creationism and ID. The real shame comes from those who understand how accurate the fossil record is and still use lies and deception to cover such things up. Rhetorical question -- are lies and deception used to promote the Lord's work or the devil's?

Gnarff, I need some help with this one, because I just don't seem to get what you are saying. What is this proposed middle ground you are referring to?The idea of what's going on since creation, that's what I can deal with, but when man is created in the image of God, there needs to be no changes. I wonder if too much is being read into fossil records. How do you know that Dinosaurs were reptillian as opposed to mammals? This just strikes me as a big assumption...

I'm having difficulty understanding why you are so against this concept. The thought that humans evolved from another hominid instead of a monkey - I thought you would find this more palatable.Again, it stems from the sixth creative period, where Man was specifically created, in the image of God.

The real shame comes from those who understand how accurate the fossil record is and still use lies and deception to cover such things up.Well, it's partly the fossil record I am questioning. I suspect that people have made assumptions to fill in the blanks in the fossil record to make an interesting story.

Rhetorical question -- are lies and deception used to promote the Lord's work or the devil's?Passing these assumptions made from the fossils as proven fact? Is that not some form of deception?

I wonder if too much is being read into fossil records. How do you know that Dinosaurs were reptillian as opposed to mammals? This just strikes me as a big assumption...Never were much into dinosaurs as a kid, I see. The dinosaurs - at least the most famous (like T-Rex, etc.) were obviously reptillian. Bone structure and fossilization patterns are concordant with scaly skin (which rules out fur), and the reproductive systems pieced together from not only the bone structure and fossilation patterns, but also eggs found in every stage of incubation near either inside the egg, birthing, or in a nest found near an adult indicate that they did indeed lay eggs (which rules out live birth). Fur and live birth - two of the defining characteristics of mammals. Since "fish" seems like a silly choice, reptillian is easily the best... *ahem* ..."assumption."

I think you're confusing conclusion with assumption. A conclusion is what you make by piecing together aquired evidence. Assumptions are what you make when you have none, but insist you're right anyway.
Well, it's partly the fossil record I am questioning. I suspect that people have made assumptions to fill in the blanks in the fossil record to make an interesting story.Mad-lib time: "Well, it's partly the bible I am questioning. I suspect that people have made assumptions to fill in the blanks in the history of humanity to make an interesting story."

See how that works? Goes both ways.

It makes a lot more sense to me (and many people) that the events depicted in the bible were exaggerated (and in some cases, concocted) as a means to explain the mysteries of the world, life, and the human condition. As a man of faith, I believe the bible to be metaphorical rather than literal. You want to talk about evidence - what evidence do we have that the bible isn't complete hooey? It's been written and rewritten so many times in the last two millenia, how are we to know the difference? Unless you've been alive for the last 2,000 years, I doubt you can (which is where the faith part comes in). Especially when people (for instance: yourself) seem to object to any use of science to prove or disprove the veracity of the bible's claims? I would think that if your faith is so strong, you would embrace science as a means to convince others of what you know it your heart is "the truth," rather than attack scientists as trying to dismantle religion. I admit, there are some people out there who, yes, are trying to use science to disprove the bible. But that doesn't mean all scientists are in it for that purpose. Science is the search for fact and truth. What it's used for depends entirely on the scientist.

I think this whole debate says more about you than it does the few scientists clamoring to "disprove" the biblical account. If what you believe is the truth - undeniable universal fact, as you seem to testify - then not even science can disprove it. What are you worried about? It seems more to me that you see the chink in the armor of your own faith and you're fighting ferociously to protect it. Passing these assumptions made from the fossils as proven fact? Is that not some form of deception?First of all, there's a hell of a lot more evidence that substantiates the fossil records (like...you know...fossils) than does the events of the bible, and people have been searching for biblical artifacts for a hell of a lot longer. Doesn't that tell you anything? Second - it isn't a form of deception to make a conclusion based on evidence. But if there's a non-religious source of evidence that proves the events in the bible took place as written, I'll gladly shut up. Until then, I think you may have to acknowledge the difference between faith and fact.

One more thing, sidenote observation really: bull****For an uber-mormon, Gnarff, you've got quite the potty mouth. And believe me - I know me some mormons. ;)

[ December 14, 2005, 09:58: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

what evidence do we have that the bible isn't complete hooey? Not much that I have seen that shows that the Bible is right and all the other mythologies of every other culture in history are wrong. But I guess if you doubt the Bible, then that just shows that you don't have enough faith.

Not at all, HB. What I doubt are the word-for-word accounts, not the message. The message is what's important anyway, not the specifics. I don't have to believe that Moses actually parted the Red Sea in order to accept that he did indeed live, influenced many people and accomplished great things. The message - that's what I have faith in, and you don't get that from a book.

For me evolution is not that much contradictory to religion. And I say that as a catholic.
But there were, and stil are some problems with evolution for me, both based on logic, and on my faith.

First, and something about that was already in previous posts, Aldeth wrote that last stages of evolution were something like ape - hominid - human.

So, if we assume that this hominid is in fact a primitive human, that means that at one point of history an animal gave birth to a human. Even if this is about a very intelligent animal and it's descendant is a very primitive human, I have quite a big problem with that. And definitely need a good proof.

On a religious ground this is even more troublesome, because that means that someone with a soul (religiously speaking - the most important aspect of a human) was born by an animal without one. But I understand that science can't help me with that...

Next problem, I haven't ever seen a good proof that one of the advanced species changed into a completely new one. We can easily observe mutations, but that's not enough. And don't tell me about microorganisms in labs, on a road from amoeba to modern human there have to be more than that...

To finish this rant, last problem is teaching about evolution in school. Adults know that this is a theory, hiphotesy, whatever you call it, but children take it as a fact, truth, however we put it. Like I did, when I was in elementary school, only to find out few years later that this is not that much obvious. So question is - if this is not proven without doubt, why teach it ?...

*sigh* Another one.

First, and something about that was already in previous posts, Aldeth wrote that last stages of evolution were something like ape - hominid - human.

So, if we assume that this hominid is in fact a primitive human, that means that at one point of history an animal gave birth to a human. Even if this is about a very intelligent animal and it's descendant is a very primitive human, I have quite a big problem with that. And definitely need a good proof. Well, not exactly, but I think I get your point. I think the mistake that you're making is that at some point we have something that you classify as an ape, and then at some other point you have something that you classify as a human (which in its broadest sense is true). Then you erroneously make the assumption that at some point you had a mother ape holding a baby human. It doesn't work that way. There are many, many intermediary steps, but at no point is the jump directly from mommy gorilla to baby human.

@ Gnarff,

To build off of what DR said, skeletons of today provide a great deal of information about what types of animals lived in the past by comparing the two. There is a general skeleton type for each class of animals. There's one for fish, one for amphibians, one for reptiles, one for birds, one for mammals. Then there are further skeleton structures that are more detailed within sub-groups. Like all primates have a skeleton structure, but so do all horses, all cats, all dogs, etc.

When you find fossilized remains of something, the most logical way to classify it is to compare the remains to modern equivalents and try to figure out where they belong. Dinosaurs meet every standard of classifying them with reptiles. The only pronounced difference between dinosaurs and modern reptile is that the dinosaurs were a hell of a lot bigger.

On rare occassions scientists find a fossil whose skeleton structure doesn't match with anything we know today. In that case, scientists appropriately place these animals into a separate classification from everything else. An example of this is a therapsid. Therapsids are something between a mammal and a reptile, with features of both, but a skeleton structure that is also distinct from both.

It's highly doubtful that ID would manage to be a threat to antibiotic/drug production and use - mainly because the pharmacological companies usually take into consideration mainly money. If there are problems in developing/ studying a new drug/ therapy method in one country (not only because of moral/ religious beliefs, but also e.g. patents), there is always another.

The only problem would be education of people, whom no one would want to hire, but that's what you choose. That and ecological problems caused by an uneducated government (see Lysenkoism) - but again, that's what you choose.

Biology (or rather biochemistry) is one of the fastest developing sciences now and evolutionary theory (especially in the context of genetics) is a very important and rapidly growing field. So don't worry - evolution won't be forgotten :)

First, and something about that was already in previous posts, Aldeth wrote that last stages of evolution were something like ape - hominid - human. As I understand it, humans/hominids did not decend from apes, but rather apes and hominids evolved from a common ancestor species. In that sense apes are our cousins, sort of, and we are not their decendants.
Dont know whether that is correct, though.

So, if we assume that this hominid is in fact a primitive human, that means that at one point of history an animal gave birth to a human. Even if this is about a very intelligent animal and it's descendant is a very primitive human, I have quite a big problem with that. And definitely need a good proof.That sounds like we are the highest achievement in the evolution of our species, the product with which it all ends, so to say. Something that cannot be compared or topped. The extraordinary. The pinnacle. That's not what I believe, as it is misleading.
Just as the earliest hominids slowly evolved into something that we are now, who is to say that we wont in the future evolve (devolve??) into something different. Evolution is an ongoing, flowing process, and I dont think it ends with the current hominids. I think if one can wrap one's mind around the concept that we, "modern" humans, are just another, but not necessarily the final, version of the hominid's branch, one can more easily understand the career of our species.
Evolution made us what we are, it goes through us and will take us to someplace where we might be more, or considerably less, than we are now.

@Aldeth

If you could avoid those "sighs", please...I'm afraid that unless you are professor of anthropology, you have no right to look down on those that have a different opinion. You don't know how much I know about this topic, and about specialists I confront my, sometimes strange, ideas with. I noticed one thing - the wiser scientist, the more doubts he\she has. The best answer I've ever got about evolution was "This theory has many flaws, but it's the best we have at the moment, so..."

I think that we have a problem of definition here. Definition of human. I'm begining to understand yours, but tell me - how can one being be partially human ? 10% human, or 90% human ? What does it mean ? Does it mean that those primitive tribes that live even today at few various places on Earth like their ancestors thousands years ago are not wholly human ? Even more serious - that those from us that have drastic mental or physical ilnessess are not human ?

No offense, I would really like to know your answer.

That sounds like we are the highest achievement in the evolution of our species, the product with which it all ends, so to say. Something that cannot be compared or topped. The extraordinary. The pinnacle. Dendri, you are completely correct, although perhaps not in the way you originally meant. Evolution is certainly an on-going process that does not have an end-point. The reason for this is because evolution is in no way directed. It's not working towards some end-goal, or some final product. New traits are introduced through mutation, and some are beneficial, but the vast majority are actually detrimental. Also, even if you do happen to get a mutation that is beneficial, there is no guarantee that such a mutation is the "best" solution to a problem. Evolution doesn't guarantee that you get characteristics or traits that are optimally honed to your environment - it just guarantees that within a given gene pool the most beneficial traits - i.e., ones that "work" - are passed on to future generations.

The best answer I've ever got about evolution was "This theory has many flaws, but it's the best we have at the moment, so..."Heh. And why is this the "best answer"? Because it's what you wanted to hear? Evolutionary theory does not have many flaws, that is completely false. What it does have is many unanswered questions, which is why there's still lots of research goin on.

Heh. And why is this the "best answer"? Because it's what you wanted to hear? Evolutionary theory does not have many flaws, that is completely false. What it does have is many unanswered questions, which is why there's still lots of research goin on.Heh, or sigh, or whatever...I'm pretty sure that this one answer of yours is pretty flammable...How many unanswered questions do you need to abandon a theory ?...also, unless we find out a new and revolutionary way to retrieve information from our surrounding, research could not be that fruitful because many very important finds were destroyed or misused a century or so ago...by those very enthusiasts of evolution... ;) ...

But seriously, that was "best aswer" because answering person was the most respected from all I asked. (And before you heh, sigh, or whatever, that's not only my opinion).

I can accept theory of evolution. But I need proof. And those that accept this yet-to-be-proven theory without a bit of scepticism, are...well...ehm...
And if research made by now will deny most of what you think ?...What then ?...And none true scientist can really admit that that cannot be a case. So what is the point of teaching this theory ?

@ Arendil,

I'm sorry I didn't see your post sooner. Evidently, you were posting at the same time I was, and I didn't notice your post until I revisited the thread, even though you actually posted a few minutes before me.

I'm afraid that unless you are professor of anthropology, you have no right to look down on those that have a different opinion. And a professor of anthropology I am not. However, I am a biochemist with a concentration in genetics and evolution, so will that work for you? Granted, my career has taken me much futher down the chemistry part of my degree that the bio part, but I assure you I am well versed in what I speak of.

And if research made by now will deny most of what you think ?...What then ?...And none true scientist can really admit that that cannot be a case. So what is the point of teaching this theory ? If research comes out that disproves our current understanding of human evolution, then the human family tree will have to be re-drawn. In fact, one major re-write of this has taken place in the last five years or so. For the longest time it was thought that neanderthals were our most immediate predecessors. However, as genetic sequencing techniques have been refined over the years, it is now understood that there was a greater difference between modern humans and the most recent neanderthals than there was between modern humans and the oldest neanderthals.

Obviously, this came as a surprise to many people in the field. What it also did was prove conclusively that neanderthals could not possibly be our immediate ancestors. For this to be true, we would have to find evidence showing more similarities rather than more difference between the earliest and latest neanderthals as compared to humans.

While I will readily agree that no scientist would claim that no revisions to the current understanding of human evolution are possible, I would disagree that any scientist would think the entire theory or evolution would be disproven. Yes, as our understanding of evolution increases, we may have to tweak things here and there - like removing the neanderthals from human ancestry - but proving that evolution as a concept does not work? That's HIGHLY IMPROBABLE.

how can one being be partially human ? 10% human, or 90% human ? What does it mean ? It means nothing, because something cannot (as I think you presupposed) be 10% or 90% human. You either are human or you are not. That is why I said that in the broadest sense, you statement that something either is or isn't human, was correct. That having been addressed, there is a big difference between something being a human, and something being a MODERN human.

There's no way to give a simple answer to your overall question - which I am assuming is this: At what point do we draw a line and say this is a human and this isn't? As that's quite a lengthy answer indeed, I'll wait for your response before giving it in full. I don't want to answer a question you aren't even asking.

How many unanswered questions do you need to abandon a theory ?Actually, no amount of unanswered questions would cause anyone to abandon a theory; that is not what science is about. Do you imagine that everything is known, so that there is no more research to be done? A theory is abandoned when it fails to explain what has been observed; evolution has not failed in this, and in fact all predictions based on evolutionary theory have been borne out through observation. ...also, unless we find out a new and revolutionary way to retrieve information from our surrounding, research could not be that fruitful because many very important finds were destroyed or misused a century or so ago...by those very enthusiasts of evolutionThere are new and important finds discovered all the time; just recently there was a discovery of a very well-preserved Archaeopteryx that showed that its feet did not have a bird-like rear-pointing toe as was thought based on previous less-well-preserved fossils, but they more resembled dinosaurs similar to Velociraptor.
I can accept theory of evolution. But I need proof.The evidence is there, all you have to do is look.

Eh. But again we are going off the topic which is ID and not evolution.

BTA,

Is it really off topic to discuss evolution in a discussion about ID? Kinda seems like discussing Republicans without bringing up the Democrats to me. Substantiating one kind of pulls the wind out of the other. Or is it new topic time?

I am still blown away by how heated this simple scientific debate has become. Maybe it is because, from reading some of these posts, people seem to think that evolution or creationism or ID4, or whatever you want to call it, is something specifically to do with the creation/development of humans.

Surely humans are just one tiny tiny tiny tiny piece of the whole biological world and that in any system of biological / supernatural development, humans would just be a minor footnote or insignificant afterthought.

Isn't it a bit vain to assume that this whole system is all about humans? Aren't there more insects than mammals? And isn't it true that there more different types of bacteria and even a greater weight of bacteria in the world than all the other types of animals put together?

Maybe if we put it all into perspective and realise that it's not all about US, we might be able to relax a little and stop taking this whole debate personally.

Isn't it a bit vain to assume that this whole system is all about humans? Aren't there more insects than mammals? And isn't it true that there more different types of bacteria and even a greater weight of bacteria in the world than all the other types of animals put together?Not really. Evolution suggests that we humans evolved like every other organism on earth. Creationism contests that humans were created specifically in God's image, instantly and appeared in the state we know them in today, unchanged from the day of creation. If either argument is displaying vanity, it's certainly not evolution.

The entire evolutionary system isn't just about humans, but it is the very premise of evolution that has propelled our species to the dominant organism on the planet. Survival of the fittest. In a way, we made evolution all about us - because we played the game better than any other organism. Evolution also takes into account every species on the planet. So as you say, it is also about the trillions of insects and other organisms on the planet. They all have evolutionary descendants, too. So do all fish, birds, reptiles and mammals.

I think people take this debate personally when they can't handle having their belief system challenged.

Is it really off topic to discuss evolution in a discussion about ID? Kinda seems like discussing Republicans without bringing up the Democrats to me. Substantiating one kind of pulls the wind out of the other. Or is it new topic time?DR - Well, that's kind of the point I guess. The promoters of ID want us to treat it like it's a scientific theory on equal footing with evolution (which has mountains evidence supporting it), yet it has no evidence to present for its claims; all it has is ignorance and the claim that if you don't know how something happened, then it must've been a designer who did it.

[ December 14, 2005, 20:03: Message edited by: Blackthorne TA ]

propelled our species to the dominant organism on the planet. Is it not a wee bit arrogant to call humans the dominant organism on the planet. I'm no biological expert and I await inevitable correction, but aren't there countless other organisms that are vastly more "successful" than humans?

Is it not a wee bit arrogant to call humans the dominant organism on the planet.Are you kidding? Name one organism that is any threat to humanity that we don't have the power to destroy. Yes, diseases are organisms too - but they're parasites, and can't function outside of a living organism. Humans have overcome every obstacle nature has thrown at us. Thousands of species go extinct naturally every DAY on this planet. Yet we persevere. We can go anywhere, live anywhere, kill anything we want. That's dominance.

I don't think humans are the dominant organism because we're "the coolest" or something. It's just a fact - we rule this planet, and we will continue to do so until another organism wipes us out. That's what evolution is all about.

Name one organism that is any threat to humanity And just why does an organism have to be a 'threat' to be more successful or more fit than humans?

Thousands of species go extinct naturally every DAY on this planet. Yet we persevere. That's dominance. Huh? But there are BILLIONS of species on the planet and most have been around for millions and millions of years longer than humans. Humans have been around for a mere blink of an eye compared to most other organisms. That's not dominance, that's like a sports team that flukes one win in a season and claims to therefore be number one.

The history and ongoing story of life on this planet is a story of bacteria. They blow everything else away.

OK, OK, now that's going really off topic. Start a new thread for this if you wish.

edit - Sorry, BTA - I was posting as you posted that.
And just why does an organism have to be a 'threat' to be more successful or more fit than humans?Because that's how evolution works. Survival of the fittest. If your species doesn't survive, they go extinct. If they go extinct, they cannot pass on their genes and hence they cannot evolve.

Despite the overwhelming presence of bacteria, we still dominate it. Dominance doesn't come through numbers, it comes through survival. I can kill bacteria by using soap. Bacteria can't kill me unless I forgo everything man has created to stave off bacteria. Also, as part of man's evolutionary path, we have become increasingly immune to organisms like bacteria.

I hate to bring a Tom Cruise movie into this - but watch the last 10 minutes of War of the Worlds. I won't ruin it for you, but the message is that over the last several millenia, man has developed resistences to parasitic organisms (like bacteria) that have destroyed lesser species. We've earned our right to survive.

Huh? But there are BILLIONS of species on the planet and most have been around for millions and millions of years longer than humans. Humans have been around for a mere blink of an eye compared to most other organisms. That's not dominance, that's like a sports team that flukes one win in a season and claims to therefore be number one.Of course there are BILLIONS of species that have been around longer than we have. But longevity doesn't equal dominance. And I think your sports analogy is flawed. I'm not saying we're the dominant species of all time. We're just dominant right now. We haven't always been, obviously. And like I said, we will continue to be until something comes along and wipes us out, or at least kills us off at a rate that halts our evolutionary progress.

And a professor of anthropology I am not. However, I am a biochemist with a concentration in genetics and evolution, so will that work for you? Possibly. And I'm just a simple thinker with a loads of books, maybe too much free time( ;) ), love for physics and some educated friends from various fields, so you beat me there. But I don't take anything granted, be it scientific or religious matter, so you have to rationally convince me even if it's near your specialiation. Sorry...

Yes, as our understanding of evolution increases, we may have to tweak things here and there - like removing the neanderthals from human ancestry - but proving that evolution as a concept does not work? That's HIGHLY IMPROBABLE. But possible. For a true scientist experiment, observation and newly discovered facts should always be the only priority, even if it means throwing away ALL theories that were working up to this point. And in fact that happened few times in the past...

You either are human or you are not.That's exactly what I'm saying. So the question is who gave birth to the very first human ? In this broad sense - an animal ?

That having been addressed, there is a big difference between something being a human, and something being a MODERN human. Yes, but that's irrelevant to origin of a man. I can easily accept that modern humans evolved from that primitive caveman.

At what point do we draw a line and say this is a human and this isn't? Yes that's the point. But before you start, are you sure that this is purely scientific matter ?...I'd be much interested to know your point of view, but when definition of human being is discussed, I can't ignore my faith, i.e. matters like free will, soul...non-scientific ones...

The evidence is there, all you have to do is look. For mutations yes, adaptations of various species due to many mostly enviromental changes, also. But I don't know any evidence of one of the advanced species changing into another.

Damn, I wasn't going to write such a long post...

[Edit - dear God, when I was beginning to write my post there were only two other on page four... ;) ...]

aren't there countless other organisms that are vastly more "successful" than humans? It really depends on how you define "successful" HB. If you define successful as being around the longest, yeah, humans or still the new kid on the block, relatively speaking. In such an instance things like crocodiles and sharks are the most successful, as they've been around since before the dinosaurs, and thier body designs now are pretty much the same as they were hundreds of millions of years ago.

But successful usually is defined (from an evolutionary standpoint) in terms of how well a species can adapt in it's environment, and pass down it's genes to subsequent generations. In that regard, humans are extremely successful. It's not that we have a fur coat like a polar bear to survive in the arctic, or the ability to go months without eating like a snake, but rather our ability to modify the environment to ensure our survival and prosperity is certainly our greatest asset.

MAJOR EDIT:

First an apology to BTA and a ditto of DR's comments - I too posted when you put up the warning.

Arendil has shown an uncanny ability to respond to my posts while I am writing in response to someone else - now accomplishing the feat twice in the last few hours.

Anyway, Arendil, I'll do my best to answer your questions. The first problem is that you are asking me to answer the insoluable "chicken or the egg" question. And that question can be asked equally for any species - not just humans. Did the first bird hatch from an egg of a non-bird? Did the first dinosaur hatch from an egg of a non-dinosaur? Was the first dog born to a non-dog mother? Fortunately for me, you also asked for my personal insight, which I will need to draw upon if any answer to your question is possible.

First for the scientific answer to your question: science is very much divided as to when we became "human". The best answer I can give you is that evolutionary biologists say that any species in which they place the moniker "Homo" as their genus name is a human. Using that definition, the first humans were Homo erectus. What that doesn't answer for you is what gave birth to the first Homo erectus, which is where the "chicken or the egg" reference is directed towards.

It is here where I must interject my personal opinion, which is we haven't yet found fossil evidence of a true transition point to humans. And that is a problem that is not unique to human evolution, but is involved in many evolutionary chains.

The answer proposed by science is the existence of "intermediary species". As the name implies, these are species which are tranistion points between an earlier species and a later species. Intermediary species exist for only a short time and occur because a beneficial trait requires time to be passed through subsequent generations and become common enough that the trait is represented in the population as a whole. As these species are typically short-lived, there is precious little evidence in the fossil record, because 1.) there weren't that many to fossilize in the first place and 2.) the chance of any creature becoming a fossil are exceedingly low. Put the two together and you see the problem.

However, several examples in the fossil record