I'll give my thoughts, and then you all can give yours.

Somewhere in Alabama, disclaimer stickers were placed on all middle and high school science books about Evolution. It was parents opposed to evolution (on religious grounds) who insisted the stickers be placed there, saying we should be catious about Evolution, as it is just a theory.

First, I'd like to point out the difference between the real meaning of theory and the wrong meaning. A scientific theory is a compilation of facts, that have not yet been disproven. A theory as we use the word most is basically a hypothesis. There is an obvious difference. Evolution is a scientific theory.

Both Evolution and Creationism/Religion are theories. The difference is Evolution is a Scientific theory, based on fact, whereas Creationism, and even Religion, is a hypothesis, with no fact to back it up. Religion isn't even considered a hypothesis, as there is no way to prove it wrong.

The parents who suggested the sticker are obviously ignorant about science. The ACLU is suing over the sticker (thank god someone fights for civil liberties).

Now, this said, i want to make it clear, this is not one of my beliefes, so please dont bager me about it should you find it incorrect, in the first post by anakin he said lets put our feeligns besides, THIS IS JUST AN IDEA.

It's amazing that a soup of chemicals in a warm bath catalyzed by lightning produced amino acids to coil into DNA (ok, this is the final missing step, last I heard of, but the chemical-to-amino acids via electrical arcing into warm salt-water bath has been reproduced in the lab myriad times) -- anyway, it's amazing that this eventually led to Man, but it did.

On an even more primitive level, that of the quantum, we have now discovered that pairs of quarks (the building blocks of protons and neutrons and so on) spontaneously appear and disappear all the time.

Hmmm... maybe that's God. Who knows.

and for all you that want to be amazed by the simplicity of a scientific fact...sometimes a theory, though i do believe there has been a change in defenition, that seperate the two...not sure though. but heres a scientific fact/theory

I have come up with a little saying I like to bandy about here and there: True Science Seeks Truth... Always. Actually, a true scientist ALWAYS seeks to disprove the proven theories, for only by the lack thereof do those theories continue to hold true.

And nothing is more exciting when a proven theory gets disproven... boy howdy does everyone leap aboard the bandwagon to seek newer answers!

The main difference between science and faith/beliefs, I believe, is that science seeks the proof'/truth by reproducible FACTS. Faith/beliefs spring from the basis of VERY subjective and personal FEELINGS. There is a BIG DIFFERENCE.

For example, for whatever the reason, say I believe that Jupiter's core is actually a gigantic diamond (as posited by Arthur C. Clarke). How physical laws operate upon that planet, combined with the materials of which we know it is made, would lead us to believe it COULD be possible. In fact, VERY possible. It just makes sense. BUT: no matter how I point to this factor and that factor, no matter how cleverly I word the debate to justify my beliefs in this matter, in fact using science "against" itself, heh...

...THE FACT REMAINS THAT AT THIS POINT IT IS ALL CONJECTURE. Until we can devise a means of penetrating the planets awesome atmosphere and standing up to its tremendous pressures, WE SIMPLY DON'T KNOW FOR A FACT if the core is a diamond or not.

Oh yes... and then there is the difference between scientific theory and law. Theories which are continually upheld by proof then become scientific laws (ie: the law of gravity, the laws of thermodynamics, etc.). These are the BIG GUYS, the ones we accept as the means by which the universe in general is run... and the ones that really shake the world when they come tumbling down.

And that is the difference between science and faith. Now you know the rest of the story.

Did you know that the human genome and that of a chimpanzee share NINETY-EIGHT PERCENT of the same genes? That 98% of our genetic make-up is EXACTLY like that of the chimpanzee? We share 97% with gorillas... and -- SURPRISE -- chimps share 97% of their genetic code with gorillas, too.

What this boils down to is that humans and chimpanzees are closer together genetically than humans are with gorillas... or than gorillas are with chimpanzees.

The PRIMARY difference separating us from the other apes (YES WE'RE APES, ADMIT IT!!!) is the fact that chimps and gorillas have 24 pairs of chromosomes, and we have 23 pairs. BUT: it turns out that one set they have fused together to make one BIGGER pair in us... I think it's Chromosome Two. (they are numbered according to size, biggest to smallest). Studying Chromosome Two has proven it to be practically identical to two sets carried by chimps and gorillas (I don't know the specific sets, sorry).

Kinda humbling, isn't it, but there's your "Missing Link," folks....

Chuckles through whiskers.

"stop acting stupid"

"i cant... im 98% chimp..."

hehe. and as for ape...2 words come to mind.

"THOCK SMASH!"

heh, oh, just FYI you can have tons of fun with those two words...whenever someone say's anything just scream "AARRG! THOCK SMASH!" everyone in the school looks at you as if youve lost your mind...hehe, and also, run around skiping and singing "we're off to see the wizard..." i tell you, your friends will pretend you dont exist... hehe.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Entaris:Actauly anakin, i hate to be the mean SOB that tells ya this, but a scientific fact/theory is something that CAN be disproven, like saying there are places in the univers man will never see, that is not a scientific fact, cause thers no way to disprove it, BUT if there is a way to disprove it, then it is indeed a scientific fact, or at least theory, and if you wish to disagree with this, i would be happy to sick my physics teacher on you

---

Although I think with Evolution, you are placing your faith in another beleif. Nothing can be proven yet. I'm ordering a book that I've read once that increased my faith in Intelligent Design even more. I will share some of my thoughts later. Right now, lets keep this debated civilized.

And Bob... this conversation has indeed remained civilized up to this point...

...at least as civilized as a 98%-chimp primate can get...!!!!

Ummm... also, excuse me, but I thought I said the genetic correlation for evolution has already been proven???? When have you opened a science book lately?

We did not descend from the apes....

We ARE apes, a species of upright bipedal primate... only as a rule we're brainier than our cousins and have less hair and pitiful teeth.

All of the apes: chimpanzee, gorilla, orangutan and Man... all have descended from a common ancestor... and the genetic tracings go back even further. We can trace it all the way to "Luca," the Last Universal Common Ancestor. Kind of an itty-bitty bacterium type.

Even more humbling to realize that not only are we ALL THUS CONNECTED, but the arising of mankind was actually kind of a happenstance. Fusing of those chromosomes....

According to Mr. Webster, "correlation" means:

quote:

---

a relation existing between phenomena or things or between mathematical or statistical variables which tend to vary, be associated, or occur together in a way not expected on the basis of chance alone

---

And again, according to Webster, "cause" means:

quote:

---

something that brings about an effect or a result c : a person or thing that is the occasion of an action or state; especially : an agent that brings something about d : sufficient reason <discharged for cause>

---

A genetic correlation, as I understand it then, would mean that two things seem to be happening TOGETHER. You can prove a correlation exists, of course, by taking the data. But in order to prove that our similarities in genetic code with apes are CAUSED because we evolved from them, you'd have to do an experiment rather than simply collect the data. (although, with our current technology, the experiment that would be necessary is HIGHLY improbable)

All this rigamoroll to say that, although it IS improbable that similarities in the genetic code of apes and humans exist by chance, this does NOT necessarily mean then that the only way this could have happened is if humans evolved from apes.

Call me a religious idiot if you like, but I can think of other possible reasons for the similarity. The way I see it, why waste a good genetic code if it works?

You may all start laughing now.

You gave permission, you know....

(Points to above post.)

And why waste a perfectly good genetic code if it works? Well... why not stick to the top-of-the-line model then?

The fused chromosomes have clearly been shown to be two exact pairs from the chimp/gorilla genome. I mean, they can visually LOOK at the thing, and compare it to the two sets from the chimps/gorillas.

With the exception of the abovementioned 2-3% discrepency, an exact match.

And believing something doesn't necessarily make it real for all... only for the believer. In his or her own head.

Which is why science is such a stickler for PROOF. HARD FACTS. EVIDENCE, REPRODUCIBLE EVIDENCE. Then the theory can be truth for all.

I'm saying, quite frankly, that because there are similarities (98 percent) between ape and human genes this DOES NOT PROVE that humans evolved from apes. There can be OTHER REASONS for the similarity. There as been NO HARD PROOF to say that A (ape gene) caused B (human gene). When it could have been C (something that caused the similarity in both of them or C and D (two completely different reasons for the similarity)

And that will be the last post in this thread from the village idiot.

In other words, somewhere along in the dim and distant past, in one (or maybe more) of the common ancestor we shared with gorillas and chimps and so on, spontaneous mutation occurred which fused two of the chromosomes together. (Spontaneous mutations occur all the time folks, nothing to get all in a toot about. It's due to the fact that our wonderful sun gives off full-spectrum radiation... those shorter wavelengths will get ya every time. It's why bacteria become resistent to antibiotics: they have shorter generations, and can go through hundreds of thousands in the lifespan of a single human; all these spontaneous mutations compile over that time until you end up with a resistant strain. It's just that occasionally one or two will mutate to where it is resistant quite naturally, then a few generations on down perhaps another one will, and all the time the offspring from the first mutated resistant one has been happily passing his genetic code on down to successive generations, and so on.) The spontaneous mutation of the chromosomes, where two became one, may be where man began to diverge from the gorilla and chimp in the evolutionary lineage we share. Studies are currently underway with the genes of more and more remote ancestral links (descendants therefrom) in order to further verify this. But geneticists are NOT just speculating about this fusion. The "top" half of the human Chromosome 2 is definitely Chromosome Number (I don't know the actual number) in chimps/gorillas/orangutans, and the "bottom" half of 2 is definitely Chromosome Number (don't know the actual number) in chimps/gorillas/orangutans. THIS is proven. They once were two, now they are one... er, "Two," (Chromosome #2, bad joke....)

Another way of saying this is simply this: TWO primate genes fused together... and the resulting primate was less like a chimp or gorilla or orangutan, and later became known as Man, who continued to breed and live right alongside his chimp/gorilla/orangutan cousins. (Chimps and gorillas and orangutans are COUSINS, by the way; they with Man are grouped into the Primate Family.)

Of course the SIMPLE way to prove this close a commonality would be to interbreed, but who the heck wants to do that? Refrains from any comment, and warns others out there reading this to do likewise, hehehe! Lions and tigers are farther apart genetically, and they produce offspring. So are and so do horses and zebras.

And I've been in plenty of research methods classes that will teach you correlation does not indicate a cause of any sort, only some sort of association. The cause of the association must be determined by experimentation. I am reading the posts, I understand the CORRELATIONS and LIKENESSES. But I do NOT believe that simply because half of a certain chromosome matches with gorillas and half matches with chimps that this nessarily proof we evolved from a common ancestor. There are still things not yet accounted for, such as irrefutable proof of the causes for these similarities.

Just thought I should clarify. I respect your science, and I'm not uninformed. I'm a college grad; I've taken the classes on theory and logic and anatomy and phisiology and on research. And I'm not even saying that there is no correlation and that what science has found isn't true.

I'm simply saying that the causes for these similarities have not been proven, but rather have been speculated.

You're living on it!!!

And just because I love to keep beating a dead horse (it's the ape in me, heh)....

Uh, I think the fact that one of our chromosomes is the same as two chimp/gorilla/orangutan ones combined together is purty solid evidence that we evolved from a common ancestor, especially when you add to that that 98% of our ENTIRE genome is a dead on match for that of chimps, and 97% matches with the other apes. It's not merely a coincidence. Animals which share common ancestry share common genes; THIS IS PROVEN. NOT SPECULATION. It used to be said that Man differed from the apes because he had one less chromosome; now we know that it's just the combination of two.

It's understanding how heredity works, what genetics is, and how to trace ancestry which has opened the door and with the mapping of the human genome has allowed us to finally "discover" the "missing link." How appropriate, for that "extra" chromosome (link) would indeed "appear" to be missing in man, ey? And all along it's been hiding, piggybacked atop another.

And now to toss out another lil eye-opener: did you know that all DNA is made up of the same bases and codons? ALL DNA. Hehehe... The DNA in our cells is the same as in a tree, or in a butterfly, or a horse. It's just the arrangement that differs.

Don't think of DNA as a blueprint. Think of it as a book, with many chapters, and the words in the chapters are made from only four different letters in various arrangements. It's how they are arranged that makes a tree different from a flower from a human being.

And in the case of chimps and people, the arrangement is 98% identical. That's just the way it is, folks!

Oh yeah, and sorry about the tail. Apes don't have them. (Ever see a tail on a chimp or gorilla or orangutan???) Old World monkeys do, however. These guys are primates, but waaaaaay further back from us, taxonomically speaking. Which brings me back to the Primate Family. Hmmmm... I think I goofed. I think "Primate" is a larger umbrella; perhaps order??? I'd have to look it up!

Think of the human genome (entire genetic code) as a recipe book. The chromosomes are different chapters. Codons are the words in the chapters, and the four bases are the letters making up the words. Genomes are recipe books on "how to make a living thing."

Some living things are not very complex, and have itty-bitty, very short recipe books (or instruction manuals, if you wish to think of it that way). A human being, a whale, a mouse: these are very complex organisms, and have BIG instruction manuals, or recipe books.

Now, here's the fun part: the bases are the four amino acids cytosine (C), quinine (G), adenine (A) and thymine (T). They like to link together only in specific ways: C-G and A-T. (When you think of the linkage, think rungs of a ladder, with a "C" on one end of the rung, and the "G" on the other end. This is one itty-bitty base pair on the double-helix that is the DNA molecule; essentially, chromosomes are LOOOOOONG DNA molecules, all coiled up tight. The double-helix curls up.)

Now, these letters can only form 3-letter words, called codons. Each codon is a specific direction for "how to make a protein." Example: on one side of the ladder there would be C-T-A; the corresponding parts would be G-A-T (on the other end of those three particular rungs).

OK, now every protein is the SAME in trees and birds and anemones and squid and monkeys and slime molds and people. Each codon makes the same protein, and each protein has a specific function in a living organism. Assume C-T-A means "this makes a protein to catalyze urea" (I have no idea, I'm using this for an example). All mammals catalzye urea. All mammals have this particular protein to do the job, therefore the DNA of all mammals has the C-T-A codon on it. We all share that particular bit of our genomes with each other.

Codons hook together to create genes, and it is the genes that end up telling the developing organism what physical traits it is going to have. This we know because G-C base pairs show up as dark bands in chromosomal maps, and A-T base pairs show up as light. We learn by studying the genetic maps of "error" organisms: by comparing the chromosomes of, say, a person with sickle cell anemia with that of a person who does not have this syndrome, we can pinpoint the specific gene which is lacking -- thus at fault -- by "comparative-banding-differences." (There are chemical means utilized, but these are too complex to go into here.) IE: we see the gene in the "normal" person, and not in the one with sickle-cell anemia. Thus by careful comparison, we can say "we have found the gene to create normal red blood cells."

Here then is the link to understanding that THIS particular gene makes THIS particular thing occur. The more traits animals share, the closer they are genetically. The closer organisms are together on the evolutionary tree, the more codons/genes they have in common. We share 98% commonality with chimps; 97% with gorillas/orangutans. And we have found the "missing" chromosome linking us even more strongly with the other apes.

From what I understand, they believe the hominid line diverged from the ape line I THINK 6 million years ago. Modern man appears to have been evolved thereafter through a series of hominids and alongside some cousins who died out along the way. Occasionally new hominid species are found which get us PHYSICALLY closer to the "Missing Link" our very own genetic code tells us existed somewhere back in time.

And here's an interesting fact: recent developments in DNA reconstitution have enabled us to suggest modern man was as genetically close to Neanderthal, closer even, than some current races of Man are to each other.

I think that's highly interesting, since evidence is showing a tendency toward the fact that Neanderthal Man himself was a branch from yet another earlier common ancestor, and then Modern Man wiped him out. MAYBE. Scientists are still debating whether we were concurrent branches, or truly evolved from Neanderthal. The most current evidence seems to suggest the former, at this time.

Now this idea is something I dont believe, but I have heard. God is still existent, but he created the first organism, or the first patch of beings which evolved. This conception here could possibly be right, but I dont believe in it actually. Also it could also be an idea that the place was all one, but when a flood happened it seperated the lands. This would also come to be another reason why they are bones seperated across countries. This also could back up the religious belief.

An also those old things could have just been another species, and not ours. I mean no one ever looks at it religiously, but always want it scientifically because it was discovered scientifically. It could very well been another creature that didn't survive over the years and died for unknown reason.

This is just how I feel about the discussion becasue it really shouldn't be in General Discussion, I just believe that scientifical Discussion Forum should be placed up, because it takes up alot of the General Discussion, and Scientifical Discussions could sometimes offend Biblical Talk.

I don't know how to put it more clearly. Anakin and I have written several times that we do not wish to offend anyone. What we are putting up here are basic facts as discovered and proven by science, and the tools by which prove our hypotheses to be true, exciting facts which we would like to discuss.

Genetics IS, and WORKS, and THAT'S THE WAY IT IS. Plate tectonics IS... and IS WORKING NOW... and that's how "bones get spread across the continents" and across the oceans. They were separated as rifting occurred and tectonic plates moved apart, carrying their continents with them. Physics DOES explain the universe in a means that is reproducible and thus provable by more than one guy. I have even mentioned (albeit in other threads) the biologic connection between our emotions and our thought centers (they are both controlled by the limbic system in the brain).

What amazes me is how IT APPEARS that people of faith tend to automatically discard or overlook or ignore or try to "what if--?" facts, simply because those facts do not support their personal beliefs. On the other side of the coin, I suppose I should say that I am more than happy to consider the truths of others (hey, I used to have the strongest faith of anyone around... key words being "used to have." Then I got curious and started reading more and more, on a wider variety of subjects.) -- anyway, I'll happily reconsider if you give me some proof here. Hard evidence.

And please don't point me to stories written by people and gathered together.

Biblical floods, you say? Hmmm.... much evidence indicates glacial damming of rivers. You dam a river by a blob of ice about a mile thick, and a LOT of water builds up behind it. REALLY DEEP. Eventually deep enough that the ice damming it begins to float a bit (ice is less dense than water, right?) and VOILA! Sudden catastrophic failure of the dam, releasing hundreds of millions of cubic tons of water to scour the land. Hey, it happened here in the United States! (Glacial Lake Missoula, in eastern Washington/western Montana. Sent a wall of water 2,000 feet high crashing out to sea when that dam went, a couple million years ago, I believe.)

The latest evidence I heard about "The Flood" was that it was possibly something of this nature. A large, catastrophic but localized failure of sorts. Traces of it left in the rock. Gigantic fossil ripples. Great scouring potholes. Things of this nature. Old lake terraces. And so on. These are all found in the Middle East in the region where "The Flood" occurred. So yes, there was an epic flood THERE. But was it global? Evidence in the rock record would indicate otherwise.

Back to "...and those old things could be another species...." Ummm... yes, they were another species. But still the same genus as us. Physical remains and now DNA evidence has pretty much made this conclusive. We were still cousins, and still evolved along the same path, sometimes diverging, and sometimes not but simply evolving into a higher and higher form.

Lumbia, what good is it to put up a topic everyone will happily nod their heads and agree with? Where is the "discussion" in that? Where the growth? Where the learning? Where the mental challenge?

Easy it is to nod one's head and just say, "Isn't this lovely? We're all in perfect agreement here!" But then what usually follows on the heels of that is stagnation.

And one LAST TIME: it was stated at the very beginning that this conversation might be offensive, so we'd try to keep from bashing. So far it has succeeded in not bashing anyone in writing. What is going on inside the heads of the reader is another matter, and sometimes heated remarks slip back onto the boards.

Going back to the initial post by Anakin, I just want to ask why the parents passing the leaflets and putting up posters against the school's teaching evolution are so afraid to let their kids learn of it. I mean, the parents and their churches can teach the one view, the schools can teach the other (separation of Church and state, supposedly, yeah that's right) and then the kids can choose their own path. Isn't that what being a parent is all about? Protecting your offspring, feeding and clothing him or her and so on, hopefully instilling morality in him or her, presenting him or her with a wealth of views about things (the more the info, the broader the database by which to make a decision) and then stepping back and letting the kid test his or her own wings? Isn't a "forcing of viewpoints" kinda like being a little Hitler? (This is the "only" way to be, because I say it is....)

I think the whole teenage "revolt against the parants" is a natural thing, that is implanted within our brains, to prevent this whole thing, because we have the NEED to deffy our parants, we end up learning, and growing, therin making knowledge evolve with the world.

All THAT to say, simply because I believe in God, this does NOT mean I'm not a seeker of knowledge and NOT a quite educated person. It just simply means that I still believe in a Higher Power.

I see the facts of evolution, I have no understanding of someone who doesn't understand it, or believe in it. You see the facts, just like I do, because Graysith has done us good by presenting them. I really would like to know what you find wrong about it. I want to know where the holes you see are, because I really don't see them. Maybe I'm missing something, and you can tell me what that is. Or, maybe you're missing something, or think there is a hole, and we can explain it to you so that that hole is no longer a hole.

And nobody EVER responded to that point. Not really.

Give me hard evidence. Say I'm from Missouri. (Sheesh, I hope THAT statement didn't inadvertently offend anyone. Hell. I'm from Iowa; Missouri jokes abound here!)

But sorry, I prefer my truths to be supported by solid evidence. Not just firm and organized wishful thinking, which is MY opinion and I have a right to it. Others who operate on another kind of "truth," the kind born from faith in whatever, that is their right as well. But the truths that make up reality tend to be supported by fact, and many of those facts have been presented in posts I've made in this thread.

About "correlation vs. experimentation": ummm... I'm not quite certain what you mean here. I'm not talking about a correlation in genetics, for Pete's sake. We're way beyond that now. The "experiment" is in progress, and has been. It's called LIFE. It's all in the genes.

And the remainder is in the rock record of the earth. Oops, at least truths concerning Earthly things. There's a big ol Universe out there, and that's when cosmology comes in to lend a hand!

I will say that we are very similar to apes and such, but I have another thing to pose for you. Where did all of us come from? I mean, its all got to start somewhere. Microevolution is sort of there, but the way we got to this part is not understood.

You call yourselves people of science but you leave out some certain things that science has also "proved". Although science is never proven, it is only worked on. There is no way to evolve new genes. You can mess with the code of a gene, but you cannot make a new gene.

Then there is an issue of complexity, or order, which ever you prefer, but I'll just point you to a site, instead of going on and on about it myself.
http://www.theory-of-evolution.org/Introduction/evolution.htm

You will like that site, because it looks at the facts of science. It has trouble with the theory of evolution also.

For Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pa., the complexity is too extreme for Darwinism to be plausible. He argues that many systems in living organisms are irreducibly complex. They consist of several parts, all of which must be present for the system to work.

You take out one part, the cell works no more. Think of it as a car. You can add one peice at a time, and expect it to work while its still missing parts. So how can something evolve into something bigger, when it would need to create many complex parts all at one time to continue.

quote:

---

DNA is replicated by DNA polymerase during mitosis and meiosis. While this replication is very accurate, it is not perfect. When a mistake is made, it is called a mutation. Such mistakes rarely result in a gene that encodes a better protein. In fact, most mutations are harmful.

Mutations change the steps in a DNA strand. Three types of change are possible, substitution, insertion, and deletion. Substitutions are changes to an existing step. For example, an A-T step may be replaced with a G-C step. When one step is replaced by a new one, the mutation is called a point mutation. Since the genetic code is read three steps at a time, point mutations can change at most one amino acid in a protein.

Deletions result when an existing step is lost from a DNA strand, and insertions result when a new step is added. Such mutations are collectively known as frame shift mutations. Frame shift mutations shift the reading frame of RNA polymerase. As a result, all of the codons found in a gene are grouped differently. One insertion or deletion will completely alter a gene and the resulting protein. The following two examples illustrate this idea.

Given the following DNA sequence: ATG-AAA-CAC-TTG-T which codes for the amino acids, methionine-lysine-histidine-leucine.1) What happens if the first "A" mutates to a "T" (a point mutation). The new sequence reads TTG-AAA-CAC-TTG-T and it codes for tryptophan-lysine- histidine-leucine.2) What happens if the first letter is deleted (a frame shift mutation). The new sequence reads TGA-AAC-ACU-TGT, and it codes for STOP-asparagine-threonine-cysteine. This mutation changes 3 amino acids, and it creates a stop codon.

As this example shows, only point mutations can create useful proteins. Point mutations change at most one amino acid in the final protein. In contrast, frame shift mutations change multiple amino acids and create multiple stop codons. Frame shift mutations only create garbage. Point mutations are the only way to alter an existing protein in a meaningful way. Traits that depend on one protein ( like pea color) can be optimized through point mutations.

New alleles are produced by point mutations. For example, at one time in history, all peas may have been round. One or more point mutations to the round allele created the wrinkled allele. Point mutations create genetic variation by creating new alleles. Natural selection operates on this variability by selecting the best alleles. Today most new alleles are harmful. The proteins found in life have been around for a very long time. They have already been optimized by natural selection; and as result, most changes observed by scientists today are harmful. Alleles that are not harmful are almost always neutral. Neutral alleles are no better or worse than the original gene. They are simply two variations of the same gene. Both genes are equally fit in the eyes of natural selection.

---

Another evidence in science, that changing DNA mostly ends up as either neutrul or negative effects.

Hmm, yet another article...

I'm not really in the mood to type much today, but I have a few more things to say...

Joey, how can you assume we are ignorant of the facts presented? I have seen the "facts" you have been presented and I think you need to look at more than just those facts. There is more out there than you are reading. Apparently you have read as much as you would like us to think you have. I read over 8 books on this subject within the past year. I am well informed on the facts. If anyone would like any references to the books I have read, and the websites I have referenced. Just email me. Some of the stuff you might find is that, nothing is proven about evolution. There is just as much to disprove it as there is to prove it.

I don't mean to sound harsh, but some of you need to stop thinking people like me and Mara are stupid because we beleive in something that you do not beleive in. Me and her have both studied about things like this, and we are not ignorant to facts. There is more than one side to everything.

Maybe I'm missing something completely in how thought works, but I see the facts of evolution, so much so that I don't question it in my mind anymore, because it's right there in front of me.

Blake, science is not complete. No one claims to know everything. Your "faith" blinds you from seeing the facts. It's very hard to stop believing in something that you believe in so strongly, but I don't have the slightest clue why you can't admit that you COULD be wrong.

Do you mean an ADDITIONAL one to all those in the genomes that already exist? Perhaps not enough geological time has passed yet; good grief, the earth is 4.6 billion years old, and man has only been kicking around for the last couple million. That's not enough time for a brand new gene to evolve; anyway, perhaps some have but the offspring were not viable. Not to mention that we've only begun learning about DNA for less than 100 years, sheesh, like we're so damned important genes are going to roll over and evolve right in front of our noses because WE ARE MAN, DAMMIT, AND IT JUST BETTER DO IT.

What a sad kind of image that makes.

Evolution is an extremely lengthy process, bit by bit random mutations which are then subjected to the harsh environment of reality to see if the new trait/organism will pan out. The majority of the time, nothing major happens or something bad occurs. Who knows? Maybe that's why we have so much "non-functioning" or "junk" DNA... it's the safety buffer. Nothing happens if those alleles mutate, and since there is way more of that than the directional kind, statistics say on the average nothing much would happen to the organism OVER TIME. ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.

I guess the bottom line would be: Occam's Razor. I can't see genetics -- HEREDITY -- working for every other living organism on the face of the earth EXCEPT man. Nope, too many variables arise to appease that hypotheses, and the simplest answer is quite often the correct one. The fact is that we see the SAME GENES in ourselves that we do in other living organisms... our genome is just bigger because it has evolved into a more complex organism. Or, we've evolved into a more complex organism because of the gradual mutation and lengthening of the human genome.

Another thing: guys, I've noticed two things:

1. People who disagree with evolution tend to fly off the handle about it, and get all defensive. Why?

2. Those of you disagreeing with the evolution posts that have been put up here have all but outright accused those supporters of it of calling you ignorant. EXCUSE ME. Where did we call you ignorant? I know I certainly never did. Our posts are straightforward, but many have been misread and misinterpreted. Anakin stated that he thought a particular statement was ignorant, but c'mon folks, let's separate the wheat from the chaff... er, that is, the statement from the individual. That is two completely separate things.

Anyway: Freudian slip? I don't know. I'm just presenting facts as I've learned, and as keep being discovered, and waiting for someone to come up with evidence to the contrary. Haven't seen it yet... and the majority of scientists don't either.

They see what works.

Oh by the way, I thought I mentioned somewhere earlier about science always seeking the truth. But not as a result of personal beliefs or wishful thinking.

Hard, reproducible facts. End of the story.

Gene Separates Early Humans from Apes
Reuters
Aug 26 2002 4:00PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A gene that separates humans from the apes and all other animals seems to have disappeared from humans up to three million years ago, just before they first stood upright, researchers said on Monday.
Most animals have the gene but people do not -- and it may be somehow involved in the expansion of the brain, the international team of researchers said.

The gene controls production of a sialic acid -- a kind of sugar -- called Neu5Gc, the researchers write in an advance online issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

"This mutation occurred after our last common ancestor with bonobos (pygmy chimpanzees) and chimpanzees, and before the origin of present-day humans," they wrote. Neanderthal skeletons, the oldest early humans from who DNA has been obtained, also lack the sugar.

"It happens to be first known genetic difference between humans and chimpanzees where there is a major outcome," Ajit Varki of the University of California San Diego, who led the research, said in a telephone interview. "We are exploring the consequences of this."

Varki said the role of the gene is not fully understood.

"The gene itself is involved in changing the surfaces of all cells in the body," he said. "The surface of all cells in the body is covered with sugars. This one is missing only in humans."

It may help influence how viruses and bacteria infect cells, and with how cancer cells interact, Varki said. "There are some clues that it might have something to do with brain plasticity," he added.

Humans and chimps share more than 98 percent of their DNA, so a few genes must make a big difference. Chimps and humans split from a common ancestor 6 million to 7 million years ago.

The collaboration of some of the top experts in various fields, ranging from anthropology to the genetic differences between people and apes, determined that this gene disappeared from humans between 2.5 million and 3 million years ago.

"It happened after the time that our ancestors stood upright, when their hands and so on were like ours, but their brains are still same size as that of chimpanzees," Varki said.

"That just tells you the timing is appropriate for the possibility that this may have something to do with brain expansion."

The team included anthropologist Meave Leakey of the Leakey Foundation in Nairobi, Kenya, an expert in early humans, and Svante Paabo of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, who helped study the first Neanderthal DNA.

Earlier this month Paabo's team reported that the had found mutations in a gene called FOXP2 that seems to be involved in the face and jaw movements necessary for speech. A relatively small change makes the human version of the gene different from the version found in apes, the researchers found.

08/26/02 15:58 ET

I really have looked for answers in evolution also, but looking just for answers and not for ways to disprove it would be just plain ignorant. So Joey has no right to think my ideas are "stupid" or "ignorant".
Here is a non-creationist scientists who questions evolution.
Questioning of my faith, and the Bible, both sides are put to the test...

So I can't prove that there is God, and I never will. Some people that I consider friends may think me as ignorant or stupid, because I beleive that Jesus Christ was and is my savior, but I'm gonna keep religion out of this.

I beleive that evolution right now is only a theory. There is much to beleive it is not right, and there is a little to make me beleive it is right. I really do look at both sides, whether Joey beleives me or not.

I put my faith in something, and I try to back it up. This is called Apolgetics. I'm not gonna say anymore, if you would like to veiw my side of the story, you can email me and I will give you a list of books and websites that you can read to be even more informed than you already are.

(But ok, just to be fair, I'll go have a look. They better have hard fact to back themselves up.)

Don't think I'm misinformed or overly biased, either. I was brought up in the Lutheran church... and then went to a Christian one (!!!!)... and when I was younger I was the most devout believer you'd ever want to see.

Then I started reading beyond the box... and simply walked away into reality. I've let go of the apron strings. I don't need a "Daddy" watching out over me any longer. But that's me.

Faith and reality will never meld, I don't think. And as long as there is an overabundance of faith in the world, this world is going to continue having problems. (And that's all I'm going to say about THAT.)

I just can't understand how people can totally dismiss overwhelming PHYSICAL evidence that is staring them smack in the eye, and adhere to the ideas of unproven hypotheses jus because they go along with pre-held beliefs. That is no way to ever get to the truth. That is molding the environment to fit personal reality, and personal reality is a very, very subjective thing.

1. I get defensive because I strongly dislike even anything I SAY being called "ignorant" or "stupid." I don't care how many times you say "seperate the two," if it were you and not me, you'd find yourself getting defensive too. I believe it's called the limbic system? When one believes in something strongly (Religion OR science) they tend to not like it being slammed. And this IS a discussion. I'm going to "defend" what I believe just as much as you are. That's what makes discussion. And aside from one or two comments, I haven't said a THING about creationism. You all brought that into this because you know I'm a Christian.

2. See number 1.

And ALSO, since when is it scientific to look for the things that simply PROVE what you already believe is true? We talked about this in Psychology class and in Research classes and everything else. It's sorta like a self-fullfilling prophecy (there's a science term for it, but I can't drag it from my brain at the moment). If you believe something to be true, it is. And when you only argue with things that support your theory, then you're not even daring to explore the other possibilities. For God's sake (pun intended), how do you think they ever came up with the theory of evolution? By simply going along and finding facts to prove what they already believed?

We all know the answer to that one. Scientific research RELIES ON experimentation to test theories. This requires constantly questioning the things you believe are true to make certain that they are. THAT'S science. HARD FACTS. TESTED OVER AND OVER AND OVER FOR RELIABILITY.

So, in saying you AREN'T going to visit the sites Blake has mentioned seems to implicate something to me. I'm solid in my religion. I don't question it. You too are solid in your scientific beliefs, and you aren't questioning those, even though there are apparently people out there who dare to disagree. The Galileos of today, if you will. The theory of evolution started with a guy who disagreed with everyone else. It's what's "in" these days, so it's easy to look at all the supporting evidence.

But what about the evidence that might not support it? And how can any of you, who clearly aren't questioning what you believe, point the finger at those of us who believe in something else for not questioning what we believe in either?

Excepting the fact, of course, that you think you are right, and we are wrong.

Ok, shutting up now.

P.S. I get highly defensive too because many people assume that, simply because I'm religious that I'm weak somehow. If you can honestly think that of me, you don't have a clue what I've been through in life. (Not that I'm saying anyone here thinks this, but I've gotten it before, and it quite frankly is a load of crap).

"And ALSO, since when is it scientific to look for the things that simply PROVE what you already believe is true? We talked about this in Psychology class and in Research classes and everything else. It's sorta like a self-fullfilling prophecy (there's a science term for it, but I can't drag it from my brain at the moment). "

That is exactly what Blake does every time we have a discussion. I went to those sites the first time blake gave them to me, I saw that the people there do the same thing the quote says. They looked for evidence that went along with what they already believed. I've read plenty of stuff for and against evolution, and I know the majority of clear thinking people can connect the dots, and would agree with the theory (not saying you aren't clear thinking).

((From the site reached through the link in Bob's last post)):

1. "...Time magazine, in its August 23, 1999 issue, ran, as its cover story, a piece on "amazing new discoveries" that add to the already "convincing" evidence that human beings evolved from an ape-like ancestor over the course of the last 4 to 6 million years.5 The article's opening tone is condescending to "creationists and their intellectual allies." The writers of this piece would have the readers believe that it is all but a foregone conclusion from the scientific evidence that man is nothing more than the latest ape to be 'served up on the evolutionary palette.' In support of this, the authors of the piece site four recently discovered hominid 'species' to support this assertion. However, we find this piece to be unbalanced. The importance and the general response of paleoanthropologists to these newly identified species are exaggerated by the authors of the Time article..."

Ummm... where is the original article, so we may read it? I happen to have read one of the scientific papers regarding the discovery of the one hominid; there is nothing exaggerated about it. It is a very detailed anatomical description of the commonalities this newly-found fossil has to the hominid line (man) and the "ape" line (all the other apes we descended from and alongside of.) Not to mention the fact that the writers for Time are members of the media, who as a rule have a tendency to sensationalize. It's a mark of their trade. But sensational or dry, the facts are simply remarkable if anyone would care to go read the actual report....

2. "...Likewise, we regard the hominids assigned to early Homo such as Homo erectus, Homo ergaster, Homo antecessor, Homo hedeilbergensis, and Homo neandertalensis as being upright walking primates that possessed intelligence, will and emotion. There is no evidence that these animals possessed a spirit, since no religious activity can be seen in the archeological record. Although these animals used tools, the tools used, even by Neandertals, were not as sophisticated as those used by modern humans. Moreover, Neandertals showed different behavior and in all likelihood did not possess language capacity..."

Excuse me, but these guys neglect to mention that Homo neandertalensis buried his dead, and crude artifacts have been discovered in burial sites. I can dig this information up for people if anyone would like me to (no pun intended.) Not to mention that the so-called "spirit" or "morality" or whatever you want to call it is a component of higher-functioning entities, and quite probably was in existence only in a proto-stage at the time of Neanderthal Man. Not to shock anybody, but we're closing in on the genes which determine behavior as well as physical traits. It's already been proven that while "educational nurturing" might "momentarily increase" a child's ability to learn, studies have gone on to show that in the long run of each individual's life he or she finally "settles" on an already (I hate to put it this way, but it's difficult not to) "inherited" IQ. What they're finding is that heredity emplaces us with the innate ability to learn up to a given potential, and the environment accelerates this. But that's another story.... And while I'm on this, there is much genetic evidence supporting the fact that our ability to learn a language is related to genes found on chromosome 7... in fact they ARE on chromosome 7. A gene which is there now, and which probably didn't evolve in the predecessors up to Neandertal Man.

This article then goes on in great detail about the physical characteristics of various hominids, linking them together physically... so far in agreement with anthropological studies ...but then has a tendency to zero in partially regarding evidence which would continue to support science. Disagreement between brain size of early hominids is brought forth as though we should expect the size to determine the result now. Science has recently uncovered the gene missing in us which seems to have inhibited brain expansion; what is unknown would be the amount of expansion this gene repressed. We can only go by the rest of the evidence in the rock record, studying the links between successively complex and modernistic hominids, which we trace by their anatomy.

OK, time to research and read their source material.... More later.

OK, so far a simple online search has found this:

(From: <http://www.loreoftheland.com.au/land/eras/60000.html> )BP
55,000 - 60,000 BP: At a site in Arnhem Land, Northern Territory, a rock shelter was used by people about 60,000 years ago.
45,000 BP: Rock engravings discovered in South Australia date back 45,000 years.

Another: "...coevolution is the key to survival of all species, maintains Flannery, a senior research scientist in mammalogy at the Australian Museum in Sydney. Just as human immunities have failed when confronted with previously isolated viruses, so entire ecosystems have crumbled with the introduction of man. Australia, New Zealand, New Caledonia and New Guinea make for an interesting case study: though once conjoined, they later separated, developing disparate climates and soil types. Equally important, they were colonized at different times, with man reaching Australia 45,000 to 60,000 years ago..."

Cave find dates dawn of creativity
By: Roger Highfield - News
news..telegraph.co.uk
January 11, 2002 9:40 am ET

TWO pieces of ochre - a form of iron ore - engraved with geometrical patterns more than 70,000 years ago reveal that people were able to think abstractly and behave as modern humans much earlier than previously thought.

The discovery in a South African cave suggests that humans have created art for twice as long as suggested by previous discoveries, notably by cave paintings from France that have been dated to less than 35,000 years ago.

The surfaces of the red ochre, measuring two and three inches long, were first scraped and ground smooth. They were then marked with cross hatches and lines.

Prof Christopher Henshilwood of the State University of New York, Stony Brook, and the Iziko South African Museum in Cape Town, said: "Deliberate depictions, whether abstract or pictorial, signify modern human behaviour.

"These finds point to Africa as the cradle of both human anatomical modernity and behavioural modernity.

"The importance is that African people, from whom we are all descended, were modern in their behaviour long before they got to Europe as Cro-Magnons and replaced Neanderthals."

Prof Henshilwood and colleagues recovered the two pieces of ochre from the Middle Stone Age layers at Blombos Cave, a site on the southern Cape shore of the Indian Ocean, 180 miles east of Cape Town.

"We have no idea what the engravings represent," said Prof Henshilwood. "They are abstract and one is fairly complex.

"They almost certainly had significance to the makers and this meaning was probably conveyed and is associated with modern syntactical language."

Ochre is frequently found in Stone Age sites less than 100,000 years old and may have been used symbolically as a body or decorative paint and possibly also for skin protection and tanning animals' hides.

While genetic and fossil evidence suggests that humans were anatomically modern in Africa before 100,000 years ago, scholars are not yet able to agree on whether human behaviour and physique developed in tandem.

Some believe that modern behaviour arose relatively late and rapidly, 40,000 to 50,000 years ago, while others believe that it evolved earlier and more gradually.

The diversity of views reflects the lack of agreement among scientists on what behaviour best defines the difference between modern humans and their earlier ancestors.

But there is a general consensus that a clear marker of modern behaviour are the cognitive abilities that would be used, for example, to create abstract or depictional images.

"Archaeological evidence of abstract or depictional images indicates modern behaviour," Prof Henshilwood said. "The Blombos Cave engravings are intentional images."

Blombos Cave is a rich site that has yielded early evidence of bone tool manufacture and fishing, both also widely regarded as markers of modern human behaviour.

"At Blombos there is evidence for fishing, manufacture of very finely crafted bone tools, sophisticated manufacture of bifacially flaked bone tools, symbolic use of ochre possibly for body decoration and now the production of engraved objects," the professor said.

The ochre pieces were found in 1999 and 2000 and both were located close to hearths and in an undisturbed deposit of ash and sand.

To determine their age, two dating methods were applied. One dates the burnt stone found in the same layer as the engraved ochres and the second the sand grains from the dune sand that overlies these layers.

Dr Geoff Duller of the Aberystwyth Luminescence Laboratory, University of Wales, Aberystwyth, said: "Dating of burnt rock fragments associated with the ochre pieces and an overlying dune suggest that the pieces are approximately 77,000 years old, supporting the model of an earlier rise of modern human behaviour in sub-Saharan Africa."

"...The usual creationist response to hominid fossils is to claim that there are no intermediates; each one is either a human or an ape. It doesn't matter that some of the "humans" have a brain size well below the normal human range, heavy brow ridges, no chin, and teeth larger than modern ones set in a projecting jaw, or that some of the "apes" were bipedal, with very humanlike teeth, and brains larger than those of similar sized apes. There are some skulls which cannot be reliably assigned to either genus. (Willis 1989)

(Oops, Loban! ~ There, I said it!)

No, I just decided to agree to disagree, because we all know that neither of our sides are cut and dry proven. So pretty much I'm just staying out of it now. Maybe I'll feel like posting later, but seriously I don't really want to discuss it anymore, because it will go no where.

I do say I respect what you do beleive in, no matter if I disagree with it. You are trying to reveal something you beleive is the truth, and if it happens that it is true, and can be proven without a doubt. I will be more than happy to beleive it.

I will leave you guys with one last link though, if you want to do even more research, on why I beleive that evolution at this point has way to many holes.Theory of Evolution: Intelligent Design

Sheesh, how much more proof is there other than solid evidence of intelligent artistry 77,000 years old? The artifact WAS there, it DOES EXIST, and it HAS BEEN DATED accurately well into the "80,000-40,000 YBP blank spot" where all evidence of Man is supposed to up and disappear.

Good grief man, believe what you want. But please don't belittle your intelligence or mine by your repeated statements that what I am presenting here is not factual...

BECAUSE IT IS.

Glyph flares into ultraviolet....

And what I was saying is that evolution is NOT proven, and you cannot say it is. There are still way to many holes in the theory for it to be proven.

Ya know, you say you will believe evolution only when it is proven without a doubt. Since when is God, or religion as a whole proven fact?

Look, step out of your holiness. Humans are naturally curious, they always have been. We didn't know why we were here or how we got here or how the sun and the moon floated in the sky, or why it got dark. We wanted to know, it was natural human curiousity. Most of the world to them was completely unexplainable, so, it must have been something better than them, something that understood it all, who created it. It caught on. How much simpler can I say it than that?

SINCE WHEN?

Ummm... excuse me, but there is another little fact called RADIOMETRIC DATING, which is HOW we date the rock record, and it goes by the amount of daughter products there are in ratio to the naturally radioactive minerals which exist in EVERYTHING, EVEN PEOPLE.

For living organisms, we use carbon-14. It has a half-life of 5700 years (for you non-science majors, that is half of the original radioactive material decays into known products in that amount of time. Beginning with one whole, at the end of 5700 years the ratio is 50-50; at the end of another 5700 years it is 25:75, and so on. For materials older than what can be dated using C-14, we use elements which have radioactive half-lives in the millions, and sometime even billions of years. We can pinpoint quite accurately, and then zero in using known rock strata and the relative position of the find to that strata.

I hardly call this "circular reasoning," Rather it is factual evidence, and PROVEN IN THE LAB. I've done it myself.

Oh by the way, if you think radioactivity is something mysterious found only in nuclear explosions or bad sci-fi movies, think again. As I said, there is natural radioactivity everywhere; ever heard of radon? It's a natural by-product (one of the daughter products, in fact) of the radioactive decay of uranium which is found in ordinary granite... yes, that purty stone we make buildings and floors out of! ...and in some parts of the country is actually a worrisome problem.

Oh yes, to clarify further: radioactive decay is when a big nucleus (has a lot of protons, and waaaayyyyy too many neutrons) spontaneously breaks down and forms nuclei of smaller elements (less protons in the nucleus, but still to many neutrons, hence the process continues) with the simultaneous release of energy in the form of gamma radiation (among other things). Still don't believe this happens? Ummm... it's what powers the sun, and how it works, and this we have proven because we've caught the particles emitted from the sun, not to mention with further study have theorized the emission of the elusive neutrino which was said to be let off in supernovae... which we finally did in turn really prove by capturing some when Supernova 1987A went off in the Small Magellanic Cloud....

Anyway, I digress. But PLEASE, don't EVEN BEGIN to try to make a statement concerning something of which you obviously have no knowledge without checking the facts. Radiometric dating WORKS. Radiation EXISTS. And each radioactive element has it's own unique half-life, simply because each different element has a different sized nucleus from other elements.

And before anyone starts throwing the atomic bomb back at me let me say that was at the rather strong behest of the government backed by the military. Every scientist working on the Manhattan Project was horrified by what the implications were of what they had created, and Einstein the most mortified of them all... but Germany was leading the heavy water experiment race, and after all we were at war....

What I meant was that to get an acturate dating process you need a completely pure substance and such, and well that is almost impossible.

I was reading an article about it just the other day about how Carbon-14 dating is not as reliable as it we once thought it was.

Radiometric dating is still accepted as the means of accurately dating samples, and when used IN TANDEM with relative dating methods (by reading the actual rock, and noting the position of something relative to the rock, and following those layers out to other areas on earth, and so on, sheesh, go read a basic geology course book....) we can narrow in upon the age of something purty durn close. For example, in the case of something dated around 4 billion years, we can narrow it (using radiometric dating of minerals and an element with a loooong half-life) to within a million years, which sounds like a lot but is really what, about 2.5% of error, I believe. This is because we use something other than C-14 for the dating, and are dating crystals and not bits of material and so forth. 2.5% of error is really quite low....

look at it, rather then try to prove that BOOM humans evolved from this, lead backwards slowly, i find small steps work best in these things.

Look at our technology now, now, compar this to when our parants were growing up... BIG DIFFERENCE, theres a "step or stage" of positive growth right there. so, mentaly, Evolution is now proven beyond a doubt, our minds evolved. now for the biological front.

Look at our change from the past, life has changed imensly from the past. If evolution did not exist, then i would be married with a few kids right now, cause i would die in about 3 years, maybe 5 if i live a good life. our body's have evolved incredably, look at it, the average life expectancy used to be 20 years old, 30 if yer lucky 40 was almost unheard of, now look, people are living to be like 98, 102, thats a BIG difference? why? some say conditions are better, but its really because of disease...and why are we not having to worry about those diseases that plagued the world back when you died a hapily maried man at 20, with 3 kids and a loving wife?
Evolution, our body's have evolved to survive, developing immunities to diseases we have troubles with.
OK, now into the true topic at hand. weve discovered our minds evolve with time, well, if you drag yourself back far enough, we'd be no more advanced then current day gorrilia's and such, we'd bald ape's. on the body half, well, our size has changed a bit to, i mean, a 6' 1" boy such as myself just didnt exist a while back, its been proven that as we advance, we hold the capabilities of being taller, as simple as it may seem.
so, if we can get taller, why not lose a little hair? i mean, actauly, the hairs still there! its just lighter colored! so, with this said, we are blound apes with different hair on top, there are red apes, and black apes, and all other kindsa apes out there, so, we are just a light colored being, that happens to be very similer to apes in every aspect? i think not, sorry to say it, but evolution has just been proven,
"brillent deduction" its all about the small steps leading to the leaps. through process of basics, we find that we are indeed apes, that have simply grown smarter, and changed hair color.

But, i know, even those suporting evolution will most likely diss-agree with me, oh well, i still say im right.

Entaris, just because technology has gotten so much better doesn't mean we evolve. It just means we learn on the knowledge we get. Of course we know more today, because we learn from our past.

I am talking about the theory of evelution, look at the post bery carefully, as ive said, you have to look at the small changes in order to see the big, "rome wasnt built in a day"

If you look at how our sociaty has evolved, is incredibly simple to say the "theory of evolution" is completly correct, why? because as we go further back in socioty, were more apelike, less evolved. eventauly, the social structure of humanity, has to reach a point that it is akin to the apes, and as we are simply strangly haired apes in appearance, then what seperates us? we had to start somewhere, apparantly it was the apes.
But after this post im out here again, as no one understands my incredibly mind numbing logic...

Anakin, thank you for being the steady one in this thread -- as well as staying true to your course of questions you put forth to Bob. I too am curious as to how a person will totally ignore proven fact that HIGHLY SUPPORTS a theory over no fact whatsoever, and what I've read in certain articles to be called "crackpot science."

"Crackpot science" only listens to a part... not the whole... and tends to skew the data, and use only the bits which may support its own views, and tends to ignore the rest.

Hence my reference to the article from the website Bob provided the link for... the statement about the "40,000-80,000 YBP disappearance of any evidence of man." I have then gone on to present fact to utterly disprove that rather grandiose statement... and now Bob is backing away once more.

And now, ummm.... from what I am reading in "Genome," evidence leads science to now think upon the exact "hows and whys" single cells did unite to form more complex organisms. At first it was along the lines that organisms unite symbiotically, to be more efficient as a group together rather than singly. Eventually they actually went from a group to a "one, made up of those group members" -- see mitochondria in our cells, folks, if you don't believe me. Hehehe... that lil powerhouse of ATP used to be a separate single-celled organism which way back in the mists of time found home in a cell and joined in to provide that cell energy, and in return have a place safe from predation. This we know because the mitochondria has a double cell wall around it, among other things.

Anyway, science is going further. There is evidence springing up from our learning to understand genetics more deeply, where genes are said to be in competition with each other, and thus evolve to a more complex organism that they might find expression of themselves. In this enlightening new school of knowledge it is being heavily considered that intelligence is actually just a by-product of our genes trying to "run the show," so to speak.... hehehe.

Hmm...I'm only going to make one reply to this topic.

Yes, I am a Christian, and no, I do not believe in large-scale evolution. I'm going to take a diferent spin on this, because while I've been following this thread for a few days, I didn't know where to jump in.

All I'm going to say is this. I am very much of an instinctual person. I trust my feelings and I go with them. I definately have a lot of respect for M1J and BobPalpatine because they've done a lot of personal reading and research on how they can back up their faith, and I'll admit that I haven't. I know that Gray and Anakin won't think my reply very logical, but it's not meant to be logical. The reason I don't believe in large scale evolution is because of the experiences that I have in life as a Christian. I truly believe that I can feel God's presence with me wherever I am, and it makes me happy. There's always been something in my gut that what I hear on Sunday mornings and what I read in the Bible is the truth. It's also one of the reasons why I still wake up in the morning, but that's another story altogether. Anyway, because I believe that God created everything with a few simple words from his mouth, I do not believe that any animal(or creature/being, whatever) was 'created' or came about through large-scale evolution.

That's my two cents.

May I remind you that unlike some schools of thought, science always tries to disprove itself? The overall aim is for TRUTH to be known, after all.

And it takes LOTS AND LOTS of not only reproducible but PREDICTABLE evidence to make a scientific theory into a law. But then science doesn't refuse disproving fact which would topple that law; instead it uses it as a means of GROWTH, to further seek the truth. ie: Obviously, when disproving facts arise (again, reproducible an predicting factual ones!!! -- and ones which of course cannot themselves be disproven, for if that were the case they wouldn't be fact) then science has been on the wrong track. Science seeks truth, and so would backtrack to where the initial error was made, and then continue.

That is the wonderful thing about science. It actively seeks facts, whether proving or disproving, in order to find truth. It does not ignore those facts which fly in the face of a formerly held truth, which is something I find religion/faith does all the time.

And the main reason is this: science is OBJECTIVE, while faith is based on very, very much SUBJECTIVE reasoning. Faith sprang up from, "I don't reeeeally understand how all this works, so it MUST be due to God...." while science says, "Here, look! I've found this and this and this...."

What weirded me out was that religion was brought up. I was surprised that people opposed the theory on religious grounds, but at the same time they said that evolution is just a theory. So did they have a problem with the theory because it went against their religious beliefs, or because they thought it was only a guess? That was in the first post.

Also I was confused about Mara1Jade's challenges to the theory. She mentioned there were a lot of holes but I couldn't find where she said what they are. I noticed the "correlation and causation" bit but I wasn't sure what that had to do with evolution.

While im not a big religious tycoon, i think the main problem religious folk have with the theory of evolution is that it goes against the whole "Adam and Eve" thing. Because after all, if we evolved from apes, then Adam and Eve most likely did not exist.

Other than Mara's posts, I have a question about something Gray said. Sorry if she actually corrected this later and I missed it: She mentioned that the difference between scientific theory and scientific law is that a theory continually upheld by proof becomes a scientific law.
It was my understanding before, however, that a theory never becomes law; a hypothesis is what becomes law once it has been proven (I use the word proven somewhat loosely of course). A theory is something that explains the law, and doesn't become a law itself. So for evolution: evolution can be regarded as a law, that is, it states that organisms change over time. Then there are theories that explain this law, such as mutation, punctuated equilibrium, natural selection, genetic drift, all that stuff.