digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Evolution and Wisdom of Crowds

karmatics.com — There is no question that religion is a big part of the reason behind the large number of people who reject evolution. But I am convinced that just as often, the cause and effect is reversed: people hold onto their fundamentalist religious beliefs because evolution by natural selection is so counter-intuitive to so many.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • lessca, on 10/21/2007, -24/+7People have a need to believe in something greater - normally at the expense of what is rational - human behavior - you cannot find logic in it - like the article - cheers les - www.myradicalblogs.com
    • bekind, on 10/24/2007, -4/+0Do you atheists experience love? Isn't love kind of like a flying spaghetti monster?
    • brokencrystal, on 10/24/2007, -3/+1I read an article about a study done on atheists. Most men who become atheists had a bad father. Deep down, they simply don't want another one telling them what to do, so they reject a God.
  • babychen, on 10/20/2007, -2/+10Pretty tough topic there. People also believe because that shows you a clear path, and an afterlife. It's scary for many to think all that may not be true.
    • SuperWinner, on 10/21/2007, -5/+15Scary or not, its true. Its painful, but its time to grow up.
      • cmorwhat, on 10/21/2007, -1/+4thank you for that simple eloquent statement. it sums up my argument perfectly. ill be using this in my next debate. come to germany ill buy you a drink
      • brokencrystal, on 10/21/2007, -1/+1Is it true because you say it is true? Where is your evidence? Why should I or anyone else follow you?
  • Shawn4168, on 10/21/2007, -25/+5I don't buy it. Religion has been around for thousands of years. People didn't need excuses to believe then, why would they now?
  • WRXFiles, on 10/21/2007, -3/+11I have always thought that a large part of the problem is that the human mind is not good at comprehending the vast time frames involved. If mankind had evolved 'knowing' the age of the universe, we might more easily accept processes that occur over geologic time frames.
    • pgoowy, on 10/20/2007, -0/+1So people are religious because the're thick compared the their aetheistic counterparts with more "comprehending" minds?
  • kindwarrior, on 10/22/2007, -30/+13There is so much disinformation in the debate about evolution part of me loathes entering the fray. First, the concept of "evolution" was introduced by the Christian community (Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) to be specific) he used it as an argument for the existence of God (as the guiding hand in evolution). What Darwin asserted was that randomness could replace God as the agent of evolution. An argument cogent to this was the notion of Natural Selection: environmental forces culling populations so that successive generations are better adapted to the world in which they live. Natural Selection, in and of itself, is not enough to remove God from the agency role since Christian scripture is full of examples of God using environmental variables to shape, punish, and reward. What needs to be established is that randomness alone (and there's a whole other can of worms that I'm avoiding about the definition of randomness) can create the complex eco-systems we have today. Back in the late 1800s, the state of knowledge in genetics and mathematics, made this seem at least plausible and the notion was so thoroughly embraced by the progressive era movement as justification for making humanism the engine of change that it has become core to their religion.

    The problem is, it doesn't work. The issue of the existence of Ribose alone statistically defies any random model in any universe 100 times older than even the broadest estimates for our universe allow (unless we invoke a multi-verse model where-in all probabilities extend to infinity and then assert that we just happen to live in the universe where Ribose did spontaneously come into being) and this is well before we get into the more complex structures of Life.

    Does this mean life is "proof" of God? Of course not, at least not scientifically. What it means is there are two *ideological* models to explain the existence of life and neither has much backing them up scientifically. The Christian community is much more open and honest about this than the atheists (who are simply bent on propagandizing their religion) and, sadly, the Christian willingness to admit where they do not have answers has allowed the atheists to portray them as ignorant and superstitious. Christian researcher actively seek support for their model and even try to solve the Atheists problem for them (OK, randomness alone can't do this but is it possible to have an intermediate that improves probability like an enzyme) just so they don't get blind sided in the open debate they are never allowed to have.

    Take the article above; the assertion is that the "wisdom of the crowds" somehow supports the Atheist model and undermines the Christian. It does nothing of the sort, there is nothing "random" in the "wisdom of the Crowds" if anything it lends credence to the guiding force of providential will.
    • thebaron2, on 10/21/2007, -4/+21Randomness has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is not random - that's where selection comes in. While mutations may be considered "random," they're distribution among the gene pool and survivability could not be further from a random occurrence. Read more on the topic - nothing pisses off evolutionary biologists more than the argument that evolution is just random.
      • Asianwaste, on 10/20/2007, -1/+3Well then... would that make randomness have some sort of contribution to the evolution of the species?
        • ToadLeg, on 10/20/2007, -0/+2"Randomness [has] some sort of contribution to the evolution of the species" by being deleted from the genome, by not reproducing.
      • pgoowy, on 10/21/2007, -0/+2"Survivability" (is that an evolutionary biologists term?) reduces the gene pool.
        Randomness increases the gene pool (in a monkeys typing Shakespeare kind of way).
        Random is central to evolution.
        • Tanath, on 10/21/2007, -0/+1No, it's just central to the "debate" between scientists & science-minded people, and "anti-evolutionists."
    • thebaron2, on 10/22/2007, -4/+25To be more succinct, and to quote Richard Dawkins: "Mutation is random; natural selection is the very opposite of random."
      • kindwarrior, on 10/21/2007, -19/+3You know the fact that you're ideologically blind -- I can't do anything about but you could at least really read what I wrote. You have no idea how tired I am of mentally crippled Atheists latching on to buzzwords to attack reasoned argument and being too brainwashed to realize they've said nothing.

        I cover quite clearly the distinction between natural selection and randomness. I point out that natural selection is not incompatible to the Christian idea of divine guidance. The question is whether random mutations within a genome can statistically generate evolution or whether there has to be some constraining force on probability the prefers "good" changes to "bad" changes. If fact, to this day, while we have demonstrated that environmental forces can effect the expression of specific gnomes within in a population we have not once observed the phenomenon of a positive genetic mutation (a new or genetically altered genome that has a positive role in survival -- this is hardly surprising; it would be roughly the equivalent of scrambling all the letters in war and peace and ending up with a book that's better and makes more sense). Well, this is a problem you can solve mathematically and it's been known since the 1950s that randomness alone cannot work. There needs to be some vector constraining mutation. I've advanced the notion that Viruses might be the vector for mutation (transferring fully encoded genomes from species to species -- this is hardly a theistic proposal), even if I end up being correct it doesn't solve everything it would beg many questions. The Atheists have chosen not only to ignore, but to deny there is a problem to solve at all. Oddly enough, Christians aren't arguing for any more than equal treatment for differing views on an issue where there is no good science to explain what's going on.

        If you have any interest in real science or the truth, which I doubt, I suggest you research what I said about ribose, establish that I do, in fact, know that I'm talking about; to present more evidence to people as close minded as the secular humanist community would be chasing my tail.
        • ToadLeg, on 10/21/2007, -0/+6Here's an example of "[observing] the phenomenon of a positive genetic mutation" (this is just one example, there are actually at least thousands of observed beneficial mutations. I will provide more examples if you ask):

          http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21340420/
          "A new study shows the potentially lethal version of the "superbug" is more common than previously thought, infecting an estimated 94,000 people a year and killing 18,650 of them, exceeding the death rate for HIV/AIDS."

          This is a staph infection that has mutated again and again to become resistant to everything we can throw at it short of immediate amputation.

          Also: The "vector constraining mutation" is called "natural selection". Natural selection "constrains" bad mutations from occurring.
    • jeffiek, on 10/22/2007, -1/+15"the existence of Ribose alone statistically defies any random model"

      Our existence is post selection. The odds are not relevant. Just like a lottery, the odds are only relevant before the drawing. Once the drawing is over, the winner knows who he is. With a probability exactly equal to one.

      We won the selection. Or the creation. Whatever.
      • pgoowy, on 10/21/2007, -1/+1Our existence is only post selection if there was a selection. The dude is saying that looking back it seems unlikely that we won several lotteries in a row without some divine intervention - you do believe that there was more than one lottery draw to get from pond weed to people don't you? You'd be a creationist if you only believed in one big lottery draw.
    • subterfuge, on 10/20/2007, -1/+2Didnt Lamarck believe that creatures adapted to their environment and passed on the acquired traits? for example, a giraffe's neck might stretch as its life goes on so that it can reach taller trees. Lamarck said the offspring of the giraffe would therefore have longer necks. this is not evolution, and it does not happen.
      • tech42er, on 10/20/2007, -0/+2It is evolution; it's not natural selection. As far as whether it happens, strictly no. Strengthening your muscles will not result in your kids having stronger muscles. OTOH, there are many environmental triggers that can turn genes on and off so Lamarckian ideas are experiencing a bit of a resurgence.
        • ToadLeg, on 10/20/2007, -0/+2Yes there are environmental triggers that can cause acquired traits, or environmental conditions, to change the offspring of a species. However, this is not Lamarckian evolution. Instead, the environmental triggers themselves have to be evolved, to allow a species to very quickly adapt to a changing environment, when it changes periodically, and faster than the genes can adapt.

          For example, the fetuses of women who seem to be starving may trigger their genes to be more conservative with energy, making them tend to keep energy more, and be heavier, while fetuses of women who seem to be overweight and eating as much as they want may trigger their genes to use energy more rapidly, making them tend to use energy faster, and be lighter. This has given a selective advantage to some organisms, allowing them to quickly switch from survival mode when there is little food, to energetic mode, when there is plenty of food. However, this is not acquired traits being passed down, it is a series of triggers being developed by natural selection to allow for fast adaptation.
      • zybch, on 10/20/2007, -0/+2Actually it kind of CAN happen. A couple of australian scientists were able to transfer physical traits (basically a modified imune system) through several generations.
        Now thats NOT the same as cutting off a mouse's tail and expecting its offspring to be born tail-less, but its a great illustration of how in science there are no absolutes!
    • djgreedo, on 10/21/2007, -0/+10You seem to totally miss the point of what evolution is, which pretty much makes your argument pointless.

      Evolution is nothing to do with the origin of life. Evolution describes how life forms change over time and become adapted to their environment.

      And the fact that you imply that evolution=athiesm shows that again you do not understand what you are saying. Evolution has nothing to do with God. Evolution exists with or without God. The sky is blue regardless of whether there is a God. Gravity exists regardless of whether there is a God. Evolution happens regardless of whether there is a God.

      Some theists believe that God created a universe in which evolution occurs - good for them, but this is faith, not science. Science says that evolution is real and science has NOTHING to say about the existence of God.
      Although it's quite obvious that there is absolutely no scientific evidence that God exists.
      • pgoowy, on 10/20/2007, -0/+1I have to say I agree:
        evolution != aetheism
        natural selection < evolution
        big bang != evolution
        christianity != inteligent design
        origin of species != origin of life
        (darwin) !U (god)
    • Dimensio, on 10/22/2007, -0/+10"What Darwin asserted was that randomness could replace God as the agent of evolution. "

      Please cite Darwin's writing wherein he made this specific assertion.
    • zybch, on 10/22/2007, -1/+14Science = Questions that MIGHT never be answered
      Religion = Answers that MUST never be questioned
    • ToadLeg, on 10/20/2007, -0/+5To be clear: Darwin never said anything about "randomness vs God", or anything even remotely similar. He simply put forward the idea of "natural selection" (an idea he got from carefully observing species on a trip to the Galapagos Islands), which has absolutely nothing to do with "God". This bothered the church because they had a book that said that their god had created the universe in its present form, which seems to oppose the idea of natural selection.
    • tazx, on 10/22/2007, -0/+9"was so thoroughly embraced by the progressive era movement as justification for making humanism the engine of change that it has become core to their religion. "

      "What it means is there are two *ideological* models to explain the existence of life and neither has much backing them up scientifically."

      "The Christian community is much more open and honest about this than the atheists (who are simply bent on propagandizing their religion)"

      Bearing false witness (lying) is a sin.

    • Tanath, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2Man, you have a lot to learn about evolution. I can only surmise that you have been heavily exposed to religious propaganda. Be careful where you get your "information" from. You shouldn't be getting your info from biased sources. That means, don't bother getting info on religion from non-religious sources, and don't bother getting info on evolution (or science in general) from religious sources.
  • thebaron2, on 10/27/2007, -9/+63I know this is long, but it's HILARIOUS and sums up so many anti-evolution arguments. The following takes place at a public debate:
    ----------
    Moderator: We're here today to debate the hot new topic, evolution versus Intelligent Des---

    (Scientist pulls out baseball bat.)

    Moderator: Hey, what are you doing?

    (Scientist breaks Intelligent Design advocate's kneecap.)

    Intelligent Design advocate: YEAAARRRRGGGHHHH! YOU BROKE MY KNEECAP!

    Scientist: Perhaps it only appears that I broke your kneecap. Certainly, all the evidence points to the hypothesis I broke your kneecap. For example, your kneecap is broken; it appears to be a fresh wound; and I am holding a baseball bat, which is spattered with your blood. However, a mere preponderance of evidence doesn't mean anything. Perhaps your kneecap was designed that way. Certainly, there are some features of the current situation that are inexplicable according to the "naturalistic" explanation you have just advanced, such as the exact contours of the excruciating pain that you are experiencing right now.

    Intelligent Design advocate: AAAAH! THE PAIN!

    Scientist: Frankly, I personally find it completely implausible that the random actions of a scientist such as myself could cause pain of this particular kind. I have no precise explanation for why I find this hypothesis implausible --- it just is. Your knee must have been designed that way!

    Intelligent Design advocate: YOU *******! YOU KNOW YOU DID IT!

    Scientist: I surely do not. How can we know anything for certain? Frankly, I think we should expose people to all points of view. Furthermore, you should really re-examine whether your hypothesis is scientific at all: the breaking of your kneecap happened in the past, so we can't rewind and run it over again, like a laboratory experiment. Even if we could, it wouldn't prove that I broke your kneecap the previous time. Plus, let's not even get into the fact that the entire universe might have just popped into existence right before I said this sentence, with all the evidence of my alleged kneecap-breaking already pre-formed.

    Intelligent Design advocate: That's a load of ******** sophistry! Get me a doctor and a lawyer, not necessarily in that order, and we'll see how that plays in court!

    Scientist (turning to audience): And so we see, ladies and gentlemen, when push comes to shove, advocates of Intelligent Design do not actually believe any of the arguments that they profess to believe. When it comes to matters that hit home, they prefer evidence, the scientific method, testable hypotheses, and naturalistic explanations. In fact, they strongly privilege naturalistic explanations over supernatural hocus-pocus or metaphysical wankery. It is only within the reality-distortion field of their ideological crusade that they give credence to the flimsy, ridiculous arguments which we so commonly see on display. I must confess, it kind of felt good, for once, to be the one spouting free-form ********; it's so terribly easy and relaxing, compared to marshaling rigorous arguments backed up by empirical evidence. But I fear that if I were to continue, then it would be habit-forming, and bad for my soul. Therefore, I bid you adieu.
    • kindwarrior, on 10/24/2007, -39/+2You know, I like this:

      To the atheist (who like to pretend they're scientists) it feels like it demonstrates their case.

      A Christian sees it for what it is: An Atheist silences their argument; Presents his own argument by grossly misrepresenting what he pretends the Christian would have said and then ridiculing it. The violence, arrogance and ignorance of the "Scientist" (AKA Atheist) are right on the mark.
      • Lyanto, on 10/20/2007, -0/+11Considering the nature of the debate involving evolution, the words "Atheist" and "Christian" can easily be reversed in your last statement. Also, if you're going to criticize someone, at least provide some valid counterpoints first. Admittedly thebaron2's post was somewhat arrogant, but not more so than someone who feels a negative generalization can take the place of a reasoned argument (and therefore has no right to say someone else is pretending to be a scientist).
        • thebaron2, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1The words "atheist" and "Christian" do not appear in my post, so I don't know where you're getting that from. How it's arrogant, I don't know. It's targeted more at the fundamentalist believer - pick your religion - who denies the mountains of evidence that our planet is millions of years old.

          The only way to explain the fact that we can even see light from distant stars millions of light years away, and still maintain that the heavens and Earth were created ~10,000 years ago, is to postulate that the "supreme being" created everything 10,000 years ago in such a way as to lead us to believe that space is billions of years old, and that the light en route from those distant stars and galaxies was created that way at the moment of creation. People actually do make these arguments, as hard as it is to believe.
      • Dimensio, on 10/21/2007, -2/+4It is fundamentally dishonest to equivocate "Intelligent Design advocate" with "Christian" or "Scientist" with "Atheist".
        • marsbar, on 10/21/2007, -3/+1No it isn't. MOST Intelligent Design Advocates are Christians and MOST Scientists are Atheists. These are generalizations and we should all be careful of not using generalizations as rules but the correlation is sound. These generalizations as stated do not imply an exclusive relationship nor do they indicate causation. At most the statement is imprecise not incorrect nor dishonest. You would have been correct had you said "It is fundamentally dishonest to say people are Intelligent Design Advocates BECAUSE they are Christian and people are Scientists BECAUSE they are Atheists" or "It is fundamentally dishonest to say ALL Intelligent Design Advocates are Christians and ALL Scientists are Atheists"
          • Dimensio, on 10/21/2007, -1/+3"No it isn't. MOST Intelligent Design Advocates are Christians and MOST Scientists are Atheists."

            Even if your claim were true, which you have not demonstrated, this would still imply that there exist non-Christian Intelligent Design advocates and non-atheist scientists. In order for the equivocation to be valid, all Christians must be Intelllligent Design advocates and all Intelligent Design advocates must be Christian, while all scientists must be atheists and all atheists must be scientists. Both conditions are demonstratably false. As such, the terms are not interchangeable, and they should not be treated as such.
          • thebaron2, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1Where did I do that? The words "atheist" and "Christian" do not appear in the post. The principle figures are merely "scientist" and "Intelligent Design advocate."
        • kindwarrior, on 10/27/2007, -0/+1Then I'll try not to equivocate: You should avoid using words until you know their meaning.
      • ToadLeg, on 10/21/2007, -0/+3"Atheists and Anger"
        http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas ...
    • DeskFlyer, on 10/22/2007, -0/+11That just made my day.
    • akimbo, on 10/22/2007, -0/+5Damm... a comic or flash animation should be made about this!

      Classic
    • cmorwhat, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1and now i will stand back and watch the power of viral internet. i just passed this on to some friends and im sure many others did as well. i expect to see this again really soon
    • aadnk, on 10/20/2007, -0/+1Hear, hear!
    • brokencrystal, on 10/21/2007, -0/+1Is this a script? Who are the actors?
      • thebaron2, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1Not a script from anything I know - I saw it on the internets a long time ago and posted it to this forum I frequent. I dug through my old posts there to find it when I saw this topic.
  • BigManOnCampus, on 10/30/2007, -19/+8This argument is stupid. Religion and Science are not incompatible. Scientists who engage in this argument are not following the strict guidelines of their profession and realizing that while science explains many things, by definition it cannot explain the unexplainable. Religious fundamentalists who engage in this argument have narrowed their view of the world so much they have lost all imagination, which is a far graver sin.
    • WasabiBomb, on 10/20/2007, -3/+11That's a stupid argument, right there. What kind of "unexplainable" do you think science cannot explain?

      Religion and Science are, in fact, polar opposites. Religion starts with a conclusion, and manipulates the evidence to arrive at that conclusion. Science starts with evidence, and formulates a conclusion to fit that evidence. The two processes are completely incompatible.
      • djgreedo, on 10/21/2007, -5/+2I believe science is an evolution of religion.
        Back in caveman days (and, unfortunately lasting well into the future) people could not explain what they saw around them - life, the stars, the sun, etc. so they explained it as best they could - something like them only infinitely more powerful created everything (gods).
        Some mythologies are very complicated in how they explain the world and its phenomena.
        Now we can explain how a rainbow is formed or how a child is conceived in scientific terms. Religious people often don't realise that religion and science can co-exist.
        Science can never prove that there is no God (and religion can't prove there is), but science can explain how life changes on Earth over billions of years - the best (extremist) religion can do is revert back to the caveman guess that "God must have done it because I can't understand any other way".
        A God may have created a universe, may have created life in one way or another, but certainly didn't create the species we have today as they are today - that was natural selection.
        • ToadLeg, on 10/20/2007, -0/+1While the cavemen may have explained some parts of nature as being supernatural, religion takes it a step further by adding "faith", or selective irrationality. Selective irrationality (faith) is completely different from science, or "predictions based on observations of natural phenomena".
      • ToadLeg, on 10/21/2007, -1/+2Actually, by definition, science can only explain that which is observable. For example, anything that is "invisible" (undetectable and has no effect on the universe, which might be observed) cannot be explained by science. "God" is invisible, so science makes no predictions about it.
      • brokencrystal, on 10/24/2007, -1/+1@WasabiBomb

        If that is your definition... then where does Macro-Evolution fit in? It is unobserved and unobservable.
        • ToadLeg, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2We observe macroevolution in fossils, species variation, vestigial organs, DNA and protein similarities, and can extrapolate macroevolution from our observations of microevolution. The rate of mutation of DNA is actually so constant that we can compare two peoples' DNA and tell how far back their common ancestors are. We can do the same thing with humans and chimpanzees, humans and dogs, and any other two species.

          Here's a small article and a video of someone describing how chimpanzee chromosome 13 became fused with human chromosome 2:
          http://godbegone.blogspot.com/2007/09/how-chimp-ch ...
          "How would Intelligent Design explain this? ... Presumably there is a designer who designed human chromosome #2 to make it look as if it was formed by the fusion from a private ancestor"
  • hiscity, on 10/21/2007, -17/+4The funny thing here is that evolution excludes intelligent selection -- so "wisdom of the crowd" does not apply. As for evolution in general:

    1. Everything is older than originally thought.
    2. Every new find is a "missing link."
    3. Evolution only applies to non-intelligent phenomena.
    4. There is no intelligent design in evolution, including mate selection.
    5. Evolution overcomes both Entropy -- and Murphy's Law. ("what can go right, will go right...")
    6. No mass extinction event completely wipes out all life. (Evolution's version of Noah's Flood)
    7. Fossil rocks don't evolve (change), only regular rocks do. (re: emergence of life)
    8. No matter how sparse the data, the conclusion is obvious. (cp."Connecting the Dots" & Iraq)
    9. Peer review eventually catches most fraud and error, given a long enough time....
    10. Evolution is real science, not like alchemy or astrology, no matter what they'll say 100 years from now or 500.

    • mysteri0usdrx, on 10/21/2007, -2/+81. helps disprove the 6,000 year old earth.
      2. No, there are many finds each day and once in a while an important discovery is found, explaining the transision of one evolutionary traiit to another.
      3. makes no sense.
      4. same as 3.
      5. I beg of you to show me how evolution is disproved by entropy, and while you are at it tell me how creating the planet and all life instantly does not overcome entropy.
      5. Murphy's law is a humorous observation, not a scientific law to be taken as fact.
      6. nothing has wiped out all life before, which is why we still exist.
      7. That is not a coherent sentence, and no statement can be drawn from it.
      8. also an incoherent sentence, where you somehow rope in Iraq?
      9. So where is all of this fraud and error?
      10. does not attempt to make any point.
      • hiscity, on 10/24/2007, -1/+2You're right, the way evolution is portrayed in the media and has been popularized is funny.

        I didn't intend to debate anyone about "evolution as science." It's merely a model. Sometimes useful. Not necessarily true. The point is that "evolution as portrayed in the media" is often just "pop evolution" or religious "evolutionism."

        1. 96,000 news hits for search: evolution earlier (same old boring litany)
        http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=evolution+e ...


        2. 201,000 news hits re: missing link (kinda like crying wolf, a way of selling advertising)
        http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=missing+lin ...

        3. The truth is that evolution doesn't apply when intelligence directs genetics (if ever). It's funny that evolution excludes intelligent choices on the part of every animal (not just ***** sapiens). As for plants, you tell me whether or not they show signs of basic intelligence?

        4. Mate selection is clearly evidence of design, no matter how little intelligence was used. (cp. "designing women") Most mother-in-laws would conclude that no intelligence was used.

        5. Who cares whether or not Murphy's Law is a scientific whatever? Evolution is like saying that biological machines improve themselves, by becoming increasingly more viable over a broader range of ecological niches -- rather than degrade, devolve, break down, or generally suffer bad luck. "Popular evolution" or "evolutionism" is the complete reverse of Murphy's Law, "what can go right, will go right, and at the best possible time." As for entropy Q.E.D.

        6. Here you make my point exactly by coming off as the typically "omniscient" half-baked evolution proponent. "nothing has wiped out all life before, which is why we still exist." So some species survived in some sort of ark-like niche, eh? ;-)

        7. Oh please, my favorite physical anthropology text is "Human Kind Emerging" Campbell & Loy, who at least qualify their presentation. The "statement" is a humorous jab. Fossils do change. Interpreting fossils is more art than science. It's a messy business, but at least it's real world and not book learning academics. As for rocks evolving, explain the emergence of life?

        8. Another "omniscient evolution worshiper" jab. Real scientists understand that evolution as a model is built on amazingly sparse data. The problem of course is that the age of the data degrades it. It's very similar to the problem of "reading tea leaves." Pop evolution proponents read all kinds of things into data that is open to interpretation.

        9. Why would I show anything? I couldn't care less to debate you. To bait maybe....

        10. Science assumes improvement. Better models. Evolutionism assumes transcendent truth. 500 years from now most folks will think everything from this age is childish or muddle-headed or just plain wrong.

        The evolutionistas are always a little "hair trigger" in their willingness attack anything. Even humor. If you want to find them, make a joke about evolution. As for "pop evolution" see items 1 and 2. Today's example for #1 is:

        "Early humans knew their way around makeup, tools and shellfish"
        "Researchers say the findings in South Africa suggest that the hallmarks of modern human behavior had begun to develop much earlier than previously thought."
        By Thomas H. Maugh II, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
        October 20, 2007
        • hiscity, on 10/20/2007, -0/+1Not sure why digg clobbers search links.

          news.google.com/archivesearch?q=evolution+earlier
          news.google.com/archivesearch?q=missing+link
    • Dimensio, on 10/21/2007, -1/+2"The funny thing here is that evolution excludes intelligent selection"

      The theory of evolution does not "exclude" "intelligent selection". It merely does not address the issue. That is not the same thing as "exclusion".


      "1. Everything is older than originally thought."

      Please provide evidence to support your assertion. Note that your previous response to my request, a Google News search on the term "evolution", is not actually evidence.


      "2. Every new find is a "missing link.""

      Please provide evidence to support this assertion. Note that your previous response to my question on this claim, a Google News search on the phrase "missing link", is not evidence that "every find" is a "missing link" according to "evolutionists".


      "3. Evolution only applies to non-intelligent phenomena."

      This statement is false. Your previous response, "The truth is that evolution doesn't apply when intelligence directs genetics (if ever).", is also false and is an attempt to retroactively change your claim. Your previous claim that I agreed with you, when you said "Glad you agree!", was fundamentally disohnest. You do not make a valid point when you lie shamelessly.


      "4. There is no intelligent design in evolution, including mate selection."

      I have asked you for evidence to the contrary. You responded "Mate selection is clearly evidence of design, no matter how little intelligence was used.". In so doing, you are dishonestly equivocating "intelligent design" with "mate selection", which is not the commonly used definition of "intelligent design" as used by ID advocates, and then you are dishonestly equivocating your definition of "Intelligent Design" with the "Intelligent Design" that is rejected by mainstream biology. Your statement is, thus, essentially a brazen lie on your part. You are not demonstrating a valid claim when you lie in this fashion.


      "5. Evolution overcomes both Entropy -- and Murphy's Law. ("what can go right, will go right...")"

      I have asked you to explain this claim before. You responded with " Who cares whether or not Murphy's Law is a scientific whatever? Evolution is like saying that biological machines improve themselves, by becoming increasingly more viable over a broader range of ecological niches -- rather than degrade, devolve, break down, or generally suffer bad luck. "Popular evolution" or "evolutionism" is the complete reverse of Murphy's Law, "what can go right, will go right, and at the best possible time."" The fact remains, however, that Murhpy's Law is not a scientific principle, and thus is irrelevant, and it is fundamentally dishonest for you to associate a principle derived from humour with scientific principles.. You also completely ignored my question regarding your assertion on "Entropy", as though you were unable to answer the question.


      "6. No mass extinction event completely wipes out all life. (Evolution's version of Noah's Flood)"

      I have explained to you that the above statement is false. You responded with "Here you make my point exactly by coming off as the typically "omniscient" half-baked evolution proponent. "While it is possible that a mass extinction event could wipe out all life, thus far no such event has ever occured." So some species survived in some sort of ark-like niche, eh? ;-)" Insulting me does not change the fact that your previous statement is a falsehood. You cannot justify your false claims through insulting those who point out your claims as false. Doing so only suggests that your false claims are a result of deliberate dishonesty rather than error.


      "7. Fossil rocks don't evolve (change), only regular rocks do. (re: emergence of life)"

      I have explained to you that the above is false. You responded with

      " Oh please, my favorite physical anthropology text is "Human Kind Emerging" Campbell & Loy, who at least qualify their presentation."

      You did not explain this statement at all.

      "Fossils do change."

      This statement is false. The fossils do not change, unless physically damaged.


      "Interpreting fossils is more art than science. It's a messy business, but at least it's real world and not book learning academics."

      You did not provide any justification for this claim.


      "As for rocks evolving, explain the emergence of life?"

      This question is irrelevant, the emergence of life is not a part of the theory of evolution. Moreover, I am aware of no biogenesis hypothesis that suggested that rocks "evolved".


      "8. No matter how sparse the data, the conclusion is obvious. (cp."Connecting the Dots" & Iraq)"

      When I asked for an explanation as to how this statement relates to evolution, you replied, "Real scientists understand that evolution as a model is built on amazingly sparse data."

      However, you offered no justification for your assertion that the theory of evolution is built upon "amazingly sparse data". Please do so.


      "9. Peer review eventually catches most fraud and error, given a long enough time...."

      When I previously asked you to show that this claim was universally true, you replied "Why would I show "all" do anything? I couldn't care less to debate you. To bait maybe...."

      If you are unable or unwilling to provide evidence to support your assertions, you should not make them. Making a show of refusing to justify your unsubstantiated assertions shows only that you are dishonest.


      "10. Evolution is real science, not like alchemy or astrology, no matter what they'll say 100 years from now or 500."

      I asked you to show that the above is false. You replied "Science assumes improvement. Better models. Evolutionism assumes transcendent truth. "

      In addition to not justifying your assertion that "evolutionism assumes transcendent truth", you have failed to demonstrate that improvement and better models requires a complete rejection of existing models, and not merely improvements and modifications upon them. If it is your assertion that the theory of evolution has not been modified since its inception, then either you have done no research -- and as such nothing that you say on the subject can be considered reliable -- or you are a liar -- in which case nothing that you say on any subject can be considered reliable.
      • hiscity, on 10/20/2007, -0/+1You still don't get the difference between evolution as portrayed in the media, evolution as taught in college, and evolution as a model used by scientists. And you still have no sense of irony or humor.

        Are you a blogger?
        • nitsuj, on 10/20/2007, -0/+1I have to say, from reading your previous comments it looks like you don't understand the theory of evolution in any context whatsoever.
        • Dimensio, on 10/20/2007, -0/+1"You still don't get the difference between evolution as portrayed in the media, evolution as taught in college, and evolution as a model used by scientists. And you still have no sense of irony or humor."

          This has no bearing on the validity of your previous statements.
    • hiscity, on 10/21/2007, -0/+2example of item 1:

      "Early humans knew their way around makeup, tools and shellfish"
      "Researchers say the findings in South Africa suggest that the hallmarks of modern human behavior had begun to develop much earlier than previously thought."
      By Thomas H. Maugh II, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
      October 20, 2007
  • digitalfever, on 10/20/2007, -4/+0It is excellent but in rare case!
  • amsterdamordeth, on 10/30/2007, -15/+7I find it hard to believe in the current theory of evolution because of a few reasons.

    One being the lack of agreement between Macro and Micro evolution. I can understand evolution much better when talking about microbes and single cells but when we get into complex species, it becomes almost an impossibility in my mind. The following question bothers me and makes me fail to believe in evolution as we currently understand it.

    Two separate species cannot successfully mate and produce offspring that is capable of producing fertile offspring. That to me excludes Micro evolution for my reason I will explain below. The sheer randomness and apparent lengths of time between evolutionary events means the following question must be answered.

    Let's say you take a neanderthal . That neanderthal must have an offspring that is "evolved". By all accounts, mammals cannot mate outside of their species. Now it is clear that neanderthals are not the same species as humans, and therefore could not mate with each other. So we must decide that a neanderthal had an evolved offspring that couldn't mate, OR the neanderthal had a male and female offspring whom were evolved, whom then mated to continue the "newly evolved species". OR in the same time frame, two separate neanderthals had evolved offspring whom managed to find each other and mated to continue the evolved species. OR a neanderthal has a single evolved offspring whom then mates with a neanderthal.

    Most evolutionists, from my knowledge, claim that neanderthals and humans coexisted. Given that evolution happens so rarely that we have never seen it happen, are we to assume that a neanderthal in fact had at least two evolved offspring? Or are we to assume that the human mated with a neanderthal?

    At some point, the neanderthal changed species. It had to. I don't see denying this fact. Cows aren't dogs and primates are not people. Whether you believe micro or macro evolution, the fact is that neanderthals evolved into a new species and therefore could not have mated successfully with the evolved species. This means that two offspring are required by the neanderthal to produce a successful evolutionary jump.

    If you want to try and disprove that neanderthals must have produced only one evolved offspring, you must only look at the rarity of evolution combined with the rarity that two separate species could mate to produce fertile offspring, your chances of going from microbes to humanity is almost exactly 0.

    If neanderthals slowly changed over time into humans, that might be easier to understand when talking about producing offspring who could mate, but at some point in our evolutionary history, we STOPPED being neanderthals and started being human, an entirely separate species.

    Is there an answer for this question? It seems to be a very pertinent question that an evolutionist must understand to some respect.
    • amsterdamordeth, on 10/20/2007, -3/+3I should point out that I was mainly referring to mammals. I am aware that some non mammal species can produce offspring without having both a male and female. Female sharks, for example, have shown to produce offspring without a male fertilizing them.
    • mysteri0usdrx, on 10/20/2007, -1/+13here we go:

      statement 1: just because you cannot comprehend something, does not mean it does not exist. Think of things on the atomic scale of size. Your brain cannot begin to comprehend how infinitely small an electron is, yet it exists without a doubt.

      statement 2: Neanderthals did not need to mate outside their species, slight interspecies mutations are the basis of evolution, and the basis of natural selection is that the slight advantage would slowly begin to effect the survivability of a certain mutation pattern, allowing those with this mutation to breed more often.

      statement 3: negated by false statements in 2.

      statement 4: Neanderthals, to the best of our knowledge, had no evolutionary offspring, and went extinct.

      statement 5-7: once again negated by previous statement.

      i hope this puts some things into perspective.
    • Phatt138, on 10/30/2007, -1/+11You just don't understand the processes well enough. A lot of people spout a lot of ***** about evolution without knowing any of the details about how these things work. The question about neanderthals is ludicrous - species evolved into different species over time, yes, but along the way there were -countless- intermediary genotypes. To put it simply, an evolving species would eventually come to the point where it would no longer to be able to mate with early ancestors - but those ancestors are long dead. All living members of the species would be similar enough to mate with one another, unless a population split at some point and evolved separately, creating a tertiary species. This is what keeps the whole mechanism functioning: as populations become separated in geography or time, the particular traits of those living relatives are magnified until they eventually becomes something entirely new.

      See? It does make sense. Most people who don't believe it are just confused about the details because they've heard dumbed-down, glossed over versions from people with social agendas. So check out the details for yourself. Interestingly, that's where they say God lies.
      • amsterdamordeth, on 10/20/2007, -2/+5I am not trying to spout *****, I was generally curious about the answer to the question. Sorry if I came off as trying to sound like I was trying to disprove evolution by my question but I felt it was a question I wanted answered at least for myself. When I was in public school, we learned that evolution was as magical as the Biblical account and I don't have the time to read everything nowadays especially with all of the new information coming out from all sides. But I learn by asking the questions that I have about a topic.

        Bare with my questions please so I can understand better. The problem with discussing it is like talking to people who use Linux. If you don't know the answer already, they assume you are stupid and ignorant and just flame you for asking the question.

        So let's take dogs. Dogs vary greatly in forms. Are we to say at some point that a dog will be born whom cannot mate with other dogs and therefore it is a new species?
        • tazx, on 10/22/2007, -0/+9Dogs, wolves, foxes, coyotes etc. are all canids. Yet not all can interbreed. They are all "dog-like", and they all share a canid ancestor. But the jackals spent millions of years in Africa, while the wolves were in Europe, and the coyotes in America, and so on. Being separated for thousands of generations means they grew apart, physically and genetically, and so became different species.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canids
        • tazx, on 10/20/2007, -0/+5Oh, and another point:

          A Chihuahua would have great difficulty mating with a Great Dane. Were we to disappear & no longer be artificially breeding dogs, the smaller and larger dogs would quite probably develop into separate species. They'd still be "dogs", just as wolves are, but different sub-types.

          Evolution results in a branching tree, with new species retaining many of the qualities of their predecessors. As new branches grow apart, they become more distinct.

          All life on Earth can be connected this way.

          http://www.tolweb.org/tree/
        • Phatt138, on 10/21/2007, -0/+7Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that -you- were 'spouting' - simply that there's a lot of misunderstanding out there because there are people putting doubt into people's minds about something that has as much evidence for it as most of the other precepts that we live by. I'm mad at the people who inject arguments into the public consciousness based on questions that have answers. I didn't mean to jump down your throat.

          ANYway, dogs do vary in form, but they're all one species. In fact, they're so genetically similar to their ancestors that they CAN still breed with them. This is because most of the animals that we think of as 'dogs' are domesticated, and have only been separated from their wild ancestors for a few thousand years (having been living as semi-domesticated animals on the fringe of human society for much longer), and only bred selectively for the past couple of thousand. So yes, if you took a golden retriever and bred it in isolation for thousands and thousands of generations, it would no longer be able to mate with today's dogs. Further, if ALL of today's dogs were kept in isolation from their wild relatives, there would be dogs that couldn't breed with wolves in, again, thousands and thousands of generations. However, as long as wild dogs still occasionally breed with domesticated or feral dogs, the gene pools will share enough traits that they will continue to be compatible.

          Again, the whole idea is isolation. An individual only has so much variation. So if you have a small group of individuals - for instance, the 5 or so shi-tzus that the entire breed is descended from - they will trade only the few variations they share between them, and whatever genetic traits they have will be emphasized. That's why inbreeding is bad - any weaknesses are magnified by breeding with an individual too much like oneself, so dogs like shi-tzus DO have genetic illnesses that other breeds don't. But even so, they haven't deviated far enough from the 'main' dog population that they can't breed with...hell, a bull mastiff, if they were so inclined. Again, dogs only LOOK different from one another, and that's because of human intervention. The mutt and some of the ancient dogs (dingos, hairless dogs, etc) are the more 'natural' states of dog-being; they have genetic links to many different breeds and thus are free from most of the genetic weaknesses that purebreds can develop. So to answer your question directly: yes, the dogs of 10 million years from now -might- not be able to breed with the dogs of today (depends on how much change the species undergoes in that time period. Dogs are highly valued for their conformation to breeding standards, so they may be kept by us in a state of artificial rest.) But there would BE none of today's dogs to breed WITH. The whole species of 'dog' will have moved forward as a whole, as long as there is an exchange of genetic material through breeding so that the different breeds don't become isolated.

          I hope this answers some of your questions. But if you have the curiosity, I'd take a look around Wikipedia at topics like Natural Selection, Genotype, Phenotype, Inbreeding, etc. Until you know for yourself, don't be concerned with the 'debate' over evolution - there really is none, when you get down to it. Evolution has as much scientific credit to its name as any other generally accepted field of scientific study.
        • Phatt138, on 10/20/2007, -0/+4Sorry, just wanted to clarify one last thing having looked at your question again. There will never be one individual who is a different species from his parents and therefore has no breeding partner. Rather, because the changes that make breeding incompatible happen over very long periods of time, any given newborn would be able to mate with any of his generation, and probably the last few -thousand- generations before it. Every reproduction is a step in the evolutionary process, but only a tiny one. At any rate, the 'old' species simply does not exist anymore - it evolves as a whole or branches split off and become yet more distinct species.
    • tech42er, on 10/20/2007, -0/+7It's not that different species can't mate. It's just that two animals that can't mate are defined as different species. Your neanderthal would have had an offspring that was mutated, but still a neanderthal. It would have mated with another neanderthal and had offspring that were different than the other neanderthals. At the point that this line was no longer able to mate with the old neanderthals, it would be classified as a different species.
    • tazx, on 10/21/2007, -0/+9"If neanderthals slowly changed over time into humans, that might be easier to understand when talking about producing offspring who could mate, but at some point in our evolutionary history, we STOPPED being neanderthals and started being human, an entirely separate species. "

      Your misunderstanding (and thus misguided skepticism) of evolution appears to be based entirely on lack of understanding what species, and speciation, are. What you're describing is essentially Lamark's "hopeful monster" scenario.

      Evolution isn't a process by which one organism gives birth to an entirely different one. Every offspring is nearly identical to its parent. It's through genetic divergence over thousands of generations that one population can eventually develop into two separate species. "Species" is not an absolute term. Just as closely related species can often mate with more or less success, as they become more separated genetically, they lose that ability.

      In your example, Neanderthals and modern humans share a *common ancestor*. That means that there was a protohuman species, likely ***** heidelbergensis, that was predecessor of both. Somewhere, likely Africa, there was a population of these protohumans; and one group moved away from the other. They possibly met little if at all for generations, and gradually, they evolved slight differences genetically. Eventually, they became noticeably different, and it's possible the now distant decendents of the original group could no longer interbreed.

      At no time, for any species, primate otherwise, would you have an offspring that had no one to mate with because it was a new species. Rather, if half a population wandered into the next valley or over the mountains while the rest stayed, eventually they'd diverge so much that after many generations they would not be able to interbreed.

      See these links:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_evolu ...
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution


      • amsterdamordeth, on 10/21/2007, -0/+3That explains it better I guess. I had referred a question about Dogs to Phatt138's comment that I think yours generally answered. So in my example of dogs, those dogs aren't going to have an evolutionary jump so to say, but when they separate from the rest of the dog groups, they interbreed causing them to increase the variances in their own genetics. This then means after some period of time that the genetic variances have changed to the point that they no longer can mate with the "old" dogs that they separated from years before. Therefore that species of dog that separated, inevitably becomes a new species with a common ancestor to the dog.

        At least on the right track?
        • tazx, on 10/21/2007, -0/+3I think you get it exactly. :)

          And that process, occurring again and again over millions of years, is what results in biological diversity.

          If you're really interested, the wiki articles, or books by Dawkins like Climbing Mount Improbable are great.

          • amsterdamordeth, on 10/21/2007, -0/+3is this considered micro or macro evolution, or is the distinction here impertinent
          • tazx, on 10/21/2007, -0/+3I believe that those terms aren't generally used today by biologists, but of course, it's complicated.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

            Essentially, evolution is mostly seen as a continuous process, at which large-scale changes can be seen over long periods of time, but is dependent a constant process of variation and selection.

          • Misesean, on 10/21/2007, -0/+3Basically, the only people who talk about "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are ID-iots who like to pretend they're different things :)

            [Much like the distinction between "micro-" and "macro-" economics, actually, except that there it's Keynesians and similar crackpots, rather than religious fundamentalists, doing the pretending...]
          • tech42er, on 10/21/2007, -0/+1It's microevolution. It becomes macroevolution when you look at it on a greater scale. They're the same thing.
    • Dimensio, on 10/21/2007, -0/+4"By all accounts, mammals cannot mate outside of their species. Now it is clear that neanderthals are not the same species as humans, and therefore could not mate with each other. So we must decide that a neanderthal had an evolved offspring that couldn't mate, OR the neanderthal had a male and female offspring whom were evolved, whom then mated to continue the "newly evolved species". OR in the same time frame, two separate neanderthals had evolved offspring whom managed to find each other and mated to continue the evolved species. OR a neanderthal has a single evolved offspring whom then mates with a neanderthal."

      You are making the mistake in assuming that "species" is a solid, clearly-defined barrier. When speciation occurs, the distinction between species is initially fuzzy, and does not become distinct until multiple generations seperate the two divergent species. As such, all organisms give birth to offspring that are the same species as the parent, but over time accumulated changes mean that an offspring is not the same species as a parent's distant direct ancestor, even though every organism down the line gave birth to offspring of the same species. Examine the concept of "ring" species for known extant examples of this phenomenon.
    • carbonetc, on 10/20/2007, -0/+4I'd also recommend "The Ancestor's Tale" for an explanation. We get hung up on the dividing lines between species, but those lines don't actually exist. They reflect our need to categorize, and nothing more. The reality being described is just a gradient.
    • amsterdamordeth, on 10/20/2007, -0/+6I would like to say thanks for all of the answers. I can't respond to each person who provided a valid response but my question was answered by the majority of you. Thanks again.
    • ToadLeg, on 10/21/2007, -0/+3One point I'd like to make about this particular discussion: Evolution is not a linear process. This means that no organism on Earth is more "evolved" than any other organism of the same time period. Humans found one way to evolve, while chimpanzees found an other. While we both resemble a common ancestor, neither humans nor chimpanzees are the common ancestor that "branched" into the other. Humans could be said to have branched into chimpanzees just as chimpanzees could be said to have branched into humans. This is actually a very interesting and complex topic of biology (what causes a species to split) but I hope this summary clarifies some confusion.
  • linchiwo, on 10/27/2007, -2/+4This is very similar to the economics arguments against government control for public goods (look up the Coase Theorem). Essentially what the author tries to argue is that our society is self-adjusting, and a free market can attain efficiency on its own.
  • samanathon, on 10/20/2007, -1/+2http://duggmirror.com/general_sciences/Evolution_a ...
  • empiric, on 10/21/2007, -4/+0Ad populum with crowdsourcing is still ad populum.
    • cmorwhat, on 10/21/2007, -0/+1ice cream with sprinkles is still ice cream...it just has a better chance of being eaten. catch my drift here mate?
  • databoy, on 10/21/2007, -9/+4Religion exists because people do not know the real history and how it was imposed on people.
    Christianity was invented by the Roman Empire and imposed on Europeans by the sword. There is no eye witness accounts of a man by the name of Jesus Christ living in the Middle East. The Jews have no knowledge of it; yet they have records going back farther in time.

    All the paintings in the Vatican have a halo around the heads of men depicted in the paintings. That is not the halo of purity but of SOL INVICTUS, the Sun God symbol. The Popes attributed that SOL INVICTUS as the highest GOD.

    Current day Christianity consists of over 33,000 denominations whose beliefs are based on 1700th century translations of the Bible. Very few religious people are linguistic experts, especially in ancient languages of Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Aramaic.

    What you have is hearsay and options of the Bishop of Rome and Dark Age Medieval Ideology. Science was born from religious men who questioned the doctrines. Many scientific postulations were born and are still perpetuated from religious doctrine.

    Rational logic is hard to teach, especially having an open mind. The current scientific postulations are not facts but theories trying to explain a complex universe. For example, why should there be a God? Religious people will tell you that someone had to create the universe. Why?

    When you start looking at both religion and science with an open rational mind, both ideologies are flawed. Science was supposed to be about answering the unknown questions about the universe; but has become a religion in its own right with the Scientific High Priests dismissing any postulation which does not fit the conventional ideology box.
    • empiric, on 10/21/2007, -4/+2Well, except for the part about you being completely, demonstrably wrong starting with your first paragraph.

      http://www.rationalchristianity.net/jesus_extrabib ...
      • djgreedo, on 10/21/2007, -2/+2Nowhere near as many references to Jesus as there are to Herakles, King Arthur, etc.
        And if Jesus did exist, this doesn't even begin to lend credibility to biblical accounts of him doing magic tricks, etc. It would merely prove that a man was wandering around claiming to be Christ. Of which there were, by all accounts, quite a few not counting Jesus.
        • ToadLeg, on 10/20/2007, -0/+1Isn't he still wandering around downtown in every city in the US?
        • cmorwhat, on 10/21/2007, -2/+0nice...(begin slow clap)
      • marsbar, on 10/21/2007, -1/+0No empiric you're wrong. All the commentaries that your link references are about the cult of Christianity started by Saul of Tarsus well after Jesus was supposed to have died. Even Saul did not know Jesus, he claimed to have received the gospel in a vision. Josephus (your best "source") was writing about Saul's Jesus not the actual Jesus who supposedly died at least 50 years before Josephus' writing. What databoy wrote is correct. There is nothing about Jesus written during 0 AD to 33 AD while he was alive which is odd since he was such a rabble rouser. It is especially odd since there are lots of records of other major and minor rabble rousers written during this period. None of these records mention anyone like Jesus.
        • brokencrystal, on 10/21/2007, -0/+1No Colonel Sanders, you're wrong. Mama's right! Mama's right!
      • mountaincable, on 10/21/2007, -1/+1The first extra-biblical reference to Josephus really emphasizes your point. Joseph of Arimathea has been proven to be a fictional character for hundreds of years, he never existed. The words of a non-existent person don't hold too much weight.
    • cmorwhat, on 10/21/2007, -2/+0heh heh. a christian. dont you know the internet was created by the devil?
    • Tanath, on 10/21/2007, -0/+1Dig databoy up. He's done his homework.
  • XandraX, on 10/24/2007, -12/+4Creationists accept natural selection, they just don't accept random mutations adding new information. The vast, vast majority of mutations are deleterious, and an advantageous one comes along so rarely that not even evolutionary time can explain it.
    • zybch, on 10/21/2007, -1/+5Your idea of evolutionary time is severely inaccurate!
    • djgreedo, on 10/21/2007, -0/+4Wrong.
      The whole 'information' angle is a creationist attempt to make it appear as though evolution is a random process and therefore can't account for...evolution.

      Do you really understand the concept of BILLIONS of years? Changes in the human population can become apparent in a couple of generations, such as changes to weight, etc. For example it is thought that redheads may be wiped out within a few generations due to their pigmentation being the result of recessive genes. Multiply that sort of thing by BILLIONS.

      Natural selection is not all about mutation either, and it's not as simple as an animal one day being born with eyes when its ancestors didn't have eyes. Evolution has a snowballing effect. Take the giraffe. The giraffe probably developed its huge neck because all the tallest giraffes got the most food because nothing else could reach it. Therefore due to shorter giraffes dying more easily, the taller ones bred taller and taller giraffes - survival of the fittest.
      Are you assuming that a mutation is something like you'd see near a nuclear acccident? Mutations are not strictly positive or negative - it depends on the environment. Mutations that are disadvantageous will be wiped out pretty quickly, while those that are advantageous will build up, such as the tall giraffes.

      Who told you that the vast, vast majority of mutations are bad? They lied or they don't know what they are talking about. Mutations occur and natural selection decides if they are beneficial or not.
    • marsbar, on 10/20/2007, -0/+1Sickle cell anemia - bad mutation right? Well it turns out that sickle cell anemia decreases the lethality of Malaria. As a result, sickle cell anemia is one "deleterious" [sic] (I think you meant disadvantageous) mutation that causes it's carriers to prosper over those without it. As djgreedo says the environment has a big say on what is advantegous and what is disadvantageous.
      • brokencrystal, on 10/21/2007, -0/+1That is stupid. If you evolve to be armless, is this a good mutation because you can't be handcuffed? Yea, you can live without arms, but it's still a bad mutation.
    • tech42er, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2Xan, the vast majority of mutations have no effect.
  • Phatt138, on 10/21/2007, -2/+4This is kind of ridiculous. All the science on the 'wisdom of the crowd' shows that there is no such thing. While collaboration works well for online settings and movie ratings, it's also still prone to the same weaknesses that people have always had. The way that people collaborate is absolutely based on their shared ideas about the world, and those ideas can be very dangerous or, even worse, hopelessly retarded.

    Bay of Pigs? Nuremberg? The ill-fated Bolshevik revolution? Hello? Is there anyone home?

    People in groups make awful decisions based on cultural bias, a need to belong, and an unwillingness to go against the hive mind.
    • cmorwhat, on 10/21/2007, -0/+1bay of pigs...kennedy administration. nuremberg....UN delegation (dont forget that those assholes wiped out 6 million of my people). Bolshevik Revolution...ok you got me on that one. but the point is this: yes crowds can be whipped into a fury. never underestimate the power of a large group of stupid people but then again if a crowd of sober-minded people arise who can do no physical harm to each other (ie: the internet) or a scientific forum. the power of the crowd is limitless.
  • GorfTron, on 10/21/2007, -4/+3My own technique of handling creationists is to call them on their ignorance. When they say a dumb statement, I accuse them of not understanding evolution. Their ego can't take it, so it draws them out of their comfortable zone to actually argue the facts. Try it.
    • transcendz, on 10/21/2007, -1/+4I can't see how this could be a clever behavior... What if they tell you that you don't understand a thing about religion ?
    • dickenshit, on 10/20/2007, -1/+1Oh, that'll get 'em.
  • KingBunny, on 10/20/2007, -0/+1I was expecting like the first post.. the article is interesting... but the post is better.
  • PRAPHULCHAND, on 10/24/2007, -6/+2It seems that evolution has been stopped, for there seems to be no evolution after human beings.There is no visual change or evolution taking place in any form of creatures.Or is it happening only after the destruction of the present form. Is it possible that consciousness is evolving?When I was born my consciousness was 1ft.6inches. Now it is 6 feet. I expanded by 6 feet.Can my consciousness expand beyond my body. If evolution is evolution of consciousness, i am not even conscious of many part of my body. 90% of it is unconscious.Can I do anything about it to become 100% conscious of myself. If suppose evolution has been stopped, and the starting point we do not know and also whether it is linear or circular. If it is circular, it can go to the starting point that we may be slowly becoming monkeys.
    • HomeNucleonics, on 10/21/2007, -1/+1What the ***** are you talking about?
    • captric, on 10/24/2007, -1/+3Try getting off of the mind altering drugs
  • Yage2006, on 10/21/2007, -2/+4wisdom of the crowds does not work in a place where 80% are idiots
    It does however work fine in sweden or uk :-)

  • rodgerdodger5, on 10/21/2007, -2/+2This video is pretty interesting.
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4308235066 ...
    This is a great video debate about the subject.
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-141033022 ...

    I also recommend the book "Icons of Evolution" by Jonathan Wells
  • Yage2006, on 10/22/2007, -3/+4Doesn't it ever dawn on any of you cretionist's that your untestable "theory" wich is based on nothing but 5000+ year old scripture and basically says god did it is a bit silly ?

    You pick at little cracks in evolution thinking this somehow proves your faith in ID
    And your arguments have all fallen by the wayside.

    Time to stop believing in santa clause already. Unless you have some PROOF then just get out of the way and let the scientific method prove how things really work.

    • seeversjm, on 10/20/2007, -2/+2and what proof do you have? Strip it down to the very beginnings and you simply believe in dirt aka "the big bang theory." Where did the dirt come from? Answer this?
      • reddikilowatt, on 10/20/2007, -0/+1Well, mankind is still searching for that. There's no doubt that at some point particle physics (especially string theory) starts to look a lot like religion. The difference is that religion basically says not to ask questions, and that God will answer them for you when you get to heaven.
        • brokencrystal, on 10/21/2007, -0/+1Well man is still searching for that. There is no doubt that someday in a land far, far away in a very distant time far from now we will have what we are looking for. Isn't it obvious?

          Listen to what you are saying! Macro evolution is a fairy tale. Oh ye of great faith in evolution.
      • captric, on 10/20/2007, -0/+0The proof of evolution is incredibly abundant....do not sully the argument with particle pysics - that is a differnet problem as yet to be fully explainrd. Evolution is a fact - not a theory.
        • JoeVet, on 10/21/2007, -0/+2Let us at least use the right terms. Evolution, like gravity is a theory. A fact would be a ball thrown up into the air always returns to the earth at a consistent velocity. Gravity is the theory that explains the fact. Evolution is based on facts observed in nature and paleontology. It is very compelling like the theory of gravity but also like gravity, the theory can change if overwhelming evidence to the contrary can be presented. We just need to wait while the ID people gather their overwhelming facts to refute the evolution theory. Its only been 2000 years, they need a bit more time to come up with their first fact that supports their theory.
        • pgoowy, on 10/21/2007, -1/+1Explain how natural selection increase the gene pool to develop new species. Oh, it doesn't.
          Show me a mutation that increases the information stored in DNA, even in a lab with loads of scientists trying hard. Oh, there aren't any.
          Evolution is a fact, but not a complete theory. Accounting for genetic drift within a species is easy; from medium length fur we can breed long fur or short fur, but both of these will reduce the gene pool. This is obvious to anyone who has worked with pure breeds of horses or dogs as I have.
          Evidence for evolution accounting for all the different species is not abundant. ID or no ID, evolution still has a long way to go before we can replace god.
          Try coming up with some facts, arrogant statements won't help us win people over to science.
      • pgoowy, on 10/24/2007, -2/+1evolution != big bang
        The big bang is measurable. Get a telescope and I will show you that the universe didn't used to exist - but you knew that anyway.
        Evolution is not measurable. We can deform and manipulate species, but we can't create something altogether new by accident.
        I agree that evolution answers the "how did we get here?" question by moving the problem further down the line. Just like moving homeless people away from a bus stop doesn't solve the problem of homelessness, evolution doesn't solve it either.
    • brokencrystal, on 10/24/2007, -1/+1You have no PROOF for macro evolution. "Little cracks in evolution"? How about gaping holes? How about it never happened? There is not ONE example of such an event. NOT ONE! Just admit that macro evolution is a faith.
  • Xondar, on 10/22/2007, -1/+6"people hold onto their fundamentalist religious beliefs because evolution by natural selection -- the strongest argument against an Old Testament-type creator"

    This is completely untrue and a bunch of hogwash. Evolution is a theory of "how" things came to be, not "why" things came to be. It is equally possible that there was an all powerful creator guiding the process of evolution along as it is possible that evolution is a result of completely random natural processes.

    It isn't real science when you start trying to shoe-horn evolution into the "why" category. It simply isn't built for that, and no rational person would ever accept such a flimsy "why."

    I believe in God, but I can accept that evolution is possible for the "how" question.
    • marsbar, on 10/22/2007, -4/+1You are being dishonest if you say you believe in God and accept evolution UNLESS you are using God as a pseudonym for the natural world. If your definition of God includes a personal, all knowing, all powerful and benevolent entity then that entity cannot be responsible for evolution which is an impersonal, chaotic, slow and brutal process.
      • Xondar, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2I never said I believe in evolution, I said I can accept that maybe evolution is the process used by God to create living creatures. As a critical thinker I tend to not outright accept or reject anything. I examine the possibilities critically and see if they make sense and fit into the world as I understand it.

        Evolution says that all organisms suddenly appeared out of "primordial soup." Scientists can't say how or why they suddenly appeared, just that it had to happen. They even conjecture that all life on earth sprung from biological material deposited on Earth through comets or meteorites that crashed into Earth.

        Couldn't God have started the process of evolution? Instead of saying "things suddenly appeared by random interaction of molecules and random chance" you could say that God created a "primordial soup?" Who says evolution is impersonal? Could it be that God personally guided evolution along it's path, creating the desired properties through a careful but lengthy process? I don't necessarily believe this, these are just some of my thoughts. Likewise, the Big Bang Theory states that nothing existed, then there was a quantum singularity that exploded into all matter in the universe. The Big Bang Theory inherently lends itself to theism because it maintains that nothing existed, then everything existed.
        • marsbar, on 10/25/2007, -2/+0The only problem I have with using God as initiator for the various things you've stated is that it is implicitly defeatist. The old argument goes God created it and since human beings have no hope of understanding the will of God we should give up all inquiry and just pray to the great, beneficent being. The word God as you have used it is an insidiously warm and fuzzy way of saying "I don't know and I should stop asking questions".
          Evolution is impersonal. Bird Flu, an asteroid, a tsunami or whatever extinction event you could pick isn't a personal attack on you even though you may die.
          Common misconception to think the Big Bang started from nothing. Scientists can calculate a lot of the detail of the early universe a few fractions of a second AFTER the Big Bang but no one knows what the universe was like before that. To say nothing existed is inaccurate. You should look into the Big Crunch, the oscillating universe and other scientific theories for the "birth" of the universe.

          • Xondar, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1How is it "defeatist" to assume God initiated everything? As human beings God gave us the ability to reason, to understand and investigate. While God is omnipotent, omniscient and far too great for any human being to truly understand, we can certainly start, we can try to understand Him and we can make our own theories about him. The only reason I would know of that says we should "give up all enquiry and just pray to the great, beneficent being" is if you come from a very strict, authoritarian religious tradition, like American Fundamentalist Christians for example. I would encourage everyone to try to understand God. I personally think He created the universe because He's lonely. That's why we aren't robots and why we have free will as well I think. Those are just my own thoughts though.

            Yes, we don't know what happened a fraction of a second after the universe was created. That does not discount the idea that nothing at all existed. The oscillating universe theory is incorrect because the universe is a low entropy system, not a high entropy system. The universe is using too much energy and expanding too quickly to even get caught in a "big crunch."
        • tech42er, on 10/22/2007, -1/+1Nope. The primordial soup theory is abiogenesis. Evolution only addresses how life evolves into other forms of life (through natural selection) not how life came into being. They're different theories.
    • captric, on 10/22/2007, -4/+2There IS no question of why..... thats a religious question for people who belives in ghosts and devils. There is noreason we are here - it is a random act of nature - get used to it.
      • pgoowy, on 10/21/2007, -0/+2Why is the most fundamental question in science. It is how our brains work. Any kids spends hours asking why. Why is the sky blue? Why do we have two eyes? Why do people have chins? As a scientist I always ask why. There should always be a why.
        Just because you don't want an answer doesn't mean others shouldn't ask why.
      • Xondar, on 10/21/2007, -0/+2It is human nature to ask and wonder why. This is why philosophy and a great deal of religion exists, to look for the answers to why.

        A true scientist will say that science isn't for asking why, that for science there is no why. But that scientist may very well turn to religion and philosophy to answer their own personal questions of why.

        It seems sad to me that you are willing to say "there is no why" and then to just leave it at that. Are you simply willing to accept that we are nothing but a result of a "random act of nature" and there is no other reason to ask questions? Everything should be questioned all the time. Even your most dearly held beliefs should be questioned and reasoned. It is a sign of weakness to simply accept what you believe and to never consider any alternative. If anything, your own beliefs may be strengthened in the end.
    • nitsuj, on 10/22/2007, -4/+2I hear this one a lot: science for how and religion for why. Unfortunately every religious explanation I've heard for 'why' and had the twang of utter drivel about it. There's a different 'why' for every man-made religion present and chances are that they're all just made up fantasy thinking. I haven't heard a single religious case for 'why' which doesn't break down into mush when further rational reasoning is applied.
      • Xondar, on 10/21/2007, -0/+2I never said that "science for how and religion for why." I said that evolution itself is not equipped as a scientific theory to answer the question of why. Show me where scientists say why evolution was the process for the rise of life on Earth.

        However, all science cannot answer the fundamental questions of why. An attempt to do so is folly and not real science at all. In fact, there is science that attempts to answer why, it is known as pseudoscience.

        Why did all matter in the universe suddenly exist in the Big Bang?

        Why did evolutions start on the planet Earth?

        Why are we here? ("We evolved to be here" is "How are we here," not why.)

        Why did we evolve?

        If you believe that science can answer your "whys" then you are going to be sadly disappointed for the rest of your life. I guess you haven't argued with many religious people if "I haven't heard a single religious case for 'why' which doesn't break down into mush when further rational reasoning is applied."
        • starmanjones, on 10/21/2007, -0/+1>If you believe that science can answer your "whys" then you are going
          >to be sadly disappointed for the rest of your life. I guess you
          >haven't argued with many religious people if "I haven't heard a single
          >religious case for 'why' which doesn't break down into mush when
          >further rational reasoning is applied."

          i'm actually with him. i will make the exception for the argument that says,

          "i believe in god because it feels right to me. i have my beleifs but when science demonstrates one of them is wrong i accept it and just figure i was wrong and my religion needs updating."

          this by the way is what science people do regardless of firmly they want to keep hold of a notion that is proven wrong.

          there are a few that say that. but mostly godly folk get mad. they try to take over government and education and freeze knowledge at the point it demonstrates their religion is wrong. been that way since day one.

          this tactic that is used where you ask questions that either have no answer other than, "thats the way it happened" as in why did we evolve...

          or using a piece of knowledge hat we haven't yet found out to support the idea that religion does answer those things is just not very effective if your intention is to create a substantial argument or criticism.

          the fact you and others try to employ it as an effective strategy just points to the complete lack of facts in your world/universe view.

          there are very few people of science that really care about religion. if you kept it to yourself and your neighbors we'd never bother you. by contrast the godly folk actively attack science types that would like to just be left alone.

          i can tolerate religion no sweat.. its religion that seems to need to change me.

        • nitsuj, on 10/25/2007, -1/+1"I guess you haven't argued with many religious people if..."

          You guess wrong. I've talked with a lot of religious believers from many walks of life. I haven't heard a single decent religious explanation for 'why' anything. It really does seem to boil down to personal beliefs and wishful thinking for them rather than anything that can be validated as being true.
  • hiscity, on 10/22/2007, -1/+2The utility of evolution as a model ends when active intelligence intervenes.

    In that sense, ***** sapiens has ceased to evolve and is now being engineered. Where any intelligent activity directs breeding, whether self-directed, microscopic, or externally imposed, evolution no longer matters.

    There is a simpler mechanism to explain the diversity of life forms around us. Neither evolution nor assertions of faith are needed to explain it. Nor does it take millions of years.

    Exactly how a synergistic community of say "ants, aphids, and fungus" might direct their own genetic change is simply not addressed by evolution, nor can be. Breeding race horses is about intelligent decisions, not evolution.

    Most every living thing exists in community. "Communal Intelligence" concerning breeding should be researched scientifically, especially as a more robust dynamic than evolutionary theory provides.

    That's not to say that communal intelligence (CI) is any way wise -- but it could explain the many astonishing forms and improbable synergistic relationships we find.
    • marsbar, on 10/22/2007, -1/+2Wrong. Intelligence demonstrated by one or a group of the participants in an evolutionary model is simply the expression of a trait. To say human beings are being engineered by themselves implies we know our evolutionary outcome and are capable of controlling it. A simple refutation of your premise is our response to the looming Global Warming crisis, a potential evolutionary fork in the road for humans. As individuals and as a collective we will make "intelligent" decisions to attempt the survival of ourselves and our species. We may be correct (we continue to exist) or we may not be correct (we go extinct). Our intelligence in the case of being wrong can be substituted for a greater tolerance for living in a warmer world. It is a trait, nothing more. Anyway, something can only be designed/engineered if the outcome is known. The outcome can only be known if you controll all the environmental variables. Human beings as smart as we are don't controll all the variables and are as such, still "victims" of the evolutionary process.
    • hiscity, on 10/22/2007, -2/+1re: marsbar...

      Intelligence in mate selection eclipses any natural mechanism. Design is your fight -- not mine.

      We agree that humans (and I would say, any species) can't know the full impact of their mate choices, nor their killing or manipulating other species' breeding. Back to the ants and aphids.... Variation in aphid species is likely strongly impacted by ant manipulation, similar to the way we breed domestics. And that means it doesn't have to proceed on lengthy time scales, such as proposed in evolution.

      Intelligence in mate selection or artificial manipulation or extermination of other species, by microbes, or other animals toward other animals -- may well explain far more than "evolution" ever could.

      Evolutionists don't give the cells and organisms of their own bodies enough credit for autonomous choice. Much less other creatures as having husbandry and domestication skills. And the reason is likely that such autonomous intelligent activities have far more impact.

      Wiping out another species has as much impact as domesticating them -- and completely eclipses evolution -- through deliberate choice. This is not the sole capability of mankind.
      • marsbar, on 10/21/2007, -0/+1I think what we disagree on is the definition of evolution. Evolution is the combination of genetic drift and natural selection. I think we both agree we can't do much about natural selection, humans and all other species can be victims of cataclysms that threaten our existence. However I sense that you feel that if we manage genetic drift through intelligent communal practices such as husbandry, domestication, etc as opposed to leaving it to "natural" variations we somehow circumvent evolution. I disagree. It doesn't matter why the genetic drift happened, whether we planned it or it happened randomly. When the natural selection event occurs it cleaves away the unsuitable population. Only until we are able to control both genetic drift and natural selection can we say we've "evolved beyond the effects of evolution".
      • hiscity, on 10/21/2007, -0/+1re: marsbar...

        I agree that you've well described the crux of our impasse.

        You assert that any intelligence exhibited that affects species survival, even by humans, should be lumped into a broader law of evolution.

        I assert that communal intelligence in promoting or eliminating other species, including ones own specie variants, even on the part of microscopic creatures (as intentional choices) has more impact than often ages long environmental impacts that could result in an evolutionary model.

        I have to clarify my position that choices about neighboring species promotion or elimination can happen at any point from the least intelligent cells, possibly even virii, to the most intelligent natural beings. So the choices that organisms make about what other species to include in their immediate environment (or exclude) is much more rapid than evolution allows.

        There is a border line gray area between our positions. Organisms choose what they ingest, which impacts their own survival, which may not be organic (ex. water in varying qualities). You likely would assert that they have little real choice. My retort would be, have you asked them? If they have a choice, then that mental model, with possibilities of perception or mis-perception can give rise to the sometimes bizarre structures and synergistic relationships we see. Evolution does not include matters of perception or choice, because there is no long term direct physical evidence of such a dynamic that could persist. Yet when we see such goings on in living communities -- the same very likely always occurs.

        Incidentally, I would not go so far as to say that animal psychology impacts evolution. Do ants dream?

        Communal Intelligence plays a greater role in species variation, survival, and emergence of novel forms and synergies than evolution ever could. You can try to expand the definition of evolution to include such impacts, but it happens on a scale that eclipses other evolutionary factors, much as does culture, or direct genetic engineering. It's just not the same.

    • starmanjones, on 10/22/2007, -1/+1i believe that evolution stops when... humans in this case... start changing the environment to suit their needs. we've been a few thousand years making the earth fit our needs. but for the sake of argument i'd say the earth is big. and we don't know what we are doing. and then there is the earth. it seem probable that the changes we have made will cause a reaction that may put us back in the whole evolve or go extinct tread mill...

      the laws that govern population would say that when a species over extends its range their numbers will be reduced by disease, famine and interspecies violence. sound familiar to me. something like that.
  • dickenshit, on 10/20/2007, -0/+1Why is this guy so worried about all of us accepting the concept of evolution?
    • starmanjones, on 10/21/2007, -0/+1>Why is this guy so worried about all of us accepting the concept of evolution?

      thats easy. its so obvious and so understandable as to be a complete... "duh..." but we have grown ups that want to run our country and change our education system... and generally just screw everyone... except the godly... that its necessary and reasonable to "dumb *****" people that belong to this anti-intellectual doomsday cult...

      if we'd not been good americans and just kept our mouths shut when all this creationist BS got rolling... if we'd just laughed loud and hard and "dumb *****" creationists then the movement would have died of embarrassment before it encouraged people to admit they were just stupid and proud of it.
  • captric, on 10/24/2007, -2/+2Evolution is NOT a model, it a proven theory and incredibly utilitarian in solving genetic problems for example. Intelligent design is a not even a theory - it is old time religion repackaged in a new name. There is absolutely NO genetic disease, for example, that Intelligent Design has ever cured. You mention breeding horses; breeding horses is proof of evolutionary theory, not disproof. If the breeders for centuries did not understand the genetics it still made breeding no less utilitarian. Breeding Donkeys is about evolution, not intelligent design. It clearly demonstrates that similar species, a mule and a horse, can interbreed but their offspring will not be able too. A clear product of natural selection and an answer to some of your other concerns as well. You should read the facts of Evolution before you start inventing your own non scientific theories like "Communal Intelligence" and then asking scientists to prove it for you using the same scientific methods as have been used for over a century to prove Evolutionary Theory.
  • hiscity, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2re: captric... I've said nothing about intelligent design. That's your fight, not mine.

    Sorry, the map is not the thing mapped. Like it or not evolution can only be a model and nothing more. If you think otherwise, then "you" place too much faith in what "you" understand as science.

    At least we agree it has utility. Why throw the baby out with the bath water? Intelligence is likely more important for even the smallest microbe -- to intentionally select it's community -- than natural selection based on environmental change. There's no good reason to ignore the "ant, aphid, fungus" scenario. Human beings are not the only ones that intentionally modify not only their surroundings, but their communal selections. It would be arrogant to conclude that animals are not intelligent. Tool use among animals makes the case. Though evolution very begrudgingly gives way each year as other instances of tools use are shown.

    Digg is not a university. There are no academic restrictions here. More like a court case, we can judge the merits of any particular issue based on varying levels of "proof." "Beyond all doubt," "by preponderance of the evidence," etc. Academics is not the only game in town.

    Incidentally, even evolutionary theory allows for branching and interbreeding for long periods, such as with Neandertal and Sapiens. I think there's still a debate on viability of offspring.
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/10/06 ...
  • hiscity, on 10/21/2007, -0/+2I wonder when digg started truncating links?

    news.google.com/archivesearch?q=skull+interbred&hl=en&um=1
    news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/01/070116-neanderthals.html?source=rss
  • pgoowy, on 10/22/2007, -0/+5It's funny. I always thought most people believed in evolution because it is so simple for unscientific people to understand: ie. "all the horses with long neck could reach more leaves to they lived longer and so eventually giraffes were born."

    It is people with scientific minds who understand the possible short-comings and difficulties of evolution; ie. natural selection reducing the gene pool, mutations usually being a loss of information, the formation of the first strand of DNA, etc.

    Most people think that evolution==natural selection. This is not true; recombination, allelic drift and genetic flow are at least as (if not more) important. Perhaps if schools tried teaching a bit more modern genetics instead of teaching dawins original thoeries as if there were religious texts, people would listen to the science and make an edicated decision.
  • brokencrystal, on 10/24/2007, -3/+2It's simple. Micro-Evolution (variation) happens. Macro-Evolution does not happen. If you are looking for proof for Macro-Evolution... well, there is none. It simply doesn't happen. Macro-Evolution is based on faith.
    • nitsuj, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2Wilful ignorance does not get you off the hook:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)
      http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.h ...

      Also see the latest digg posting on endogenous retroviruses.

      There is more than enough genetic evidence and, despite what you might like to think, transitional forms are abdundant in the fossil record.

      There is no different between micro and macro - this is an artificial categorization used by creationists. Evolution (the change of allele frequency over time) just happens. If this conflicts with your personal belief system then hard lines.
  • starmanjones, on 10/22/2007, -1/+1counter intuitive? god is not counter intuitive? is for me... i just would never think of a god if it wasn't brought up.

    but, if it is counter intuitive to the godly it would explain how they got like that. their "tuitive" is just broken.

    i postulate...