Peanut Butter Defense

[Count Zero]

A while back, I showed the Banana Defense used to dismiss evolution.... now we have the Peanut Butter defense.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/50013/

[Drew]

There are so many things wrong with that I don't know where to begin! I think he needs to take a basic science class.

I had a boss once, up in Mira Mesa, who gave me a 20 minute lecture on how there is more hard proof to support creationism than evolution and this was an electrical engineer!

[Neuro]

In two more slices of bread, we'll have the Elvis defense.

[Neuro]

[quote="Drew"]There are so many things wrong with that I don't know where to begin! I think he needs to take a basic science class.



I had a boss once, up in Mira Mesa, who gave me a 20 minute lecture on how there is more hard proof to support creationism than evolution and this was an electrical engineer![/quote]

Dude. Have you /seen/ the museum of creationism in El Cajon? Holy crap. /IF/ you can keep your mouth shut and not actually laugh out loud, you should really go. It's ... it's something else. I'm not really one to laugh at dearly and deeply held beliefs, and I think that if people find spiritual truth in meaning in something that you shouldn't take that away from them, but some of the stuff they're saying is actually so terrible and funny that it's really, really hard to be nice. That the T-rex had those great carnivore teeth and claws for ripping off the bark of perfect plants God made for them to eat because everything used to be a vegetarian was possibly the greatest.

[Drew]

[quote="Neuro"] I'm not really one to laugh at dearly and deeply held beliefs, and I think that if people find spiritual truth in meaning in something that you shouldn't take that away from them.[/quote]

Got to respect people who, dispite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, still hold onto their beliefs. I have no problem with the concept of intelligent design, IF the arguements are sound. What's to say that "God" didn't use evolution to create man? I mean, can anyone give me one example where the first run of any invention/creation was consumer ready?

[Neuro]

[quote="Drew"]Got to respect people who, dispite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, still hold onto their beliefs. I have no problem with the concept of intelligent design, IF the arguements are sound. What's to say that "God" didn't use evolution to create man? I mean, can anyone give me one example where the first run of any invention/creation was consumer ready?[/quote]



I really don't respect people who are holding onto beliefs without being open to evidence, to be honest, at least not for doing that. Blind faith without being open to truth, however personally troubling, seems like a terrible quality. The sort of thing that starts fighting and violence that doesn't stop for thousands of years, in fact.



I find God present in pretty much every creative act, but my notion of God may not be like everyone's. I also don't think anyone can claim to know the mind of God or where he's put his hand to act. The Jews have a word for God hidden in the world, Melech Ha-Olam. The notion is that although God works in the world, we can never directly behold the divine.

[Drew]

[quote="Neuro"]I also don't think anyone can claim to know the mind of God or where he's put his hand to act. The Jews have a word for God hidden in the world, Melech Ha-Olam. The notion is that although God works in the world, we can never directly behold the divine.[/quote]

That's true. I don't beleive we can know "God" any more than a character ina game can know the GM. I don't mean the player playing him.

[mrlost]

Yeah its uncanny how many educated people haven't been exposed to more than the man evolved to monkeys super over generalization.
I was having a conversation with a grad student friend of mine in the physics department who believed that the entire theory of evolution was bumpkis because their are still monkeys. Totally discounted breeding changes animals and seemed to think mutation was a cartoon concept from the fifties.

In was insane.

[Drew]

[quote="mrlost"]Yeah its uncanny how many educated people haven't been exposed to more than the man evolved to monkeys super over generalization.

I was having a conversation with a grad student friend of mine in the physics department who believed that the entire theory of evolution was bumpkis because their are still monkeys. Totally discounted breeding changes animals and seemed to think mutation was a cartoon concept from the fifties.



In was insane.[/quote]

I know this isn't exactly evolution (though I still consider it to some extent) but look at how much humans have changed in the past 500 years alone. We are taller, stronger, smarter. How can people look at this and not think extrapulate backwards?

[Neuro]

[quote="Drew"]That's true. I don't beleive we can know "God" any more than a character ina game can know the GM. I don't mean the player playing him.[/quote]

What a wonderfully appropriate analogy.

[anika_bird]

[quote="Drew"]I had a boss once, up in Mira Mesa, who gave me a 20 minute lecture on how there is more hard proof to support creationism than evolution and this was an electrical engineer![/quote]

An article I read recently gives some good arguments to have if you are found wanting to defend evolution. Here's a quote from the beginning of the Scientific American article that I link to: Besieged teachers and others may increasingly find themselves on the spot to defend evolution and refute creationism. The arguments that creationists use are typically specious and based on misunderstandings of (or outright lies about) evolution, but the number and diversity of the objections can put even well-informed people at a disadvantage.



To help with answering them, the following list rebuts some of the most common "scientific" arguments raised against evolution.



[url]http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&sc=I100322[/url]



This is a good read.

[Count Zero]

[quote="Drew"]Got to respect people who, dispite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, still hold onto their beliefs. I have no problem with the concept of intelligent design, IF the arguements are sound. What's to say that "God" didn't use evolution to create man? I mean, can anyone give me one example where the first run of any invention/creation was consumer ready?[/quote]


My problem with intelligent design isn't that someone believes it. Just like all things around God, it revolves around faith. There is no way to prove the existance of an intelligent designer, so therefore it is simply faith. It has no place in science classroom.



Intelligent design is basically says that God got things started and from there he guided things. It can't be proven though. Science is about the provable, not faith. It simply comes down to the fact that it will never be provable. So why bother?

[Skyman]

[quote="anika_bird"]An article I read recently gives some good arguments to have if you are found wanting to defend evolution. Here's a quote from the beginning of the Scientific American article that I link to: Besieged teachers and others may increasingly find themselves on the spot to defend evolution and refute creationism. The arguments that creationists use are typically specious and based on misunderstandings of (or outright lies about) evolution, but the number and diversity of the objections can put even well-informed people at a disadvantage.



To help with answering them, the following list rebuts some of the most common "scientific" arguments raised against evolution.



[url]http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&sc=I100322[/url]



This is a good read.[/quote]

Yeah I don't think he was in a great position to defend it. Cool article though. I think scientist deal alot with doubt and the religious folks spend a lot of time examining belief or faith. Which is dandy but the views obviously have their conflicting approaches

[Shoby187]

[quote="Drew"]Got to respect people who, dispite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, still hold onto their beliefs. I have no problem with the concept of intelligent design, IF the arguements are sound. What's to say that "God" didn't use evolution to create man? I mean, can anyone give me one example where the first run of any invention/creation was consumer ready?[/quote]

To be honest, people who hold to the idea that God created the world in seven days and don't believe in things like Dinosaurs just make me mad, they give us Christians a bad name.



Now having said that, I still don't believe in most of evolution. You'll never convince me that Man has descended from Apes. For me this is partly a question of faith, my religion teaches that something different happened and I've studied and prayed about it and believe that they are right. It's also a difference of opinion, I just don't think that the evidence is there to support the idea that we've descended from Apes or that birds are descended from T-Rex's.



I don't really keep up with the debates or anything but I guess I would fall in the Intelligent design camp. It's my belief that the earth developed over the millions of years that the scientists tell us it did, I just think that this development was directed and planned out by God and that the life on the earth was put here by God in stages as needed. The Dinosaurs and other prehistoric life were here to help the earth develop to the point that it could sustain our current type of life. Each stage was here long enough to do its part in helping the earth develop and once it had accomplished this it was removed to make way for the next stage of life.



I know most of you probably don't agree with this view, but it's what I believe and I just thought I'd share so that I could join the discussion.



If anyone IS interested in this type of a creation theory though the best book I've read on the subject is a book called Earth: In the Beginning by Eric N. Skousen.

[Count Zero]

[quote="Shoby187"]I don't really keep up with the debates or anything but I guess I would fall in the Intelligent design camp. It's my belief that the earth developed over the millions of years that the scientists tell us it did, I just think that this development was directed and planned out by God and that the life on the earth was put here by God in stages as needed. The Dinosaurs and other prehistoric life were here to help the earth develop to the point that it could sustain our current type of life. Each stage was here long enough to do its part in helping the earth develop and once it had accomplished this it was removed to make way for the next stage of life. [/quote]

I understand the conflict that is created with being Christian and accepting evolution, I have gotten past it. I think part of it has to do with how I view the nature of God. Really though, the idea that I am fundamentally decended from the other creatures of this planet actually creates a deeper spiritual bond.



While I am fine with someone thinking that God guided things, I am curious about some of the finer points. If I understand you correctly, do you think the Earth is billions of years old only God guided the development? So, if you don't think humans develop from an early primate, how do you explain the fossil record of the "Lucy" and similar homonids? Simply how do you factor it in to your beliefs? Additionally, if the other species "evolved" through the guiding hand of God, did humans just plop down in their current form, and if so.. how long ago?



Also, just so you know, there is a proverbial "shit ton" of evidence. Yeah, a lot of it is far beyond most of us, but the evidence supports the theory. The more of the fossil record we uncover, the more the theory is proven. Finally, birds didn't evolve from T-Rexes... they probably evolved from smaller dinosaurs that were able to survive the apocolypse that killed the dinosaurs, just like we evolved from the mammals. There are multiple examples of "feathered" dinosaurs.

[Skyman]

[quote="Count Zero"] Really though, the idea that I am fundamentally decended from the other creatures of this planet actually creates a deeper spiritual bond. .[/quote]
Wow that's deep. It's like being connected to everything...very zen or something sentiment. Really groovy


[quote="Count Zero"]While I am fine with someone thinking that God guided things, I am curious about some of the finer points. If I understand you correctly, do you think the Earth is billions of years old only God guided the development? So, if you don't think humans [b]develop[/b] from an early primate, how do you explain the fossil record of the "Lucy" and similar homonids? Simply how do you factor it in to your beliefs? Additionally, if the other species "[b]evolved[/b]" through the guiding hand of God, did humans just plop down in their current form, and if so.. how long ago? .[/quote]

I could be wrong but I think this finer point is a matter of[b] semantics[/b]. Shoby makes sense to me from a faith point of view that everything develops as a plan and that somethings existed to get us where we are here in developing stages. If I'm understanding this right from Shoby, then I would think the intelligent design should agree that Lucy and early homonids are part of a stage to help sustain the current life on Earth as part of a greater powers development...AKA Humans. I think the hang up here is that the word [b]Evolve[/b] implies that there is no intelligent design behind the works or being part of a greater powers intent. While the word [b]Develp[/b] does.

Shoby I'm sorry if I'm totally off base with this.

[Shoby187]

:2guns: Damn Computer! So I took some time and tried to write a good reply, just before I was about to post it my son woke up and I had to comfort him by watching some Little Einsteins. Needless to say, when I got back to my work laptop it had restarted due to some automatic update that hq had pushed out. :evil:


[quote="Count Zero"]While I am fine with someone thinking that God guided things, I am curious about some of the finer points. If I understand you correctly, do you think the Earth is billions of years old only God guided the development? So, if you don't think humans develop from an early primate, how do you explain the fossil record of the "Lucy" and similar homonids? Simply how do you factor it in to your beliefs? Additionally, if the other species "evolved" through the guiding hand of God, did humans just plop down in their current form, and if so.. how long ago? [/quote]

As for the age, yes, I do believe that the earth is billions of years old. IMO when Genesis talks about days it really mean periods of time. The second "Day" may have taken any number of millions of years and the Lord just called it the Second Day or whatever instead of calling it the Proterozoic period as well as a few dozen other names. Obviously this is a very simplified answer, I couldn't even begin to go over how complex a subject like Genesis is and there are dozens of other factors as well. In a nutshell though I do think the earth is billions of years old and that God is its architect and directed every hour of its development, much like a highly advanced race in some sci-fi story might direct the terraforming of a planet.



To answer the last question; I do believe that Man just plopped onto earth in their current state, more precisely, Adam, the first man, was placed here by God along with his wife Eve. I also believe that Adam was a perfect man (as in no genetic defects and highly intelligent).



Obviously a lot of fossils like Lucy and others have been recovered over the years. I understand why people believe that we are descended from them, many are very close to us in many ways, I just don't think that we are. To be honest I never really understood why findings like Lucy were so surprising, does she share more characteristics with humans then the Pygmy Chimpanzee? Their DNA is anywhere from 98% - 99.4% identical to humans. I also believe that they have been around longer (I want to say 6 million years).


[quote="Skyman"]I could be wrong but I think this finer point is a matter of[b] semantics[/b]. Shoby makes sense to me from a faith point of view that everything develops as a plan and that somethings existed to get us where we are here in developing stages. If I'm understanding this right from Shoby, then I would think the intelligent design should agree that Lucy and early homonids are part of a stage to help sustain the current life on Earth as part of a greater powers development...AKA Humans. I think the hang up here is that the word [b]Evolve[/b] implies that there is no intelligent design behind the works or being part of a greater powers intent. While the word [b]Develp[/b] does.

Shoby I'm sorry if I'm totally off base with this.[/quote]

No, you're not off base at all really. It's just that the simple answer is that there is no simple answer. :razz:



Personally I love reading about the creation of the world, I could post on her for days talking about it but then I would never finish my book. :eek:



For me there are only two answers that really matter:

1. That God is the architect of the earth and everything on it. It was created and we were placed on it as part of his plan for us in order for us to progress.

2. That however close other animals on this earth might be to us we are not descended from them.



I don't really think either one of those ideas is unreasonable. If Aliens flew down to earth tomorrow and explained to us that they oversaw the development of the earth and then placed mankind on it when they were finished I don't think it would be that hard to swallow. Hell, its pretty common to read stories in science fiction where something like this happens.



Here's an interesting article that I found online that sums up most of how I see things:



[i]There has been much attention in the media about the teaching of the theory of evolution. While serving as dean of the University of Utah’s College of Mines and Mineral Industries, I had interesting discussions with fellow faculty members in the departments of geology, geography, and geophysics about the theory of evolution and the misunderstanding many people have about the scientific method.



In the process of discovering scientific truths, it is essential to develop theories that relate experimental observations to each other and suggest additional tests to determine the validity of those theories or to modify them, which is generally the case.



Competent scientists recognize that theories are not laws but serve the function of testing ideas and pursuing new relationships. Elder John A. Widtsoe observed: “Facts never change, but the inferences from them are changeable. … The careful man does not become so enamored of an hypothesis or a theory that he cannot distinguish it from a fact. … Theories of science can no more overthrow the facts of religion than the facts of science. … One cannot build a faith upon the theory of evolution, for this theory is of no higher order than any other inference, and is therefore in a state of constant change.” (In Search of Truth: Comments on the Gospel and Modern Thought, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1930, pp. 41, 46, 110.)



The theory of evolution as presently taught posits that higher forms of life arose gradually from lower stages of living matter. Inheritable genetic changes in offspring are assumed to be spontaneous rather than the result of arranged or directed forces external to the system.



This theory conflicts with a basic law of chemistry, the second law of thermodynamics, which states in part that it is not possible for a spontaneous process to produce a system of higher order than the system possessed at the beginning of the change.



An example of a spontaneous process is a boulder that dislodges from a mountaintop and rolls down the mountain. The only way to get the boulder back up the mountain (thereby increasing its height, or the order of the system) is for energy outside the system to be expended—such as someone directing the process by seeing that the rock is carried up the mountain.



One of the current explanations of the improvement in plant and animal species over time is that cosmic radiation caused genetic changes resulting in a higher order of offspring survivability than the parent possessed.



A number of years ago, a renowned biologist and geneticist told of an experiment he had directed in which grasshoppers in their various stages of growth had been subjected to radiation levels greater than that insect family had received during its existence. He said the experiment caused many genetic changes, including the loss of a foreleg, an antenna, or some other inheritable change. However, not one of those changes gave the offspring a greater viability or survivability than that of the parent.



Many Latter-day Saints recognize that the processes involved in evolution are valid. We see improved strains and varieties of plants and animals developed through judicious selection of their parents. But we would have to agree with those who understand the limitation defined in the second law of thermodynamics limitation that such changes can only occur if guided or if outside energy is available to improve the system.



We are in the very fortunate position of understanding that the Lord is in charge of the universe and that positive genetic changes can in fact occur under his direction. On the other hand, spontaneous improvements of the type hypothesized by devotees of current evolutionary theory remain an unsupported supposition.



We are also blessed with the knowledge that Adam and Eve, our first parents, were not subject to death until they partook of the forbidden fruit. They and all of their descendants are spirit children of God, created in his image, and are thus different from all other forms of life on earth. As literal children of God, we possess the inherent capability of becoming as he is.



[/i]

[Skyman]

[quote="Shoby187"]:

For me there are only two answers that really matter:

1. That God is the architect of the earth and everything on it. It was created and we were placed on it as part of his plan for us in order for us to progress.

2. That however close other animals on this earth might be to us we are not descended from them.







This theory conflicts with a basic law of chemistry, the second law of thermodynamics, which states in part that it is not possible for a spontaneous process to produce a system of higher order than the system possessed at the beginning of the change.



An example of a spontaneous process is a boulder that dislodges from a mountaintop and rolls down the mountain. The only way to get the boulder back up the mountain (thereby increasing its height, or the order of the system) is for energy outside the system to be expended—such as someone directing the process by seeing that the rock is carried up the mountain.



One of the current explanations of the improvement in plant and animal species over time is that cosmic radiation caused genetic changes resulting in a higher order of offspring survivability than the parent possessed.



A number of years ago, a renowned biologist and geneticist told of an experiment he had directed in which grasshoppers in their various stages of growth had been subjected to radiation levels greater than that insect family had received during its existence. He said the experiment caused many genetic changes, including the loss of a foreleg, an antenna, or some other inheritable change. However, not one of those changes gave the offspring a greater viability or survivability than that of the parent.



[/I][/quote]

Well nice to know I was in the ball park



I'm personally not in agreement with your #2 but that's because I like Count Zero's Hindu spiritual perspective about being connected those things around us. That is by my preference. I don't like to feel disfranchised from those things around me on a spiritual level.



Those folks really did not need to subjugate those grass hoppers to that radiation as an example. They could have used the survivors of the Hiroshima bombing to illustrate their point. That would have implicated that the survivors mutated into more evolved human beings that would have thrived more stronger/superior than their less developed bretheren and thus one would posit become a world power. Also using grasshoppers really does not mean anything if they are not connected with humans anyways. I think the theory of evolution postulates that most mutation do not always evolve for the better but give opportunity for adaption to the demands of the enviromental demands and stressors. I think that is where natural selection comes in supposedly. Thus as it seems both sides do not have simple answers as the peanut butter defense.



I have read and known scientist that find when you explore a simple question in research that it expands into more questions and that the process of asking the question evolves a greater appreatiation on a spiritual level of how little we know and how there is something greater beyond the grasp of our fragile understanding of the world. This is something that i have heard from my University days that i thought you would appreciate

[Dragonkin]

I believe in higher powers, I really and truly do, but I still have to say . . . CREATIONISM IS NOT A THEORY!!!!! Not as the scientific community defines theories, anyway. Thus, while I feel that everyone is more than welcome to their beliefs, creationism should not be part of the curriculum in science classes! You want to teach creationism? That's what Sunday School is for. Always has been, since I was knee-high to a grasshopper.

Should creationism sneak its way into school curriculum, the slippery slope has been trod, and there is no turning back. Since you're teaching the Christian form of creationism, you're going to have to provide education in all other valid religious "creation" theories. And by valid, I refer to the religion, not the theory itself. Soon, schools would be bogged down with religious rhetoric, and no real learning would take place.

And to weigh in with my views on the matter, I'm of two minds. I belive that a higher power (or powers) did create the universe. Big Bang is just too random for my liking. But, in addition to creating the universe, did they not also create all the laws which govern said universe? Why is it so difficult to belive that a book, written by men could be mistaken? Anywho, I've dropped my two cents.

[Drew]

[quote="Dragonkin"]I believe in higher powers, I really and truly do, but I still have to say . . . [b][i]CREATIONISM IS [u]NOT[/u] A THEORY!!!!![/i][/b] Not as the scientific community defines theories, anyway. Thus, while I feel that everyone is more than welcome to their beliefs, creationism should [i]not[/i] be part of the curriculum in science classes! You want to teach creationism? That's what Sunday School is for. Always has been, since I was knee-high to a grasshopper.


[/quote]

Do you distinguish between creationism and intelligent design? I have no problem with the "theory" that some higher power, alien culture or your average run of the mill mad scientist stirred the pot a little to help evolution along. Personally I think intelligent design and evolution make good bedfellows.

[Dragonkin]

[quote="Drew"]Do you distinguish between creationism and intelligent design? I have no problem with the "theory" that some higher power, alien culture or your average run of the mill mad scientist stirred the pot a little to help evolution along. Personally I think intelligent design and evolution make good bedfellows.[/quote]

To my understanding, creationism and intelligent design are the same thing. The name was changed to make it sound more like a scientifically acceptable theory. They are good bedfellows, if people would be a bit more open-minded. Blindly accepting your faith (or science) can be disastrous.



My history teacher in my junior & senior years of high school really helped me to understand how important being open-minded was in seeking truth. Not to say I [i]have,[/i] but I'm willing to bet I'm closer than some.

[Count Zero]

[quote="Drew"]Do you distinguish between creationism and intelligent design? I have no problem with the "theory" that some higher power, alien culture or your average run of the mill mad scientist stirred the pot a little to help evolution along. Personally I think intelligent design and evolution make good bedfellows.[/quote]


Well if it is aliens who are the designer, then who designed the designer? Somewhere along the way, something had to evolve.

[Skyman]

[quote="Dragonkin"]


My history teacher in my junior & senior years of high school really helped me to understand how important being open-minded was in seeking truth. Not to say I [i]have,[/i] but I'm willing to bet I'm closer than some.[/quote]

Apparently my mind is so open crap falls out. My underastanding is that the two have christian-centric orientation about the world origins. I think the intelligent design is different because it trys to account or reinterpret scientific explanations in a more christian orientation. While creationism straight out rejects scientific notions.



But yeah, teaching that stuff in schools kinda violates alot IMHO

[Skyman]

[quote="Count Zero"]Well if it is aliens who are the designer, then who designed the designer? Somewhere along the way, something had to evolve.[/quote]

That is if time is linear within the context of the designers existence and not ours in reference

[Count Zero]

Thank you for sharing Shoby. I appreciate it.

I would mention though, the reasons that are argued by the scientist as reasons for evolution not working are easily disputed by those who know better. I have read a few articles, in fact.. there was link about that very thing posted in this thread.

The grasshopper thing is an interesting experiment, but doesn't really work as an arguement of evolution. Sure those changes might not be beneficial in the short time that we can see, but over millions of years, subtle changes can have beneficial effects.

From what I have understood, effective evolution is generally very slow. A grass hopper that looses specific legs and consistantly reproduces viable offspring with similar traits is proof of evolution. Given time, those mutations could become a new species. It might not replace the grasshoppper, but it could fill a niche not filled by another species. Those Grass hoppers are no longer grasshoppers by that point. That is sort of how evolution works. It works by simply filling a niche or loosing a niche to a more effective species.

[Skyman]

[quote="Count Zero"]

From what I have understood, effective evolution is generally very slow. A grass hopper that looses specific legs and consistantly reproduces viable offspring with similar traits is proof of evolution. Given time, those mutations could become a new species. It might not replace the grasshoppper, but it could fill a niche not filled by another species. Those Grass hoppers are no longer grasshoppers by that point. That is sort of how evolution works. It works by simply filling a niche or loosing a niche to a more effective species.[/quote]
I think that process is called Natural Selection....but ya know it could also viewed as the higher being created the conditions to demand those preferences to be favored so something else is developed.



sorry not trying to be the devils advocate but I'm just running the logic thru my head as I write

[mrlost]

Well I didn't want to throw my hat into this discussion simply because I'm not a great articulator but as an anthropologist I feel I must point out that the theory of Evolution has been revised quite a bit over the years whereas the concept of intelligent design has little actual support but is a very interesting idea I admit. Usually the eye is pointed out as evidence for intelligent design since it is assumed that the eye could not develop among virtually all species of multicellular life on earth. Which is assuming then that any complex organ would be incapable of developing. It of course ignores the concept of shared ancestry. The idea that all life could trace itself back through time to a single life form, probably a single celled bacteria. See the Miller Urey experiment for more on this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment

The largest wealth of evidence for change over time comes of course from the fossil record, which shows vast changes over time in the physiology of life forms. Evidence of the first homo sapiens showed up 200 thousand years ago, the oldest fossils found in Africa, hence its title of the cradle of mankind. Even these humans didn't have the exact same skeletal biology as the modern homo sapiens sapiens.

Until Gregor Mendel, the main difficulty with the various theories of evolution had been what the mechanism for adaption was. Adaption being defined as "...a characteristic that allows an organism to live and reproduce in an environment where it probably could not otherwise..." -G.J. Vermeiji 1973. Gregor Mendel of course discovered genes, and the science of genetics while studying peas.

Perhaps an intelligent design argument could be made that all the previous now extinct homo sapien like members of Hominidae were merely the prototypes of a Creator. I'm not going to buy that one simply because of Occam's Razor. Especially when you have chimpanzee tribes making spears and going to war, and using food to buy sex from other chimpanzees. Animals like the platypus also break my faith in intelligent design.

Mutation is one of the four main processes that species change over time, the others are migration, natural selection (the big one), and genetic drift which is usually caused by isolation which is how the epicanthal fold became so prominent in Asians. The genes responsible are found in most modern humans but it isn't always expressed, however in certain parts of the world it provides a marked benefit by protecting the eye from over exposure to light, and to an extent also cold. Thus members of a population living in areas with greater exposure to such threats should see the development of more epicanthal folds over time, as those people without the trait suffer from loss of vision that makes them less likely to reproduce, as they become less desirable mates so as differential reproduction kicks in, over time, you get more folks with epicanthal folds.

I should point out that mutation doesn't always provide worthwhile adaptations. Often it does the opposite but it is the only observable process that creates new genetic material i.e. new genes. Witness the cheetah, a species that is so incredibly inbred that most members have no genetic differences from one another which poses a problem for conservationists since anything that could pose at threat to one could wipe out the rest.

If you want to read more about Evolution I'll point you to Jared Diamond's book the Third Chimpanzee that is an excellent easy read for the layman. Plus it compares penis sizes by species and proportion to body size of the species, which some men may find interesting and funny.http://www.amazon.com/Third-Chimpanzee- ... 0060984031

Also interesting tidbit, Wolves are descended from a kind of Whale as supported by the fossil record. But I need to get to a Big Gay BBQ now.

[Skyman]

Yay to my epicanthal folds!

Thanx for sharing Mr Lost...anthro man extradinaire. Have a big Gay BBQ!

[Count Zero]

[quote="mrlost"] Usually the eye is pointed out as evidence for intelligent design since it is assumed that the eye could not develop among virtually all species of multicellular life on earth. [/quote]

This quote by Darwin is often used to attack Darwinism and evolution:


[quote]"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I confess, absurd in the highest degree."
[/quote]

The problem is that it is often taken out of context. After making this statement, Darwin goes on to say:


[quote]Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.
[/quote]

Much of the arguements made by the far right use this first part of the quote to dismiss Darwinism, but it is dishonest. Unfortunately, dishonestly seems to tool of the day. So it is better to lie and win then to tell the truth and loose. Jesus would be so proud.



I completely understand the reason why people like and need the idea of a Creator. I respect the need for it. It comforts us and makes us feel like there is purpose to all the troubles in the world. It allows us to believe that in the end things will be okay. Personally, I have never had a conflict with evolution and the existance of God. For me, God is not a being who interacts with the world. There is no plan and there is no purpose to the suffering in the world. It is truely pointless. When we realize there is no plan, it becomes our duty as human beings to take action and right the wrongs we see. If people suffer unecessarily, then it is our fault and no one elses. When we realize the suffering around the world serves no purpose, the responsibility of stopping it becomes a heavy burden to bare. There are some days I long for the day I believe their to be a plan.

[Drew]

[quote="Count Zero"]Well if it is aliens who are the designer, then who designed the designer? Somewhere along the way, something had to evolve.[/quote]

Well, where does it begin? Seriously, where does it begin? Is it easier to believe that there was, at some point in time, nothing? I mean, what was there to bang? Something has had to always have been there, be it energy or matter, something has always had to exist, it's just too mind boggling to think of what the nothing could be. Now if people want to call the energy or whatever it was "God" that's their choice, but I trully beleive that there had to be something before. I just can't fathom the idea of true "nothing."

[mrlost]

Honestly does it matter? There are enough troubles here and now that wondering what's it all about seems a little silly to me, but then I'm a humanist so I would think that. Will knowing how the current state of the universe came to be really fix anything at all? Aren't there more important concerns that bear thinking about (poverty, worldwide hunger, political corruption, whether or not that Cancer cure actually was covered up, etc)? The Christians seem for the most part to believe in a God that doesn't interfere in the lives of man (New Testament and such). So why bother wondering what its all about, when you will ultimately find out anyway? I suppose it could be argued that this sort of debate while unanswerable to my satisfaction serves to exercise the mind and thus betters all in the process or that good science requires good questions and a healthy skepticism but I feel as if the real problems in the world could be solved if people stopped avoiding them or waiting for other people to do something and just pitched in.

I suppose I am getting overly impassioned about this though.

It just seems that you can't find out definitively one way or the other how the universe started. If it was a big bang as physicists think, what was there to ignite the hydrogen in the first place? The collapse of a previous universe or the will of an intelligence that existed prior to everything else. Would the explosion been powerful enough to harm said intelligence? These are the questions that make me wish deities (or deity) were more flashy and fabulous folk(s). Make with the smiting already, don't leave us doubting!

I'm with Drew in that science only goes so far to answer the big question why are we here. I'm also with Douglas Adams when I question if the big questions are really questions at all, and if there really needs to be answer more compelling than forty two.

Anyway, the Big Gay BBQ was fun, and I saw a bunch of friends I hadn't seen in months. And I got auctioned off in a date thing but I promised my girlfriend I won't do anything to make her jealous if the guy who bought me does follow through.

[Count Zero]

[quote="Drew"]Now if people want to call the energy or whatever it was "God" that's their choice, but I trully beleive that there had to be something before. I just can't fathom the idea of true "nothing."[/quote]


Even harder to comprehend... somthing and nothing at the same time.

[Neuro]

[quote="Skyman"]That is if time is linear within the context of the designers existence and not ours in reference[/quote]

Don't make me whip out the Brief History of Time. I've got an audiobook and I'm not afraid to upload it.

[Drew]

[quote="Neuro"]Don't make me whip out the Brief History of Time. I've got an audiobook and I'm not afraid to upload it.[/quote]

Brief History? nah I'm waiting for the Unabridged version. :confused:

[Count Zero]

[quote="mrlost"]Honestly does it matter?[/quote]


On a day to day level, not at all. But, on the human level of understanding the nature of the universe it matters a great deal. While we will babble like children about this, there are people who actually understand this to a much greater degree. They are obviously the people who need to care about this. They are the ones who will use the discoveries they make to improve our lives. For us really, it is just something to occupy our time.