Theory of evolution becomes slightly more credible

Pretty much, yeah. I don't go to church to learn about science, and I don't go to science class to learn about God.

 

Those fossils were intelligently designed to be found and further prove evolution. Synthesis!

 

I don't go to church because I can read fiction at home.

 

WARNING SportsJournalists.comMERS! -- The bloodsuckers are going to get us!!!

At least according to Zagyawn's books=truth hypothesis.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Vampires&x=6&y=22

 

What drives me batty about this is we are constantly being told that our public schools are failing, especially in areas of math and SCIENCE, often by the same people who want creationism or intelligent design to be taught in class. So we want to raise critical thinkers, yet people want to dismiss scientific theory by saying, "Well, the sky is blue because God made it that way."

 

True. There cannot be, because the existence or nonexistence of a God cannot be scientifically proven.

However, Darwinian evolution cannot be presented as fact, either, due to the multiple problems with the theory. It is a THEORY, and the biggest issue that I have had with the scientific community is that theory is accepted as fact, when it is also unprovable. There is evidence that can be used to support creation theory (in all seriousness, how does a fully-functional human being evolve from trilobytes), just as there is evidence that can be used to support Darwinian theory, but neither can be presented as fact.

My biggest problem with evolutionary theory is that you would see a gradual change over years, and the "transitional" species that Darwinian evolutionary theory relies upon would be in as great a number as the predecessors of homo sapiens and of homo sapiens themselves. That belief was developed through questioning and critical thinking of *both* theories, rather than just accepting one or the other as fact.

Even if I am a creationist, I support the idea that species evolve *within* their species -- we have evidence to prove that (note the size of humans has increased somewhat significantly in the last 100 years, possibly due to better nutrition or medicine or exercise habits or just simple genetics), but it is very difficult to find any evidence that human beings evolve from other species.

 

Gravity is also a theory. Doesn't stop reasonable people from assuming it's true.

 

Anyone who uses this line forfeits all right to talk about science, ever. That word doesn't mean what you think it means.

That's not evidence. That's just you saying "that seems unusual to me."

No, you wouldn't. You have absolutely no basis for that statement.

1965 called and they want their anti-evolution argument back. Transitional species continue to be discovered and their numbers grow.

 

Thank you. I'm too lazy to pick the separate pieces of that foolishness apart.

 

One of the problems with those who say there are holes in evolution is that they expect the fossil record to be complete and easy to find, as if you could just dig random holes in the ground and discover all of these fossils that show how species are connected.

The fact is, it is quite rare for any individual plant or animal to become fossilized after death. The conditions have to be just right for it to happen. So we won't have anywhere close to a complete record, and, yes, the details will change as new discoveries are made. But the scientific definition of ``theory'' requires that it can be tested, and so far, evolution has passed every test (including the fact that it has been observed happening in real time, with organisms like bacteria that produce many generations in a short time). If we find a human fossil mixed with dinosaurs 70 million years ago, maybe it will go kablooey. Right now, that is not the case, and evolution holds up scientifically quite nicely, thank you.

 

Crimsonace: JR recommended Stephen Jay Gould. I specifically recommend Wonderful Life, about the Pre-Cambrian explosion.

It helped my understanding of how evolution works. It's not a static or smooth process, as early Darwinians believed.

And, if you want to read something from Darwin's time. the essays of Thomas Henry Huxley will clear up a lot of misunderstandings.

This is not bumper-device stuff, fish vs. fish-eating dinosaurs. It's worth learning.

 

I'm not getting involved in the debate that will litteraly go nowhere - just people shouting eachother down, no one changing anyone's opinion.

I just wanted to say I think it's funny that they believe Ardi was a whore.

I'm not going to post the section of the article, because it's about the bottom quarter of it, but it basically says she traded sex for food. Their reasoning is she had a really big big toe and much smaller canine teeth. They came up with this theory to try to argue in favour of another theory that Ardi travelled both by tree and ground, apparently this is all supposed to make sense because the male would need both arms free to carry food to the female, and he couldn't possibly do that in the trees, and he would therefore get laid for bringing her food. I wish getting laid was that simple today.