"'Creationists live by faith in things unseen'
nope, creationists believe in things they are told.
christains ( at least when I went to church) are told to find god and christ in the world around us. ( not in the 'unseen' )"

Read 2 Corinthians 5:7. Oh no wait, what do you care Grimber? This is just religious dogma aint it?

And I assume you are an archeologist who writes books about evolution and intermediary species. Obviously you are getting your information straight from the field and not being fed by textbooks, and not being TOLD by scientists and documented research. No ones telling you, you get your research yourself, and grow cows/pigs in your backyard for your own homemade cheesburgers. Well done Grimber, trying to point out a hypocrit only revealing yourself as one.

If you did read the bible at all, whatever religion you are, it repeatedly explains the saved person's faith in a kingdom not of this world, cause this world was made sin. A CHRISTian goes after Christ, forsaking his worldly possessions/desires. Im explaining this not in an effort to shove this doctrine down your throat for the sake of this evolution/creation argument, but just clarifying your misunderstanding of the bible.

Personally, I think the system of all living things and the state of the universe is too perfect(dont give me that whining about humans causing war and bloodshed, I'm talking about physical reality, not morality) to be a cause of a random explosion, or a species growing wings to adapt to its environment.

Quote:

---

Like skin shade any genetic data can be dominant and lead to mutations. If that mutations pay off the logical consequence is that this genetic pool will spread. Hence reproducing more of this genetic pool this again increases the chances of new mutations. and so forth

---

True evolution(not micro-evolution) depends upon mutations, it is one of the legs which it stands on. Yet mutations have never been found to add genetic information to an offspring, and the majority of time mutation is harmful.

The only time mutation has been beneficial has been when microorganisms have mutated to produce antibiotics. These are not superior evolved creatures, they only have resistance to infectious disease because of a kind of neutrality in their genome. There is no new DNA, just unreactive genes.

Regardless, other than this, mutation has not been observed to produce any beneficial results in any species. It is a thouroughly untested unscientific assertion to believe that we evolved through mutation.

Its also sad to see that most here seem to have no knowledge of the difference between micro evolution(adaption) and evolution.

The difference lies within the processes which occur within a species or one species evolving into another. In other words micro evolution has never been observed to work outside of a species.

What is a species? Taxonomy is not an exact science, but for the purposes of the creation vs evolution debate a species can be defined as those which can reproduce and have offspring. A wolf and a dog are in the same group. You cannot talk about differences within a species as evolution, it is adaptation.

Besides, man is not unique. Homo neanderthaliensis who became extinct 30,000 years ago was also able to use tools and speak.

Quote:

---

what?? this is silly. you know that every animal can speak. only because its not your language and/or you dont understand it, they cant speak?? come on, be realistic.

---

Speech is very different from communication. Animals cant speak but they cetainly can communicate. The next time you dog says "Dude your getting a Dell" please let me know.

Quote:

---

humans arent that great compared to other animals. they may think they understand more than a fly about the fly, but they dont understand half of it about themselfes. thats not pretty taff, isnt it?

---

You wont find me exalting the knowledge of humans but we clearly dominate the animals.

Quote:

---

Besides, man is not unique. Homo neanderthaliensis who became extinct 30,000 years ago was also able to use tools and speak.

---

Somebody help me understand the relevance of this? The uniqueness of man is a philosophical argument for the existence of God and the untruth of evolution. It is not a scientific argument. I can certainly argue for the uniqueness of man but it doesnt seem to fit in the kind of scientific argument we are making here.

I find the emphasis on the uniqueness of man here interesting as to me it really doesnt have much do with evolution at all. Is this what you think drives creationist? That we are afraid of being just animals?

Irish farmer, you are wrong about how evolutoin works.

Here is why Blatt is right:

Evolution is a word we use to describe observable phenomenon. Evolution doesnt have any intentions., there is no goald to evolution. Evolution is a passive process. The changes happen because of genetic mutation.

Mutation occurs, in small ways, in every new animal produced, from bacteria to gilla monsters, to poeple. Usually these mutations are useless, or detrimental, like being born with a defective heart. Sometimes however, the change is beneficial, like say a coconut crab having a slightly better ability to breath air than it's parents. It will surveiv and reproduce, where perhaps some it's siblings wont be so lucky (this is just an example). SO it's new trait is passed on to its offspring, and so on.

The changes themselves are accidental, random, and unguided. It is only after thousands of generations do the changes become so great as to render the animals a new species, unable to mate with the older species they arose from. This is why a seemingly "new" form can appear. IN fac tthe form isnt new, it is just the l;atest stage in an evolutionary chain.

However, certain forms are indeed far more succesful than others, and once that form is reached, then evolution can slow down immensely..and the animal appear to have reached its apex state. Consider the crocodilians. Crocodile, aligators, are more or less unchanged for millions of years. This i because no more major adaptation was needed, and mutatiosn didnt favor any particular direction. So the animals have stayed more or less how they are since the time of the dinosaurs(who have long since changed, into birdies).

Speaking of dinosaurs changing into birds, here is another fascinating story. If you look at early birds and late therapod dinosaurs, there is very little skeletal difference, and only exp[erts can tell them apart. In fact there is no clear line between them, and there seems to be a perfect gradation, leading most taxonomists to place them in the same crown clade (i think this is right, correct me if not).

Dinos didn't just one day grow wings and fly off. In fact, many early bird/dinos had feathers but probably didnt fly. In fact flying may have been a secondary adaptation after the winged arms were fairly developed. The feathers may have orginaly served some other purpose; it has been speculated that they developed in response to the animals becoming warm-blooded (endo-thermic), and need for insulation (like fur in mammals).

The wing itself is no more than an elongated arm with minimized fingers(phalanges). This is the beauty of the evolutionary process, organs that have one function need only some small changes to have another completely different function.

Now look at the snakes for a moment. Modern snbakes have no visible limbs at all. Yet we know they evolved fomr lizard-like animals that had four limbs. We know this in part becasue we can find vestigial traces of limbs in the skeleton. Look a sake skeleton. Snake fossils have been found with more devloped limbs ( http://www.smu.edu/newsinfo/releases/99256.html)

Why would snakes have limbs, or vestigial limbs? Becasue they once had 4 legs like lizards, and eventually lost them because their evolving body-type and life-behavior didnt need them. But the traces of thier past can be seen i their anatomy tday.

Just like the Coconut crab i mentioned earlier, which was misunderstood. The vestigial gills in coconut crabs today do indicate that the creature once lived in water, but yet an adult coconut crab will INDEED DROWN if immersed in water. Stragnge, because a human fetus can surved immersed in amniotic fluids. Obviously, animals have different attributres in thier life-cycles.

I can go on and on about evolution, biology and so on. But the fact is you dont want to to hear this, because you emotionally dont the implications of like evolution. You obviously dont understand the science behind it.

Creationists fear evolution. Because creationists center upon one important aspect. Man is divine, above all other things in creation. hence you see such notions as animals unitelligant, no souls, cannot communicate. Man is superior to all but his creator. "his is to have dominion over all life on earth" as I believe the bible says ( or at least how some people read it as such).

Now, to say man and ape evoloved from common ansestory? hehe your now telling creationists that they arn't any more important to god then any other monkey. That they don't have divine provodence over everything else. they arn't richous, holy, have god's ultimate divine providence. 'Divine Manifest Destiny'
It's not they won't accpet being related to apes, its they don;t want to think they arn't any better than apes ( or any other living thing for that matter).

SO its also not benieth them to manipulate thier own religion to put themselves on a divine pedistal.

What drives creationists? The assention, Rapture what ever you want to call it. the end of time, when ALL human souls at the end of time rise to sit with the father in heaven. This of course will neer happen in christianity untill 'ALL of mankind follow the true faith'.

I find that last bit very intresting. You see it so often in
religions today 'follow the true faith'

How do you FOLLOW a faith? you can't you either belive or not. what it realy states is 'follow the true religion'. thus going back to my privous statment. creationists belief is in what they are told. because religion is taught. Faith cannot be taught. you belive or you don't.


evolotion ( and science) is resisted by creationists because scince tells us we don't know everything. That all things are not plainly layed out before us and thier is nothing more to know. Something yet again creationsists have absoultuly fought against thoughout history.

Did you know the catholic church yet even today has never offialy accpeted that the earth and the planets orbit the sun? SO how do you expect them to accept evolution?

They won't even fix miss translations and spelling mistakes made centures ago so as to not to upset the now accepted doctrines of the church and its 'holy book'

It's one thing to bash sciences when lack understanding of them, but its down right rediculous they know so little about thier own religion but try to use it as proof positive in arguments