I saw/heard an interesting debate on evolution...

[FreedomAngel82]

I was watching the TBN network and they had Kirk Cameron on talking about a program he has that reaches out to people and helps them and they also share Jesus and everything. They showed a video clip from a video that Cameron did and compared Kirk Cameron to an orangutans to show how we're not really like orangutan's or any animals. He did various emotions with his body and then the orangutan did the same thing he did and that these similarities don't mean we evolved from ape's and they compared how our hands are the same and how our feet are different. On the orangutan's feet he has a thumb on his foot. Just because we have similarities to an animal doesn't mean that we were from ape's. Cameron said how they had the same creator used the same blue print. There are some things that are extremely different between us and we're created the perfectly way how it was intended. It's the soul of the person that makes us different. You can't explain God or salvation but that's where faith comes in. I'm personally open for debating and looking for all types of ways on how the Earth was created and the Universe. It won't weary my faith any because it's my faith. I remember one night earlier this year on Malloy's show he had a woman called in and she and her husband studied astrology and space and she said how she coudln't see how people couldn't be for studying the Universe and according to them it helped in crease their faith because they got to see more of the great work of this universe from God. I just thought it was interesting and wanted to share something different here on the board. :)

[BrklynLiberal]

1. Anything that increases our knowledge of our place in the universe

would seem to be a good idea.

Frankly, to me, Kirk Cameron seems to resemble an orangutan very closely. :D

[opihimoimoi]

3. His brain is very lose to the orangtan as well.

But as for thinking, the orangutan got him beat

[Lindacooks]

2. DNA is what counts.

And our DNA is very similar to most other animals'. Physical similarities or dissimilarities really mean nothing. Since Kirk Cameron is a fundie, anything he says isn't credible.

[FreedomAngel82]

5. Heh heh

Good point about the DNA. I'm always for looking and hearing people's view points about everything. I think it's all connected. I don't know about anything with Darwin but what counts is hearing everybody's view points and not just one view point. We should look to find the truth. I believe God created everything but he gave us freewill and brains to think. If we're intended to know how the Earth and everything was created we would eventually find it. :)

[Warren DeMontague]

17. Your quote: "i don't know about anything with Darwin"

An excellent place to start:


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0785819118/qid=1121075479/sr=8-3/ref=pd_bbs_ur_3/103-3038903-9889459?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

No offense intended, but it's hard to engage in a "debate" about something when you don't know what it is. For example, the factual basis of evolution (and, despite being called a "theory", it's a pretty well established fact) has little to do with, say, the fact that we "look like" chimpanzees.

How does it work, you ask? You have to get your mind around very large stretches of time, far longer than the time described in the bible. Creatures live, reproduce, die. Over generations, particularly in stressful environments, the best adapted offspring flourish and are the most successful. Throw in random mutations and punctuated equilibria, and over time -LOTS of time- you have evolution. But unlike, say, if we were "deliberately designed" in the space of a day or a week, we have all kinds of weird, leftover shit that might make sense under certain circumstances, but is hardly indicative of a smooth machine blueprinted from the ground up. Wisdom teeth are one example. Another example is the fact that our heads are really pretty frikkin' big for women to clear in childbirth, at least not without a lot of pain and, in the old days, a high rate of death for both baby and mom. (Yes, the bible says that is punishment for eve's apple shennanigans, I know) ...However, the large brain was enough of a beneficial adaptation for our forebears (in that, eventually, it allowed us to kick the ass of pretty much every other animal on the planet, while becoming a VERY succesful species) that it outweighed the problems it caused, and still causes, in childbirth.

Another example is sickle cell anemia. The reason it afflicts folks of African descent is because they carry the gene- when only one sickle cell gene is present, it confers a greater immunity to malaria; something quite valuable in africa. But when both genes are present, it makes the unfortunate person very, very sick. But that is another result- hardly "planned", IMHO- of evolution, and natural selection in action.

Look, I respect your faith. But if you want to "debate" evolution vs. creationism or the bible in a scientific context, I suspect you're not going to like the answers. If you want to debate faith, well, you're talking about faith, which is personal- and something I have no interest in debating, or swaying anyone one way or another.

I will say that many religious people -although not many in the religious right, these days- don't see any conflict between evolution and belief in "God".

[Donald Ian Rankin]

21. Actually,

My understanding is that nowadays most biologists think Darwin was actually wrong about many of the specifics of evolution, don't they?

If you want to learn about evolutionary biology, I'd suggest starting with Richard Dawkins - "The Selfish Gene" or "The Blind Watchmaker" are good ones, or possibly something by Stephen Gould (I find Dawkins writes better myself, but Gould is also very highly thought of, I believe).

"The Origin of Species" is to evolution as Newton's "Principia Mathematica" is to calculus - it's worthy of immense respect as a historical artifact, but it's unreadable and full of mistakes, and there are other later texts that explain the ideas much better.

[GeekMonkey]

23. And yet it is still 1000 times more credible than the bible

and the myths contained within

[DS1]

25. As yes, the book that leads people to believe that dinosaur bones

were put in the ground by Gawd-AH in order to fool the non-believers so that only the faithful shall accept HIM into their lives and be SAVED!

Can I get an amen?

[Warren DeMontague]

31. Actually, if Dinosaurs could talk, do you KNOW WHAT THEY WOULD SAY?

By the way, this is not a joke, as far as I can tell.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/museum/docs2005/0523dinosaurs.asp


by Michael Matthews, Creation Museum scriptwriter

If only dinosaurs could speak.

Held hostage for nearly two-hundred years by the enemies of God, several dinosaurs are now free to set the record straight. No more lies. No more false testimony. No more propaganda.

Combining the “magic” of modern technology and the truth of God’s Word, AiG’s Creation Museum has discovered the secret to bringing dinosaurs “back to life.” A sauropod, a T. rex, a dinosaur raptor, a triceratops—these are just a few of the dinosaurs that you’ll meet in the completed museum.

Their “sworn testimony” will astound the world.

The truth-telling begins in the lobby, where guests come face to face with a pair of young T. rex dinosaurs, living alongside Adam’s children.

Animated young T. rexes in the lobby: “Of course we lived at the same time as humans! God made dinosaurs on the same day as Adam. And later we drank from the same waters as Adam’s children.”

In the next room, guests will discover more truths. This time, they hear from a fossilized dinosaur raptor, still half-buried in a dig site.

Dinosaur raptor fossil in a dig site: “I lived about 4,500 years ago. How do I know? Well, fossils don’t come with birth certificates, but we can read an eyewitness account from someone who was there—the Creator Himself. In God’s Word, the History Book of the Universe, we read about a global Flood that buried all the living things on Earth.”

In the next room, guests learn how the “facts” get distorted by museums and school textbooks....

[muriel_volestrangler]

27. I haven't heard Darwin is considered 'wrong', so much as 'incomplete'

because he didn't know about genetics (Mendel was doing his work at about the same time, but Darwin, like nearly all the scientific community then, never paid attention to it).

From the Columbia Encyclopedia:

The chief weakness of Darwinian evolution lay in gaps in its explanations of the mechanism of evolution and of the origin of species. The Darwinian concept of natural selection is that inheritable variations among the individuals of given types of organisms continually arise in nature and that some variations prove advantageous under prevailing conditions in that they enable the organism to leave relatively more surviving offspring. But how these variations initially arise or are transmitted to offspring, and hence to subsequent generations, was not understood by Darwin. The science of genetics, originating at the beginning of the 20th cent. with the recognition of the importance of the earlier work of Mendel, provided a satisfactory explanation for the origin and transmission of variation. In 1901, De Vries presented his theory that mutation, or suddenly appearing and well-defined inheritable variation (as opposed to the slight, cumulative changes stressed by Darwin), is a force in the origin and evolution of species. Mutation in genes is now accepted by most biologists as a fundamental concept in evolutionary theory. The gene is the carrier of heredity and determines the attributes of the individual; thus changes in the genes can be transmitted to the offspring and produce new or altered attributes in the new individual.

http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/sci/A0858059.html

And most people seem to think "The Origin of Species" is highly readable (I haven't read it myself) eg http://english.rutgers.edu/faculty/bookshelf/content/theoriginofspecies.html, or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_Species

[Lindacooks]

29. Almost all science is 'incomplete'

because we haven't unraveled the mystery of life. All science is about hypothesizing theories, testing evidence, and calculating probabilities. That's one of the big differences between science and religion, btw - religions think they have all the answers, while scientists know nobody knows everything about everything.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

34. This is why I'm a mathematician, not a scientist.

It's not possible to know everything about everything, or even everything about anything, but I think (I'm not certain, obviously, because of Descarte's invisible demon, but I really hope, and it seems very plausible) that in maths it is possible to know some things about some things, and that's not possible in any other discipline.

[Warren DeMontague]

36. So what happens if you xerox a mirror, smart guy?

hah? Answer me that.

:crazy:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

37. Go and ask a scientist.

I do not deign to trouble myself with such trivial matters as the real world.

[Lindacooks]

45. Yes, that's very interesting.

Math is far more advanced than biology, medicine, or chemistry because the church didn't try to stop its advance. It's my theory that they simply can't understand advanced math and don't oppose it for that reason, while it's easy to oppose stem cell research, or Galileo, for that matter, because the basics are comprehensible to most people.

[Warren DeMontague]

30. call me old-fashioned, but I figure the best place to start

is the beginning, particularly if you don't have a grasp of how the basic concepts of natural selection operate.

Like, if I was trying to explain physics to someone who didn't know what it was, I probably wouldn't throw them directly into quantum mechanics, I'd probably start with Newton, then move onto Einstein.

But, you may have a point- if there is more updated material that gives a broad based overview of the concepts in an accesible fashion, certainly I'd recommend that. Any links are welcome.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

33. I disagree, I'm afraid

Generally, in science, the best textbooks are the more recent ones, that have been written with the benefit of everything that came beforehand.

The order material is discovered is not usually the best order to teach it in, later writers usually have a better understanding of a field than the person who first discovers it, and books summarising a discovery are usually not aimed at laymen.

To take your example, if I were teaching physics I'd certainly start with Newton's *ideas* before teaching Einstein's, but trying to use Newton's texts to teach from would be a mistake.

As I said, I found "The Selfish Gene" and other works of Richard Dawkins to be an excellent introduction to evolutionary genetics. Not being a biologist myself, I can't be certain how accurate it is, but I believe Dawkins is considered the leader in his field. Unfortunately it's a published book, though, so I can't give you a link, but it should be quite easy to get hold of.

[Warren DeMontague]

35. Well, I meant a link to amazon:

Like this:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0192860925/qid=1121121773/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_ur_1/103-3038903-9889459?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Gotcha. I think I may actually have read Dawkins's Selfish Gene book, but it was probably 8 or so years ago. Bear in mind, however, that the OP was using an argument to the extent of, "just because our hands look like those of orangutans... doesn't mean we evolved from them"

Therefore, my thinking was to start with the ground floor of evolution and work up.

But, whatever. I'm sure you're right.

[Endangered Specie]

43. Sickle Cell Anemia just goes to show you what can happen

if you change so much as one nucleotide (ie: one of those 4 letters ACG and T/U) in this case, it is a T that should be an A...

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

[Kipepeo]

13. DNA *and* evolutionary similarities

Humans and Chimpanzees have DNA that is 98 -99% the same. We are more closely related to chimps than chimps are related to other apes like gorillas or orangutans.

But our physical similarities, especially when taken on the whole only back up the DNA evidence of a common origin - instead of disputing it like the described dumbass-kirk-cameron piece tried to do. Which, as best I can tell amounted to, "oh looky - i don't have an opposable big toe like the orangutan does - i guess we can scrap all that *science* shit."

Primates are defined by characteristics such as: retention of 5 digits in the hands and feet, opposable thumbs, fingernails instead of claws, tactile pads at the ends of digits, retention of the clavicle (your collarbone), expansion and increasing complexity of the brain, longer periods of gestation - infancy - and life span, a post-orbital bar or partition (this is the bony enclosure around your eye), binocular vision, well-developed color vision, and a petrosal bulla (a skeletal casing of the middle ear - though seemingly little, this trait exists in all primates to the exclusion of all others).

[RoyGBiv]

4. Apes and Evolution

"I would rather be the offspring of two apes than be a man and afraid to face the truth." -- Thomas Huxley, attributed.

I offer this quote merely to highlight the fact that the theory of homo sapien's descendancy from apes is in itself a theory within a theory, more appropriately stated a hypothesis with a theory as its basis. The point is that one does not necessarily have to accept it to accept the theory of evolution itself. Those who challenge evolution on this basis engage in several logical fallacies.

Thomas Huxley, grandfather of Aldous Huxley, was the individual largely responsible for advancing the idea that humans evolved from apes, but at its origin, it was more a rhetorical device than an actual scientific theory. In his famous debate with Archbishop Wilberfoce on the theory of evolution itself, the latter asked whether Huxley was descended from an ape on his mother's or father's side. The above quote is Huxley's attributed response, although Huxley himself later offered a less dramatic version.

[FreedomAngel82]

6. Interesting

I've never heard that side of it before. Something to think about. Even in the book of Proverbs Solomon writes that we shouldn't just be gulliable. We should use our brains and check things out ourselves. Whenever someone is against evolution I always remind of that. How we should always use our intelligence and not be afraid to look and see. I don't know all the answers but I'm always interested in finding them. God works in mysterious ways in how he teaches us the truth. It could be through the athiest liberal down the road for all someone knows.

[RoyGBiv]

8. Darwin's Theory

Most people I've encountered who denounce Darwin's theory don't really understand it or even know what it is. Many have never even read _Origin of Species_. It's notable that this work is commonly misnamed by opponents as _Origin of the Species_, suggesting it was a work devoted entirely to a theory on the origin of a single species, the implication being that the focus was humans. Darwin mostly examines plants.

It's a general theory describing a process of so-called natural selection as a process by which evolution takes place, but it makes no broad claims about the specific origin of any specific species. It merely describes how evolution through natural selection takes place. Others used the work to advance their own theories, Huxley among them. Also notable is that Huxley, while known to history as "Darwin's Bulldog," had his own problems with Darwin's theory and changed his own ideas several times as his knowledge and understanding advanced.

As already mentioned, DNA evidence is what counts, at least at our present level of understanding, and research in the last couple decades has shown rather clearly that evolution of a variety certainly does takes place. How it all took place throughout the course of the history of life on this planet may never be completely known, much less commonly accepted, but, again, to focus on and denounce the broad theory of evolution through natural selection by focusing on one aspect of that theory's implementation is invalid, illogical reasoning. This is not directed at you, rather Cameron's logic, which I find amateurish at best.

[shraby]

7. An example of evolution is the

"wisdom" teeth in the human's jaw. It is usually a tooth fated to be extracted because there isn't enough room in modern man's jaw to accomodate it. At one time the human jaw was much larger, but as the diet changed, the jaw changed and became smaller and is now to the point where there are too many teeth for it.

[magellan]

9. But we didn't evolve from apes

Darwin's theory doesn't say we evolved from apes. It says humans and apes descended from a common ancestor. There's quite a difference between those two statements.

Not trying to argue, just wanted to clear up one of the common misperceptions of Darwin's theory.

[FreedomAngel82]

10. Ah

But how did that happen according to him? And interesting on the jaw. Who's the common ancestor??

[shraby]

12. There was probably no one

common ancestor per se, but a series of small changes over time that eventually led to the separation of the species. The jaw is a good example, as we see people with large enough mouths to accomodate all the teeth including the "wisdom" teeth and the in between who have enough room because of spaces between some front teeth but still not enough for the "wisdom" and there are those who have teeth that look like they are jammed into a too small space. In my family my husband and his brother had a permanent tooth that never replaced a baby tooth, but stayed in the gum. One of my sons had the baby tooth and no permanent tooth to replace it.
What makes evolution difficult to follow is the time it takes for changes to be made and the challenge to find enough specimens to track those changes.

[Kipepeo]

14. Agreed

But humans can't seem to get past the reality of being related to other species. That's where the 'i'm not from no monkey' bullshit comes from. For some reason we have no problem acknowledging *other* related species - take birds for instance - they share enough traits that even the most "i hate science" proponents don't question that different species are related - but talk about shared primate characteristics and these same folks get queasy.

I think part of it stems from the egoism in believing that humans are above all else...and if we stop believing that it would ruin our apathy at pollution of the environment and killing of animals. Our reality is *built* on the idea that the earth is here for us to exploit - the environment and other species don't figure into a world built *for* humans - so how could we demean ourselves by talking about our biology like we would a bird's, a lion's or a chimp's?

Edited to add that "we" should probably be considered apes, so the phrase "we did not evolve from apes" doesn't make sense in that regard - but in the way people perceive evolution yes, I get what you're saying: we did not evolve from chimps or gorillas or orangutans, though we shared a common ancestor.

The order of Primates is currently classified into 2 suborders: prosimians and anthropoids. Within the anthropoids, there is division into monkeys, apes, and hominids. The biggest distinction between the latter groups (apes and hominids) seems to be that hominids walk upright and we talk 'cause we're so smart. But the recent DNA evidence confirming that humans are more related to chimps (which are in the ape group) than chimps are related to others on the ape group (orangs, gorillas or gibbons) makes many scientists want to reclassify us all - but *that* would surely shake some fundie shit up - not to mention fucking with the way we view chimps as less-than-us and okay-to-test-bad-shit-on. Imagine if chimpanzees were suddenly classified with hominids (who they are more related to) instead of apes...some crazy hate would be going around.

[magellan]

24. Man the Beast

But the recent DNA evidence confirming that humans are more related to chimps (which are in the ape group) than chimps are related to others on the ape group (orangs, gorillas or gibbons)...

Yes, I learned this a couple of years ago and they're both astonishing facts. The human and chimp genomes are 98.4±% the same, making chimps our closest evolutionary relatives...and us theirs!

Then there are bonobos, a sub-species of chimp that is probably just as genetically similar to us as chimps if not more. Bonobos also share some additional human traits like walking around upright and engaging in risque sexual escapades. They aren't as given to violence as their cousins, chimps and humans, however.

Fascinating subject, sorry it's a bit OT...or maybe it isn't. ;)

[BrklynLiberal]

26. Shades of "Planet of the Apes"....

[McKenzie]

11. Immediately one assumes Creation Theory...

is a tenable argument, a philosophical dilemma arises therefrom. Moreover, if one assumes most most Creation Theorists subscribe to the vesion of events in the Holy Bible, and the omnipotent nature of the god they subscribe to, their god must have imbued humanity with every attribute that characterises our species.

Now our species is capable of considerable "evil" (I know the concept can be relative but bear with me). So where did the capacity to carry out such evil arise from? Either evil is an attribute that god created within humanity or evil can exist independently of god otherwise the argument that god is omnipotent is untenable. If we are capable of evil it must be because we have been created so we have that capacity.

It's all very well to argue "free will" but true free will assumes perfect knowledge of everything so we can act appropriately. How many people have diminished responsibility? How many people might be borderline cases for entry to Heaven because they weren't quite sure how to respond in any given situation? Will there be an appeals mechansism?(including one for poor devils like me who don't want to go to Nicey-Nicey land anyway)

Love and peace to all regardless of your faith.

[blogslut]

15. Once saw a dude speak about evolution/creationism

at my best friend's church, about 30 years ago.

His speech centered on combining intelligent design with evolution. His theory was that evolution is the creation of God. The bible just condenses it into seven days.

Now I'm a member of the Church of the Subgenius. Go figure.

[Warren DeMontague]

19. "Bob" will EVOLVE your SLACK!

Everything else is a holy waste of a waste of time.

[blogslut]

22. Salvation guaranteed...

or your money back!

Praise Bob.

[slackmaster]

39. That's ETERNAL salvation guaranteed or TRIPLE your money back!

All for only $30.

No other Church can match a deal like that.

[slackmaster]

38. PREACH IT BROTHER impeachdubya!

Repent! Quit your job! Slack off!

Justify your sins!

You'll PAY to know what you really believe!

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kipepeo]

18. Thank You n/t

[GiovanniC]

28. And Not Very Well, Either

The kid from fucking "Growing Pains" is telling us all that he is, at best, marginally different from a gotdammed orangutan. Basically we are supposed to accept that evolution is false because, presumably, Kirk Cameron does not have thumbs on his feet.

Beyond that, similarities exist because our so-called Creator "recycled" parts of his blueprints for different species. And that is just something you have to accept as faith, says "Left Behind" Boy.

[Puzzler]

20. Arg!

I'm always amazed at the number of people who seem to think that humans are descended from apes, orangutans or monkeys. We are not. We share common ancestors, but we are separate branches of the evolutionary tree.

-P

[Endangered Specie]

41. Goes to show you how many people really do not understand

evolution, especially those who bash it. Course, most people dont understand the Laws of Thermodynamics, but that dont stop them from trying to build 500% effeciant motors! :eyes:

[XemaSab]

32. I like the idea of looking at

science and faith together. I think looking at the world can tell us something about God, and looking at God can tell us something about the world, and according to what I've seen, there is infinite wonder in the world.

I'm also a firm believer in evolution. Evolution takes place by slow changes in a species over time. Humans have created variation in other species, such as dogs, through selecting certain dogs for certain traits, such as the long, floppy ears in a spaniel or spots in a dalmation. I think all variety that we see in living things happened in much the same way, whether you have a "creator" or not.

It's possible that there's an element of design in humans, and the reason I say this is that the world seems like such perfect habitat for us. Humans naturally live almost everywhere on earth, from the rain forests to the frozen arctic, and we can find food and make tools in all these places. Some species, like Yellow-Billed Magpies or Snail Kites, only live in one place or eat one thing. Not so humans.

But this doesn't mean that humans were created suddenly like the story in Genesis. Humans learned to live in places like the arctic over a long period of time, and spread throughout the earth a long, long time ago. Even the natural variation we see in humans is an example of evolution over a long period of time. Swedes, Mayans, and Bantus have clearly been growing apart for quite some time, but even the Biblical fundamentalists will admit that these groups were once alike and descended from the same original group of people.

One of the reasons why the Biblical fundamentalists don't want to believe in evolution is that they don't want to admit that the earth is so old. But according to evolution, humans and other apes have been growing apart for a long, long time.

I think there's room for faith and science, but the earth is inarguably old, and creatures have been adapting to their surroundings for more than 6,000 years.

A good book on the subject is "Beak of the Finch," about a bunch of scientists on the Galapagos who were able to measure changes in a species over time as the species changed due to periods of drought and ample rainfall.

Good luck with your inquiry!

:hi:

[Endangered Specie]

40. Look there is no debate about evolution...

Evolution happened, is happening, and will continue to happen, the end.


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

From the sound of it, he does not know shit about evolution, and youd be wise not to listen to him.

[Scottie72]

42. The best site for this contraversay is

<http://www.talkorigins.org/>

Now it is very reading heavy but will take on all arguments and give you links to both sides, though it agrees with evolution.

[Endangered Specie]

44. I also recommend:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution (better for those of us, like me, who do not have more than a laymens grasp of biology).

http://www.evowiki.org/index.php/Main_Page