• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Teaching evolution to young Christian skeptics

Status
Not open for further replies.
Evlar said:
Calvary Chapel, eh?

Proceeding through the Bible sequentially by the traditional Protestant text order doesn't magically make sermons less prone to error. (BTW, I don't think you ought to criticize the Catholic Church for "pulling sermons out of a hat"- their Liturgy of the Hours is the most comprehensive system of enforcing study through the whole of Scripture I know, and it's required for all clergy and deacons in the Church to use it daily.)

Oh, has Calvary Chapel has been a little fired up since the Pope stated that the Catholic church is the "one true church." Which is the same thing the Catholic church has been saying since forever and at least Martin Luther. :lol I mean the Jews know they are right, Islam is 100% sure it is correct, Protestants and Catholics, cats and dogs,it goes on and on.:lol

Have you Calvary guys been getting a little more anti Catholic recently? Just so you know at mass we don't say boo about you :lol
 

S-Wind

Member
TheExodu5 said:
Agnostics obviously are on both sides of the fence, or more likely than not, just don't care.

The reason evolution is an atheistic theory is that belief in any creationist religion (be it sprouted from Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc...) more often than not requires belief in intelligent design. Intelligent design is pretty darn opposing to evolution, if you ask me.

Fixed.

There is no creationism shit in Buddhism.

BTW, look up the following words:

Theory (scientific use)

Agnostic/Agnosticism
 

Karakand

Member
Aurvant said:
A Grip. You need to get one.
Not really. Am I not my brother's keeper?

For further clarification, this wasn't doubt of specific conclusions drawn from the macro level theory this was straight up, "sure life can change buuuuuuut there's no way we came from an ape!"

As for Fox "News", yes it does bother me that it is so successful. In a free society we should value reporting that tells us the truth, not what we want to hear. However this is a problem that plagues most of the West and crosses both sides of the political spectrum. (All Fox News really has done is import reporting styles used overseas. America's channel indeed!)
 

KHarvey16

Member
S-Wind said:
Fixed.

There is no creationism shit in Buddhism.

BTW, look up the following words:

Theory (scientific use)

Agnostic/Agnosticism

Basic word definitions are always useful in these discussions. If there's one thing you can count on when it comes to creationists and ID proponents it's utter ignorance.
 

Solaros

Member
ManaByte said:
The eighth largest Church in the country (and third largest in California) is one.

How did you get back from being ditched by your trucking partner?

Tamanon said:
Just that even though kids are taught the right way, they're also taught to question. That's not a bad thing:p

What is faith without doubt?


A dead son
 

theBishop

Banned
Aurvant said:
A Grip. You need to get one.

There is no "war" that needs to be fought. Evolution science and Faith based religions can, and do in many cases, co-exist. However, if a person finds issues with the current teachings of Macro-evolution then I don't see why that should "send a chill down your spine". It's not like he screamed "I'M SKEPTICAL ABOUT EVOLUTION!!!!" and then proceeded to smack you across the face with a sledgehammer.

Maybe not a "war", but there is a pretty serious conflict between rationality and irrationality.

People like the dude's brother aren't necessarily enemies, but they are being used as pawns to promote agendas that don't stand up to the tiniest amount of scrutiny.

In the US, we're way beyond the point where we can have an honest debate about any notable topic. For just about everything there's a rational viewpoint based on evidence, and an opposite viewpoint justified by sophistry at best. I'm not going to say that religion is solely to blame, but it certainly predisposes a person to accept bullshit without evidence.
 

Druz

Member
Tamanon said:
Just that even though kids are taught the right way, they're also taught to question. That's not a bad thing:p

What is faith without doubt?


They're not taught to question. Curiosity is natural, so they have the kids ask questions so the pastor is around to say god did it. or that the bones are 6,000 years old. or to say evolution says we're all monkeys and you should be angry about that because you're special!

It's why a religious person walks into an argument with things they think as real argument when actually it's a joke. Just look at some people on this thread. What questions do you think they've asked, really.. when their conclusions are that stupid.
 
Azih said:
And none of those things had anything to do with Dawkins attitude which was the only thing I had ever brought up.
Well I'm sorry you were unable to see the relevance. What I was getting at went to the heart of his answer. Everyone in thread didn't care whether you thought Dawkins was an asshole or I was an asshole. We were more concerned about his answer which seemed to strike a nerve.

Azih said:
The other example of you putting words into my mouth in that thread was when you flatly stated I thought you were an asshole. You were and are straight up wrong on that one.

Let's get this straight . . . I said things like "Well what did you want him to say? Something like this . . . . . "
I kept asking you questions and you wouldn't respond . . . so I did what lawyers do in such circumstances and asked leading questions to at least try to elicit a yes/no answer.

Azih said:
Lovely, so the OP was accurate. I'll repeat what I said in the last thread. Carl Sagan was a far more effective communicator in his approach then the Dawkins manner. The OP article is further proof of this.
And I said that there is ample need for all different voices using all different styles. Why choose between styles when all can be used?

I really don't care if you think I'm asshole. You have no right not to be offended.
 
Tamanon said:
What is faith without doubt?

This:
9-11%20(1).bmp


and this:
mission-accomplished.jpg
 

castle007

Banned
ManaByte said:
Yes, despite all the archeological evidence found supporting the Exodus (not going to get into an argument over the numbers of Israelis involved):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1KVE3995Aw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kc78d6UBJkw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Re7xnP_ulwM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Re7xnP_ulwM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MgEOMAyLzc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekox1jZPAAg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK7HYWzzNbU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1K5gWx1NHVc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZBas6QyvA8

I think that special also shows the Egyptian royal ring that was found with יוֹסֵף (Joseph/Yosef) engraved on it in addition to all the Exodus evidence.

But Athiests love to ignore that sort of thing.


that is awesome. I have never seen that before. :O

edit: just read the wikipedia entry about it. It seems that the film makers made a lot of false assumptions.
 

Buttchin

Member
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html

for those interested its the NOVA episode discussing teh trial in dover that basically said intelligent design is creationism and hence it shouldnt be allowed...

my favorite is when they discuss the intelligent design text book that through various drafts went from "creationism" to "intelicreationismgent design" via a bunch of typos to its final version saying intelligent design.... the creationist textbook evolved in essence lol


but yeah its interesting to watch nonetheless


penn and tellers BS is another good one to watch, though i think it goes without saying which side they will fall on.

EDit*** another equallyh controversial scientific hypothesis "string theory"

great show and has lots of WTF moments

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html
 

impirius

Member
I read this article earlier; the world needs more teachers like David Campbell. He's doing a great job in an unnecessarily difficult situation.
Azih said:
This teacher, David Campbell, is an amazing guy. He's doing an extremely hard job but he is doing it with tact, diplomacy and he is able to *communicate* his ideas. This is the kind of thing you need, not yelling at people and implying they are idiots, morons, or irrational god lovers like the Richard Dawkins and PhlegmMasters of the world. The Carl Sagan approach wins.

Crazy thing is that this highly intelligent, highly competent, and committed man of science would be derided and mocked by the Dawkins and the PhlegmMasters and condescended to by the speculawyers because of this one line:
I know this is late, but that is one hell of a hard-on you've got for Richard Dawkins and PhlegmMaster. Did they jump in their Atheistmobile and run over your dog or something?

Neither of them had said anything on the matter, so you jump in the thread, throw up a couple of straw men, and put words in their mouths. You could have made your point without them; instead, your post simply ranks about a 9.2 on the vendettameter.
Xdrive05 said:
Pokemon Sapphire: Where is Your God Now? edition for the Virtual Boy.
I thought that was Pokemon Red: Oh God My Eyes Are Bleeding
 

Azih

Member
theBishop said:
Religion is not an authority on morality. It may claim to be, but that is irrelevant.
When it comes to morality I think that whatever someone believes is an authority on morality becomes an authority on morality for them. Whether people *should be* assigning religion that authority is not something that I care about in the slightest in this discussion and I think that's why I misunderstood your first post. Sorry about that. What interests me is whether science can be assigned that same authority on morality at all because I think you would say yes whereas my position on that is a very definite no.

You're approaching "morality" from a biased perspective. It is likely the case that "moral" behavior is an evolved phenomenon. "Morality" is a set of actions we have evolved to do because our ancestors who didn't act in such a way did not survive. Suggesting that you can "replace" a set of evolved behaviors by decree of God (or some other authority) strikes me as ridiculous.
Well I wasn't thinking about the origins of morality at all just the strict definition of it. But I would note is that religion and therefore religously derived morality/behaviour has been around for as far back as recorded history goes for all human societies. From your perspective of morality as evolved behaviour doesn't that mean that our behaviour as the human species evolved to be religious as that religous behaviour was successful behaviour? And going forward wouldn't we expect that a Darwinian competition of behaviours will continue? In which case i would argue that a diversity of behaviours/moralities is a good thing (as it is for any Darwinian evolutionary system) and we're seeing a healthy competition right now. (Of course it also gets into the question of whether we're evolving as a species at all anyway now but that's another huge tangent).

But it strikes me as a bit of an amoral approach as there is no 'good' or 'bad' just successful and unsuccessful behaviour. Is killing babies moral behaviour? It is certainly successful behaviour when you're massacaring a conquered population and expanding the boundaries of your own for example. Plus it seems to me to be a theory that is more concerned with the morality of socities rather than individuals as the behaviour of individuals is determined very heavily by the socities they grow up in. So if you grow up in the South in a certain time period and the society you are living in is thriving because of slaves then your conception of morality most likely would see slaves as morally sound.

The remainder of your post is laughable.
It was just an example I grabbed from wikipediea. I think a fair bit of the difference in approach has to do with whether you think a question like "If a tree falls where no one can hear it, does it make a sound?" is profound or complete nonsense. I get the impression you think it is complete nonsense. But as a probably better example of an important issue for which there is no evidence for either side is the question of free will. Do humans have free will? Is everything predetermined? It's not a scientific question as there is no scientific defintion of 'free will' and any 'evidence' from human behaviour for one side can be interpreted as supporting the other but it still a question of major importance.
 

Azih

Member
impirius said:
He's doing a great job in an unnecessarily difficult situation.
I know this is late, but that is one hell of a hard-on you've got for Richard Dawkins and PhlegmMaster. Did they jump in their Atheistmobile and run over your dog or something?
Hey I praised Carl Sagan in the same post, atheism has nothing to do with the point I'm raising about how people seem to get piegon holed and stereotyped based on what they do on Sundays.
 

KHarvey16

Member
Azih, you're assuming religion appeared before morality. Why? Is it not more likely, given the evidence, that pre-existing morality shaped religion?
 

Azih

Member
KHarvey16 said:
Azih, you're assuming religion appeared before morality. Why? Is it not more likely, given the evidence, that pre-existing morality shaped religion?
Well for humanity all we have is recorded history and so I don't think we can assume either (or neither). All I can say is that at some point in human evolution everything became religious. Edit: In any case I don't think what morals we live by today should have anything to do with what our ancestors or even or parents did. I think we all create our own moral framework and worldview individually and draw from many different sources in doing so.
 

jett

D-Member
Manabyte said:
Yes, despite all the archeological evidence found supporting the Exodus (not going to get into an argument over the numbers of Israelis involved):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1KVE3995Aw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kc78d6UBJkw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Re7xnP_ulwM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Re7xnP_ulwM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MgEOMAyLzc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekox1jZPAAg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK7HYWzzNbU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1K5gWx1NHVc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZBas6QyvA8

I think that special also shows the Egyptian royal ring that was found with יוֹסֵף (Joseph/Yosef) engraved on it in addition to all the Exodus evidence.

But Athiests love to ignore that sort of thing.

I've seen that shit on HBO before, and it's really, seriously laughable. It's really sad to see James Cameron support that douche. Do yourself a favor and read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_Decoded#Criticism
 

Wurm

Banned
Azih said:
But as a probably better example of an important issue for which there is no evidence for either side is the question of free will. Do humans have free will? Is everything predetermined? It's not a scientific question as there is no scientific defintion of 'free will' and any 'evidence' from human behaviour for one side can be interpreted as supporting the other but it still a question of major importance.

Every vaguely religious thread I see you post in its either crazed attacks on Richard Dawkins for not considering your incredibly easy to rile beliefs with every syllable he utters, and then the other half complete nonsense like this. Are you telling me you believe that every choice you make in your day to day life is pre-determined and you are nothing but a emotionless automaton with no input or control over your actions at all? Not only is that view childish, but also completely irresponsible and dangerous. Its the exact reason Dawkins views people with your mindset as incredibly dangerous people.
 

Azih

Member
its either crazed attacks on Richard Dawkins for not considering your incredibly easy to rile beliefs
Urm, I don't care whether Dawkins considered my beliefs or not. I do care that he is incredibly inept at communicating with anybody who doesn't already agree with him.
Wurm said:
Are you telling me you believe that every choice you make in your day to day life is pre-determined and you are nothing but a emotionless automaton with no input or control over your actions at all?
No, I believe in free will actually (not that that is relevant). I'm just saying it's not a scientific question with a scientific answer. Determinism and fatalism are fairly established philosophical positions but arguments for and against them do not have any scientific evidence backing them up.

Edit: Why did you think I was a determinist?
 

besada

Banned
Wurm said:
Every vaguely religious thread I see you post in its either crazed attacks on Richard Dawkins for not considering your incredibly easy to rile beliefs with every syllable he utters, and then the other half complete nonsense like this. Are you telling me you believe that every choice you make in your day to day life is pre-determined and you are nothing but a emotionless automaton with no input or control over your actions at all? Not only is that view childish, but also completely irresponsible and dangerous. Its the exact reason Dawkins views people with your mindset as incredibly dangerous people.

You should maybe read Dennings on the issue of free will before you get the scoff-o-meter up to speed. In some very real ways, the things we do are determined, at least in the sense that we act long before making a conscious decision to do so. That doesn't mean we can't make conscious decisions to act, but it certainly implies that any discussion of free will is going to be in shades of gray, not black and white.

I don't think "free will" has much of anything to do with atheism vs. religion, since there are atheists who don't believe in free will in any broad sense, and religionists who are the same. The entire Calvinistic faith is based on predeterminism.
 

Uncle

Member
TheExodu5 said:
Never said creation had to be taught in school. However, evolution should not be a mandatory class to take if it conflicts with a persons religious beliefs. It's a sensitive issue.


Your posts confilct with my religious beliefs, would you please stop producing them? Thanks.
 

Wurm

Banned
besada said:
You should maybe read Dennings on the issue of free will before you get the scoff-o-meter up to speed.

Its also nonsensical to say science has no part in it. We may not understand the complete inner-workings of the human brain at this current point in time, but guess what! Continued scientific research will continue to make advances in cracking genetic codes, the chemicals released and interacting inside our brains and much much more.

Trying to corden off things in the real biological world from science is foolish. Science will discover what makes you tick, what makes the universe tick and continue to do so.
 

besada

Banned
Wurm said:
Its also nonsensical to say science has no part in it. We may not understand the complete inner-workings of the human brain at this current point in time, but guess what! Continued scientific research will continue to make advances in cracking genetic codes, the chemicals released and interacting inside our brains and much much more.

Trying to corden off things in the real biological world from science is foolish. Science will discover what makes you tick, what makes the universe tick and continue to do so.

Well, I didn't make those claims and don't agree with them, so I'll let someone else respond to them.

You should definitely read Dennings on free will though. Fascinating stuff.
 

ManaByte

Gold Member
Evlar said:
Calvary Chapel, eh?

Only Church I'll ever go to again. I'm there at least three nights a week (Sunday, Wednesday, and then Thursday). If I could afford it, I'd go to their Bible College, but I'm just going to learn Hebrew+Greek on my own as the local store has really good books and a nice selection of Hebrew Bibles and Septugents.
 

Basch

Member
Nothing against evolution, but I would still like a question answered...

If the sole reason for evolution lies with survival of the fittest, where the best traits are always carried on, then why haven't the rest of the monkeys evolved into Humans?

Also, if Humans can experience vast mutation that can change the very structure of the Human anatomy, why do we call them Human? I still think they're Human. Just want a few questions answered.
 

besada

Banned
Basch said:
Nothing against evolution, but I would still like a question answered...

If the sole reason for evolution lies with survival of the fittest, where the best traits are always carried on, then why haven't the rest of the monkeys evolved into Humans?

Also, if Humans can experience vast mutation that can change the very structure of the Human anatomy, why do we call them Human? I still think they're Human. Just want a few questions answered.

Evolution is a process and doesn't have a reason. It's the result of breeding in a particular situation. If you live in a place where the protein necessary to live is mostly stored behind tree trunks, then animals that breed more effective tree-trunk invaders thrive, and the rest fall to the wayside.

But if one of those groups leaves and finds an area where protein is stored up in, say, flowers, then the equation changes, and now animals who can most effectively harvest flowers will outbreed animals who most effectively infiltrate tree trunks.

Both groups began with a single ancestor, but changes in the environment in which they lived changed the mutations that were successful.

So, when one pack of proto-ape (since the common ancestor is long past, as apes didn't stop evolving to changes in their habitat) left the jungle for the savannah, they began diverging, slowly, but inexorably.

As for what defines "human" we use the ability to procreate very loosely as a speciation barrier. But there's examples all over either side of that. It's really just a made up category of like and unlike organisms.
 

dsunit1

Member
Has anyone seen Roots of All Evil – The God Delusion?

This documentary may actually appeal to some of you here. Basically, this is a televised slant of Richard Dawkin’s book: The God Delusion. Dawkin’s pretty much takes a gigantic, systematic shit on major organized religions. He questions its validity and purpose since there is no practical evidence of God having ever existed and champions embracing reason and science instead since there is empirical truth to be found there. During the series, Dawkins meets with various religious figures to debate these issues and more. You will find it if you search on google.
 

msv

Member
Basch said:
Nothing against evolution, but I would still like a question answered...

If the sole reason for evolution lies with survival of the fittest, where the best traits are always carried on, then why haven't the rest of the monkeys evolved into Humans?
I'm no expert on biology but I did take some classes, so I'm giving it a try :). Survival of the fittest doesn't mean survival of only the 'most' fit. Evolution takes a very long time, so eventually you might be able to say that only the most fit remain. But now it's just a mingle of various gene pools all still in 'competition'.

Besides if the genes have no contact with one another the fittest can't be determined, so because of absence of better genes, other genes will dominate.


Also, if Humans can experience vast mutation that can change the very structure of the Human anatomy, why do we call them Human? I still think they're Human. Just want a few questions answered.
I don't understand what you mean. You mean mutations during a lifetime? Or mutations from generation to generation? If the latter, the mutations are (almost?) always too little to classify one as another species.
 

Punchy

Banned
Evolution and Religion do not have to be mutually exclusive. A lot of religious people accept evolution. The only leap required for a religious person to accept evolution is that the earliest stories of the beginning of mankind and the world are parables and moral lessons, and not historical accounts.

Intelligent design is challenged by evolution, for the most part, but have you ever heard of or considered the concept of a "clockmaker" god? If God is omniscient and omnipresent and all-powerful, wouldn't it stand to reason that he could spark the beginnings of evolution and realize how it would all turn out in the end; just like a clockmaker works on individual gears one at a time with the concept of a system of gears and cogs forming a whole clock in the end in his mind? Is that really harder to believe than all of the scientific evidence in the world?
 

Evlar

Banned
Basch said:
Nothing against evolution, but I would still like a question answered...

If the sole reason for evolution lies with survival of the fittest, where the best traits are always carried on, then why haven't the rest of the monkeys evolved into Humans?
The part I highlighted isn't claimed by evolution. There is no sense of "best trait", just "best fit" (and even that's hyperbole, it's closer to "the best fit that needed to be found in order to survive and thrive"). Monkeys and non-human apes still exist because their adaptation was sufficient for them to survive in their particular little neighborhoods of whichever forests or savannas they live in. That is, they have a niche that they fill in some ecosystem. As long as that ecosystem continues to exist with only small changes, as long as the status quo is maintained, as long as the population isn't threatened, there's little adaptive pressure to drive big changes in the population.

Monkeys exist because there's still monkey-friendly forests in the world, with food monkeys like and with few enough deadly diseases and with predators monkeys can avoid often enough to keep their numbers stable. Human ancestors lived in different places or filled different roles in the ecosystem, were put under different adaptive pressures, found different tricks and adaptations to survive and- at some point before recorded history- found the combination of very large brains, long infancies, stable social structures, and trainable habits like speech and tool-building that let modern humans expand far, far beyond our original habitat and live almost anywhere on dry land on the globe. Our adaptations have now made virtually everyplace our habitat, and the pressures we're putting on other species- like some monkey species- are now driving them toward extinction. It's not the fact we live somewhere on the globe that's doing this, it's the fact that we're changing their habitats, and they aren't adapting vigorously enough.

Finally, you shouldn't think there was originally a colony of normal, modern apes (chimps or bonobos or something) and, gradually, some of those apes turned into humans. Evolution doesn't claim that. It claims modern apes and humans have a common ancestor- there was once a colony of creatures that were pre-chimp and pre-human (both, at the same time) and some of the descendants of these creatures are modern chimps and some of them are supermodels.
 

goomba

Banned
Christianity:

"The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree..."
 

Fusebox

Banned
So 20 years ago I went to a pretty small school on the outskirts of a pretty small town out in country Australia, basically rural heehaw hicksville bumfuck central, but you know what? Apart from the exclusive bretheren inbreds and that one JW kid who was pretty cool anyway, NOBODY there struggled with the concept of evolution - hard to believe theres still kids out there even today who are so blinkered about something so important.
 

Seth C

Member
Basch said:
Nothing against evolution, but I would still like a question answered...

If the sole reason for evolution lies with survival of the fittest, where the best traits are always carried on, then why haven't the rest of the monkeys evolved into Humans?

Also, if Humans can experience vast mutation that can change the very structure of the Human anatomy, why do we call them Human? I still think they're Human. Just want a few questions answered.

Many have answered most of your questions, but let me also mention that we did not evolve from the monkey. There are several different competing theories as to when our ancestors and those of monkeys separated, but in all cases they did so long, long ago and in fact have continued to evolve since then.

This is a small chart depicting it:

primate-tree.jpg


As you can see, our last common ancestor (some use the name "pan prior") is one that is shared with chimpanzees and bonobos. This still doesn't mean we evolved from them (or they from us). Rather, all three species shared a common ancestor that branched off in at least 3 directions, eventually leading to the three species we know today. Many more existed throughout time, which you can see from this chart, which depicts only ancestors to humans (after the split that lead to chimpanzees and bonobos took place):

familytree_page.jpg
 
TheExodu5 said:
You can just put me on ignore.


he may, but for now I think it's more fun to debate you.

You've pretty much stated that people should stay away from facts that conflict with their beliefs and not have to be taught such things, but honestly, if you don't think people should learn basic science, are you then advocating that people shouldn't be schooled?

Does this extend to other things?

Lets say I'm a racist, should i not have to learn about the Civil War, since it ended pretty bad for slave owners and my "belief" is that blacks are inferior?

note: I am not a racist, I'm just trying to use an absurd example
 

Basch

Member
Evlar said:
The part I highlighted isn't claimed by evolution. There is no sense of "best trait", just "best fit" (and even that's hyperbole, it's closer to "the best fit that needed to be found in order to survive and thrive"). Monkeys and non-human apes still exist because their adaptation was sufficient for them to survive in their particular little neighborhoods of whichever forests or savannas they live in. That is, they have a niche that they fill in some ecosystem. As long as that ecosystem continues to exist with only small changes, as long as the status quo is maintained, as long as the population isn't threatened, there's little adaptive pressure to drive big changes in the population.

Monkeys exist because there's still monkey-friendly forests in the world, with food monkeys like and with few enough deadly diseases and with predators monkeys can avoid often enough to keep their numbers stable. Human ancestors lived in different places or filled different roles in the ecosystem, were put under different adaptive pressures, found different tricks and adaptations to survive and- at some point before recorded history- found the combination of very large brains, long infancies, stable social structures, and trainable habits like speech and tool-building that let modern humans expand far, far beyond our original habitat and live almost anywhere on dry land on the globe. Our adaptations have now made virtually everyplace our habitat, and the pressures we're putting on other species- like some monkey species- are now driving them toward extinction. It's not the fact we live somewhere on the globe that's doing this, it's the fact that we're changing their habitats, and they aren't adapting vigorously enough.

Finally, you shouldn't think there was originally a colony of normal, modern apes (chimps or bonobos or something) and, gradually, some of those apes turned into humans. Evolution doesn't claim that. It claims modern apes and humans have a common ancestor- there was once a colony of creatures that were pre-chimp and pre-human (both, at the same time) and some of the descendants of these creatures are modern chimps and some of them are supermodels.

Well met. Thanks everyone. Still, I'm not entirely convinced. So, under this theory, our ancestors reached a pivotal moment in history. Either Humans descended from Monkeys, or Monkeys and Humans descended from an even older species. Regardless, we know that our side of the family experienced a crisis. Depending on whether or not Monkeys evolved themselves from the same ancestor, another potential crisis could have been thrown into the mix. Yet, there must have been an exodus of some sort, not referring to the biblical exodus. How else could one familiar remain unaffected by the other branch's dilemma? More so, has there even been a moment in history where man was apart from forestation. Therefore, how could we have evolved when apes have lived beside us for centuries. On top of that, if both Man and Monkey had a common ancestor, what drastic sort of conditions prevented Man from maintaining similar construction?
 

szaromir

Banned
Seth C said:
Homo habilis and homo erectus are not our ancestors? That's news to me, I guess since I last read about all that staff 10 years ago I have to catch up with some major discoveries.
 

Seth C

Member
szaromir said:
Homo habilis and homo erectus are not our ancestors? That's news to me, I guess since I last read about all that staff 10 years ago I have to catch up with some major discoveries.

I'd have to check to be sure, but I think this chart does correspond with the ones I studied in school (~2 years ago). Anthropologists argue about it all the time, but I do believe the current thinking is that no, neither of those were our direct ancestors.
 
There is a book called "When Science Meets Religion," by Ian Barbour. It would do many of you here good to read it. Science and religion do not necessarily have to conflict. You can view them as independent angles of looking at the world. They can also engage in dialogue and even be integrated into each other. I highly recommend the book for those interested in how religion can fit into our modern scientific worldview.
 

Lesath

Member
Our ancestors fulfilled a niche, a "way of living" if you will: standing on two legs became advantageous for the ability to reach and carry. At that moment, and genes were naturally selected for better and better exploitation of this ability.

However, it is difficult for two species to fulfill the same niche. Naturally, one species would be more fit for survival in that environment than the other, and therefore the less fit species would be driven to extinction due to outcompetition. This is why in resource-rich environments with a lot of competition, such as the rain forest, there is an immense amount of diversity.

We fulfill a niche in that we are intelligent beings that are able to mold the environments around us for survival. If we and monkeys were trapped on an island with only limited bananas as a food source, and we have the tools to kill monkeys and harvest bananas faster than monkeys, the logical outcome is that we would kill all the monkeys and take all the bananas. If we were to be put on the same planet as some other intelligent species, if they are more intelligent and more fit for the planet than us, chances are that we would be outcompeted and die out.
 
Evolution and intelligent design are both irrelevant to the lives of everyday people. It really couldn't affect me less. Neither enrich my life or the lives of anyone I know.
 
Wonderful article.
Punchy said:
Evolution and Religion do not have to be mutually exclusive. A lot of religious people accept evolution. The only leap required for a religious person to accept evolution is that the earliest stories of the beginning of mankind and the world are parables and moral lessons, and not historical accounts.

Intelligent design is challenged by evolution, for the most part, but have you ever heard of or considered the concept of a "clockmaker" god? If God is omniscient and omnipresent and all-powerful, wouldn't it stand to reason that he could spark the beginnings of evolution and realize how it would all turn out in the end; just like a clockmaker works on individual gears one at a time with the concept of a system of gears and cogs forming a whole clock in the end in his mind? Is that really harder to believe than all of the scientific evidence in the world?
I like the way you think, junior.
 

deepbrown

Member
Seth C said:
I know it's fun to pick on Christianity, but right now you just have no clue what you're talking about. The part of the Bible that would suggest stoning of adulterous women as a suitable punishment is in the early Old Testament. These were laws of the Israelites or Hebrews. If anyone would still be expected to apply these laws today it would be Jews, not Christians. You see, Christianity as a religion is from Judaism, but it isn't Judaism. Christians read and discuss the Old Testament because they see it as a history of where their religion came from. It contains things like prophecy that they believe Christ fulfilled. That makes it important to Christians, but it isn't law to be followed by them. In fact, it can't be. Most Christians are not descended from Israel (Jews) and that simple fact alone means that the laws of the Old Testament don't apply to them.

Choose a better example.
I'm not picking on Christianity - I'm picking on religion - but if you like to think that Christianity has some kind of moral high ground over every other religion, then so be it. For what reason would that be? What makes your old book anymore "true" than the other older book?
 

Stahsky

A passionate embrace, a beautiful memory lingers.
I'm christian and took an evolution class two semesters ago. Was very interesting.
 

Lesath

Member
Evolution, and therefore biology, is not "irrelevant" for everyday people, especially students who want to decide on their future directions.

For me, high school was a time when I really had to decide what to do with the rest of my life. Graduation requirements forced us to have some experience across most disciplines, and it was my awesome teacher and the way in which he presented the material that inspired me to major in biology.

Having junk like creationism, which really has no part in the scientific discussion of the subject, in the curriculum would be misleading, irrelevant, and time-wasting to my understanding of life science. There is no branch of biological science that is completely independent of Darwin's theory, nor is there an actual branch of science that would even consider creationism a valid explanation to explain how these biological truths came to be.

If they don't want to believe in it, fine. All they need to know is that the understanding of evolution is the foundation on which biological science is built, and it affects everything from the food they eat, to the clothes on their back, as well as the diseases they get and their cures. Students should be expected to know what a profession in biological science means, and what its foundations are, but not necessarily believe in those foundations (and if you don't believe in those foundations even though you understand them, science is not for you). To spend time on material outside of it is a disservice to all the other students who fostered or could have fostered an interest in biology.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom