GF wrote:
“I am far from a religious zealot, there are just some gaps in the chain of evidence that I don't understand.”

There are a lot of details scientists don’t understand too. That doesn't mean that they are "gaps" in the chain of evidence. Nor does it negate the evidence as a whole.

GF wrote:
“Further just because a bunch of "scientists" come together and reach a consensus does not establish fact.”

Agreed. However, we’re not just talking about a “bunch” of scientists. We’re basically talking about the world community of scientists. In fact, it’s only the general population of the USA that seriously has issues with the concept, and those are clearly related to religious beliefs. Most of the rest of the world is overwhelmingly convinced including the bulk of Europe and Asia.

GF wrote:
“Evidence does and there are pieces of the puzzle missing. For instance we had Neanderthal man, then Cromagnon, and I probably butchered the spelling, came on the scene. Did Cromagnon evolve from Nenadertal?”

Most anthropologists do not believe that we evolved from Neanderthals. In fact, the majority of them believe that we weren’t even closely related enough to breed with them as there is no fossil evidence that such breeding ever occurred. It is believed that had the Neanderthal survived as a species there would be two completely separate species of “humans”. By different species I mean that we would not be able to naturally interbreed. I confess that this conclusion cannot be proven, I’m just conveying the information. (I just recently took a refresher course in Biological Anthropology this summer).

I wonder what the outcome of that would have been though. We can’t even get along with our own species. We’ve made up artificial distinctions called “race” that have no biological support. All humans on this planet can interbreed. We are all one species, yet we have enslaved and discriminated based on the artificial classifications of race. I can’t help but wonder how well we would have gotten along with a genuinely different species of man. In fact, it has been suggested by some anthropologists that the Neanderthal were indeed hunted to extinction by the Cro-Magnon man (us). There is little or no evidence to support that claim though but knowing how we instinctively behave it's certaintly believable.

GF wrote:
“The fact that we have changed from a superstitious group to an enlightened group in a few hundred years does not indicate evolution it indicated an advance in education.”

I absolutely agree, which implies that some “apparent” (or observed) changes actually have nothing to do with evolution. Although, to say that it has nothing to do with evolution is a bit of a stretch. As I’ve stated previously, we are now at a point where we are no longer evolving via a process of ‘natural’ selection because we are helping people live and breed (pass on their genetic material) who would have naturally died or been sterile. I’m not suggesting that this is either good or bad, but rather just pointing out that it is the case.

So we can’t really say that our enlightenment of technology has nothing to do with evolution because it is mostly certainly affecting our breeding abilities, our living abilities, and even our ability to deal with changing environments. Not to mention the fact that once a conscious ability to learn and adapt has been achieved the “apparent” evolution of that particular species will appear to be highly accelerated for the simple reason that it will no longer be guided by a process of “natural” selection, but instead it will be guided by a process of “cognizant” selection.

The fact that we can’t yet explain every minuscule detail of every feature of evolution does not negate the big picture. The fact that fossils exist that show that life became increasingly complex over millions of years on the earth is not going to go away. All that’s really left is to work out the minuscule details of it. But that doesn’t mean that it’s in question overall.

Scientists will probably be working on the minuscule details for millennia to come. However those details simply aren’t necessary to support the bulk of the evidence for the big picture. To say that there are “missing links” in the fossil records and this represents “gaps” in the evidence is really a misnomer that scientists aren’t concerned with. Yes, it would be nice to find more details, but they simply aren’t necessary to validate the existing evidence that already exists. Life has indeed evolved from very simple forms to much more complex forms over millions of years. The evidence for that is not in question and it’s not going to go away just because we don’t understand every miniscule detail along the way.

wow what a dissertation. But you and the "scientists" gloss over all missing data as irrevelant. Every time something don't support the theory it's "irrevelant". A consensus is just that. Because many people believe something to be true don't make it a fact. Evidence makes it a fact and there is much evidence missing and Science refused to acknowledge that because it don't support their argument. Remember a thousand years ago the "consensus" among all learned people was that the world was flat. The "consensus" is that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, but for a split second after the big bang that had to have happened. The fact is, a shark is still a shark after 50 million years of evolution, dinosaurs came and went and we popped up on the scene ony recently and we still aren't 100% certain how.

I’ll be the first to agree that we can’t know anything with 100% certainty.

Here’s the bottom line though.

Evidence for evolution = overwhelming
Evidence that we just popped into existence from nowhere = zilch

There’s nothing wrong with believing in Alice in Wonderland, or in the Wizard of Oz if you like. But then why pretend to ask questions about evolution as though you are seeking rational answers when in fact all you’re really trying to do is discredit the evidence for evolution in the hopes of reducing it to the same level of non-credibility as mythology?

While I may grant you that we can’t know anything with 100% certainty, I most certainly won’t agree that the evidence for evolution is anywhere near as non-existent as the evidence that we just popped into existence from nowhere.

That, my friend, simply isn’t even remotely close to representing truth. There is significance evidence to support the idea that we evolved from lower life forms. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to believe that we just popped into existence because the Wizard of Oz has a magic wand.

So why would any rational person even considered the latter as a competitive idea?

Fossils do not prove evolution.

Here are the reasons:

1) You don't know that a fossil had any children
2) You don't know that the fossil had any children that were different from the parent.

All links between various fossils are assumptions, there are no facts involved.

We have never observed speciation, outside of polyploidy, but that doesn't fit the definition of evolution.

There is no scientific evidence for evolution, because science requires that the event be observable and reproducable.

Always found this 'bulk logic' amazing:


Can't be (100%) certain? Well then the (0%) certainty Wizard wins!!!

Doesn't that throw you for wild spin?!?!?

voileazur,

You probably speak English as a second language, so that might be the reason you have so many problems understanding my posts. My point is that you cannot prove evolution and I don't believe you can disprove evolution. The problem is that you seem to add more to my posts that I intend to convey. I never said "It's absolutely certain that evolution didn't happen", so why you took that from my post, I can't be sure. So please don't assume you know what I think or what I am saying, because you have done that with a lot of my posts and you haven't been right yet.

Voil wrote:
“Can't be (100%) certain? Well then the (0%) certainty Wizard wins!!!”

That’s always the religious argument in a nutshell Voil.

The most learned theologians openly admit that religion is an institution of faith.

If someone is going to accept a religion they really need to understand the concept of faith and quit trying to prove or disprove it. As soon as they attempt to get into the business of proof or disproof they’ve lost faith.

Correct me if i'm wrong

But isn't it fact that human semen will not impregnate an animal? and if so that would mean evolution couldn't have happened, right?

Yes, you are mistaken about the likely viability of interspecies breeding. Very few species can breed with another and then usually only very closely related species can breed and they normally produce sterile offspring: e.g. Horses and donkeys can be bred to one another but will produce a sterile mule who cannot produce young of it's own.

Why not? Blocks to fertilitiy or lack of genetic viability. E.g. from the Slate:

"In general, two types of changes prevent animals from interbreeding. The first includes all those factors—called "pre-zygotic reproductive isolating mechanisms"—that would make fertilization impossible. After so many generations apart, a pair of animals might look so different from one another that they're not inclined to have sex. (If we're not even trying to mate with monkeys, we'll never have half-human, half-monkey babies.*) If the animals do try to get it on despite changed appearances, incompatible genitalia or sperm motility could pose another problem: A human spermatozoon may not be equipped to navigate the reproductive tract of a chimpanzee, for example.

The second type of barrier includes "post-zygotic reproductive isolating mechanisms," or those factors that would make it impossible for a hybrid animal fetus to grow into a reproductive adult. If a human were indeed inclined and able to impregnate a monkey, post-zygotic mechanisms might result in a miscarriage or sterile offspring. The further apart two animals are in genetic terms, the less likely they are to produce viable offspring. At this point, humans seem to have been separate from other animals for far too long to interbreed. We diverged from our closest extant relative, the chimpanzee, as many as 7 million years ago. (For comparison, our apparent tryst with the Neanderthals occurred less than 700,000 years after we split off from them.)

Researchers haven't pinned down exactly which mechanisms prevent interbreeding under most circumstances. Some closely related species can mate even if they have different numbers of chromosomes. Przewalski's horse, for example, has 33 pairs of chromosomes instead of the 32 most horses have, but it can interbreed with regular equines anyway—the offspring takes the average and ends up with 65 chromosomes."

Steve (and others)-

My apologies- I misread your post, I thought you thought that humans COULD breed with other animals.

Nevertheless the quoted portion of my erroneous post should answer your question... in complex long lived animals (e.g. humans) evollutionn takes many generations during which there is "drift" from the original so that breeding with an ancient ancester would likely be inviable... that doesn't mean that they are not descendents...

sorry for the lack of intelligence on my part

but you are saying I am mistaken? we can mate with animals and produce an offspring?

ahh yes ty

Abra,

You wrote:

"... If someone is going to accept a religion they really need to understand the concept of faith and quit trying to prove or disprove it. As soon as they attempt to get into the business of proof or disproof they’ve lost faith."

We're on the same page on this one Abra!

Here is another spin, a reply I made to a great post from 'redykeulous' from te 'what is your opinion on gays' on page 4:


'red' was asking:
"... Think about it? HOW DO YOU KNOW, WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS CORRECT?..."
(substitute 'believe' as faith, and 'correct' as fact for the purpose of this post)

And I answered:

"... We never do IMO!

That is why we invented the concept of believing (faith)!!! For all mysterious phenomenons which we will never KNOW to be correct (no facts), as in exact (absolute)!

It is not exact to claim that God exists. God's existence is not correct, and it is vain to claim that it is, or just as vain to try and prove its existence. Mind you, it would be just as vain to attempt proving that God didn't exist, thus the mystery of life, and the concept of belief (faith) to deal with it.

It is however exact for one to claim that she / he 'believes' in God's existence for her-himself!!! That it is true for him or herself. Furthermore, believing what you want, religious practice, is a given and a fundamental right in western societies protected by legal charters.

The real value isn't what you believe, it is rather the basis and story of your search for 'what is true for you'. That is of value, this rich sharing and exchange of 'kernels of light' with your fellow human..."

This opinion, or 'conviction in construction' of mine, isn't meant to be 'correct', 'factual', or absolute, but it is something that rings rather true for me.

I never have understood how the religious folks can't seem to understand that God can be allowed to make changes (hence evolution). Maybe he got bored with dinasours, they were too big and not that bright. And nowhere in the bible that I can recall does it say God is absolutely perfect. Even so, he made Us in His image, think about how often you change your mind. The underlying truth is that there can be both a god, and evolution. The bible does say that all things come from God, so why not our scientific knowledge? Might be his way of saying "I think you're ready for this."

orator thats one of the smartest things ive heard on this thread, and i agree to some extent, if god exists hes far too big and busy t do anything with us monkeys on a blue rock andwe cannot possibly comprehend his existence any more than an amoeba would know of us

'spider' wrote:

"... You probably speak English as a second language, so that might be the reason you have so many problems understanding my posts."

Definitely delusional. No point replying.

Maybe it's because of that that spider has a problem understanding your posts, because he thinks they mean things they don't.

voileazur,

Your profile says you are from "Baie-d'urfe, Quebec"

http://www.immigration-quebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/choose-quebec/society-values/french-language/index.html
=====================================================
Québec is French-speaking (the first language of more than 80% of the population). French is the official language and the one used most often in public life — at work, in communications, trade and business.
=====================================================

I said "You probably speak English as a second language, so that might be the reason you have so many problems understanding my posts. "

A valid assumption based on the facts I have at hand and your habit of adding additional meaning to my posts. Rather than assume you like to attack me by making things up, I thought maybe you didn't speak English as a first language.

ya'll boys are still playing here.
these chilli peppers must be the real deal

Dear 'spider',

English is my second language. I find it interesting that you would spend your precious time researching my profile and linguistic background. It obviously means you care about me a lot. And I apologize to you for not having visited your profile. It just never occurred to me to do so.

However, given the number of exchanges we've had together, in english, on these forums, I doubt seriously you could honestly believe that my level of comprehension of english is at the source of our numerous disagreements.

If your righteous arsenal includes discrediting and mischaracterizing people simply because they disagree with you, I believe you'll need to do a lot better (or worse) than discrediting my abilities in your language.

Anyhow, if I were you (which I'm not of course), I would get off this pontificating and delusional 'sole servant of God and THE TRUTH' trip. I could be wrong, but in my opinion God really doesn't need servants, and much less the pontificating and delusional type you have been personifying in my humble opinion.

I strongly suspect, however hard you're trying to convince us, that that is not the real YOU, 'spider'. It's a construction of yours IMO, and it definitely is not of God, again in my humble opinion.

Trust God, and let go of your limiting fabrications.

With trust in God, and the letting go of your fake personna, I'm confident you will find this new ability to trust your fellow human, and engage in authentic, humble, and enlightening exchanges with them. Those enlightening exchanges would have a much better chance of bringing others and yourself, closer to God.

... And surprise of surprises, you and I might even agree sometimes, although that wouldn't be a pre-requisite to respecting each other.

Wouldn't you agree spider, this sounds like a more 'christian' proposition than the paranoïa, righteousness, bickering, fighting, mischaracterizong, discrediting, calumniating, spying, insulting....

I trust you get the point!!!