Do you understand the Theory of Evolution?

[McCulloch]

Suppose that a species of woodpecker with a one inch beak was introduced to an isolated island where its primary food source lived one and a half inches below the surface of the trees. For this species of woodpecker, there would be a significant advantage to have a longer beak in this environment.

Anyone who cannot answer this question correctly, does not understand how the theory of evolution works and to my mind is not qualified contribute intelligently to debate on the subject. This applies equally to those who agree and to those who disagree with the theory of evolution.

[Deadclown]

Suppose that a species of woodpecker with a one inch beak was introduced to an isolated island where its primary food source lived one and a half inches below the surface of the trees. For this species of woodpecker, there would be a significant advantage to have a longer beak in this environment.

Anyone who cannot answer this question correctly, does not understand how the theory of evolution works and to my mind is not qualified contribute intelligently to debate on the subject. This applies equally to those who agree and to those who disagree with the theory of evolution.

Here I am as promised to hear the theory of evolution. I want to hear the arguments for it without debating because honestly without the Bible I could not really debate this subject so here I am to learn. Thanks in advance to those who take the time to teach me.

Lastcallhall,

I have put a discourse describing the basics of Evolutionary Theory here...
ref:What%20evolution%20does%20not%20say

Which is a more appropriate place for it.

[McCulloch]

Suppose that a species of woodpecker with a one inch beak was introduced to an isolated island where its primary food source lived one and a half inches below the surface of the trees. For this species of woodpecker, there would be a significant advantage to have a longer beak in this environment.

According to the Theory of Evolution the first generation offspring of these woodpeckers are likely to have:

• Longer beaks than their parents' beaks.
  This answer is false because it fails to take into account how evolution works. Evolution depends on two independent processes: Replication with variation and Adaptive selection. The variations of a trait, such as beak length, are random. The process of producing genetic variations does not anticipate which factors will be selected for.
• Beaks that are neither longer nor shorter than their parents' beaks.
  This answer is false. Without variation, evolution cannot occur.
• Some will have beaks that are slightly longer and some will have beaks that are slightly shorter and some will have beaks that are the same length.
  This answer is correct. The birds with shorter beaks on average will not be as successful at feeding and reproducing as their siblings with longer beaks. Thus, the birds with longer beaks will have more offspring, raising the average beak length for the next generation, not the current one.

Spoiler alert: Highlight the text or reply with quote to see the explanation. My apologies to anyone who may have mistook the word offspring for descendant, I could have used clearer language.

[gospelsaves]

Suppose that a species of woodpecker with a one inch beak was introduced to an isolated island where its primary food source lived one and a half inches below the surface of the trees. For this species of woodpecker, there would be a significant advantage to have a longer beak in this environment.

Anyone who cannot answer this question correctly, does not understand how the theory of evolution works and to my mind is not qualified contribute intelligently to debate on the subject. This applies equally to those who agree and to those who disagree with the theory of evolution.

I don't think YOU understand the theory of evolution. Creationist don't argue the idea that a species can adapt to it's surroundings to survive. That's not the debate.
Evolutionary theory argues that ALL the organisms alive on earth today share a common ancestor....the so called "missing link". That everything alive on this planet evolved from a common source. That is what we take issue with.
I don't care how many millions of years you breed a bird within it's offspring it's still NOT going to turn out as a human!

Nobody is going to argue that on this magical island of yours with ONLY birds that it's offspring are going to be BIRDS that have adapted to it's surroundings. Now if somehow on your magical island you are saying you wound up with a Giraffe or a Hippopotamus, please let me know because then we have something to debate!

It just baffles me that anyone would want to be from a frog. Why do you want to be from a frog, or slime or a monkey...or whatever. Why? Then you all get shocked when you hear about violence and crime and murder. Here is a novel idea people of the world: Stop telling your children they come from animals, and they may just stop acting like one! What exactly do you expect a person to act like when you tell them they come from slime or a frog?

[Tiberius47]

Suppose that a species of woodpecker with a one inch beak was introduced to an isolated island where its primary food source lived one and a half inches below the surface of the trees. For this species of woodpecker, there would be a significant advantage to have a longer beak in this environment.

Anyone who cannot answer this question correctly, does not understand how the theory of evolution works and to my mind is not qualified contribute intelligently to debate on the subject. This applies equally to those who agree and to those who disagree with the theory of evolution.

If the birds have one inch beaks, they will not be able to find food on the island because the grubs are too deeply buried. Hence, the birds will die and there will be no offspring.

However, if the grubs are one inch down and over many generations they evolve to dig deeper (the deepest-burrowing ones being more likely to avoid the deepest reaching birds at the time), then an evolutionary arms race will occur and both species will evolve the ability to reach deeper into the trees.

Do I win?

[McCulloch]

I don't think YOU understand the theory of evolution. Creationist don't argue the idea that a species can adapt to it's surroundings to survive. That's not the debate.

That is the process of evolution. Over multiple generations, where there are random variations in characteristics that can be selected for survival, the process of evolution occurs. On that we agree. The Theory of Evolution states that this process can explain all of the variety in life forms that exist.

Evolutionary theory argues that ALL the organisms alive on earth today share a common ancestor....the so called "missing link".

Do try to keep up with the terminology. Evolutionary biologists call the shared common ancestor the, well, um, the shared common ancestor. The missing link is a different concept altogether, no longer current in evolutionary biology but frequently still used by the creationist strawman form of evolution.

That everything alive on this planet evolved from a common source. That is what we take issue with.
I don't care how many millions of years you breed a bird within it's offspring it's still NOT going to turn out as a human!

Quite so. I am unaware of any biologist claiming avian ancestors to any of the primates.

It just baffles me that anyone would want to be from a frog. Why do you want to be from a frog, or slime or a monkey...or whatever. Why?

Religion is about what you want to believe. In science, what you want to believe is irrelevant. In science, you follow the facts and the evidence wherever it leads.

Then you all get shocked when you hear about violence and crime and murder. Here is a novel idea people of the world: Stop telling your children they come from animals, and they may just stop acting like one! What exactly do you expect a person to act like when you tell them they come from slime or a frog?

Do you have any evidence that link violent crime with an understanding of biological evolution? In fact, the rates of violent crime are significantly lower in countries where science education is higher. World-wide, the average probability that a person would be deliberately killed by another human, either through war, violent crime or their own state sponsored death (pogroms, executions etc) are significantly lower after the discovery of evolutionary principles than before.

[gospelsaves]

That is the process of evolution. Over multiple generations, where there are random variations in characteristics that can be selected for survival, the process of evolution occurs. On that we agree. The Theory of Evolution states that this process can explain all of the variety in life forms that exist.

Agree with the statement LOL just not with the theory.

Do try to keep up with the terminology. Evolutionary biologists call the shared common ancestor the, well, um, the shared common ancestor. The missing link is a different concept altogether, no longer current in evolutionary biology but frequently still used by the creationist strawman form of evolution.

No matter what you call it it’s the SAME theory. I stated what I was referring to: “Evolutionary theory argues that ALL the organisms alive on earth today share a common ancestor�. That’s what I was talking about, whether you call it the missing link, or transitional fossils, or shared common ancestor is irrelevant. Do you really want to debate semantics? You can call it whatever you want, I don’t agree with it period! Call it the hibi gibbies for all I care. LOL

It’s the so called bridge between man and apes. You know exactly what I’m referring to. These mythical creatures are supposed to bridge the evolutionary split on the tree between humans and apes, OR now I hear the new flavor on the evolutionary tree is the cute little lemur from Madagascar ROFL! You know one minute we’re from ooze, then frogs, then monkeys, now lemurs! One day if we are lucky maybe our distant cousin will be Velociraptor!!! I mean if you’re going to make up something to be from, at least choose something cool! LOL
Missing links have NEVER been found, and never will be. Named perfectly, cuz their MISSING!!! And please don’t bring up that darn Archeopteryx. There are so many holes in that theory they ought to call it a sponge.

Quite so. I am unaware of any biologist claiming avian ancestors to any of the primates.

Ohh give it time, as I said now we are possibly from Lemurs (do try to keep up now!) so Birds may only be a step way, if you’re lucky! LOL
We have been here for thousands of years now, so why haven’t humans evolved the way these lower level animals supposedly did? You know if somehow X > monkey > (throw in a lemur for good measure) > human….then why haven’t we evolved to some “higher� form yet? Why don’t you see humans with wings flying around? We’ve been here hundreds of thousands of years accourding to you guys, so what’s the hold up? When is the next branch of this magical tree going to appear? It sure does seem to be taking a long time!

Religion is about what you want to believe. In science, what you want to believe is irrelevant. In science, you follow the facts and the evidence wherever it leads.

It takes more faith to believe in the hocus pocus of evolution than in creation, I’ll tell you that much!
Evolution requires non-living matter to turn into a living organism (else where did the first living thing come from?) and that has NEVER happened. You know what you call that story when you tell it to children…a FAIRY TAIL!!. When Pinocchio turns into a little boy!

No matter what, if you believe in evolution you have to believe somehow NOTHING has the ability to turn into something. Where did the Sun and Earth come from? Without a planet and a sun there can be no first cell, period. Planets are formed, they can implode (die). Star are born and die. So how did the first planet and star get created? No matter what, following that logic you’re back to nothing creating something.
If you believe in evolution you have to eventually believe that the universe created itself. The First Law of Thermodynamics says that there is only a finite amount of energy and the Second Law says that the amount of available energy is continually decreasing. If the universe had existed forever, all the available existing energy would have already been used up. When is the last time you observed something creating itself? Please film it and share.

And if our gallexy formed itself "randomly", why is it in a recognizable shape? It has the Fibonacci spiral in it. A shape found ALL over this planet. That’s a looooooooot of coincidence for random chance! The gallexy just happened to form into a recognizable shape. How exaclty do you explain that?

Or you have to believe that the universe exited forever. And if that is the case, then why are all of its parts dying? Like I said, planets and stars are born and die. Everything you can point to on this Earth dies, so if we are a byproduct of eternal universe, how come we have expiration? Scientist tell us that the universe is expanding, so if something can “expand� it obviously wasn’t’ there before! So how can it have been there "Forever". So which is it?

I don’t care which way you slice any of those arguments that dog just don’t hunt!

Do you have any evidence that link violent crime with an understanding of biological evolution? In fact, the rates of violent crime are significantly lower in countries where science education is higher. World-wide, the average probability that a person would be deliberately killed by another human, either through war, violent crime or their own state sponsored death (pogroms, executions etc) are significantly lower after the discovery of evolutionary principles than before

Really!!!! I understand that ALL violent crime is wrong; you don’t seem to understand that. So your argument here is that worldwide murders are at a low rate, so thing really aren’t that bad?
I don’t look at statistics like that, and see an acceptable rate. If one person is murdered that is NOT acceptable, period. If one person out of 7 billion is murdered that is NOT acceptable to me. That is exactly where evolution has brought morality…..tolerable murder rates.
You know what that logic got us? Planned parenthood, and the holocaust....tolerable murder rates!!!!

[McCulloch]

Do try to keep up with the terminology. Evolutionary biologists call the shared common ancestor the, well, um, the shared common ancestor. The missing link is a different concept altogether, no longer current in evolutionary biology but frequently still used by the creationist strawman form of evolution.

No matter what you call it it’s the SAME theory. I stated what I was referring to: “Evolutionary theory argues that ALL the organisms alive on earth today share a common ancestor�. That’s what I was talking about, whether you call it the missing link, or transitional fossils, or shared common ancestor is irrelevant. Do you really want to debate semantics? You can call it whatever you want, I don’t agree with it period! Call it the hibi gibbies for all I care. LOL

Words mean something. When we use our words, we communicate our ideas to each other. When we are careless or ignorant in our selection of words, we risk communicating something different from what we intend to communicate. The alleged missing link is a proposed type of creature somewhere between A and B, if B evolved from A. A shared common ancestor is a different concept altogether.

It’s the so called bridge between man and apes. You know exactly what I’m referring to. These mythical creatures are supposed to bridge the evolutionary split on the tree between humans and apes, OR now I hear the new flavor on the evolutionary tree is the cute little lemur from Madagascar ROFL!

Whoever told you that a lemur-like creature is believed by biologists to be a link between humans and other apes was incredibly ignorant of evolutionary theory. Before you laugh in derision at a theory, you should at least take the time to understand it with at least a minimum level of accuracy.

Biologists do not need any bridge between humans and apes. The word ape to a biologist, means a group of several different species of primates: Orangutan, Gorilla, Chimpanzee and yes, Human. Now, all of the primates are thought to have a shared common ancestor, which was probably somewhat like a lemur.

Missing links have NEVER been found, and never will be. Named perfectly, cuz their MISSING!!!

Missing links will never be found, but not for the reason you describe. Let's say that the fossil and other evidence has led biologists to believe that species E evolved from species A. An ignorant scoffer may then ROFL, claiming that there is no known linking species between A and E. Then, suppose they find evidence of a species C that appears to be evolutionarily between A and E. No problem for the opponent of science. Now there are two missing links, between A and C and between C and E. If the researchers find those missing links, B and D, he has just doubled the number of missing links.

I am unaware of any biologist claiming avian ancestors to any of the primates.

Ohh give it time, as I said now we are possibly from Lemurs (do try to keep up now!) so Birds may only be a step way, if you’re lucky! LOL

My friend seems to be operating under the false notion that the specific details of evolutionary development are in a constant state of random and arbitrary flux. Nothing could be further from the truth, which he would know if he had any knowledge of the subject which he so confidently laughs at.

We have been here for thousands of years now, so why haven’t humans evolved the way these lower level animals supposedly did? You know if somehow X > monkey > (throw in a lemur for good measure) > human….then why haven’t we evolved to some “higher� form yet? Why don’t you see humans with wings flying around? We’ve been here hundreds of thousands of years accourding to you guys, so what’s the hold up? When is the next branch of this magical tree going to appear? It sure does seem to be taking a long time!

The split between the Chimpanzees and Human lines is said to be about 8 million years ago. We are still evolving and if we survive a few million more years, our descendents will be somewhat different from us. There is no magic in evolution. In fact, if our descendents develop wings, then evolution will be shown to be false, not true.

Religion is about what you want to believe. In science, what you want to believe is irrelevant. In science, you follow the facts and the evidence wherever it leads.

It takes more faith to believe in the hocus pocus of evolution than in creation, I’ll tell you that much!

Real biologists do not share your opinion on that. There is no hocus pocus in evolution. It is a completely naturalistic theory about the development of the diversity of life. No magic six days of creation. No divinely inspired world-wide flood. No hocus pocus at all.

Evolution requires non-living matter to turn into a living organism (else where did the first living thing come from?) and that has NEVER happened.

Actually the study of life requires that at some time non-living matter turned into living matter. We both agree that at some point in the distant past, there was no life. Now there is. The outstanding unanswered question is how did we get life from no life? Some people say that the God said some magic word and spoke life into existence. Others, not satisfied with that fairy tale, look for answers based on naturalistic principles.

No matter what, if you believe in evolution you have to believe somehow NOTHING has the ability to turn into something. Where did the Sun and Earth come from? Without a planet and a sun there can be no first cell, period. Planets are formed, they can implode (die). Star are born and die. So how did the first planet and star get created? No matter what, following that logic you’re back to nothing creating something.
If you believe in evolution you have to eventually believe that the universe created itself. The First Law of Thermodynamics says that there is only a finite amount of energy and the Second Law says that the amount of available energy is continually decreasing. If the universe had existed forever, all the available existing energy would have already been used up. When is the last time you observed something creating itself? Please film it and share.

So where did God come from? The usual answers are that either God has existed for an infinite length of time or that God exists outside of time. If God has existed for an infinite length of time, then somehow, inexplicably, your God has to be exempt from the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If your God is said to exist outside of time, then you have just confused me beyond anything by making a claim that is completely unimaginable.

Or you have to believe that the universe exited forever. And if that is the case, then why are all of its parts dying? Like I said, planets and stars are born and die. Everything you can point to on this Earth dies, so if we are a byproduct of eternal universe, how come we have expiration? Scientist tell us that the universe is expanding, so if something can “expand� it obviously wasn’t’ there before! So how can it have been there "Forever". So which is it?

Actually, you have left the realm of evolution to the realm of cosmology. Many current cosmologists believe that time and space are linked together in a way described by Einstein's relativity, and that both are finite. So, to me, the universe has been in existence forever but not for an infinite length of time.

Do you have any evidence that link violent crime with an understanding of biological evolution? In fact, the rates of violent crime are significantly lower in countries where science education is higher. World-wide, the average probability that a person would be deliberately killed by another human, either through war, violent crime or their own state sponsored death (pogroms, executions etc) are significantly lower after the discovery of evolutionary principles than before

Really!!!! I understand that ALL violent crime is wrong; you don’t seem to understand that. So your argument here is that worldwide murders are at a low rate, so thing really aren’t that bad?
I don’t look at statistics like that, and see an acceptable rate. If one person is murdered that is NOT acceptable, period. If one person out of 7 billion is murdered that is NOT acceptable to me. That is exactly where evolution has brought morality…..tolerable murder rates.
You know what that logic got us? Planned parenthood, and the holocaust....tolerable murder rates!!!!

I don't believe in any kind of utopian philosophy that posits that violent crime will be utterly eliminated. That would be foolishly naive. Nor do I think that there is an acceptable rate of violent crime. Violent crime is a bad thing. Therefore, reducing the rate of violent crime is a good thing. GospelSaves implied that teaching evolution would increase the rate of violent crime. This assertion is utterly false and contrary to any published evidence. It is false and illogical to attack evolution as he does, based on the nonsensical assertion that teaching evolution teaches our children to behave murderously as animals.

[gospelsaves]

Words mean something. When we use our words, we communicate our ideas to each other. When we are careless or ignorant in our selection of words, we risk communicating something different from what we intend to communicate. The alleged missing link is a proposed type of creature somewhere between A and B, if B evolved from A. A shared common ancestor is a different concept altogether.

I communicated my point very well. I said “the organisms alive on earth today share a common ancestor� didn’t I? Notice the phrase “common ancestor� in my statement. You can’t get to your precious “shared common ancestor� without those missing links. So what is your point? You still have to have those missing links.

Whoever told you that a lemur-like creature is believed by biologists to be a link between humans and other apes was incredibly ignorant of evolutionary theory. Before you laugh in derision at a theory, you should at least take the time to understand it with at least a minimum level of accuracy.

Biologists do not need any bridge between humans and apes. The word ape to a biologist, means a group of several different species of primates: Orangutan, Gorilla, Chimpanzee and yes, Human. Now, all of the primates are thought to have a shared common ancestor, which was probably somewhat like a lemur.

The evolutionary scientist that introduced this creature is ignorant of the theory in which he has spent his career studying ….but you are an expert right? First you call him “ignorant� and now you say I should take time to understand it. Really, which is it…make up your mind. Again what is your point exactly? At the end of the day you guys threw in another creature right? …this lemur-like creature? I didn’t say ANYTHING about “the definition of the word ape� in my statement, so why are you auguring that? I said you guys introduced another creature ……TRURE OR FALSE…..simple question?
You seem to say a lot of statements but none of them ever seem to answer any of the questions.

Missing links will never be found, but not for the reason you describe. Let's say that the fossil and other evidence has led biologists to believe that species E evolved from species A. An ignorant scoffer may then ROFL, claiming that there is no known linking species between A and E. Then, suppose they find evidence of a species C that appears to be evolutionarily between A and E. No problem for the opponent of science. Now there are two missing links, between A and C and between C and E. If the researchers find those missing links, B and D, he has just doubled the number of missing links.

The first part of that statement was correct “Missing links will never be found�. You should have stopped right there. Yeah the scientist are never going to find any of those missing likes no matter what kind of math you want to throw at it.

My friend seems to be operating under the false notion that the specific details of evolutionary development are in a constant state of random and arbitrary flux. Nothing could be further from the truth, which he would know if he had any knowledge of the subject which he so confidently laughs at.

Really? When you tell a lie, you just to keep telling more lies to keep it up. But when you tell the truth, you don’t need to change your story! Fancy that!
Our story has been consistent throughout: “God created all life on Earth, period�. Notice if you will how that story has NOT changed. Truth doesn’t need to change. But like I said before how many different things has evolution said we share an ancestry from? And this time please TRY to answer the question. An ape-like creature, a lemur like creature???….. And where did those creatures evolve from? And then where did those creatures evolve from? Keep going to you get down to a single cell. And when you get to a single cell…count up ALL the creatures that you had to go through, and please let me know that number. OK?

The split between the Chimpanzees and Human lines is said to be about 8 million years ago. We are still evolving and if we survive a few million more years, our descendents will be somewhat different from us. There is no magic in evolution. In fact, if our descendents develop wings, then evolution will be shown to be false, not true.

Still have not answered the question. 8 million years, ok. Our particular variety of human has been around how long? How come no new variety of human? What’s the hold up? Why do we seem to be stuck? We are still evolving? Ok what was the last particular form of “evolution� modern day humans have seen?

Real biologists do not share your opinion on that. There is no hocus pocus in evolution. It is a completely naturalistic theory about the development of the diversity of life. No magic six days of creation. No divinely inspired world-wide flood. No hocus pocus at all.

Again we can agree to disagree my friend.
Never did answer my question on the shape of the galaxy. If our universe formed itself randomly, why is it in a recognizable shape? It has the Fibonacci spiral in it. As shape found ALL over this planet. That’s a looooooooot of coincidence for random chance! It just happened to form into a recognizable shape. How exactly do you explain that?

Actually the study of life requires that at some time non-living matter turned into living matter. We both agree that at some point in the distant past, there was no life. Now there is. The outstanding unanswered question is how did we get life from no life? Some people say that the God said some magic word and spoke life into existence. Others, not satisfied with that fairy tale, look for answers based on naturalistic principles.

That's EXACTLY what I said. Look at my statement. I said “requires NON-living matter to turn into a living organism�. How is that ANY different than what you said? Again we just agree to disagree.

So where did God come from? The usual answers are that either God has existed for an infinite length of time or that God exists outside of time. If God has existed for an infinite length of time, then somehow, inexplicably, your God has to be exempt from the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If your God is said to exist outside of time, then you have just confused me beyond anything by making a claim that is completely unimaginable.

Exactly. God is eternal. God didn't "come" from anywhere. There was ALWAYS God. And yes therefore God is exempt from ANY laws period. That’s more plausible to me than nothing creating something.

Actually, you have left the realm of evolution to the realm of cosmology. Many current cosmologists believe that time and space are linked together in a way described by Einstein's relativity, and that both are finite. So, to me, the universe has been in existence forever but not for an infinite length of time.

So if it’s been in existence forever how is it growing? If it’s growing then it’s someplace that it wasn’t before. Oh yeah THAT makes logical sense...What in the world does that mean “the universe has been in existence forever, but not for an infinite length of time�? It existed forever, but forever doesn’t REALLY mean forever. What do you think forever and infinite mean then? There is no partial forever, or almost infinite. Either it’s forever or not. Which is it?

I don't believe in any kind of utopian philosophy that posits that violent crime will be utterly eliminated. That would be foolishly naive. Nor do I think that there is an acceptable rate of violent crime. Violent crime is a bad thing. Therefore, reducing the rate of violent crime is a good thing. GospelSaves implied that teaching evolution would increase the rate of violent crime. This assertion is utterly false and contrary to any published evidence. It is false and illogical to attack evolution as he does, based on the nonsensical assertion that teaching evolution teaches our children to behave murderously as animals.

Your logic makes no sense. If you don’t believe a society without violent crime can ever happen, then why on Earth would you ever waste your time striving for it? That makes no sense. If you truly believe something can NEVER happen then why waste your time?
Obviously you believe in a limit with acceptable rates. Because if you believe “perfect� can NEVER happen then there has got to be a point in which you think you WOULD be able to reach and THAT is what you would strive for. I.E. Acceptable rates!

I didn’t say it “teaches� them anything. They don’t need to be taught that, a child can draw conclusions all on their own. Do you think telling someone “you came from an animal� is a compliment? Because in my culture it’s an insult… “you son of a B*&^%� is met with hostility, not welcomed.

Don't believe me, then try calling somebody a monkey or an ape who is of a darker skin color…and see if you don’t get slapped or punched. And when you wake up from off the ground try to fathom why it is that they were so offended. So why is it then that people take offense to statements like that? Huh? Why don’t they say “oh wonderful I am from an ape or a monkey, thank you for that WONDERFUL compliment�! Why is it considered insulting?

But somehow you teach it in a classroom full of children and it’s “SCIENCE�? Explain that....Answer that please!

[McCulloch]

At the end of the day you guys threw in another creature right? …this lemur-like creature?

You seem to imply an lemur-like creature in the evolutionary path between the other apes and humans. This is a misrepresentation. The branch would go something like this: lemur-like creature which eventually split into monkey-like creatures and the other primates. The Monkey-like creatures then split between the apes and monkeys. The Apes split between the great apes and the lesser apes. The Orangutans split from the rest of the great apes. Then the Gorillas. Finally, the the Chimpanzees and Human branches split.

Really? When you tell a lie, you just to keep telling more lies to keep it up. But when you tell the truth, you don’t need to change your story! Fancy that!

The process we call science involves constant testing of our ideas and theories. New evidence and better analysis leads to updates and revisions. The revealed religions involve a process called Divine Revelation. God, they claim has revealed a set of communications for humanity that cannot be questioned or changed. It must be accepted without question and in spite of the evidence. Science is not so arrogant as to claim that we have arrived at the complete and absolute truth. But we get a more truthful picture of reality by admitting and recognizing our own shortcomings.

How many different things has evolution said we share an ancestry from?

At some point or other, we share an ancestry with every other living entity on this planet. The latest common ancestor between a chimpanzee and a human is far more recent than the latest common ancestor between a human and a mushroom. The latest common ancestor of all the great apes (orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees and humans) is far more recent than the lemur like creature which is the most probable latest common ancestor of all the primates.

Where did those creatures evolve from?

The primates are thought to have evolved from a group including rodents, lagomorphs (rabbits, hares etc) and shrews.

And then where did those creatures evolve from? Keep going to you get down to a single cell.

This exercise has been marvelously done in a book by Richard Dawkins, The Ancestor's Tale. Even if you don't believe it, I would recommend reading it to clear up the many misunderstandings you may have about evolution.

And when you get to a single cell…count up ALL the creatures that you had to go through, and please let me know that number. OK?

42

Still have not answered the question. 8 million years, ok. Our particular variety of human has been around how long?

About 200,000 years.

How come no new variety of human? What’s the hold up? Why do we seem to be stuck? We are still evolving? Ok what was the last particular form of “evolution� modern day humans have seen?

There is no hold up. It is a very slow process. A glacier moves faster than evolution. You expect to see a recognizable new variety of human within the latest few thousand years of recorded human history?

Never did answer my question on the shape of the galaxy.

It is the same as the shape of a snowflake. The impersonal laws of physics acting on the mater and energy in the universe produce shapes.

I said “requires NON-living matter to turn into a living organism�. How is that ANY different than what you said? Again we just agree to disagree.

We do agree that non-living matter did turn into living matter. We disagree on how this happened.

There was ALWAYS God. And yes therefore God is exempt from ANY laws period. That’s more plausible to me than nothing creating something.

On this I agree. Something being created from nothing is absurd. You believe that God, whom you cannot see or detect has always existed. I believe that the universe, which we do know to exist, has always existed. However, we differ in how we understand the term always. For you, I presume, always means for an infinite length of time. For me, always means for all time. You see, time itself is not infinite. It had a beginning. There is no time before the beginning of time. How could there be?

So if it’s been in existence forever how is it growing? If it’s growing then it’s someplace that it wasn’t before.

Actually, it does. You see, the model of how the universe is growing is not that the universe is expanding into the surrounding empty space, which may extend infinitely, but that space itself is expanding. There is nothing, not even empty space, beyond the universe. Yet the universe is a finite size and is expanding.

What in the world does that mean “the universe has been in existence forever, but not for an infinite length of time�? It existed forever, but forever doesn’t REALLY mean forever. What do you think forever and infinite mean then? There is no partial forever, or almost infinite. Either it’s forever or not. Which is it?

Forever means for all time. But the modern models of time and space show that both time and space are not infinite. So for all time, is not the same as for an infinite length of time.

I don't believe in any kind of utopian philosophy that posits that violent crime will be utterly eliminated. That would be foolishly naive. Nor do I think that there is an acceptable rate of violent crime. Violent crime is a bad thing. Therefore, reducing the rate of violent crime is a good thing. GospelSaves implied that teaching evolution would increase the rate of violent crime. This assertion is utterly false and contrary to any published evidence. It is false and illogical to attack evolution as he does, based on the nonsensical assertion that teaching evolution teaches our children to behave murderously as animals.

Your logic makes no sense. If you don’t believe a society without violent crime can ever happen, then why on Earth would you ever waste your time striving for it? That makes no sense. If you truly believe something can NEVER happen then why waste your time?

When you cut a board to make a stair-step, do you think that you can cut precisely? Once the board is put into place, how big will the gap be? A centimeter? A millimeter? A nanometer? Do you feel that it is futile to cut the board because perfect precision is impossible?

When you design security software for a web site, can you guarantee that absolutely no intruder could ever break in? The answer is no, you cannot. What we do is provide good enough security. Some applications require a greater degree of security than others, but no honest software provider will claim that all possible attempts at intrusion will be detected and repelled.

It is foolish and naive to believe that violent crime will be completely eliminated from human society. However, wouldn't it be a good thing if we could significantly reduce it? If the teaching of evolution could be linked to increases in violent crime, as GospelSaves erroneously claims, then perhaps society should rethink our decision to teach evolution. However, the simple and demonstrable fact of the matter is that the rates of violent crime are inversely related to the teaching of evolution. I am not claiming a causal relationship, just that GospelSaves idea that teaching evolution leads to an increase in violence is completely without any sound basis in fact.

Obviously you believe in a limit with acceptable rates. Because if you believe “perfect� can NEVER happen then there has got to be a point in which you think you WOULD be able to reach and

Please don't put words into my mouth. I am simply saying that 1 murder per 100,000 population is better than 10 murders per 100,000 population. Wouldn't you agree? 0.01 murder per 100,000 population would be even better than that. I have not implied that there is any acceptable rate. The elimination of violent crime would be a good, but impossible task.

Jesus claimed that we would always have the poor with us. Is that a good reason for Christians to give up on helping reduce poverty?

I didn’t say it “teaches� them anything. They don’t need to be taught that, a child can draw conclusions all on their own. Do you think telling someone “you came from an animal� is a compliment? Because in my culture it’s an insult… “you son of a B*&^%� is met with hostility, not welcomed.

That is because of a cultural misunderstanding. We are animals. We are multicellular living beings that are not plants or fungi. We are not dogs, monkeys or gorillas, but we are animals, mammals and apes.

But somehow you teach it in a classroom full of children and it’s “SCIENCE�? Explain that....Answer that please!

Because it is science.

[gospelsaves]

You seem to imply an lemur-like creature in the evolutionary path between the other apes and humans. This is a misrepresentation. The branch would go something like this: lemur-like creature which eventually split into monkey-like creatures and the other primates. The Monkey-like creatures then split between the apes and monkeys. The Apes split between the great apes and the lesser apes. The Orangutans split from the rest of the great apes. Then the Gorillas. Finally, the the Chimpanzees and Human branches split.

So then out of that LONG statement you made, that answer would be “yes�?

The process we call science involves constant testing of our ideas and theories. New evidence and better analysis leads to updates and revisions. The revealed religions involve a process called Divine Revelation. God, they claim has revealed a set of communications for humanity that cannot be questioned or changed. It must be accepted without question and in spite of the evidence. Science is not so arrogant as to claim that we have arrived at the complete and absolute truth. But we get a more truthful picture of reality by admitting and recognizing our own shortcomings.

I never said you couldn’t question God. You have every right to question whomever you choose. Just as we have every right to question you guys. Yes I agree humanity should recognize all its shortcomings. Indeed. But you see God being PERFECT doesn’t have that problem.

At some point or other, we share an ancestry with every other living entity on this planet. The latest common ancestor between a chimpanzee and a human is far more recent than the latest common ancestor between a human and a mushroom. The latest common ancestor of all the great apes (orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees and humans) is far more recent than the lemur like creature which is the most probable latest common ancestor of all the primates.

The primates are thought to have evolved from a group including rodents, lagomorphs (rabbits, hares etc) and shrews.

[This exercise has been marvelously done in a book by Richard Dawkins, The Ancestor's Tale. Even if you don't believe it, I would recommend reading it to clear up the many misunderstandings you may have about evolution.

And the view of creation has been done in a marvelous book called the Bible. Even if you don’t believe it, I would recommend you read it to clear up any misconceptions you have about how God created the Heavens and the Earth and all living things in them.

42

Wow I remember reading that somewhere in a fiction book. Wasn’t that in Hitchers Guide to the Galaxy? Is that where you’re pulling your scientific info from now? Next year it could change to say 55.....67.... 189…keep going....

About 200,000 years.

There is no hold up. It is a very slow process. A glacier moves faster than evolution. You expect to see a recognizable new variety of human within the latest few thousand years of recorded human history?

Just seems rather slow. 200,000 years not much happening. When do expect this next variety? Couple more MILLION years maybe ? Well I can say that we will all have been long dead, and still won’t know if your correct. But you for sure won’t have to wait that long to see if I’m right. God said it’s appointed unto man once to die and then the judgement, so if I’m right we will sure find out a lot faster than if you’re right!

It is the same as the shape of a snowflake. The impersonal laws of physics acting on the mater and energy in the universe produce shapes.

“random chance� produced a recognizable shape found all over this planet. That’s a BIG coincidence.

We do agree that non-living matter did turn into living matter. We disagree on how this happened.

Indeed we do

On this I agree. Something being created from nothing is absurd. You believe that God, whom you cannot see or detect has always existed. I believe that the universe, which we do know to exist, has always existed. However, we differ in how we understand the term always. For you, I presume, always means for an infinite length of time. For me, always means for all time. You see, time itself is not infinite. It had a beginning. There is no time before the beginning of time. How could there be?

You keep changing your mind. Did the universe always exist? “Yes, but only as long as time existed�.

You said “the universe has been in existence forever but not for an infinite length of time�. Ok so IF the universe didn’t exist forever…….and it only existed as long as time has existed…..then how did the universe first form? What formed it? BEFORE time began, what formed it? And then what formed that? And keep going until you get to the VERY FIRST THING and tell me what created that?

You have to state that the very first thing ALWAYS existed else, where did it come from?

Actually, it does. You see, the model of how the universe is growing is not that the universe is expanding into the surrounding empty space, which may extend infinitely, but that space itself is expanding. There is nothing, not even empty space, beyond the universe. Yet the universe is a finite size and is expanding.

Forever means for all time. But the modern models of time and space show that both time and space are not infinite. So for all time, is not the same as for an infinite length of time.

Again, BEFORE time began what created the universe? You have to start with something or someone ALWAYS existing. Something or Someone HAS to be eternal. So either the universe always existed or it didn't period.

You can't say the universe only existed as long as time has existed. That makes no sense. What happened BEFORE time existed? There was just nothing???? Your back to nothing creating something then, which YOU stated was impossible. Before time began..... nothing....then poof....universe!

When you cut a board to make a stair-step, do you think that you can cut precisely? Once the board is put into place, how big will the gap be? A centimeter? A millimeter? A nanometer? Do you feel that it is futile to cut the board because perfect precision is impossible?

Of course not, but I also don’t feel that striving for perfection is IMPOSSIBLE. I would aim to cut the board PERFECT regardless. Now if it didn’t turn out perfect that’s fine, but doesn’t mean I won’t strive for that perfection!

When you design security software for a web site, can you guarantee that absolutely no intruder could ever break in? The answer is no, you cannot. What we do is provide good enough security. Some applications require a greater degree of security than others, but no honest software provider will claim that all possible attempts at intrusion will be detected and repelled.

Wonderful example. You better hope that all of us who happen to work in National Security don’t strive for “good enough� security for this nation! LOL You know DOD that app that you asked me to design, I’m going to just strive for “good enough�.

Congress - "Why did we get attached?" Well I thought that security app was “good enough�. Why strive to make it perfect, when it can just be good enough, right?
You may do YOUR job "good enough" but don't put me in that category. I don't aim for "good enough" on mine. I aim for perfection each time, regardless of if I acheive it or not. I think peoples lives are too important for "good enough". So you may do "good enough" computer security.....but I and my team do "aim for perfection" computer security. And remind me never to hire you! LOL I don't want my team thinking it's ok to be "good enough" with peoples lives in the military that put their trust in us! And I guarentee those people in the military don't go into work each day thinking ...wow I'm just going to try to do a good enough job protecting this nation.

It is foolish and naive to believe that violent crime will be completely eliminated from human society. However, wouldn't it be a good thing if we could significantly reduce it? If the teaching of evolution could be linked to increases in violent crime, as GospelSaves erroneously claims, then perhaps society should rethink our decision to teach evolution. However, the simple and demonstrable fact of the matter is that the rates of violent crime are inversely related to the teaching of evolution. I am not claiming a causal relationship, just that GospelSaves idea that teaching evolution leads to an increase in violence is completely without any sound basis in fact.

Yes exactly I whole hardly think society should rethink the decision to teach evolution.

Of course there is a relationship between teaching evolution and violence.
Anytime you take God out of the equation there is downward spiral. Those precious “rights� that people live under where exactly do you think they got them from? The Bible. Thou shalt not kill. Thou shall not commit adultery. Where do you think that came from? They came from God, .....from religion.

So what happens when you take Christian values out of a society? Values like it’s wrong to steal, it’s wrong to lie, it’s wrong to kill, it’s wrong to commit adultery. And you’re left with a society where alllll of those things are now RIGHT…Do you think that type of society is more or less violent?

It’s those CHRISTIAN values that define what “violent� is. Violent is when you violate “thou shall not kill� .....murder.

Please don't put words into my mouth. I am simply saying that 1 murder per 100,000 population is better than 10 murders per 100,000 population. Wouldn't you agree? 0.01 murder per 100,000 population would be even better than that. I have not implied that there is any acceptable rate. The elimination of violent crime would be a good, but impossible task.
Jesus claimed that we would always have the poor with us. Is that a good reason for Christians to give up on helping reduce poverty?

For sure I’d agree that 1 murder per 100,000 is better than 10 murders per 100,000. But wouldn’t you agree that NO murders per 100,000 is even better than that?

Jesus claimed that there would always be poor people on this Earth PRIOR to his reigning in his kingdom. There is a big difference there. I’m saying Christians strive for a world without ANY poverty, you’re saying there is a point that becomes “good enough�.

That is because of a cultural misunderstanding. We are animals. We are multicellular living beings that are not plants or fungi. We are not dogs, monkeys or gorillas, but we are animals, mammals and apes.

“a cultural misunderstanding� ….wow!! So all those raciest comments over the years that people have made to other who just happen to be a darker complexion was just “a cultural MISUNDERSTANDING�…and they really had nothing to be offended by being called “you’re from a ape or monkey�????

The people saying that didn’t really mean any harm by that huh? All innocent? The people who were told that shouldn't be offended at all? Answer the question please!

Because it is science.

No, it’s not. We can agree to disagree.