Why Doesn't America believe in Evolution?

[BGoodForGoodSake]

BGood - Just wait until I find out the similarities between love and geometric shapes.
Your analogy was only saying that things (or institutions, like trade) can develop over time. I was aware of that... I just doubted that Neo-Darwinian evolution would really work.

So you are you saying that pointing out that human intelligence is behind trade is a flawed argument?

Yeah, yeah, one thing can lead to another. The cause/effect thing.
I never doubted something could continue. But the limestone only grows bigger, not more complex. We observe the limestone growing and hypothesize that it could grow for a while, but not that it would take quite another shape or become another substance.

Take some time to study how DNA works and how changes in DNA can effect the shape and function of the resulting protein. After which we can discuss how things can become more complex.

Do you believe in abiogenesis? It's what I meant when I said 'that a cell spontaneously came into being under impossible circumstances,' &c.

Abiogenesis is not a requirement in the study of evolution. See here.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

I'd spend an hour replying to you two goons (BGood and thereal) but I'd rather not. I never said that his 16 minutes of fame singly handly prove macroevolution didn't occur. If I came off that way oopsy, I made a boo boo. I found it interesting. And it seemed to fit into the theme of this thread. And as far as I'm concerned, the speaker came off not saying "evolution isn't true because of this..." but came of saying "we have no good reasons to believe in evolution because of this ..." You are attacking a position I don't hold. So I will not defend it.

[thereal]

That's simply physical inability. But although meerkats may have complex calls, they have no grammar or syntax, and are not on the way to invent new calls. Invention is purely human.

Ok, I guess I would have been more clear to ask if you understood meerkat, as I wasn't referring to the physicall ability to make the calls. I was referring to the understanding of the "language". Regarding invention, I think it depends on what you're calling invention. Animals have been shown to come up with new solutions to problems, new tools to acquire food (eg. chimps and the sticks used to pull ants from the nests), and others around them learn these techniques and use them themselves...is this not invention. Also, to play the devil's advocate, we have not been studying animal language for a long enough time to determine whether ot not calls are becoming more complex or not. Who knows, what started out as a single squeak or grunt may have changed over time to become different calls with specific connotations.

Do you have the answer to the question why monkeys still aren't cleaning their cages?

To answer a question with a question, why don't toddlers suddenly become potty trained on their own...

A spirit is by definition metaphysical. You might as well ask me to give a physical definition of God, so that scientists could study that phenomenon...

Genes or no genes, if Neo-Darwinian evolution is true, all of those actions we now take to be indicative of spirit are actually the result of natural selection.

My original points were to reinforce what BGood was saying, in that nobody (scientists) is claiming that the human spirit is evolving or related to genes. The reason for this is the concept of "human spirit" is a belief and cannot be studied.

Supposedly lower animals. You have got to be kidding me right, anyone can realize that humans are the dominant species on Earth, that makes any other animal lower. What makes them even more lower is that God said they are, (thats if you believe in the teachings of the bible). He created them for us, not us for them, or even in between. According to God, he created us as unique, and still today, the spirit of God flows through them. Our human spirit is the equivocal of God Himself, in fact, the spirit is made by God, its up to us what we do with it, and thats partly the differance.

The reason I used "supposedly" was related to the fact that the author using what I believe are erroneous conclusions regarding animal behavior to justify his assertion that humans are the top organism. I have no problem admitting that humans are evolutionarily one of the most advanced organisms on this planet. The rest of your statements regarding the biblical take on man's dominance is belief stated as fact. And I wouldn't be so quick to give top billing to humans...if you realized the impact of bacteria, we would all be paying a little more respect to some of the smaller things on this planet.

[Canuckster1127]

Do you have the answer to the question why monkeys still aren't cleaning their cages?

To answer a question with a question, why don't toddlers suddenly become potty trained on their own...

So .... it's because the parent monkey's haven't passed that particular skill on yet? [/quote]

[sandy_mcd]

Supposedly lower animals. You have got to be kidding me right, anyone can realize that humans are the dominant species on Earth, that makes any other animal lower.

It depends on your definition of dominant. I had been going to let this go, but since others have commented, let me ask a few questions:

1) Are humans afraid of avian flu or is avian flu afraid of humans?

2) According to "conventional wisdom", is an all-out nuclear holocaust more likely to wipe out humans or cockroaches?

3) Were T Rex and other large predatory dinosaurs the dominant species of their time?

4) Pretend you are an alien observing species on earth. You see a two-legged species and a four-legged species. The two-legged species labors all day while the four-legged species plays. The two-legged species not only provides food and shelter for the four-legged species but also follows and picks up its excrement. Which would you think is dominant?

[Canuckster1127]

Supposedly lower animals. You have got to be kidding me right, anyone can realize that humans are the dominant species on Earth, that makes any other animal lower.

It depends on your definition of dominant. I had been going to let this go, but since others have commented, let me ask a few questions:

1) Are humans afraid of avian flu or is avian flu afraid of humans?

2) According to "conventional wisdom", is an all-out nuclear holocaust more likely to wipe out humans or cockroaches?

3) Were T Rex and other large predatory dinosaurs the dominant species of their time?

4) Pretend you are an alien observing species on earth. You see a two-legged species and a four-legged species. The two-legged species labors all day while the four-legged species plays. The two-legged species not only provides food and shelter for the four-legged species but also follows and picks up its excrement. Which would you think is dominant?

Sandy those are interesting questions. Can you name another species on the earth that exercises control over and creates and modifies their environment to the extent that humans do? Obviously the analogy of pets (dogs I suspect) is not particularly strong as it is humans who have domesticated dogs and maintain them for companionship?

Next time I hear humans blamed for global warning, I'll have them talk to me dog.

[sandy_mcd]

Can you name another species on the earth that exercises control over and creates and modifies their environment to the extent that humans do?

As I suspect you picked up despite the lack of smiley, these were not entirely serious. But people do tend to look at things from their own perspective, individually and collectively. The answer (although I suppose many species) was given by thereal: bacteria. Who changed the earth's atmosphere from reducing to 21% oxygen? Humans modify the environment in part because we are so physically weak. Bacteria can live in polar and near boiling environments. We can't, without help. Here is a link I found some time ago [Pianka] but never followed up with. http://pr.caltech.edu/periodicals/EandS ... newman.pdf

[Canuckster1127]

Can you name another species on the earth that exercises control over and creates and modifies their environment to the extent that humans do?

As I suspect you picked up despite the lack of smiley, these were not entirely serious. But people do tend to look at things from their own perspective, individually and collectively. The answer (although I suppose many species) was given by thereal: bacteria. Who changed the earth's atmosphere from reducing to 21% oxygen? Humans modify the environment in part because we are so physically weak. Bacteria can live in polar and near boiling environments. We can't, without help. Here is a link I found some time ago [Pianka] but never followed up with. http://pr.caltech.edu/periodicals/EandS ... newman.pdf

I understand the differentiation. Obviously, bacteria are adapting to their environment. There's a huge difference in terms of how humans change the environment itself to suit themselves. This is, I believe, a clear reflection of Man's unique status as made in the image of God with the power of stewardship and change. Don't you think?

[godslanguage]

Ignore this

[godslanguage]

It depends on your definition of dominant. I had been going to let this go, but since others have commented, let me ask a few questions:

1) Are humans afraid of avian flu or is avian flu afraid of humans?

How does avian flu make us less dominant? Would it be differant if I said humans carry a virus that other animals have NO idea we carry it, so they die out? Yet, understand there is a virus they have to deal with, humans are capable of controlling the virus, primarily, what makes them more dominant is there knowledge of the virus in the first place. I think we have one thing other animals don't have, control.

2) According to "conventional wisdom", is an all-out nuclear holocaust more likely to wipe out humans or cockroaches?

Nuclear bomb is obviously a human design, designed to kill humans, blow buildings up etc... not cockroaches. DDT for example, is meant to kill the mosquitoe population to prevent malaria from spreading in third world countries. Your right that depending on the situation, humans are more vulnerable then other species, but that still doesn't make them less dominant. Your questions are more about survival than dominance. For example, a spec of bacteria or a cockroache has alot better chance of surviving than humans, how is it dominant though? Currently? Define your definition of Dominance. Dominance is exercising control over nature which includes ourselves and like Canukster pointed out, the environment. All your questions point to the question of your definition of dominance. So answering your questions might lead to a differant definition of it.

Here is an image of the most dominant dinosaur I know of:

[godslanguage]

4) Pretend you are an alien observing species on earth. You see a two-legged species and a four-legged species. The two-legged species labors all day while the four-legged species plays. The two-legged species not only provides food and shelter for the four-legged species but also follows and picks up its excrement. Which would you think is dominant?

I think that the alien would be more dominant in this case.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

I'd spend an hour replying to you two goons (BGood and thereal)

=D
I have been promoted to goon status.

Yay!