"Creationism Trumps Evolution"

[John Dibble]

There would be problems with teaching creationism in schools. First off, there's more than one story of creationism - some involving one God, some involving many, some involving spirits, and all sorts of other things. How do you determine which ones to teach? None of them are any more valid or invalid as far as science is concerned, and you can't take the time to teach all of them.

Also, none of them can really be scientifically studied. There are no real world examples of 'poof' it is created. Therefore how can you honestly teach it in a science class when it has no scientific backing whatsoever? Evolution is not a perfect theory - in truth evolution is just a rough idea, but the rough idea has the most scientific evidence supporting it. If sufficient evidence could be found to support alternate theories, those should also be taught.

[John Dibble]

If evolution is so true "survival of the fittest" then why are human infants so helpless. I can not think of ANY animal (off the top of my head) that is more helpless then a human infant. Infants can not fend for themselves, barely mobile, and would die quickly if left on their own. Most baby animals like puppies, kittens, foals, etc could survive w/out a parent although it would be tough. What makes humans so different?

Well, puppies and kittens NEED their mother initially - they are essentially blind. In fact, you'll find that most creatures, especially more complex ones like mammals, are very vulnerable in their infant stages. However, many species instincually protect their young, ensuring the survival of the next generation until it can fend for itself. It is logical to say that the fittest is better able to protect it's young than the weakest. Of course, many other mammals also are more self-sustainable in shorter periods of time, though few require as much brain development as human babies and they generally have lower lifespans.

You must also take into account that the fittest is not always the physically strongest - we certainly can't physically compete with a tiger or elephant, but we have the highest mental capacity, allowing us to outwit any foes we have. In fact, our intellect has allowed us to reach the top of the food chain and adapt to virtually every environment on the planet.

Also, in the past, weaker babies usually did die out. The infant mortality rate was far greater than it is now. The healthier, stronger babies lived on - the fittest lived and the weakest died. That being said, I have to think that maybe the human race isn't evolving anymore, at least not in the 'natural selection' way. The lifespans of the weakest in all but a few cases is about as long as that of the fittest, because natural selection doesn't pick them off and the intellect of the fittest humans results in innovations allowing for the survival of the weaker among us. This may result in our race's evolutionary stagnation and possibly its evolutionary decline - man, eugenics looks good after this.

[John Dibble]

No, what I was saying is that human babies are helpless while the vast majority of other animals babies are not. Something is definately different between humans and all other creatures.

In general, mammals are unable to survive without their mother for some period of time. That period of helplessness depends on the species. Humans have a relatively long period of dependency, but our society makes it longer than is necessary for our biology.

True enough, but their is something divine about humans that science is unable to explain. Something very different about humans that is unlike any other animal on the planet.

Who knows. It could just be that we evolved sentience. It could be instilled. Once again, who knows. There may be some other race out in this big universe of ours that considers us to be extremely dumb creatures.

[John Dibble]

We didn't come directly from apes, they are simply a common ancestor of humans.

I will believed that bunch of bull when you and prove to me the Bible is wrong, and so far no one has.

Religion is all about faith. Nothing can be "proven" wrong, or right for that manner either.

Science and religion are two completely different things. They don't run into problems unless one attempts to infringe on the other's turf.

Science was made to try to get God out of the picture.

There is no god 'in the picture' - you're just imagining that.  Rational people are not obliged to disprove the exsistence of every fatuous flight of fancy the weak-minded come up with.

Disregarding opebo's anti-religious bias, he is correct that god is pretty much non-existant in science. Science is equipped and meant to study the material, not the ethereal.

[John Dibble]

Bees don't build advanced houses.  Bees build the same type of housing as all other bees of their type. 

Chimps don't have tools.  They don't produce anything.  They use twigs and such to get termites, but they don't make them.

Squirrels don't 'plant' nuts.  They just forget where they bury them.

All true, except for the chimps one. Chimps don't make tools, but they do figure out how to use natural objects as tools. Humanity's first tools were likely just sticks and rocks, and then we figured out ways to make them better.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, evolution doesn't happen overnight - it is a process.

If you mean the dinosaurs when you say lizards evolving into birds, we have found fossilized feathers on some of the later dinosaurs(raptor types, for example) - something dinosaurs before them did not have, but somehow these ones did have.

Also, I can give a somewhat unnatural version of evolution that humanity has seen - dogs. Natural selection, which is part of the evolutionary theory, says that the fittest animals, those with the traits most suited to survival in their particular area, will be the ones to breed, and those who do not have those traits will likely die out. Now, with dogs we performed an unnatural version of this by breeding the traits we desired - hence the various breeds of dogs we have today. There are big ones, small ones, working ones, toy ones, ect - and each has similar traits as well, telling us they came from a similar initial animal(probably wolves). We don't generally see this occur naturally because it would require a great shift in the environment for natural selection of this degree to become necessary.

As far as missing links, fossil evidence is hard to find, so don't expect to find every transition. And we do see instances of similar species over time - one eventually replaces the other, and then they are eventually replaced, and so on.

Walking to flight - well, as with the dinosaurs from before, I mentioned raptor types. Those types already had short, stubby arms arms - they mainly relied on their strong legs, clawed feed, and teeth for fighting(much as, say a hawk, relies on it's talons and beak). Having one disadvantage does not destroy all other advantages that a creature has - we are comparably weak to most predators, and would be easily picked off without our intelligence, which is the strength that allows us to outwit predators and develop tools to enhance our natural fighting abilities.

Genetic freaks - once again, evolution is a process that takes lots of time. It happens through both natural selection and mutation. Natural selection is only traits that get passed - if I was the only person on the planet with blue eyes, it wouldn't keep me from being able to breed with everyone else. Continuing with dogs, we breed their traits, but most of them are able to breed with eachother. Then there's mutations, some of which are good, some of which are bad, some of which don't really do anything. Mutations generally only effect a few genes, so the mutated individual of the species should be able to still mate with the rest of the species, and thusly pass on the mutated genes to offspring, and so on and so forth.

Now, let's look at an example of two genetically similar species - donkies and horses. Donkies and horses, if the general premise of evolution holds true, look like they would have come from a similar species. They can also mate - a male donkey and a female horse can produce a mule. However, there's a problem with this hybrid - it's sterile. The genetics are similar enough to produce offspring, but that offspring is not viable. It's quite possible that this is what happens when a species is apart too long - one area changes, forcing natural selection to change those living in the area, and mutations sometimes occur, and over enough time the new species becomes completely incompatible with the old one. In the case of horses and donkies, the two are not quite completely incompatible yet, but are close.

Still, after having said all that, I do agree that evolution is not a perfect theory - but the general idea is sound and probably closest to what actually happens. So, it must be continued to be studied and refined.