Instruction Manual For Evolution Dissemination

Humans, the sole survivor of the genus Homo, share ancestry with today's chimpanzees and apes, and like them the first Homo had light skin under its body hair.

Although completely disadvantageous, Homo "lost" its body hair.

Burning under the intense African sunlight, it evolved darker skin.

The now-dark creatures then migrated to Europe and Asia.
Where they became lighter skinned, but Europeans and Asians did so *independently*.
(Light, then dark, then light again: efficient!).

Pale skinned, red haired Neanderthals (a separate Homo species) were already in Europe when dark Homo Sapiens arrived from Africa.

European Sapiens then evolved pale skin and red hair, but did so *independently*.

The Neanderthals then "disappeared".

If they interbred with Sapiens, then Europeans are actually a *new species*, a politically dangerous proposition, so let's just ignore that can of worms and say we "don't know" what happened to the Neanderthals.

Asians, like all modern humans, are descended from Homo Erectus, and most Erectus fossils are from east Asia.
But Modern Asians didn't directly descend from Asian Erectus, but from *African* Erectus' Sapiens descendents.
Got that?

We're Old World Monkeys.
These split from the New World Monkeys 40 million years ago.

New World Monkeys mysteriously appeared in South America, crossing the Atlantic Ocean somehow.
(If anyone asks, it was floating trees unearthed during a storm).

Similar genetics and climates produced no clever toolmaking primates in the Americas.

If anyone asks why 40 million of years of evolution produced no clever toolmaking New World primates, while clever toolmaking Old World primates evolved within the last 3 million years, excuse yourself and go to the toilet.
Hopefully, the topic of conversation will have moved on when you return.

Also, do this if anybody brings up Egyptian mummies with traces of cocaine and nicotine (from American plants), Olmec sculptures with Negroid faces, or the mysterious appearance of African primates, rodents, boa constrictors, and freshwater cichlid fishes in South America during the Oligocene (when South America was disconnected from the other continents).

See, no confusion about genetic history whatsoever!
It's all so clear and simple!

Shockadelic, you've pointed to gaps in scientific knowledge about evolution. I'm not sure what your point is. There shouldn't be any gaps? The gaps disprove the larger theory? Science is bunkum? You know a lot of dodgy scientists who urinate frequently? The Flying Spaghetti Monster is playing sleight of hand with us? You are a brilliant, questioning, possibly bearded free-thinking beast while the rest of us are slaves to orthodoxy?

Seriously, I'm too thick to understand you point. Given your point about mean evolutionary time, I'm also slightly sceptical of your scientific understanding. What are you trying to say?

botheration: "You know a lot of dodgy scientists who urinate frequently? The Flying Spaghetti Monster is playing sleight of hand with us?"

The rabid demon-possessed epileptics strike again.

Is it just evolution or did I press too many of your other buttons Agent Botheration?

You wouldn't happen to be an anarchist, feminist, environmentalist, socialist, laissez-faire capitalist, multiculturalist, or protestor/activist (animal rights, pro-choice, anti-globalisation) by any chance?
(I forgot gun control. That's another tender subject.)

"You are a brilliant, questioning, possibly bearded free-thinking beast while the rest of us are slaves to orthodoxy?"

Bingo!

Darwin was a brilliant, questioning, sometimes bearded, free-thinking beast.
I'm in good company.
I would love to have been on the Beagle. Helping collect specimens and taking notes.

"What are you trying to say?"

Nothing is True. Everything is Meaningful.

"Too thick to understand?"

Dan,

Thanks for your reply. I appreciated the tone you used that time.

The only thing that got up my nose originally, was the suggestion that “Dawkinites” are just as much fundamentalists as Theists are.

I have always accepted and understood what you meant about the ‘strictness’ of beliefs, but I still don’t think you’re quite understanding my point about the ‘motives’. When I say “motives”, I’m not just referring to the desire of Creationists and Evolutionists to each prove that that they are the ones who are right.

What I am taking about, is WHERE the ‘strictness’ of their beliefs come from. Evolutionists are more free to change their own opinion/theory because they don’t fear the wrath of a God if they do. Theists on the other hand, have the a belief that they face possible eternal damnation if they abandon their beliefs, and hence my emphasis on the word “never”. This was my fundamental point.

Yes, on the surface, the biases of evolutionists would seem just as strict, and no doubt, even if evolution had been conclusively dis-proven, you’d probably have some ‘true believers’ cling to it for a while; But given time, this would fade and the new theory would soon be adopted. Theists though, would never abandon their faith or change their views, even if evolution had been conclusively proven. I can’t stress the word “never” enough.

The apparent contradiction between Bushbasher’s statement and mine, just goes to show that you didn’t quite understand what I meant with my point about fundamentalism.

Yes, I can see what you mean by the apparent “contradiction”, but Bushbasher doesn’t believe what he believes because a Holy Book is telling him that he’ll go the Hell if he stops believing it. Evolutionists FEEL more able to change their views if the evidence suggests differently.

Continued…

…Continued

But a Creationist will only ever accept the science that fits their beliefs because their God is looking over them. Their scientific progress is therefore stunted a lot more than a devout evolutionist, because of a bias that runs far deeper than an Atheist’s - emotionally speaking.

So my point still stands there.

In regards to your links to the Creationism pages, well, they didn't really tell me too much more than I didn't already know about the Creationist viewpoint. Because, believe it or not, Dan, I used to be a Christian/Creationist.

I remember in my days as a Christian, walking around all cocky-like and snickering at evolutionists because I thought I knew 'The Truth'.

There were many, many reasons I left the church, but I was particularly disappointed when I decided to take a look at this theory of evolution that those “misguided” Atheists were on about.

It was a big wake-up call to realise that the so-called “evidence” that apparently debunked or seriously questioned evolution, were just very small and carefully selected data samples that were either half-truths and exaggerations, or just complete misrepresentations of what the theory of evolution is.

As you'd understand, there's far too much to go into with such a restrictive word limit, and I'm certainly no scientist, but let's just say that I cross-referenced many of the relatively few points made at http://www.creationontheweb.com with the incredibly large list of explanations to Creationist claims at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CH100 and my view still hasn't changed at all, sorry. But I was never on this thread to 'prove' evolution anyway.

Lets face it people: The Biblical story of creation is literature. Evolutionary theory is science but within science there is no problem with contradictory theories co-existing so creation, as a scientific theory, does not cause any particular problems in science. If creation science turns out to be productive and stimulates lots of new scientific work that turns out to be useful then it can hold its place in the scientific community irrespective of the contradictory theory of evolution which also happens to be immensely 'scientifically productive'. The conflicting theories concerning the nature of light (wave or particle) proved to be very stimulating in physics for most of the last century.
Obviously evoution is a well established and productive scientific theory. Creation science, on the other hand is struggling to gain recognition in the wider scientific community BUT if creation science can generate the sort of creative tension that is exemplified by the wave-particle debate then lets get on with it. Of course, if the respective parties are just irrationally commited to a 'belief' in their respective, favourite theory then that will simply stifle productive debate. So lets not have any more of that!
Furhtermore lets not confuse Creation (ancient near eastern literature) with creation (scientific theory) because these are very different beasts epistemologically speaking.