"On the Origin of Species" was first published 150 years ago.

The Economist has published an article on the subject, about how
Darwinian understanding of humanity explains our behaviour.

http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12795581

Hopefully the link works for non subscribers too.

From why women are paid less, to why mainly young single men in
their late teens, early twenties commit most murders, it is all
discussed and I found it all very interesting.

Any comments from those who are interested in understanding
us humans and our evolution to what we are today?

Fascinating article which makes eminent sense, however I fear that too many people in the world today like to place man as a separate entity to the creatures around him, and the environment in which he exists.

Interesting point about the cultural integration, too.

A fascinating article indeed.

Wow, wouldn’t it be great if you could just let the urge to breed and have a partner and an active sex life go, and just not worry about it?

Wouldn’t it also be great if you could get past the urge to compete with your neighbours, friends or society to have a bigger house, better car, higher-paid job, etc…and just be happy with a modest income and home?

How good would it be if you could commute with nature very regularly, take a great interest in plants, birds, rocks and all that sort of stuff, and travel a lot indulging in this sort of thing….and not in sport or nightclubs or high-risk thrill-seeking recreational activities?

Wouldn’t you be a much better, less-stressed, more at peace person, if you could just override some of these innate traits or instincts, which have resulted from millions of years of evolution?

Well, that’s me in a nutshell. And after a whole lot of years of being like this, I can say that it is definitely better than the alternative. It’s not perfect, but well and truly preferable.

.
ps. Yabby, I haven’t responded in our other discussion coz I’ve come up against the 4 posts in 24 hour limit. Rrrgh. It’ll have to wait til after 8.30am tomorrow, although my response is already written (:>)

it is dificult to read the link[two flaws in the first two parragraphs
wealth is having more money than you need for your needs, and 42 were killed last year[using the average number is flawed]
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/exe.htm
reveals a high of 300, and then a period of none, while certain cases were under appeal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_States

even the next chapter talks of 40 years of feminist stuff[when it started way earlier]but the next paragraph explaines it [because this is a story about evolution[yet isnt about evolution]what has murder,feminism, and income to do with evolution?

QUOTE>>But the answers that have come back are generally unsatisfying.They describe,rather than explain.

They do not get to the nitty-gritty of what it truly is to be human. Policy based on them does not work. This is because they ignore the forces that made people what they are: the forces of evolution.<<

but evolution being implanted we move onto the next validations[also nothing to do with evolution

>>The reasons for that ignorance are complex.
Philosophers have preached that there exists between man and beast an unbridgeable distinction. Sociologists have been seduced by Marxist ideas about the perfectibility of mankind. Theologians have feared that the very thought of evolution threatens divine explanations of the world.>>
>>The corollary to this is the idea that with appropriate education, indoctrination, social conditioning or what have you, people can be made to behave in almost any way imaginable. The evidence, however, is that they cannot. The room for shaping their behaviour is actually quite limited. Unless that is realised, and the underlying biology of the behaviour to be shaped is properly understood, attempts to manipulate it are likely to fail.>>

unless we baffle em with science
but the story NOT about evolution goes on

its a typical evolution buzz piece
but the evolutionists will love it

and at the next line we learn why

150 years of the evolving deception
a typical buzz piece

the link just dropped out so thats all for now

the article continues with logical falicies [it is a fact that the poor are outbreeding the rich[the poor need their children as some old age assurance apparently]so the rich havnt'evolved'more rich

but look at the graph[its as usual]is based on a fictitious number[why not use REAL numbers[but the graph is murders per million]so the numbers will yet aggain be distorted

[the qld govt does this[in one year the breatheliser numbers[per thousand]revealed 986 breathilised[when they didnt facter it down by the per thousand statistical manipulated[pretend number's]

evolution isnt proving wealth has anything to do with evolution[despite two more paragraphs of that bias spin]

of course the poor need to steal to live[the prison numbers prove most are fathers to many women[so much for the rich breeding its the criminals[poor]doing the breeding[and yet the rich do more criminal things, they just got lawyers to get em of[but its nothing to do with validating evolution[its spin]

but to the next bias rapists[in jail are poor]because the rich have lawyers,thus get off more often[or get off on appeal[appeals the poor cant afford]ok skipped to the end and still no science evidence FOR evolution[darwin only mentioned once[lol] and finishes with a nice bit of racism[upon the poor]who make up most of the numbers

yet another evolution spin piece
darwin will be proud what you do in his name
good thing you athiests dont believe in the hereafter

your a bunch of materialist statistical manipulators who never tested [faulsified any of his theories]read what darwin wrote''The Origin of Species''its a great insightfull read[he wasnt a racist][nor divided what he saw into human measures of rich and poor

Dear Ludwig.... if things are as the article says....

<<As a consequence, much of daily existence is about showing off, subtly or starkly, in ways that attract members of the opposite sex and intimidate those of the same sex.>>

I suppose one could call it a minimalist approach to life, but more...

"If that's all there is to life....does it really matter 'how' we are in the end?"

Then, you can also extrapolate this to it's logical extreme... and one's whole life and behavior could be utterly self driven.. with a view to reproduction and intimidation... how would we end up if we applied all our brain and physical powers to those goals?

I don't exactly see Pericles "rich tapestry" of life there :) I see dog eat dog.. man beating up man.. man taking women as posessions...toys.. using their power for pure self indulgence.

In that absense of a Creator who says "love your neighbour as yourself" can anyone find any reason in the Darwinian approach to do that?

I can't. If we did, it would neccessarily become a deceptive act aimed at those primary objectives of survival/reproduction and intimidation... We would end up loving people only for how they can serve our own goals... *shudder*

"May the peace of God which passes understanding, guard your hearts in Christ Jesus"....... Phil 4:7

Poly, I don’t think that a ‘rich tapestry of life’ and a ‘dog-eat-dog world’ are mutually exclusive. They exist together in an enormously complex interwoven matrix !!

We can be fundamentally driven in the Darwinian way as expressed in this article AND have all sorts of other purposes in life as well. Most of us do, don’t we?

How would someone end up if they applied all their brain and physical powers to the goals of reproduction and intimidation?

I reckon they’d end up as a very shallow and disliked person, with a poor self-worth and ultimately a feeling that they have wasted their life. Yes?

from
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2305&page=0

from
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v9/i1/finch.asp

quote>>There is a very heavy burden of proof on those propounding the doctrine that bacteria have self-transformed into palm trees and fish,and the latter turned into tigers and nuclear scientists.

For one thing,it demands a natural process capable of generating vast amounts of new,bio-functionally significant,coded information.

To watch natural selection sifting and sorting through existing information,deleting chunks of it,begs the question of the origin of all that information.>>..<<What a pity that neither the researchers nor Weiner appear to understand the logical fact that,while natural selection may be an intrinsic part of a particular evolutionary model,

demonstrating it does not of itself demonstrate the‘fact’of evolution—if by that you mean a one-celled organism becoming today’s complex biosphere.>>..<<Weiner recounts how Darwin was able to apply selection to breed pigeons so different from each other that if found by biologists in the wild, they would not only have been categorized as separate species,but even separate genera.

This is of course a marvellous demonstration of the amount of variability built into each created kind,allowing it to respond to changing environmental pressures and thus conserve the kind.>>

<<After all the‘hype’about watching‘evolution’,one reads with amazement that the selection events observed actually turned out to have no net long-term effect.

For example,for a while selection drove the finch populations towards larger birds,then when the environment changed,it headed them in the opposite direction.>>

<<Evolutionists have long argued the opposite—that evolution is invisible in the short term, but would become visible if we had enough time. Yet according to Weiner, we can see evolution happening in the (very) short term, but any longer and it becomes ‘invisible’! The mind boggles at how evolutionists can be blind to this inconsistency.

Weiner quotes a researcher as saying that:

‘A species looks steady when you look at it over the years—but when you actually get out the magnifying glass you see that it’s wobbling constantly.’>>

YET ALL WITHIN THE SPECIES/genus MEAN

more at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2411

i should add a final note on the topic
EVOLUTION TAKES PLACE OVER MILLIONS OF YEARS[supposedly]

how does short term factors like 'wealth/poverty' even rate a mention?
[histry reveals the wealth generally lasts 3 generations [at best]but the evolutionists will continue to grasp at straws trying to create their evolving strawman[read god;less theory]

lets withhold belief till you mutate something into a new genus[as evolution must do to prove its THEORY[noting all the 'proofs' are in the same genus[wolves dogs=cannis]mutated bacteria are yet bacteria[virus yet virus[moth still moth[sea gulls yet sea gulls]

ring species are yet a [one ] species
why have you let science blind you to gods amasing creation?

we are prepared to trust these sharlitans, unconciously thinking if the get killed off they will just re evolve

[bull when a genus dies its gone]

no scientist has ever re produced [let alone 'evolved in nor out of their labs NOT A SINGLE EVOLUTION ,nor evolved non living matter into a simple cell skin[mem brain]

let alone evolved life into the cell membrane
nor evolved a single cell, into a multicell

but those too lazy to study the facts accept their lies

its another clear egsample of the delusion we swallow hiding great bias[against men poor,other races[in itself a bad fruity from the branch of darwinian [based racial purity pre-judice]read racism

anyhow the debait at link goes on
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2305&page=0

if evolution is a science reveal its proofs
i contend its a collection of facts we been conned
to be proving one thing when it dont

[is my collection of books a libary?that depends on how i describe it to you,or how many real liberies you got knowledge of to judge it by]

*In that absense of a Creator who says "love your neighbour as yourself" can anyone find any reason in the Darwinian approach to do that?*

Oh deary me, the godsquad have already moved in, before we have
even discussed the science.

Poly, please educate yourself a bit about basic evolutionary
psychology, it would help the discussion if you were just a little
bit better informed, rather then parrot on about religion yet once
again.

I remind you that empathy, altruism, reciprocal altruism, compassion
etc, are all evolved character traits. Dogs don't eat dogs, they
live in cooperative social groups, as do other social species.

I also remind you of the many Christian cults, where the cult
leaders apparently hear voices from up above, that they should
impregnate all the young female teenagers in the cult. In other
words, those with status in a group, spreading their genes around.

Now is it possible for once that we leave the religion out of this
discussion and stick to the science?

UOG, your posts are a heap of gobbldeygook, I don't bother to
read them.

Simple answer polycarp:

What benefits the species, benefits the individual. If it was 'dog-eat-dog' then it would be harder to survive as the species would have created more predators for itself.

Thus, this would be a negative evolutionary trait. Thus, our species has been selected as successful, because we don't usually eat each other, though the constant process of evolution, change and natural selection means that occasionally the individual motivators overpower the group ones.

This can potentially explain aspects of socialism as well, with the individual (as opposed to societal) motivating factors explaining why it tends to fail.

Pretty simple really. I'm hardly an evolutionary expert, but I can see a pretty clear logic there.

However, I can't see any logic in a story about a talking snake, a cursed apple and a deity which seems to get worked up over such petty things. Sorry.

Dear Yabby,

Thank You for a fascinating article.

It was interesting to note that "change"
doesn't necessarily mean "progress," or that
greater social complexity will inevitably
produce greater human happiness.

I suppose what matters is our abilitiy to
adapt to change.

As one poster remarked on the link you gave:

"So, who will survive...?
The strongest or the most intelligent?"

*I suppose what matters is our abilitiy to
adapt to change.*

Great point Foxy, but it does not just apply
to humans. Every creature needs to make
a living somehow. Some are specialists,
they need specific food, specific environments
where they live etc. Others are generalists,
they adapt constantly and the numbers show the
results.

Compare say the Panda, which is a specialist,
with the rat, which is a generalist. The numbers
say it all! Rats show that intelligence can
get you a long way as an evolved survival trait,
even if you don't have the muscles.

I was watching a documentary today, about the animals of the
Serengeti. It showed the competition that went on between
the various big cats, cheetahs, lions, leopards and their
cubs, then the various herbivores and their interaction.

You start to realise the tremendous evolutionary pressure
that is placed on all these creatures, for there it's really
about survival of the fittest. If you are a leopard or
a zebra with a crook back lack or bad eyesight, you just
don't make it.

Yabby,study the Chimps our closest rels.They are very territorial, omniverous and murderous.They will kill a rival tribe and eat them.They will kill just for power and territory.Does this remind you of another species?Chimps are also very loving,intelligent etc.

In the reality of survival of the fittest we have young males full of testosterone,very insecure who want to prove their aspiring alpha male status.Yes,they do on occasions murder when they feel excluded by the tribe.

In our global tribe there is even more insecurity.The greatest threat is to be excluded by the tribe,since this in the chimp world means certain death.

In our world we have have no rights of passage for young aspiring males and there is even more uncertainty as to the role in which they play in society.Increasingly their role models are confusing and conflict with the male genes which they have inherited.People need a purpose and role models,they also need to be rewarded for their efforts.Our modern society does not satisfy these basic tribal needs,hence we are beseiged by dysunctional people with mental disorders.
Our modern society has progessed too quickly and we basically do not have the time to adapt.Extinction by our own hand is looming.

Arjay, yup studying primatology is pretty interesting and certainly
tells us quite a bit about humanity!

Yup, tribes of chimps are quite similar in terms of aggression and
territorialism etc, as are human tribes that have been discovered
in South America, New Guinea etc. Chimps will patrol the boundaries
of their territory. I was aware that they killed those of other
tribes, but not that they ate them.

The other species which is as close to us as chimps (98.4% in dna
terms), but evolved seperately are a species called the bonobo,
or pygmy chimp. They only live in the Congo South of the Congo
River and there are sadly not many left.

Their's is actually a matriarchel society, where females dominate.
If they meet a neighbouring tribe, rather then kill them, they all
copulate. In fact copulation is used as a dispute resolution
system, so they are the originators of the "make love not war"
motto :)

I was curious as to why females dominate and I can only conclude
that because of all this easy sex, the males have nothing to
fight over, besides they would be too buggered and happy with life
to care :)

Why we are, is what we make it to be....
But here is some of the "why we are" (my thoughts?)

1. Main one is GREED.
2. Food, because we have to eat.
3. Sex, because most of us need to do it..
4. Drugs, Well,,,, It speaks for it self??

clearly one of you [yabby] wont get what im saying

but he dont even read my posts anyhow[funny how i read hers][but guess thats just the difference between her and me][she thus wont get what im saying here][so pretends to not read em

but here is the index of darwins origen of the species
[note its not darwins origin of genus]

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/origin_of_species/

and here is its glossery[so please reveal where 'evolution' is concieved [or even mentioned]

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/origin_of_species/Glossary.html

but what is words right[we use them so unthinkingly as revealed by yabby in her quote

>>''too buggered and happy with life
to care :)''

as he dont read my posts i wont explain to her the meaning of buggery[it would go over her head anyhow]would you marry you gabby?

how come you cant even stick with what you say
[you dont read my posts remember?]

mate you just cant re-butt what is being said in em
cheers for now

one under god, I don't read your posts either, because they're very difficult to follow. You usually don't stick to a single train of thought, instead you jump in many directions.
Plus, the lack of grammar makes them difficult to read.

You say people don't read your posts because of a particular motive, but I read posts by people I seriously disagree with all the time. Hell, take note of how many of boaz's posts I've read, despite them all stating the same theme.

'Buggered' is common Australian vernacular. We're all well aware of what the origin of the word means, but most are aware that it can also just be a harmless slang word for 'tired' or 'sick of' or even 'bugger off' can mean leave.

It's a pretty well known piece of Australian slang, and it's not some dig at Christianity or wowsers, for that matter, but if it makes wowsers get their knickers in a knot, then bugger them. I consider that a bonus.

Well here we go again with Darwin's theory - brilliant but as yet unproven - being pulled out and misused as an apologetic for the worst of human behaviours. I think whenever there seems a dilemma at the 'top', like the current fiscal crisis, that this theory gets aired again (tellingly, in this case by a site on economics) to justify the dominance of certain groups.

There is so much wrong with the way the theory is presented here that I don't think we have enough posting space to go over it all, however, here are just a few thoughts.

1. The words often quoted are, "survival of the fittest". Darwin meant by that - fitted to a given environment. He didn't mean 'fit' as in necessarily strong and aggressive; but fit as in 'suited'; 'adaptable'. It may well be that the meekest amongst us are the best adapted to a given environment. In any case, the environment to which the 'winners' have adapted is one that we have created. It's artifical. Should this artifical environment collapse then the aggressive business exec. who is dependent on air con; Armani; IT services; prozac and fine wine, might well find it very tough going to survive.

2. There are many things that the vast majority of people do not do in order to compete. They still survive and reproduce - and relatively few, at least in Western countries, resort to rape and pillage.

3. Rape has next to nothing to do with reproduction or even with sex per se. Many rapists can't get an erection and instead use objects. Many can't ejaculate. Many already have wives and girlfriends and children. Something like one in six rape victims (some studies have even estimated one in four) is male. Many rape victims are children and older women well past child bearing age. Many rape victims are bashed or killed; in any case they are rarely in a fit state to nurture a baby that results from such an event. Rape does not, therefore, contribute to perpetuation of the species.

cont'd

4. Aggression and violence is not a necessary given to masculinity. The vast majority of men are not unduly aggressive and of those who are, a much smaller number of women can match them. Studies have shown repeatedly that there is much more difference between individuals within each group than between the sexes, in areas such as aggression; intelligence and sexuality.

5. Aggression and sex in males has much less to do with testosterone than with other more complex factors. For example, studies have shown that aggression is more closely associated with obesity and cholesterol than with testosterone. In any case, as one researcher points out, the majority of men who are non-aggressive have as much testosterone as men who are aggressive.

http://www.med.mcgill.ca/mjm/v06n01/v06p032/v06p032.pdf

http://men.webmd.com/news/20031111/dont-blame-testosterone-for-aggression

6. Reading some of the comments included with the article, I see that some clod has suggested that people might stop being so discontented with their lot if they just accept that we are 'programmed' to achieve at different levels in the pecking order.
If it's the case that, for example, women are pre-programmed to subservience, then one wonders why laws been devised to prevent their participation in voting; education and in many fields of work and why many men work so hard to keep them in their lowly place.

7. As to reproduction and survival, it might be noted that fertility in men naturally declines from somewhere in the 20s onward. It is also a fact that fertility amongst Western white males has been declining for decades. While many explanations are worth considering, including stress, diet, repeated STDs and environmental conditions - one wonders why it doesn't apply to all men everywhere. It may well be that the aggressive, winner gets all sort of nonsense is detrimental to the species and those attributes are being selected OUT.

cont'd

cont'd

8. Using Darwin's theory in the sense that it's used in the article; it would actually make more sense for women, rather than men, to be promiscuous. As a receptecle for sperm from several contributors, the most vigorous and therefore healthy sperm would be that which would succeed in fertilization. I am not btw proposing promiscuity for either sex as desirable, I am just pointing out how the theory could be interpreted and how the conclusions that are regularly drawn from it are fundamentally contestable. If we're going to be likening humans to creatures, then we might as well go the whole hog. A writer/researcher by the name of Stephen Rose writes beautifully about the limitations and pitfalls of relying on this sort of reductionist science to explain (excuse) certain behaviours.

9. As Polycarp has pointed out so well, the theory does not explain the richness of humanity, nor does it explain how humans distinguish between evil and good. I think Eddie Izzard puts it well in his skit 'evil giraffe':

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=WYcnEonB04E

The thread is starting to show us some people are not what they should be.
An outcome not unexpected from the first post.
In fact the Christian defense is just another proof of why we are what we are.
Throwing doubt on Darwin's theory? no but highlighting the fact truth and common since are not going to shift some from following fairy tales.

Dear Yabby... leave religion out of it ? :)...aarggggh.. no way hosay...

NATURAL SELECTION/DARWINIANISM/EVOLUTION ANSWERS....

why we are 'natually' like we are....and all you say is pretty much true.. territoriality, aggression.. sex drives etc....

RELIGION (as in Christianity)

Answers how we can overcome our natural-ness and become new creatures on the inside.

PSYCHOLOGY/SCIENCE of behavior....

One problem with the natural human condition is 'motivation'.
Our motives will be controlled by those things we regard as most important in life no?

If we see life only as some kind of huge playing field and struggle to win.. why yes of course we will manifest all those traits like:
-Loving, supporting, encouraging 'our' side.
-Terrorising, fighting, competing with "the enemy"....

I see no benefit of 'mutual altruism' between one competing footy team and the opposing side. Mutuality of such things would be limited to your own side....just like chimps.

SOLVING THE MIDDLE EAST.... "huh" you say ? what the HECK has that got to do with this thread? aaaaah.. much more than you think....

If we are 'what' we are in a purely natural/evolutionary/chimp like way... then none of us who believe this should ever be offering solutions to the ME problems :) because.. they are just 'doing their natural thing'.....

That's were the inherrent contradictions arise... we admit we are driven by natural urges, yet we then try to solve problems for others which are based on those drives we say we all have.

I suppose it might be argued that trying to solve their problems could benefit us indirectly.. ok fine..but let's not try to solve their problem philosophically.. when the obvious 'natural' way is the missile and the tank :)

Evolution is more than a scant theory.How is it possible for Chimps and people to share 98% of their genes and not evolve from a common ancestor?Our religious folk are trying to deny reality.For two species to evolve separately and share most of their genes is way beyond the realm of chance and the laws of probability.To deny the highly probable theory of evolution is to lack understanding of science.Science unlike religion,does not tolerate reasoning based on faith.It is a strict discipline that does not accept margin for error when establishing laws,hence there are few in science.

Religion is just an expression of our aspirational self,while science deals with reality.In the realm of your personal survival which philosophy would you trust?

The new testament was written by man 300 yrs after the death of Christ.There were numerous apostles and it was King Constantine of Rome who really began the first Christian Church.He united all these variations of Christ followers.

We have to evolve better philosophies to cater for the realities we face,otherwise the religions will become even more irrelevant in our lives.Denying the existence of evolution is akin to denying the work of your perceived creator.Too much of religous logic is dangerous double think.

Good comments Pynchme. You’ve presented quite a lot of points that need careful consideration.

On testosterone and aggression: it has been shown that there is a strong link between these in various animals, as the first article that you referred us to points out.

The correlation is less clear in humans. But that is surely to be expected in an intelligent thinking being, where all sorts of other factors can come into it that simply can’t in non-thinking species that are driven to a much greater extent by their hormones, base impulses and genetics.

There is a correlation between aggression, and bad cholesterol and obesity. But while this might possibly have some biochemical aspect, it is more likely to be psychological, I would think.

Those males who let themselves go and become obese and unfit are very likely to feel great frustration at their state and inability to remain trim and attractive, very generally speaking of course. It is easy to see how this discontent can feed aggression compared to people who have high self-esteem.

I don’t think that the more cryptic relationship between testosterone and aggression, or the broader causal base of aggression in humans, diminishes Darwinian theory at all in this regard.

So Pynchme, what do you think is going on? Are you a creationist or do you think that Darwinian theory is on the right track to explaining the being that we are, but that it just needs a lot of refining?

dear arjay
READ THE LINK

rebut it if you can
http://www.biblelife.org/evolution.htm
Oops! Biology Scientists Just Changed the "Scientific Facts" Again.

Science books have been telling us for years that all human are 99.9 percent genetically identical,and it is commonly said that humans“share”98-99 percent of their DNA with chimpanzees.

Now we find the claims were all fabricated lies.Instead of having only 0.1 percent difference between human individuals,we now find that people can be genetically different by as much as 10 to 12 percent.This is a 100 to 120 times increase in the degree of difference.This announcement is a another crushing blow to the false theory of evolution, but your university professor will simply ignore it.

Humans can be 10%to 12 percent genetically different,not 99.9 percent identical
http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-11-22-voa80.cfm

Scientists Revise Map of Human Genome
By Jessica Berman, Washington

"Scientists have revised the map of the human genome,saying human beings are genetically more complex than previously thought.The discovery has surprised experts who say it is likely to transform medical research...VOA's Jessica Berman reports."

"In 2000, the Human Genome Project unveiled a road map of the six billion chemical bases,or alphabet molecules, that make up the body's genetic structure called DNA."

"The DNA encodes for 30,000 genes or proteins which are responsible for every physical characteristic in the body,including eye and hair color. At the time, scientists said all humans could be 99.9 percent genetically identical."

"But as they peered more deeply into the DNA of unrelated individuals, researchers made a startling discovery - large segments of their DNA, from thousands to millions of units,varied greatly,a phenomenon called copy number variations, or CNVs."

"The discovery means that the genes of any given individual are at least 10 to 12 percent different from those of another human."..

Don't believe your biology science text book.Modern biology is not a science.Modern biology as taught in high schools and universities is nothing more than made up conjecture and nonsense.Biology is not scientifically true.

Biologists keep revising"science"that was previously taught as being fact...because it is simply brainwashing.

Evolutionary Fraud from Piltdown,England
http://www.biblelife.org/ufo.htm

extracted from my previous mentioned link
in reponse to a question

..>>2)Failed models
http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j03_1/j03_1_152-153.pdf
-Homo Erectus
-Homo Neanderthal
Were they practise runs?...<<

[NO fraud]
check out question 15
http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:igMSW56WBdgJ:www.123facts.com/quiz_results.php%3Fquizid%3D2585+ww2+homoerectus+fossils+disapeared&hl=en&gl=au&strip=1

[such are the high stakes in this game]

http://www.weaverresearch.org/evol_table.htm

anyhow the debait at link goes on
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2305&page=0

if evolution is a science reveal its proofs

i contend its a collection of facts we been conned to be proving one thing when it dont

somewhere at that link i wrote there are 6/800 types of ape monkey etc, to claim we share 98 percent of their dna is to leave out a lot of primates[see ptrevious link that our vairiation alone is over 20% WITHIN THE HUMAN SPECIES[that looks way more the same than the 800 chimp/primate TYPES

look at the variation between the apes[yet you been told we and ALL OF THEM are 98 percent the same[not by a long shot]

to assimulate ape behaviour to human behaviour is equally absurd[please reveal one ape that has designed and built anything [non natural ,like a metal bridhge to no where] like man kind regularilly does [showing 'tool-use 'snt revealing as much as science has infured [except to convince the gullible]

what ape developed writing [wrote a song, which of these trillion primates wrote a shakespearian play[which built the typewriter[can you see there making it up as they go

[but via these popular magazine throw-aways the lies just go on, the absurdities move ever further from science into the complete realms of delusion

yet evolutionists keep believoing the theory RELIGIOUSLY
their faith in science
is the same as a believers faith religion[based on the messenger who presumed to call people to god

see god alone deserves our belief[know his amasing creation has not been created by either that hand of ape nor scientist]

evolution even has its own holy[yet unavailable]unholy-texts, and high priests, their saints and their dead jesus godhead replacements[dar-win] dorkkkins et al

Deary me, the nutcase fundies are at it again, they can't help
themselves.

Fact is that evolution theory is taught at every major university
on the planet as part of biology. All knowledge in science
is tentative, we update it as we learn more, to add to the
mountain of evidence.

All this stuff was thrashed out in the US courts yet once again
recently, when the fundies tried to stop evolution theory being
taught at some schools in Kansas. When the crunch came and they
called every witness that they could think of, they lost!
SBS did a documentary on the case.

But the Christian Taliban is a bit like the Muslim Taliban.
As soon as some are shot down in flames, another bunch
of potential heroes think that they are God's gift to the fundy
movement.

Sorry folks, nobody is listening and people don't want to go
over the same old stuff, over and over again. Its been done
to death on OLO.

dea oh dear gabby

research your facts girl

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District_trial_documents
from
http://www.aclu.org/evolution/legal/complaint.pdf

QUOTE>>the defendant..The[EVOLUTION]Theory is not a fact.Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence...>>

[there are many GAPS ,SEE NEXT POST]
as honest appraisal would confirm

The complaint was[quote>>.'(defendants’“intelligent design policy”)will compel public school science teachers to present to their students in biology class information that is inherently religious,not scientific,in nature.

The resolution thus is in clear and direct violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause,which prohibits the teaching or presentation of religious ideas in public school science classes>>>

so[DUH][lol]it wasnt ABOUT evolution]
but about''teaching or presentation of religious ideas'!

it wasnt about PROVING nor DIS-proving'CREATION'

[it was ONLY about allowing the full facts to be questioned ON THE GROUNDS of 'teaching religious ideas in public schools'']

why cant you retarded athiests cant even read the trial transcripts[LOL]#

its so typical to spout off your clap trap unquestioned
upon gulible children[try reading the info not watching the fiction in a movie]

grow up girl

Under One God is suffering from illogical perturbation.Stop it,or you will go blind!

Thanks Ludwig. Most of my comments refer to interpretation of what the theory might mean rather than the theory itself.

A lot is said about how closely related we are to chimpanzees but bear in mind that we are also said to be 60% similar to rodents and to share genetic likeness to lots of other living things including sea urchins, dolphins, yeast and some plants I think. All that means is that talk about genetic code and similarity between species is like saying, "Buildings in that town include red brick in their structure." It doesn't tell us much about foundation and structure, much less how each is destined to function.

It's a shame that people tend to polarize instead of synthesize. It is possible to value scientific enquiry and be Christian at the same time. Here are some examples of scientists who are also Christian:

http://www.tektonics.org/scim/sciencemony.htm

Scientists have reported putting forth some revolutionary theory or other and being castigated and treated as 'heretics' by their colleagues, just as people with new ideas were treated in medieval Christian times. It seems that human will be humans, foibles and all, no matter what belief system prevails.

Science is supposed to be a means of measured enquiry where findngs are provisional and subject to revision. That is, to accept much of what science provides, we need to employ a certain degree of 'faith' until the next best explanation comes along. Adherents are supposed to be open to ideas and ways of explaining the world, not closed minded.

I understand that Darwin died as an agnostic not an atheist. His great dilemma was trying to reconcile a literal interpretation of the Old Testament with his theory. I would have suggested many reasons why a literal interpretation of the OT is inadvisable but that doesn't mean we need to lose or misinterpret the spirit of the teachings. Also, his wife was very devout wasn't she ? Darwin himself recommended that we love science but not worship it; he said that it should be put in place alongside many pursuits including religion.

human evolution
where to next?

evolution postulates mutations are evolutions
Literally thousands of human diseases associated with genetic mutations have been catalogued in recent years, with more being described continually. A recent reference book of medical genetics listed some 4,500 different genetic diseases. Some of the inherited syndromes characterized clinically in the days before molecular genetic analysis (such as Marfan's syndrome) are now being shown to be heterogeneous; that is, associated with many different mutations. This review will only scratch the surface of the many recent discoveries. Still, the examples cited will illustrate a compelling general principle which extends throughout this expanding field.

The purpose of this article is to demonstrate the poverty of evolutionary theory to explain the facts in one well-researched area of biology--that is, the area of human genetics. It will show how the facts unearthed by this research show mutations to be, not a "blind watchmaker," but more truthfully analogous to a "blind gunman."

The human mutation problem is bad and getting worse

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/genetic-mutations.html

here to give an indication of where humans are 'evolving to
http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-10-Most-Common-Human-Mutations-57223.shtml
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abcsZZ9Duxw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAOhSUQomVg

Men are responsible for the majority of human genetic mutations, according to a landmark publication in the scientific journal Nature.
Researchers of the Human Genome Project discovered that the Y chromosome, found only in men, passes on genetic mutations twice as often as the X chromosome. (Women have two X chromosomes, while men have one X and one Y.)

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2001/02/41763

it even has its own publications

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/38515/home?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

so where is this all going

http://www.perceptions.couk.com/authority.html

*Darwin himself recommended that we love science but not worship it; he said that it should be put in place alongside many pursuits including religion.*

Fair enough! Religion should be a lifestyle choice, like golf or
anything else. Those who want freedom of religion should have it,
those of us who prefer freedom from religion, should have that
right too.

But as we have seen on this thread, its virtually impossible to
have a discussion about science, without a bunch of proselytising
religious freaks, some who seemingly have just learned to read
and write, invading the disussion.

They don't even understand the fundamentals of science, such
as the difference between a hypothesis, a theory and a law.

That just makes the whole discusssion a bit tedious.

if you could rebut you would
as you dont it speaks for itself

you speak>>of proselytising
religious freaks,
some who seemingly have just learned to read
and write, invading the disussion.>>

interesting i would have thought the things we believe or trust or have faith in are WHY we are as we are

[your response indicates too much that well read you are not]perhaps you then might have been able to make a response [not critisism of those who are]

but your posts do reveal why you is as you is
[and then a lot more, lol

>>They don't even understand the fundamentals of science,such
as the difference between a hypothesis,a theory and a law.>>

ok lets hear you verbalise'the fundementals[of why we are as we are]

and then explain your hypothesis,your theory[and your law? [for why we are as we are]..or if thats too complicated [why you are being as you are]

talking the talk
[but no idea what direction to walk your talk]

just so the post isnt totally wasted
here is some reading [possably over your head as well]

im going to post here, soon[half an hour]
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2405&page=0

i will agree of your non response
[and incomprehention of the topic] ..

>>just makes the whole discusssion a bit tedious.<<

but hey you be as your meant to be
go girl

'It is also a fact that fertility amongst Western white males has been declining for decades. While many explanations are worth considering, including stress, diet, repeated STDs and environmental conditions - one wonders why it doesn't apply to all men everywhere.'

I've got a theory on that, and it's nothing to do with any of those factors...

Fascinating article Yabby.

Human behaviour can be made to seem complex but in many it can be broken down and understood in terms of basic needs. We are all but one part of a wider and more complex natural system (regardless of who we think created it!).

Greed may certainly be inherent in that it originated from a survival instinct that bred out all but the weakest. With civilisation I would think that physical strength competes less and less with intelligence and ingenuity which in a more modern world has greater emphasis. Greater physical health is no longer as relevant with medical advancements and greater knowledge of nutrition.

On an intellectual level, I have always thought that capitalism is the only system that will work because of the inherent nature of humans but in the same breath the natural altruism of humans (evolved over centuries as equally necessary for survival) requires and sometimes demands that greed and unrestrained growth at the expense of the wellbeing of others is kept in check.

On an ideological or 'spiritual' level socialism has appeal in the idea of all humans working together for a common cause - the overall wellbeing of a community including its weakest and most vulnerable members. True socialism can work, I think, in small groups where all members all believe strongly in the one purpose - such as in self-sufficient established communes. But I have doubts over a wider population in which there are many more complex factors, ideas, beliefs and where the administration would be unwieldy and more likely to create inequality.

Even from a Darwinian point of view the two (socialist ideals and capitalism) are not mutually exclusive and humans, with both ingeunity and compassion, are capable of working towards better systems which ensure the wellbeing of its citizens.

In more modern times Greed would appear to have won out over commonsense and restraint but throughout history the pendulum tends to swing away from excesses from either the left or right of the political spectrum.

*We are all but one part of a wider and more complex natural system (regardless of who we think created it!). *

Pelican, absolutaly! Some years ago I was on a forum with a US
based scientist who cut open various primate brains to compare them
to human brains. They mainly relied on zoos etc for donations,when
animals died. In the case of bonobos, they are pretty rare.

His comment was that there is not a single part of a human brain,
that cannot be found in a chimp's or bonobo's brain.
Food for thought indeed!

What people tend to do is compare the achievements of 6 billion
people cooperating together, with the achievements of a single
chimp.

If we compare one for one, the results are quite different and far
less spectacular. A larger brain is simply one evolutionary
niche that we have exploited.

The result of all this cooperation means that humans push things
to the extremes and we have yet to show that it is sustainable.

Most creatures are content to just make a living.

The danger of course is that we have evolved to have a bit larger
brains, so are intelligent enough to cooperate and invent new
things, but not smart enough to avoid destroying ourselves
in the process, as the whole thing is unsustainable.

Nature's laws will dominate in the end, but we'll seemingly learn
the hard way.

perhaps your scientist wasnt looking close enough

even human brains are 'different'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4293520.stm

Liars' brains 'are not the same'

A deceitful person's brain is different,the study suggests
Habitual liars' brains differ from those of honest people,a study says.
A University of Southern California team studied 49 people and found those known to be pathological liars had up to 26% more white matter than others.

White matter transmits information and grey matter processes it. Having more white matter in the prefrontal cortex may aid lying,the researchers said,

But the British Journal of Psychiatry said there were likely to be more differences in the brains of liars.

http://www.bio-medicine.org/biology-news/Sharp-older-brains-are-not-the-same-as-younger-brains-1988-1/

but maybe you can find some PROOF here
http://www.brainmuseum.org/

yeah looks can be decieving[supose its like racism[they all 'look' the same] but somehow apes never wrote this

you should read it [it supports some of your theory]

http://www.iep.utm.edu/b/brainvat.htm

my point in posting it
is to reveal no monkey'brain'could come up with it

looks like isnt proof, take your body [you claim 'evolved'living in it and on it are trillions of other life forms[they are what is keeping your evolved body alive[if we could kill them all we would die]

my point being is your science didnt see em,cause he wernt looking for em[did you ask how many brains he decided the resembalence on[looks like dont mean nothing [see darwins finches]

but thanks for the brain exersize in searching out your 'fact'
only to be opinion[lol

Deary me, this is what we land up with, when we have a poorly
educated religious nut, learning how to cut loose with her
google bar!

UOG, I don't want to convince you of anything. If you are
happy to go through life with Jesus on your shoulder giving
you comfort, so go right ahead, why should I object ?

I have always maintained that some people need religion
to cope with life, it helps them deal with anxiety. You
appear to be one of them.

Mind you, all your googling proved absolutaly nothing,
for you don't seem to understand much about the brain.
So I will explain it to you in terms that you might
understand.

Your car, like your brain, is made up of different
"parts", each with a function. You sit on the seats,
the wheels turn, etc. If those wheels are larger or
smaller, might affect performance, but they are still
wheels that turn.

So name me a part of the brain that you have, which
a chimp does not have?

Fact is, we humans are related to all other organisms,
down the tree of life, with common ancestors, as the
dna shows.

So you can type? Big deal lol. Fact is that if we threw
you and a chimp into their environment, such as a forest
in the jungle, the chimp would most likely thrive and
you would most likely starve.

Yup, your brain is slightly larger then that of a chimp.
So what? They are far stronger then you, they can do
things that you cannot, to earn a living, in their
environment, where they evolved.

That is exactly what natural selection and evolution theory
are all about.

But you are not interested in understanding what we know,
more concerned with showing that Jesus on your shoulder is
in fact real.

Hey, if that gets your through the night, why should I
or anybody else care?

I doubt if too many posters who do understand evolution
theory, are going to bother to educate you. It is
your job, to educate yourelf

You go girl!

'It is also a fact that fertility amongst Western white males has been declining for decades. While many explanations are worth considering, including stress, diet, repeated STDs and environmental conditions - one wonders why it doesn't apply to all men everywhere.'

I've got a theory on that, and it's nothing to do with any of those factors...
Posted by Usual Suspect, Wednesday, 31 December 2008 8:09:59 AM

Me too and the solution, in Darwinian terms, would be ADAPT.

*Me too and the solution, in Darwinian terms, would be ADAPT.*

Nature has already adapted. As the abortion statistics show,
the problem is not creating new offspring, but feeding them.

Darwin was correct. Far more of any species will be created, then
can ever survive.

If a male is a dud, a female will have no problem in finding
another fertile male, for males seem to have evolved with the
urge to impregnate willing females.

oh gabby your so funny[you'think'the brain dont change?]
there are big differences
just between a'young brain/'old'brain

[but you dont provide links[havnt you mastered'google-search'yet eh'you poor old girl]

dont worry you will grow up
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~news/releases/2006/02/06.html

or maybe its early altzheimers on-set setting in
http://www.alzheimer.ca/english/disease/whatisit-brainchanges.htm

you know just using ya brain can make changes in it right?
http://www.dalailama.com/news.112.htm

There is a great gulf that separates the lowest man from the highest beast.Deep down in their hearts,even the evolutionists know that there is a"great gulf fixed"between the world of monkeys and apes and the world of men.

Have you ever heard of a young evolutionist proposing to a female gorilla?He knows there is a difference!

The differences between men and apes are so great that evolutionists are forced to say that man did not evolve from any monkey or ape that is living in the world today.What evolutionists now teach is that men and apes have both evolved from a'common'ancestor.

Unfortunately this"common ancestor"is no longer in the world today!

He is called"the missing link"and he is still missing!
http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/sciences/scienc8.htm

The brain of a human is normally two or three times larger than the brain of the largest ape,which is the gorilla

Man’s head is balanced on top of his spinal column The head of the ape is hinged at the front instead of on top

study 10 Physical Differences and 20 Mental,Moral and Spiritual Differences between men and animals.but you cant change[eh old girl]

Man is unique in the sophisticated way he communicates with language (using verbal language and written symbols that communicate meaning).

Animals can make different noises and sounds,but they do not use language in the way humans do!

Men have an appreciation for music and art and beauty.An animal could never paint a picture or write a song,and the animal would never be able to appreciate such things

why dont you post links?
[your posting opinion[thats why]
even human brains are divergent

http://www.sfu.ca/~dkimura/articles/britan.htm
>>until recently people thought that they looked the same.Now we know that there are also small differences in the appearance,

but back to man/monkey
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/09/010905071926.htm
http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?tid=10530&ttype=2

Interesting stuff about the brain Yabby.

There are many similarities between brains in the mammal and animal kingdom as well as many differences but primarily all brains function to control behaviour. What we do and think from breathing, eating to decision making and higher functions.

I would think arguing about the differences in liars' brains or any other is irrelevant. For example, some people are more left brain thinking and some more right. Some people are better at maths and some are better at writing poetry or painting.

OUG's example about liars' brains does not validate his/her overall argument.

Even within species there will be some biological variation otherwise natural selection would not occur. Natural selection and evolution depends upon genetic variation to ensure the survival of a species in adapting to a changing world.

DO THE NUMBERS.>>the use of percentages obscures the magnitude of the differences.For example,1.23% of the differences are single base pair substitutions.

This doesn’t sound like much until you realize that it represents ~35 million mutations!..But that is only the beginning,because there are ~40–45 million bases present in humans and missing from chimps,as well as about the same number present in chimps that is absent from man.

This puts the total number of DNA differences at about 125 million. However,since the insertions can be more than one nucleotide long,

there are about 40 million separate mutation events that would separate the two species.

It is often too difficult to determine whether the difference is a result of an insertion or a deletion and thus it is called an“indel.”Indels can be of virtually any length.

To put this number into perspective,a typical page of text might have 4,000 letters and spaces.It would take 10,000 such full-pages of'text'to equal 40 million letters!

So the differences between humans and chimpanzees include~35 million DNA bases that are different,~45 million in the human that are absent from the chimp and~45 million in the chimp that are absent from the human...LOL

man and the apes have never had an ancestor in common.However, assuming they did for the sake of analyzing the argument,..then 40 million separate mutation events would have had to take place[and become fixed in the population in only~300,000 generations]—a problem referred to as“Haldane’s dilemma.”

This problem is exacerbated because the authors acknowledge that most evolutionary'change'is due to neutral or random genetic drift.That refers to change in which'natural-selection'is not operating.

Without a selective advantage,it is difficult to explain how this huge number of mutations could become fixed in the population.Instead,many of these may actually be intrinsic sequence differences from the beginning of creation.

Some scientists are surprised at the anatomical,physical and behavioral differences between man and chimpanzee when they see so much'apparent'genetic similarity.

With a'philosophy'that excludes a Creator God,they are forced to accept similarity as evidence of common ancestry.However,similarity can also be the result of a common Designer.

It is the differences that make the difference

Deary me, so now our google girl is trying to count nucleotides
to prove that Jesus loves her!

Here you go, get mommy to order you a copy of a book like this,
to explain the basics to you.

http://waylifeworks.jbpub.com/

Or perhaps God just used much the same parts to make you and
other primates :)

All life is related, its just a question of degree. Sad its
your bad luck that chimps and bonobos are indeed close relatives,
closer then chimps are to gorillas.

Forget the junk dna, humans have around 30'000 genes that
matter. A roughly 1% difference is nothing.

*Deep down in their hearts,even the evolutionists know that*

I have news for you, sunshine. Most people who have some
understanding of evolution theory, also know that hearts
do little but pump blood.

Sure human heads are balanced differently. Unlike chimps
and bonobos, their ancestors were affected by changing
climate, they had to make a living outside of forests. So
they became bipedal. A practical mutation, it makes it
easier to walk and run. It also meant changes to the vocal
system, the tongue sits further back, so they can vocalise
consonants, which limits other primates, as they are stuck
with vowel sounds.

That does not mean that other species do not communicate.
You just don't have the foggiest as to what those sounds
mean :)

Kanzi the bonobo is in fact smarter then some humans,
but I know, you don't care and main thing is that
Jesus loves you.

Run along now, he's right there on your shoulder,
making you feel better and less anxious. Fair enough,
if that is what you need to cope with life, go for it.

Coping with anxiety would be a good reason to explain
the evolution of religions in the first place

revealing much of'what'are gabby,your great mind was created by your environment[not your genes alone[i would google for_you,but heart-transplants are revealing more than a mere-pump is being'transplanted'

amasing things happening to]'pump'-recipiants[and dont feel i need to reveal their validity to you,why should i explain it for you?

list of the differences between an anthropoid and a human?Show how they could possibly evolve from a'common ancestor';Man is the only creature with the ability to count extensively,to have a religion;a moral sense;appreciate beauty;TO have a complex language;to bury its dead,reason abstractly,manufacture machines/tools and weapons,to make articles of dress and adornment;the ability to make fire;the ability to sow and reap;to improve its appearance

Man is the only creature with the delicacy and precision of touch;that enables eye-surgery[as an example]

2 A quadrupedal animal cannot be converted into a bipedal one for the following excellent reasons:The shape of the pelvis is entirely different.In man it is broad, low,and basin-shaped.In the apes,its broad axis is from back to front

In man,its width from one iliac crest to the other is greater than its height.In apes,it is the other way round.

The pubic symphysis is short in man,long in apes..In man the lower part of the pelvis is almost equally distributed in front of and behind the socket bone.In apes it is inserted much further back,to permit the forward bending posture.

The special features of the human pelvis appear early in embryonic development,and are not preceded by conditions even resembling those that prevail in apes..The large ilia,broad pelvis and well-developed spines all serve to give us our erect posture.

3 The coccyx is longer in human beings than in anthropoid apes (4 fused in humans,3 fused in apes)..The human coccyx is placed lower than in the ape.It reaches almost to the end of the pubic symphysis, involving the production of a transverse perineum,as opposed to the oblique one of the ape.The absence of a tail in man is due to the impedance it would offer to movement in an upright posture.

The straight legs of man are unique to man.Those of the anthropoids cannot be straightened....

..Man'is the'only'fully-plantigrade-primate...The'foot'presses on the ground at_three-points which form'the pillars'of a double-arch...In the anthropoids,only the outer-edge of the'foot'presses on the ground when the animal is'standing'.

In the apes,the relative-lengths of the fingers are'similar'to those of the toes...The first-toe of the ape is opposable to the others...Those'four'are bound together by a broad-band of'fibre'known as the'transverse-metatarsal/ligament...In man,this'ligament'includes the big toe,and so binds..all 5 toes together.

The axis-vertebra is absolutely-vertical in man...In the apes it is oblique...In order that that the head may'rest'on the spine in the vertical axis,the spinal-column is curved to the front in the neck region,..then it curves backwards and then forward in the lumbar region.This last curve is exhibited by no-other animal.

The arm is relatively much'shorter'than that of any_anthropoid,and the'ratio'of the length of the upper to the forearm is lower.

The human arm hangs'differently'from that of any anthropoid:the thumb points forward....In the apes,it points inward.

Man’s'thumb'is much bigger than that of the apes.The transverse-lines on the palms run obliquely,rather than transversely as in the apes.

The'scapula'is applied to the back of the thorax in man.In other animals it is applied to the side of the thorax..The socket for the insertion of the humerus faces outwards in man.In the apes,it faces downwards.

Man is unique;among land animals in not possessing a covering of hair or fur...unlike other animal,..has to adopt clothing to retain heat and ward off cold.

The absence of hair ..the young anthropoid clings to the hair of its mother..the bed of fat beneath the skin,the legs being longer than the arms,the large size and permanent separation of the nasal bones in man,..the shortness of the external ear,the human brachial artery lying below the median nerve,......the lack of sexual-differentiation in the teeth,the premolar-teeth of man having fewer roots than the anthropoids....The premolar/teeth of man have usually only one root,In the anthropoids/monkeys each upper/premolar has 3 roots and each lower two roots.
Sexual/female;anatomy is also different.In other animals,the vagina is parallel to the abdomen.In the human-female it is tilted backwards because of the upright posture.

there is nothing to indicate human'common-descent'from a common_ancestor of'any'description.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/207

.

Oops UOG, all those parts, just a little different shape.

Remember how the beaks of Darwin's finches changed to
suit the environment?

So you can't name me a part of the brain that humans
have, which our primate cousins don't have.

Can you name me any other body parts which humans have,
which our primate cousins don't have?

You sound as ignorant as some of those bantu in Africa,
who were eating pygmies "as they can't possibley be human".

If you were interested, you'd not only learn about biology,
but also about primatology. You'd be amazed at how similar
in behaviour that your long lost cousins really are.

But ignorance is of course bliss! Jesus loves you, so you
can't possibly be related to those species with whom you
share so many body and brain parts.

That is why few who understand evolution theory take the
time to explain it to you. You don't want to learn, your
mind is already made up. Fair enough, run along with
Jesus on your shoulder to quell your anxieties.

"From why women are paid less, to why mainly young single men in their late teens, early twenties commit most murders, it is all discussed and I found it all very interesting.

Any comments from those who are interested in understanding us humans and our evolution to what we are today?"

I also thought the article was interesting. It takes the correct approach when explaining human existence which is struggling upwards from the dark to achieve a better life from its point in the food chain – in other words, a trial-and-error evolutionary process.

And from the article itself:

"No one is suggesting Darwinism has all the answers to social questions. Indeed, with some, such as the role of hierarchies, it suggests there is no definitive answer at all — itself an important conclusion. What is extraordinary, though, is how rarely an evolutionary analysis is part of the process of policymaking."

This is telling me that hierarchies do not fall into the evolutionary scheme of things because they come from a higher, ordered and more enlightened consciousness. Probably unsurprisingly, it's people with this talent who have dominated policy making over the centuries by way of their superior talents and understanding ... which, in itself, is not incongruous with the Darwinist philosophy. That is, it's best for society in an upward-striving sense that the strongest should dominate their fields of endeavour.

Yabby,it was a really interesting topic and you have illicited some original insights.

I find the concept of god just another expression of human arrogrance and insecurity.You don't need religion to find spirituality.It pervades our lives daily with the people whom we interact.Life can be self fulfilling in itself,especially if we understand human motivation and the origin of our genetics.

As I've said before,space,time energy and matter are interwoven,and thus eternity is a very relative concept.We are the some total of our experiences and genetics.It is the nature of our evolving past that hardship has been the blast furance to mould our values.Civilisation and affluence has removed much of the hardship and we decay because of the loss of this tribal bonding deep in our genetic structure,that is not satisfied.So man now contrives his own conflicts to satisfy the need of tribal bonding and thus achieve security.

It seems that without some sort of hardship,we humans lose the plot and thus we continually contrive our own dilemmas,to relace those of the environment which we have overcome.

gabby revealing yet more of what he thinks he/she is quote>>Oops UOG, all those parts,just a little different shape.>>

yeah you noticed
so what happend first?
in what order do you say they evolved?
or do you say they happened at the same time?

your so clever at avoiding the fact explain how it happend
your the evolutionist

im just listing the difference but you say that we got them from apes
proove it

>>Remember how the beaks of Darwin's finches changed to
suit the environment?>>

finches into finches[no change of genus]genious[lol]

>>So you can't name me a part of the brain that humans
have,which our primate cousins don't have.>>

couldnt care less

[you claim we got the same brain[monkey brain;lol]
you explain how we evolved from the ape
[then i rebut[get it]
you made the claim[proove it]

>>Can you name me any other body parts which humans have,
which our primate cousins don't have?>>

this will prove what?
we didnt come from apes[my stance]
your stance is we did[thus you need prove it;get it?]

>>You'd be amazed at how similar
in behaviour that your long lost cousins really are.>>

yes oh chief monkey
please explain how[i allready listed the differences
[you didnt dispute them[and havnt offered a better validation of your evolution theory]

>>so you can't possibly be related to those species with whom you
share so many body and brain parts.<<

you may ape brain
you havnt proved i do

you do understand the science method right?lol

IS That is why few who understand evolution theory take the
time to explain it?.

You can't explain,your mind is already a made up monkey muddle...Fair enough,..run along with your monkey knuckles dragging in the dirt carrying your coccyx on your shoulder to quell your anxieties.

dont say you dont love this
your unable to prove a thing yet keep muddeling along like you do

UOG, your posts are a heap of gobbldeygook, I don't bother to
read them.

Great point Foxy, but it does not just apply
to humans.>> so what did foxy ask?<<It was interesting to note that "change"
doesn't necessarily mean "progress," or that greater social complexity will inevitably
produce greater human happiness.

I suppose what matters is our abilitiy to
adapt to change.>> yet gabby only responded to the final line

but its interesting his assertion[without proof]<<but it does not just apply
to humans.>> when i thought evolution was about just that change[evolution] but he/she blatently contradicts his/her own statements,[LOL]

the next gabby proof>>You start to realise the tremendous evolutionary pressure
that is placed on all these creatures, for there it's really
about survival of the fittest. If you are a leopard or
a zebra with a crook back lack or bad eyesight, you just
don't make it.<< comments on the difficulty of surviving with his monkey brain surfaced but i suppressed the easy dig

but he was back>>Sorry folks, nobody is listening and people don't want to go
over the same old stuff, over and over again. Its been done
to death on OLO.>> such a fullksome response
its easy i guess he dont read posts[see first quote]

bvut the old monkey brain came back again with his monkey idea of proof<<But as we have seen on this thread, its virtually impossible to
have a discussion about science, without a bunch of proselytising
religious freaks, some who seemingly have just learned to read
and write, invading the disussion>>

here his/her whole'evidence'is in a one post summery
so i will again finish with his own opinion
in place of they insert he/she>>They don't even understand the fundamentals of science, such
as the difference between a hypothesis, a theory and a law....That just makes the whole discusssion a bit tedious>>

not as tedious as putting up posts you claim to not even read [retro-grade monk-ey brain]
if you posted any valid proof please reveal where?

*That is, it's best for society in an upward-striving sense that the strongest should dominate their fields of endeavour.*

Rob, I don't know if its always best for society, but it certainly
seems to be the case.

*I find the concept of god just another expression of human arrogrance and insecurity*

Interesting post Arjay. The way I see the god story is this:
As human intelligence evolved, so did human anxiety. People
fear the unknown. So if lightning had struck 6 ft ahead of
somebody, they would have been terrified and tried to understand
it. Any explanation, as long as they believe it as true, will
make them feel better. It could be the rain god, sun god,
cloud god. Sacrifice one lamb or whatever and he won't strike
you. So people believe, anxiety is quelled, no more perceived
unknown, they have what makes them feel better, ie perceived
certainty.

UOG, the evidence for evolution theory is more then three words
like "god did it", it is a mountain high. If you want the proof,
go and learn about that information, that is available to all.
I gave you a link to a basic biology book, taught to students.
Have you read it?

Every credible university on the planet accepts that proof,
hundreds of thousands of academics, who understand that evidence,
accept that proof. If you can show its all nonsense then go
ahead and win a nobel prize. I remind you that when a couple
of scientists in WA showed that science was wrong about peptic
ulcers, they won a nobel prize. All knowledge in science is
tentative and can be freely challenged by anyone, including you.

But before you even try to challenge it, educate yourself as to
what is claimed in the first place. Nope, its not 350 words,
its volumes upon volumes of data and information, freely available
to those who care to learn.

Right now, all you are doing is wasting alot of peoples time.

Yabby,have a look at the movie "Zeitgeist" You can download the latest version off youtube.The long version goes for 122 minutes.Don't be put off by conspiracy theories about 911.It is well worth viewing.

>>*That is, it's best for society in an upward-striving sense that the strongest should dominate their fields of endeavour.*

Rob, I don't know if its always best for society, but it certainly
seems to be the case.<<

Yabby,

I should have qualified my comment by saying that there is a threshold to which the elites can go, beyond which ordinary people either feel stretched or abandoned. But there's no doubt in my mind that without the elites pushing upwards, society overall would just fall into the morass.

The elites are of the most use to society when they are putting forth ideas which are just ahead of where the ordinary citizenry currently are - a bit like a trellis just above a grape vine.

*The elites are of the most use to society when they are putting forth ideas which are just ahead of where the ordinary citizenry currently are - a bit like a trellis just above a grape vine.*

Rob, yup I agree, but then the question remains as to where
we as a society should be heading.

What interested me about the Economist article, was their reasoning
as to why some people always want more, no matter what or how much
they have. It gave me a different perspective.

IMHO, at some point humanity has to address the sustainability issue.
Otherwise, the species with the larger brain was smart enough to
invent new things, but not smart enough to use them wisely.
We'll wipe ourselves out in the process.

Arjay, I tend to avoid U-tube as where I live there is only
really a mobile broadband connection, which gives me 1 gig a
month. Anything to do with videos etc, chews it up in no time.

OUG, here is a link for you, so that you can understand where
your thinking is flawed, right from the beginning, in terms
of language used in science.

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

.

from your link quote>>Development of a Simple Theory by the Scientific Method:

Observation: Every swan I've ever seen is white.
Hypothesis:All swans must be white.
Test:A random sampling of swans from each continent where swans are indigenous produces only white swans.

Publication:"My global research has indicated that swans are always white,wherever they are observed."
Verification:Every swan any other scientist has ever observed in any country has always been white.

Theory:All swans are white.

Prediction:The next swan I see will be white.[lol]

Note,however,that although the prediction is useful,the theory does not absolutely prove that the next swan I see will be white.[LOL}

Thus it is said to be falsifiable.If anyone ever saw a black swan,the theory would have to be tweaked or thrown out.LOL

(And yes,there are really black swans.This example was just to illustrate the point.)LOL

Real scientific theories must be falsifiable.>>EGSACTLY

faulsifiable isnt defined in evolution,!

if it is name them!

>>So-called "theories" based on religion,such as creationism or intelligent design are,therefore,not scientific theories.

They are not falsifiable and they do not follow the scientific method.>>

you aRE UNABLE TO NAME THE science FAULSIFYABLES [thus same for evoplution[lol]
where is the faulsifiable science?

EVOLUTION HAS NO FAULSIFYABLES [get it]
experience reveals BLACK SWANS breed black swans
white breed white
swans breed swans
apples make apples

genus breeds only with in its OWN genus

if you have proof swans breed ducks please present it!
if you have recorded A SINGLE GENUS CHANGE record it here [now]

you cant because science has NEVER recorded a single genus change
EVER [get it?]
the gaps in evolution are all at the genus level

the evidence is for for INtra_genous change[micro evolution]
[within] the genus
[ie within bacteria mutating into bacteria[seagulls into seagulls;moth into moth[lol]

but not macro INTO A NEW GENUS
[like not a cat into a dog[not a swan into a cow[get it?]

present your faulsifiables for change of genus, we are as we are because of what we believe[evolution is a religion held by those decieved by science]but its followers follow blindly having blind faith in the science LO

from your link quote>>Development of a Simple Theory by the Scientific Method:

Observation: Every swan I've ever seen is white.
here is my new theory

Hypothesis:All swans breed swans.[all cats breed cats] all salamanders breed salamanders , all dogs breed dogs , allbacteria breed bacteria[tress breed trees , grass breeds grass


Test:A random sampling of life from each continent where life is indigenous produces only life [like its parents].

Publication:"My global research has indicated that 'breeds are always bred from a breed like it ,wherever they are observed."

Verification:Every life form any other scientist has ever observed in any country has always been of the same life form as its parents.

my Theory:All any life form will breed ONLY that life form like its parental genus.

Prediction:The next swan will have swans as their parents
the next duck will have ducks for its parents

Ok UOG, your first lesson should have taught you why your confusion
was about the word "theory", which in this case, science considers
as a fact, based on the mountains of evidence regularly published
in thousands of scientific journals, which you can access through
your library.

There are thousands of people spending their whole lives, researching
one little segment of all that evidence, they document exactly
what and why their results are as they are, in scientific papers,
which are published in those scientific journals.

Your next confusion with language, is the word "species". Species
is a human classification. If two creatures can mate and have
fertile offspring, they are classified as a species. But we
have subspecies, which means they look different, they evolved
in say different areas, so are genetically a bit different, but
still close enough to mate and have fertile offspring. Over time
of separation those genetic differences grow, eventually they
can no longer mate and have fertile offspring. Thus they are
no longer the same species but can be reclassifed as a new species.

We can indeed mate creatures from different species, but their
offspring won't be fertile in most cases. As their dna changes
over time, eventually they won't even have offspring.

How closely they are related, we can show today by examining their
dna.

So your confusion is about the word "species", which is a human
invention to record what we observe in nature.

But hey, if you are interested, its all out there for you to learn.
It seems to me that you have never spent a day in a biology class

oh dear circular wisdom yabby
we all know what a theory is[if anyone needs to redefine a theory to mean a fact ,i got a theory on that, they lie]

yes there is mountains of evidence for speciation
but none for genus evolving into genus

yes we can say this speciation proves speciation occurs[but speciation isnt evolution isnt proving that genus evolved into a different genus

you are a specialist
i am, a generalist
i see the big picture because my income dont come from a lie

a clever lie hidden amoung mountains of fact [but none of it proves evolution into a new genus]i have read mountains of the stuff with an open mind[regarding each fact in the light of it proving specuiation not evolution]

if you have proof of just one evolution[nor speciation]not salamanders breeding salamanders [lol]
not bacteria breeding bacteria
not fruit fly breeding fruitfly[lol]

but say salamander genus beeeding into a rabbit genus [then please present it]as the links between genus ARE ALL MISSING , how can you still have faith in a theory

evolution needs prove evolution
it cant
if you claim it can
give me the proof

we are so specialised so we cant see the'big picture' is a mountain of pretty pictures

BUT IT isnt a science
if science evolve a new genus FIRST

*we all know what a theory is*

You know as a lay person what you call a theory, but you clearly
don't know how the term is used in science. What you call a theory,
they call a hypothesis. What you call a fact, they name a theory.
Now if you want to understand science, you need to know the rules
by which they work. You clearly don't, no wonder you are confused.

Genus simply refers to another taxanomic rank, used in the
classification of living and fossil organsims. When a new genus
is classified, it has to meet the rules set up by international
organisations which determine the protocol, in other words, so
that scientist around the world, are talking the same language.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genus_(biology)

Of course speciation is an evolutionary process! I hate to
post all these links, but you do need to learn the basics, if
you want to discuss these things:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation_(biology)

DNA and the fossil record are both used to show how species are
related. If you accept speciation, then you accept evolution,
for the principle is the same, it is just a question of more
time, more mutations, more adaptation etc.

Take a bit of time to understand how all things are related, down
the tree of life. This is all very basic biology 101.

YABBYquote>>DNA/fossil.record...show how'species'are related.>>

yes species is related[i accept that]..but genus[this'link'is un-able to be proved]'cannus'is the'genus'for the species wolves and their'speciated'decendants breeds;dog's...

that'speciation'story is accepted by me,but you cant'prove'that canus genus mutated into a new genus to make a new genus[do you claim it's canus genus mutates into...WHAT?

>>If you accept speciation,..you accept evolution,>>

i completly accept'speciation'[within its'genomic'quotant;within the genus[say;cannus]

but i have seen..no proof of genus'EVOLVING'into an other genus,...that is what evolution theorises[but]is unable to'prove'

>>...principle is the same,<<...it is not[mating a'dog'to a'dog'has only'dog-genes'..there can only be micro-mutation[that is very common]

[our bodies contain an average of 20,000 of them[we all do..i have posted the links...[but they self-repair in sexual-mating,keeping within,the.'cannus'genomic mean[dogs breed dogs]

>>..more time,more mutations,more adaptation etc.<<

[we have'fossils'unchanged from..presently-living'animals'[the colealiacynth,crocodile,ants'the list of unchanged'living'fossil's is quite extensive]revealin'genus'stasis

>>..understand how all things are related,down,the tree of life>>

reveal which'branch'on the'tree'..your refering to
and which'link'is proving/what between which'branches'

there are now'evolution-wheels'and lots of other'trees'but they,neatly cover over the truth/,only,gaps reveal...they dont link up

>>This is..basic biology<<i am aware of that,your showing you know your subject[so just one thing

[give me a/one-link/you claim reveals the whole tree.

it will either be so narrow with/specialised minutia[or so'general'so as to neatly avoid explaining it]..

it takes only one or two limbs to'fall-off'the_tree of_life'to make the tree into a forrest'thing is the/branches dont join up..cant name if the un-named first cell'mutated'into flora/fauna

[was it one cell or two],regardless no-one can confirm,thus no one knows the science[thus no one can validate the theory into;science/fact]

science cant make a'cell-membrane['it'has to pump out a'living-cell's'/dna/rna even just to'make'life in a test-tube]without the cell membrane able to be made by science method..one of many absurdities are revealed

'evolution'postulates dead/matter somehow'formed'into life,it cant repeat[that they hold as'sacred'],

thus are revealed as frauds,doing speciation isnt genus-ification..,
cloning isnt abiogenesis...but reveal the root of the tree and i will reveal its not one root[let alone a tree]

UOG, if you can prove that life began more then once, you are free to do so
and win fame, fortune and a nobel prize!

No website reveals the whole evolutionary tree lol, for there are millions
of species, many which have not even been classified by taxonomists.

The bloke who discovered the mysteries of dna is still alive. Automating
the reading of it, only really happened with the human genome project.
So the tree of life continues to be assembled as we speak, but it is a gigantic
undertaking. What we will see is how the dna evidence ties in with the
fossil record evidence and the taxonomy evidence. The mountain of
evidence continues to be assembled and to grow.

The thing is, we see a common pattern in all life forms. Every living
being is either a cell or is made of cells, tiny animate entities that gather
fuel and building materials, produce usable energy and grow and duplicate.

And inside all living cells, from bacteria to humans are the same or nearly
the same molecules that make life work.

The basic structures and mechanisms that sustain life on earth today are
common to all living creatures and the processes that have created life
as we know it have been guided by a common set of rules.

How did life first begin? Probably not as a cell as we know it at all,
but far more simple then that. DNA is basically a molecule that
replicates itself and organisms are the vehicles that is uses to do so.

For a start, no cell would have been required, for the chemical soup
that made up planet earth was sterile. What we do know is that
if you combine the basic chemicals that made up planet earth,
you land up with short strings of rna, very similar to dna plus
amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins.

From simplicity plus millions and billions of years, slowly you
land up with complexity.

So what if it has not yet been replicated in the labs? Do you have
a sterile-environment-as-big-as-earth?

the post limit made me forget this debait,but your honest enough to admit a tree of life cant be printed big enough for the whole story[saves me looking up the ones presented as proof last time]
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2305

we can dance arround each other as long as we chose, you cant prove evolution ,and for me to disprove it needs me to rebut every the ever more absurities you call theory as you dance arround your inability to present fact, to support your absurdities

science cant make life from nothing, thus has not/can not replicate their/your theory[this ;your latest;mythical world size lab absurdity you suggest in the last post ,reveals the extent of how far you are prepared to go with your deneyal ,you steadfastly refuse to present any proof[thus clearly dont have any]

your latest absurdity supporting life out of a cell membrane;reveals the lengths of absurdity you will venture, my reasonable request for proof shall in no way be forthcomming, thus i know better than to ask

the best facts dont allways win the debate[but you didnt prove evolution] but are a natural debator,of the masses

anyhow present your proof of non intra cellular life, your absurdities have become inane

you may ask me to prove your ambiogensis
but its your science theory ,
as usual speculating absurdities such as life from non life
yet you are unable to present proof

thus you know i cant rebut it ,but the proof i have rebutted stands by itself, if you really want to debate facts state what you feel the facts to be [your lack of faulsifyable/confirmable facts finish the matter]

should you deem to supply facts i will rebut them
i cant be more fair than that

the facts rebutted so far are at the link[clearly you were following that debate]and decided not to present facts in this one,because i would only point out their flaws, but your failure to present facts here REVEALS YOU DONT HAVE ANY

[thus the facts POSTED HERE AND THERE[@-LINK]stand as evolution rebutted]
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2305

UOG, there is indeed a mountain of evidence, but once again, it
does not come in a single web page, as the less educated like
yourself expect.

But then, I doubt if you have an inquistive mind that wants to learn,
more likely a religious mind that wants to prove your religious
beliefs. If you still believe in the magic of the heart for
instance, despite the development of mechanical hearts etc, then
I can't really help you. Some people just believe what they believe,
some people want to understand the world and what we know, how
if functions, why things function as they do. They have an open
mind, unlike yours.

Just yesterday I dusted off a book in my library called
"What Remains to be Discovered" by John Maddox, an eminent scientist
who edited "Nature" for many years, so was at the cutting edge
of science. It was published in 1998. You are free to obtain a
copy from your library.

In it he has a chapter discussing exactly what you cannot even
imagine, ie. the chance of prebiotic replicators, based on
rna and dna, based on the laws of chemistry. Biologists such
as Dawkins have written about the same. Yup, no cell required
when things are sterile. But then chemistry and biology are
clearly not your field of expertise or interest.

Maddox also points out that there is less and less funding for
these kinds of science projects these days, as Govts insist on
more applied research, which generates revenue. Our own CSIRO
is a typical examples of how things have changed.

Once again, the huge mountain of evidence is out there, in our
universities, in our science journals, libraries, but it is
complex and not just a web page as you seem to imagine.

Just to understand what Maddox is writing about, will require that
you know a little basic chemistry, so that you can understand the
behaviour of molecules like rna and dna.

Its up to you really, if you want to inform yourself or not.
Somehow I doubt it

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WMD-45FS9MY-20&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=57bcdf05ed6c12113934046382e3c3af

A model of prebiotic replication discussed by Szathmary and Maynard Smith(1997)....The refined model accounts for two processes associated with replication:1)Replicators always decompose at some rate.>>

this is no doudt because the enzime[needed to split the dna]needs to be able to be switched on and off,..naturally the cell membrane isolates the chromosonal material facilitating this

in a fictitious'sea of dna'the enzymes would destroy all the dna[much like our stomaches do

no cell membrane;no dna

>>2)Replicators deplete their reactants at a rate equal to the rate of their own replication.

Consequently,replicators and their reactants are linked by a non-linear feedback process that keeps them within limits and leads them toward a steady state.>>

naturally this needs the cell membrane to facilitate isolation from enzymes

>>The model suggests that:(a)All competing replicators,including those which replicate at sub-exponential“parabolic” and super-exponential“hyperbolic” rates,are subject to natural selection.

(b)Survival/extinction is determined by positive/negative net-replication irrespective of the mechanism of replication.

(c)Being fit/unfit is the consequence of survival/extinction rather than its cause...In other words,natural selection and survival of the fit is the outcome of continual extinction of the unfit.>>

clearly a dna/rna;soup has no fitness[to'survive';nor any'selection']

thus the topic is void sans a cell membrane

>>† Author to whom correspondence should be addresssed.E-mail: cflifson@weizmann.weizmann.ac.il.<<

PLEASE PROVIDE PROOF NO CELL MEMBRANE IS NEEDED

note the definition of life
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

>>To define life in unequivocal terms is still a challenge for scientists,and when derived from an analysis of known organisms,..life is usually defined at the cellular level.

Conventional definition:The consensus is that life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following phenomena:

Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.

Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.

Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.

Growth:...Adaptation:..Response to stimuli:..Reproduction:...>>

a dna soup just dont cut it[lol]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prebiotic_evolution

Ah, but it could have been an rna soup!

You see, your mind is closed, as you search for
any reason to dismiss the possibility and understand
what we do know.

The fellows working on this are a little smarter then
you and your McDonalds world lol.

Rather then give credit to the huge amount that we
have discovered in such a short time and how that
mountain of evidence continues to grow daily,

You just want the "god did it" answer, as that is
what you believe. It ain't that simple sunshine,
for you could be wrong. But it makes you feel better,
I know, and humans are emotional creatures after
all, just like chimps :)

yabby..your link>>..,the exact sequence of chemical events that led to the first nucleic acids is not known.>>

but earlier it reveals another gem

>>Thus the question of the origin of life is a question of how the first nucleic acids came into existence.>>

so..lets skip past logic..and say..that the'rna..in this 'primordial'-sea'..has made amino-acids AND proteins,..what can they'act'on?..[this is pre'cell'/life;remember]?

http://www.ummah.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-22544.html

there is only dna...but there is no cell to use it

http://www.pierce.ctc.edu/biology/BSeavy/CHAPTER%20CONCEPTS%20AND%20TERMS.htm

[its a clasic case of what came first;.'the cell'or that it needs to..'live']..enzymes and[20]amino acids..[the'minimum'needed for'life']...see previous debate

but we seem to have reached a two cell sepperation..[again not explainable,..thus not proven..[thus revealing[lol]..'gaps']

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prokaryote

>>The prokaryotes..singular prokaryote are a group of organisms that lack a cell nucleus(= karyon),or any other membrane-bound organelles/>>ie a cell<<...They differ from the eukaryotes,which have a cell nucleus>>

>>The prokaryotes are divided into two domains:..the bacteria and the archaea.

Archaea>>..a new link

>>A distinction between prokaryotes and eukaryotes(meaning true kernel,also spelled "eucaryotes")is that eukaryotes do have "true" nuclei containing their DNA,

<< Eukaryotic organisms may be uni-cellular,as in amoebae,or multicellular,as in plants and humans.

The difference between the structure of prokaryotes and eukaryotes is so great that it is considered to be the most important distinction among groups of organisms>>

but re-other link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_(biology)

leading[lol]to the tree of life[lol]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_life_(science)

leading to this gem

>>Modern biologists now recognize,however,that the prokaryotes,...the bacteria, have the ability to transfer genetic information between unrelated organisms.<<ie cellular/life>>Recombination,gene loss,duplication,and gene creation are a few of the processes by which genes can be transferred ...within and between<<egsisting>>bacterial species,...causing variation that’s not due to vertical transfer.

The tree of life gives an incomplete picture of life at this level>>

lol..seems it has'lost a branch',BUT we now might be looking for 4 cells not 5[or is it 5 cells not just one or two]

http://www.apollon.uio.no/vis/art/2007_4/Artikler/The_Tree_of_Life

but see the link...[leads back to the brain]...god is such a joker...[lol]

http://www.apollon.uio.no/vis/art/2008_4/artikler/hjernen_nodbrems

anyhow im over it[thanks for trying yabby]..im stcking with god...

[this chews up too much of my postings..[had to wait 5 hours just to post this]
http://www.idnet.com.au/files/pdf/Darwin's%20Black%20Box%20Michael%20Behe.PDF

*anyhow im over it[thanks for trying yabby]..im stcking with god...*

You just do that UOG, for I have always maintained that some
people need religion to cope with life, fair enough. Whatever
gets you through the night :)

Now you have to figure out which god, for if we study those holy
books we hear about talking snakes, talking clouds and IIRC
even talking ants! We know of course that religion basically
comes down to geography. Most people believe what they were
indoctrinated with as children.

But if it helps achieve homeostasis in your brain chemistry,
then so be it, you feel better after that.

Back to science, you won't learn anything objective about science
from religious websites lol.

Think about how much we have discovered in the last 100 years.
Always, when something was unknown, somebody would jump up
and say "God did it". The god of the gaps will no doubt continue
in the minds of the simplistic.

If you lay out all that information and see it as a huge puzzle,
every day new information is added by science which adds another
piece to the picture, slowly the picture emerges, even if the
odd bit is missing here and there. So what? Time and human
curiosity will eventually produce the answers, if not tomorrow,
then perhaps next year or in 10 years or 50 years. There is
no rush.

How prebiotic replicators originally came about is solvable,
as are other questions. The religious, with their predetermined
bias, always say something is impossible, until it is solved.

Today even the Catholic Church accepts evolution theory as
a fact, for their scientists know that reality has to be faced
and cannot be denied.

At least now you know for sure that you are made of much
the same parts as chimpanzees, only slightly different shapes
to a few bones, etc. Your god clearly had a sense of
humour when he made you 99% the same :)

damm everytime i think the debate is over god reveals new facts to me
here is the lastest
http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEPC/WWC/1994/geneticstln.php

QUOTE>> History of Genetics Timeline
Jo Ann Lane
1994 Woodrow Wilson Collection

As scientists sought to understand more about the nature of inheritance of traits,hereditary processes were explained in ever increasing detail beginning at the populational level and going toward the molecular level.

Keeping this fact in mind will help in understanding the timeline which follows.>>



if you read it you will note evolution has not been confirmed



,but i hear you ask why not,this needs the next link,revealing rockafella's take over of the industy,educaTION MEDIA SCIENCE,removing anoung other things the vitamins from our diets,and taking over medicine and reshapping education,AND SELLIN YOU ON EVOLUTION...[ULTIMATE FAITH IN SCIENCE NOT GOD

http://vodpod.com/watch/504278-excitotoxins-msg-dr-russel-blaylock



it has its fruits

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPI7zdGdqo4&feature=related

by controling banking,oil,education,media,science and medicine they can sell us anything

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc5MPhOfW6M


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OT-OKs09oaU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joweZ6uM5iY&feature=related

i couldnt give a daMM about your opinion;s
put up your proof of the things alowed to be developed over the last 100 years my butt[100 years ago we had petro autos, electric trams[now no trams but diesal trains]

your quite fooled by this new world order giving you cancers and gmo and transfats ,i knew the ccc-rap before and dont give a SSShit about the catholic church , you were a monkey brain when you were born and you still are

99 percent has been rebutted right here you retard
but your so thick you possably didnt notice

see the absurdity you keep going on about religion, then say even the cthotonic church accepts evolution[those religious nutters dont have a clue about evolution either ya numb nutt]

* god reveals new facts to me
here is the lastest*

Aha, it seems that now UOG is hearing voices. Some people used
to hear voices and think they were prophets. Now we know that
schyzophrenia is pretty common! But its ok, it can be treated lol.

*if you read it you will note evolution has not been confirme*

If you check you will notice that evolution is taught as fact
at every major university, due to the mountain of evidence
available and the fact that nobody has been able to show that
it is nonsense. Feel free to try, win your nobel prize,
if you think that you can.

*by controling banking,oil,education,media,science and medicine they can sell us anything*

Ah now we believe in conspiracy theories too! Ok, so you lack
an education and are gullible. Fair enough lol.

*put up your proof of the things alowed to be developed over the last 100 years*

You are not even aware of the many things discovered and invented
in the last 100 years? Poor UOG :)

*you were a monkey brain when you were born and you still are*

Actually more like apes brains, as of course monkeys are somewhat
down the evolutionary tree. They have tails too, you only have
a coccyx left, just like apes. So us apes split off from monkeys
a fair old time ago.

Fact is that you are more closely related to a chimp, then a chimp
is to a gorilla or orang utan and with that cheerfull thought
I will end my post :)

gabby>>If you check you will notice that evolution is taught as fact
at every...win your nobel prize,if you think that you can.>>

nobel was a murderer..,his invention has killed near as many as abortion...i spit upon nobel and his death-'prize'

schools teach as they are told

>>Ah now we believe in conspiracy theories too!Ok,so you lack
an education and are gullible.Fair enough.lol.>>

peas in a pod retarded self-taught'-unionist

just because you call it conspiricy theory that invalidats it..[lol]

you done no research!
and as usual reveal you have a closed mind

you union organisers sold out the workers
[hob knobbing it up with the bosses]..while selling out those you pretend to support..stealing compulsory fees

lest we forget you lot,..set up your own party to'play'the game...your unionist/labour party mates run's the state-franchise.

>>You are not even aware of the many things discovered and invented
in the last 100 years?>>

im well aware that research has been suppressed by special-intrests
google up magnetic-drive that could put the coal unions out of buisness....the water/hydrogen power car,..cure's for cancer..but you closeted union/retards dont care about'others..only that your'own'nest gets the feathers

>>us apes split off from monkeys,a fair old time ago>>..[lol].

dont say things you cant validate with...proof..LOL

i note your good with ya mouth,but even as an..'X'-has-been/unionist your too self-serving..and you havnt any proof,..thus you dont present proof

it is sad that you feel like an ape[but; you know you]

could you concieve something bigger
/better than yourself,you could concieve god,
but you are fixated on little things,..petty things

in times past people like you swallowed the flat/earth theory,it was [people that ask questions ;that dare swim against public-opinion is where i chose to be]

[i could take the easy path like you
and try to swallow the lies..[like you have,but then would reveal only a monkey mind like yours..[living in its closed minded little box'spell checking every little,...unorigonal thought]..yet still revealing you are being just what you think you are..[a monkey brain]

as usual i see only your opinion
because you dont have fact

before you run off about not being a unionist i make the correction that you claim to now be some type of farmer who used to be QUOTE>>previous owner of an award winning Export business<< but whatever

most of it still stands [and i corrected it before you did] god works in mysterious ways [ways you will never understand[and like evolution in ways you cant explain]

the fact remains it is up to you to prove your science [and in many posts you havnt [your usual reply is hit and run] revieuing your previous posts was very revealing in disclosing this

anyhow i know you will make a big issue about the error and will draw inferances about it [thus neatly not responding or proving evolution yet again]but know that i will

you have not got faulsifyable proof of evolution
live with it

UOG, given your posts, I don't need to say anything lol, you are
busy digging your own hole.

*i make the correction that you claim to now be*

I never did claim to be anything else then what I am, so the
mistake is yours. "Now" has nothing to do with it. You
simply confused myself and Belly. There you go UOG, your
own mind is playing tricks on you.

*...i spit upon nobel and his death-'prize'*

Now now UOG, that is not very civilised. Camels, alpacas
etc spit. Perhaps that dna relationship is closer then you
think :) Fact is that you have no evidence to show that
evolution theory is wrong, or you would claim the money.

*could you concieve something bigger
/better than yourself,you could concieve god, *

Well god if he exists, is free to write the rules on the face
of the moon, for all to see. He has never bothered. Meantime
we are stuck with religous nuts, squabbling amongst themselves
about which holy book is really holy or not so holy. Most
simply believe what they were taught as children, as the evidence
shows.

*in times past people like you swallowed the flat/earth theory,it was [people that ask questions ;that dare swim against public-opinion is where i chose to be]*

Absolutaly not! The Catholic Church used to burn people like me
lol. Even today in Islamic countries, people like me would be put
to death for blasphemy. So much for free speech!

I remind you that is was the bible which mentioned the 4 corners of
the earth, not Galileo the scientist.

*you have not got faulsifyable proof of evolution
live with it*

On the contrary, the global scientific movement, based on the evidence
available, accepts evolution theory as fact. That is exactly what
the US courtcase was about. ID and other dogma were shown to be
no more then religious dogma, based on faith. What is taught as
science is based on the available evidence. Anyone can challenge
that evidence, including you. But it seems that you would rather
go around spitting.

look at you..[so clever yet cant name your proof]

did you look at the mountain of proof about god in the same ignorant way...[why dont you educate your-self about god?]..you cast bold statements about mountains of evidence yet can fill in any gaps between the species..[name one]..

prove only one simple one[you claim relation to apes PROVE IT,..reveal your mountain of proof

your so perfect yet cant name names

if i make an error i correct it

but your so sure
yet cant present facts to prove your surity..[and ignore any i might present]..then might ask me to present it again in 350 words

it is futile even talking to a closed mind

but you have more quotes to respond to..why...because you dont have the ability to present any of your mountain of fact

so go read the proof about god,..there are mountains of that as well

read and rebut the links i allready provided..[you cant even update your mountain as new evidence in your own mind..the 99 percent ape is old news..AND[wrong info]

and wrong meands it cant still be used as 'evi-dense'..[humans are only 85 percent alike]..which human is 99% the same?...you would know this if you overcame your smugness and read the links i already posted

we have 50 percent of the genes of a bannana..[your not only an ape-brain but more bannana than you would be aware of in your igno-rants

present a pebble from your mountain oh ape breath

what you call mountains i call padding...[so lazy children accept on face that evolutionary science is based on fact]

speciation is proof of speciation none of it includes a single genus mutating into a new genus,the gaps are there,but to win a debate your prepared to paper[gloss over the gaps

prove one trans genus gap my clever ape
just one
what genus evolved into what new genus
you cant name one,

failure to respond
at law means the mountain upon which you claim to stand is revealed a lie,...its just a loose pile of spoil and you sir are a lier if;claiming it is solid rock

UOG, you are a slow learner you really are lol.

Your problem is that you won't accept how the world
works, how society works, what is internationally
accepted and implemented. So you fight your little
one man battle against that world and it won't get
you anywhere at all, as we can see.

The proof for evolution theory is not in one
web page, as your little MacDonalds simplistic
mind might imagine. It is in the tens upon tens
of thousands of scientific papers, published in
scientific journals on a regular basis. Those
journals are available for anyone to read,
if they make the effort to get hold of them
through their library.

I have even won a court case, by doing exactly
that and what was in those papers was accepted
as fact by the courts.

All that evidence, tens up tens of thousands
of those papers, is the basis of what is taught
globally in biology, in schools, universities
etc. That evidence is used by companies to
discover new drugs, find new cures for diseases,
splice new genes into crops, the list is endless.

It is our human understanding, documented and
accepted. Anyone is free to challenge it and
to prove their case, so far they have failed.

Yes, we have a few religious nuts claiming it
is all nonsense, but so far none have been
able to prove their case.

Yes there are also plenty of religious people
who accept the evidence of evolution theory,
for they also accept that so called holy books
should not be taken literally as words of
any god.

Sorry sunshine, but that is how the world
works. You can protest until the cows come
home, it won't do you any good. You bog
yourself down in your little picture and
refuse to accept the big picture as it is.

yabby>>problem is that you won't accept how the world
works..,how society'works'..,what is internationally
accepted and implemented.>>

that is a curious word'implemented'you..could explain how evolution is implimated?


>>The proof for evolution theory..not in one
web page,as your little'MacDonalds'..simplistic
mind might imagine>>

im not asking for you to reveal it all..[just fill-in one gap.]
just say the ape that you claim relation into

>>Those/journals are available for anyone to read,>>{LOL}

mate im not subscribing to'quack/theory'journel's wanting 25 bucks for an article..would you do the same?..for a church of scientology saying we have proof>)...just give your cash?...if science has proof make it available for free,..or by synopsis of what proves what



>>I have even won a court case,by doing exactly
that and what was in those papers was accepted
as fact by the courts<<

name the court case[or name the topic it was about]if it was related to this topic reveal...yea or nea.

>>All that evidence,tens up tens of thousands
of those papers,is the basis of what is taught
globally in biology,>>>

allowing the glossing over of the holes[gaps]in the theory[you do know quality is more inportant than number?

it is as i wrote previously..it is taught to children[with the promise it is fact[that we will[in time]..get the fact's..(LOL)..we we havnt

>>That evidence is used by companies to;discover new drugs,find new cures for diseases,splice new genes into crops,the list is endless.>>

oh so natural selection is applicable how egsactly?..evolution applieds to gmo?...HOW?

evolution cures what disease?..via evolving the disease into what new genus or new cure ?..[either way reveal how genus changes/evolves into a new genus}
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8283

>>It is our human understanding,documented and
accepted.>>LOL,who='our'?<<Anyone?..is free to challenge it and
to prove their case,>>

mate i cant get at what they say is proof..so how can i challange their secret

seems the same lawyer types that charge me 10 $ per page for trial transcripts..are running the same scam with evolution..PROOF..?..lol

proof that cant be presented isnt proof..[same thing in court]

lets ajourn this case

because yabby/evolution hasnt presented any faulsifyable evidence to support its theory

cheers eh

*that is a curious word'implemented'you..could explain how evolution is implimated?*

Nope, not implanted lol, but implemented, it means put into
practise. I even use it on my farm, when working out a
strategy to deworm sheep.

*just say the ape that you claim relation into*

What about our ape cousins? Take a closer look.
Much the same body parts, brain parts, nervous system,
organs, blood etc. Even bonobos copulate in the missionary
position, so perhaps that is where the missionaries learnt
it :)

You claim to have no relationship, despite all those
similarities. Stop kidding yourself sunshine.

*mate im not subscribing to'quack/theory'journel's wanting 25 bucks for an article..would you do the same?..*

Well I have never paid for an article yet, but then I am not
so silly as to source them online...

*name the court case[or name the topic it was about]*

It was about crayfish and their evolution and their imports
into Europe. It was about comparing US, EU and AU crayfish
and how they are affected by diseases, due to evolutionary
factors.

*it is taught to children*

It is taught to biology graduates, who study for years.

*evolution applieds to gmo?...HOW?*

For instance, if you are looking for Glyphosate resistance,
spot the mutant from the billions. Transfer that particular
gene into crops and you have GMO.

*mate i cant get at what they say is proof..so how can i challange their secret*

That is because you have never bothered to attend a university.
Their libararies subscribe to most of the major journals, students
have free access to the information. Surely you know somebody
who attends a university, who can access for you, whatever you like.

ah yabbies..i get it[quote>>..use it on my farm,when working out a
strategy to deworm sheep>>

oh yes survival of the fit-test worms/or sheep?.
un-natural selection,?..random selection?..reversion to wildtype?

what was the first shh-eep evolved from?
[or the first cray for that matter]...

simple reply two names,what genus became sheep/and which genus became cray?

>>same body parts,brain parts, nervous system,
organs, blood etc...YET ALL apes look more like the other apes..,than any human i ever saw...[course i dont know how hairy you are [lol]:)

>>You claim to have no relationship>>

yep..but i dont look at mans lower'nature'[one third the brain size is enough of a difference]...and without proof of intermediates between us and them,..for me its case closed

>>comparing US, EU and AU crayfish and how they are affected by diseases,due to evolutionary-factors>>

i would have thought that more about disease..,not evolution
evolution reveals a small percentage survive to breed on..[survival of fittest].

>>It is taught to biology graduates,who study for years.>>

in ever more narrow specialised areas...[we are thus guided between the gaps]..like a plant dude[wont look for how his area/speciality] links to sheep..[thus the gaps provide seperation into ever smaller specialities]..eg http://www.nslc.wustl.edu/courses/courses.html

>>For instance,if you are looking for Glyphosate resistance,
spot the mutant from the billions.>>

evolution is survival of fittest...[spotting the lone survivor isnt science its pure chance]..it dont validate evolving it validates survival of the fittest...[evolution speculates;..change of genus]

mutated wheat/soy or whatever..is still wheat or soy or whatever

it hasnt evolved
it has been tested/stressed and selected its surviving offspring..within the same genus as its parents!!

it didnt evolve as evolution says we evolved from apes

>>That is because you have never bothered to attend a university>>

ha this time your error

i haunted the uni liberies searching out the foot-notes from darwins evolution of the species...[then the works of levi/hollander re the wild type then about biological changes,..grafting in developing embryo's..,mutation/sports..etc

[i done the searches...the genus change/evolving into other genus,..simply dont egsist]

NOT ONE GENUS CHANGE is recorded ever.

nice try though

but genus evolving into other genus simply is not there,

NOR HERE...lol

OUG - G'day. I have to compliment you on your serenity and patience.

I wanted to post to you especially OUG to let you know that although I have a very good education myself I disagree with the notion that one needs that to have a legitimate opinion on any of these matters pertaining to what it means to be human.

As I posted before, Darwin himself died an agnostic. He never ceased caring and pondering about what it is beyond a petri dish (or the jungle, perhaps) that makes us the complex beings that we are. If he didn't think that his theory closed the door on God once and for all, then I think it's a pity that others see fit to misuse his good work in such a way.

This writer here sets it all out very well:

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/darwin/malcolmbrown.html

He writes especially well about the way that the phrase "survival of the fittest" has been misused as Darwin's theory has been applied to
the social sciences. It was about adaptability to changing circumstances, not about the inevitable triumph of bullies. (The phrase originally was Herbert Spencer's anyway.)

Don't worry, although I don't believe we need to take the Bible - esp the OT - literally, I do believe that science will catch up with religion eventually :)

pyncheme thanks for your kind words [i scaned the link, and saved it]

...but i was trying to help yabby out by doing a bit research for him

he has been most patient with me
in trying to explain a thing i just dont get

[me being so dumb and all]

but hey yabby here is what i found so far

from
http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/97/1/21

<<The evolution and speciation of Ovis has been problematic, and the problem lies primarily in the measurements used.<< yeah science method is tricky if your making it up as you go[you get mountains of evidence that contradicts other mountains of evidence , its all science but it aint proof[LOL

<<Some investigators use the classical concept of morphologic differences,>>

i supose the best response is a link
[but i suspect its a joke?..too]

http://www.cracked.com/article_16117_6-formerly-kickass-creatures-ruined-by-evolution.html

if it is real it would still be a joke[lol]

<<while others use biological approaches that stress chromosomal and molecular uniqueness...As a result,the taxonomy of Ovis and its relatives remains unsettled.>> lol

<< The results of this study are no less unsettling, but add a new perspective>>

LOL..ie not faulsifyable proof..<<..to the possible >> ..NOTE POSSI-ABLE [is this science PROOF?..<<..evolution of Ovis.>> lol

but there is more

<< The tree topology generated from the mtDNA sequence data confirms that wild sheep have evolved into three major recognizable genetic groups: Argaliforms, Moufloniforms, and Pachyceriforms.>>

so what breed are yours?

more?

<<The evolution of Ovis resulted in three generally accepted genetic groups: Argaliforms, Moufloniforms, and Pachyceriforms.

The Pachyceriforms of the subgenus Pachyceros comprise the thin-horn sheep Ovis nivicola (snow sheep), Ovis dalli (Dall and Stone sheep), and Ovis canadensis (Rocky Mountain and desert bighorn).>>

all the pachyceros seem to be SHEEP[lol]

but they may have come from cattle[just there are few gaps]LOL

but still an interesting read...on how we cant get mad cow disease ,

this is what faith in evolution sets us up for
[i would LOL but it makes me sad
http://www.mad-cow.org/prion_evol.html

i guess im glad im too ignorant to 'get' evolution(LOL)

Ah Pynchme, how sweet of you to stick up for a fellow believer. Now of course
you two can start squabbling if the Koran or Bible are really God’s word, for
they can’t be both. Then you can start squabbling with all the various cults,
sects, and other interpretations of a variety of holy books, to see who is right
in their interpretation. Good luck!

Given that UOG still has a problem accepting that the heart is a pump and
little more, I am not about to go on any goose chase for any information
that he might request, for its not worth the bother. For if even this kind
of basic stuff does not sink in, nothing ever will. I’ve been debating on
forums for far too long, to be a sucker lol.

UOG, so because your brain is larger then other species of our great ape
family, that means you cannot possibly be related, you must be related
to angels! ROFL

You remind me of the first Europeans, who came across pygmies,
or just recently in the Congo civil war, when some Bantu claimed
that pygmies were subhuman, and that their flesh contained magical
powers, so they were eaten. One thing we know is how easily humans
can delude themselves.

I actually came across a book today, which I have not yet read, but
will order. It was written in 2004 by Dawkins and sounds like
it will explain to you in lay terms what we know and don’t know
about our origins.

Its even discussed on Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ancestor's_Tale

It sounds to me as if your genus problem is merely one of you
not understanding classification rules. But comfort yourself,
your ancestors are from the same hominid family as chimps :)

Anyhow, Dawkins is clearly more qualified to discuss these things
then I am, so you are free to read his works. Taxonomy is not my
area of expertise, so I will let those who know something about it,
discuss it.

But then I doubt if you are interested in Dawkins, it must be
angels that are the-real-relatives-lol.

Yabby: <"Ah Pynchme, how sweet of you to stick up for a fellow believer. Now of course you two can start squabbling if the Koran or Bible are really God’s word, for they can’t be both. Then you can start squabbling with all the various cults, sects, and other interpretations of a variety of holy books, to see who is right
in their interpretation. Good luck!">

Yes OUG - there you are being gracious again.

Yabby you'd probably be surprised at the commonalities between most religions and in the experiences reported by a wide variety of people across the globe and across time.

One mountain top; many paths :)

pyncheme as yabby points out we of course will think differently,i put it different,but in the difference point out the same concept one god

[like i think of god as like water and religions like wells rivers streams and rain]..we all tap into the one source[even then all rivers drain into the same seas and oceons,in the end

all religions tap into the same source and in the end unite into one huge body,even if unseen in underground streams..[but then i have had too much time to think about it..[lol]

but to yabby...[presumably going to read the god delusion by dickkk dorkins[who is trying to muddy the waters because he is an admitted eugenicist]
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4783/

but yabby knows what he wants to read[and spend his money on]

i believe he knows god in his heart..[just not in his mind yet..[and who knows maybe by listening to a nutter like dawkins can see through the evil this man seeks to release on us mere apes..[to dork-kins-'superior-mind'...hinking himself the god of atheism]

we know god works in mysterious ways,..but we all have freewill

below quote extracted from
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4980

Dawkins’ book confirms my analysis of evolution as pseudo-religion. His secular humanism has quasi-religious characteristics.]

We publish here two of the hostile feedbacks, with responses from Jonathan Sarfati..The first is from Patrick W of the United Kingdom, who regales us with a litany of criticisms(all thoroughly addressed in our Q&A index)....Included among his criticisms are ones arising from a misunderstanding of the role of axioms in assessing competing historical scenarios.

The second is from Ben L, also from the UK who feels that the way we treated Dawkins in our review was biased.

He may be surprised to find that we agree!..But is bias bad?...Read our response to learn how to rebut the accusations of bias and intolerance,extremism,etc.)...which are constantly being made against Christians...And note that neither correspondent demonstrated the slightest error in our review!

We also publish a favorable response from a reader who appreciated our exposure of Dawkins’ fallacy,

Truth is independent of what you want it to be

Wrong once again UOG, this is what The Ancestors Tale is all
about snip

The renowned biologist and thinker Richard Dawkins presents his most expansive work yet: a comprehensive look at evolution, ranging from the latest developments in the field to his own provocative views. Loosely based on the form of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, Dawkins's Tale takes us modern humans back through four billion years of life on our planet. As the pilgrimage progresses, we join with other organisms at the forty "rendezvous points" where we find a common ancestor. The band of pilgrims swells into a vast crowd as we join first with other primates, then with other mammals, and so on back to the first primordial organism. Dawkins's brilliant, inventive approach allows us to view the connections between ourselves and all other life in a bracingly novel way. It also lets him shed bright new light on the most compelling aspects of evolutionary history and theory: sexual selection, speciation, convergent evolution, extinction, genetics, plate tectonics, geographical dispersal, and more. The Ancestor's Tale is at once a far-reaching survey of the latest, best thinking on biology and a fascinating history of life on Earth. Here Dawkins shows us how remarkable we are, how astonishing our history, and how intimate our relationship with the rest of the living world.

More details
The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution
By Richard Dawkins, Yan Wong
Contributor Yan Wong
Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2004
ISBN 0618005838, 9780618005833
673 pages

http://books.google.com/books?id=Tub-X6wydKgC#reviews_anchor

extracted..

http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_ancestorstalereview_0506.htm

<<Dawkins’book differs from texts in other ways,too,but these are less helpful...Instead of progressing from the simplest creatures to the more complex,the storyline regresses.

It begins with humans and mammals,moves to reptiles, fish, and simpler vertebrates,and finishes with amoeba and bacteria.>>

wonder what he says created the amoeba?LOL..you read my amoeba post on the evolution thread

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2305#50521

>>This approach is quite peculiar,like a book about mathematics that proceeds from calculus through algebra and down to addition <<.lol

Dawkins’reasons for the backward structure are alternately strained and tendentious...But the hook sticks Dawkins with a narrative structure that ill suits the story of biology.

If he really wanted to use The Canterbury Tales as a model,why not just have a pilgrimage by the first cell from the start of life to the present...where it could meet up with more complex descendants ending with humans?Because,you see,he worried that would imply evolution was working toward a goal...us,which simply would not do.

Dawkins knows in the marrow of his bones that evolution has no goal.>>lol

lol dorkkkins reverse evolution..[devolution?]is a pill-grim-age..,working backwards avoids explaining where him and hid eugenics mates are evolving us into? LOL-think more of a cookcoo,us raising their genes,but first make us sterile then insert the clone of their version of their hitler youth perfection..

>>The second major defect of the book is that, other than a dust jacket photo of the author,it has no high quality,color photographs.

It’s hard to even puzzle out what’s going on in some pictures,such as those of the upside-down catfish(looked at from any angle)or Heron Island what is that thing?a cell?a kidney?).

The poor photos make it impossible to share Dawkins’rapture over Venus’s girdle or the leafy sea dragon — they’re splotches of ink...

the faulse messiah on his pilgrimage lol..to LULL the sheep into our sleep

oh gabby i thought you more clever.. but hey beginning with today neatly avoids speculating on where were going[re gmo mutations 'evolving' us into real beasts via our foods] but your an adult ape thus dont deserve to know about that[lol] it would be funny but its not

So let me see now. Dawkins writes 673 pages about evolutiion
theory and your two major gripes are that he wrote it in an
order that does not suit you and that the photos are
black and white.

Meantime you quote me from Creation ministries, the mob
IIRC who think that the world is about 6000 years old
and you think I should take you or them seriously?

Hehe OUG, quit the verbal masturbation please :)

Let me explain it this way sunshine. Dawkins is rated
as a top biologist, very much in touch with the coalface
of scientific discovery. He does a great job at explaining
the mountain of evidence that is available in scientific
journals etc, in a way that even people like you can understand
it. He just does not tolerate fools lightly, for which I cannot
blame him.

Dawkins is fully aware that people like you are far more interested
in themselves then in bacteria. So he has changed the order, to
save you reading the last chapter first. Great thinking!

Two versions of the book were published, one with colour photos
and one with black and white, for el cheapo customers.
Your reviewer is clearly an el cheapo character :)

If the order of the book and the fact that your reviewed version
was not in colour, are your only critiques of 673 pages of
evolution theory, then clearly Dawkins has produced a
sensational book, worth reading by all who want to understand
evolution theory!

But clearly you are not interested in understanding what science has
discovered, or you would order a copy or borrow one from the library