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.