In the light of the release of scientific release of Ardipithecus ramidus, the fossilised bones of the now believed to be man's earliest known ancestor has/is re-writing our linage.(4 million years + . 1 million years older than 'Lucy'. It is argued to put back our common ancestor with chimpanzees now believed to be about 8 million years. She (more females! one wonders were are all the males ....equal rights for fossils I say! :-) ) shows an upright gait etc.
more than Lucy!
http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2009/1001/1 there is a ten minute video clip that explains it well or read 11 articles.

This raises several issues worthy of discussion.
It seems one more nail in the Religious Fundamentalist 'intelligent design' argument.
Especially the recently released fossil of the proto-amphibian, archaeopteryx (half reptile/bird) etc .

In the light of the argument that is currently in play about a new geological epoch Anthroscene to reflect humans geological effect on the earth.
It is argued that humans are the only species to have changed the WORLD environment and are altering natural selection with drugs and soon genetically. Or are we simply altering the direction of evolution? In which case how will we evolve (into), why ?

Being the only species capable of a semblance of objectivity, we ought now to be consciously seeking to drive our own evolution. I am of course talking about social/cultural evolution--which inevitably attracts pejorative accusations about eugenics and social engineering. But the fact is that we are evolving socially all the time (which also acts at the psychological level, and perhaps at the level of 'drives' via changing superegoic criteria); we just need to grab the steering wheel. Human social/cultural--ergo psychological--evolution is at present driven by laissez-faire economics; virtually all social mores are up for grabs; values are commodities that are promoted successfully or not and are taken up accordingly. The thing is, every human breast is host to a quotient of primal content that is acted upon by the prevailing social norms without. We need research into the splicing of innate and social influences; into how, or if, these can be adjusted so that a 'healthy' (to be defined) symbioses can be generated at the individual and cultural levels. At present our dysfunctional, delusive selves are the "channels" via which our respective drives are processed into capital.
Ardie's evolution was spontaneous and serendipitous; modern eco(nomic) man is the destructive "product" of economic indifference.

Xammy, creationism and intelligent design were never realistic concepts worthy of anything more than a cursory examination, then total dismissal!

Our understanding of the evolutionary process, of man and of animals in general, is rapidly increasing. Amazing stuff has been found in recent years, such as Ardipithecus ramidus and Homo floresiensis: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/flores.html and a wide array of excellent finds in Liaoning Province, China, eg: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090928205415.htm.

I think that the Anthropocene period is a good concept - a whole new period in the earth's history brought about by humans. http://www.google.com.au/search?rlz=1C1SKPC_enAU335AU336&aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=anthropocene

Even though humans have only had a significant effect for the last couple of centuries, which is incredibly short in terms of a geological or evolutionary timescale, the changes that we have set in train are enormous and rapidly accelerating.

"...are we simply altering the direction of evolution?"

Don't know about 'simply', but yes we certainly are...big-time!

"In which case how will we evolve (into), why ?"

Well, we are evolving into a bigger and more robust animal at a rapid rate, with our kids being almost universally taller than their parents, at least in affluent parts of the world. But I think that this will stop and probably reverse very soon as our access to basic resources changes becomes much more difficult.

Our heads will get bigger as our brains swell!

We'll probably have a vastly increased rate of evolution in the near future as we start genetically engineering our offspring.

Then we'll run into some very serious competition as our computers / robots take on their own consciousness, become intelligent beings and rise up in competition to us. Maybe they'll even take over and wipe us out or turn us into their slaves.

Whatever the case, I think that we are on the cusp of a major change in the way that evolution has operated thus far.

But while evolution changes for us and for all manner of organisms that we utilise, and while lots of other species will go extinct, lots more will survive and continue to evolve and flourish in the conventional way.

(:>)

<<It seems one more nail in the Religious Fundamentalist..'intelligent design'..argument.>>>seems is a strong word...things may not be as it seems

<<Especially the recently released fossil of the proto-amphibian, archaeopteryx(half reptile/bird) etc>>..lol it seems someone used ..modern domestic chicken feathers making that appearnce..conveniantly jumped on to prove a theory...its a fraud bro..do your research...things are not as they seem

<<In the light of the argument>>>in lue of fact<<..that is currently in play..about a new geological epoch Anthroscene..>>oh so we have geology...not evolution...<<to reflect humans geological effect on the earth.>>.lol so sad you guys dont really read your own spin


<<It is argued>>..not proven..<<..that humans are the only species to have changed the WORLD environment>>>yeah loquests infestations and bacteria..are genomes not species specific...<<and are altering natural selection with drugs and soon genetically.>>>

great there is a great point you lot arnt considering...gmo vacines continue their mutation in our bodies...they were made by splicing genes...that keep splicing in our bodies

<<Or are we simply altering the direction of evolution?>>>no monsanto's and the eugenics mob are[darwinians wanting racial purity...or racial sepperation...here the dumb serfs work to death..for a bed and a meal..and medicine to treat the gmo cancers..no work no medicine...no credit

<<In which case WHAT..will we evolve..(into),>>darwinian eugenisysts under the messiah[dorkins]..<<why..?>>>sheep do as sheep are led to do..via cash/credit/food..we are shaped into securitised debt instrument securities....and we are destrascted with destractions

why are they always femail?..well seems the evolution evidence proves we [our decendaNTS..WERE ALL FEMAIL...NO MALES NEEDED...AND OUR FUTURE[NO FEMAILS...WE CAN NOW DO AS gOD DID..

[remove that pesky ...;y'..chromosone and create and only dicile/femail...as they..[the patent holders of the 'y'..chose..and when they chose...

or better..seek exclusive franchised/control..of the y chromosone alltogether...by putting female hormaoans in the water..and just have docile woman servants..to the neo elite..[the few darwinian/fertile males...

dont you guys read prophecy...ooops forgot your athiests
well good luck with that...eh

More desperation by gullible people trying to validate a myth. I suppose when you deny the obvious (a Creator) you have to come up with fraud number 3008 and build a story around a fossil that is imagery. Quite pathetic rally. And they say Christians have blind faith. That is hilarous when you read this story.

More desperation by gullible people trying to validate a myth. I suppose when you deny the obvious (a Creator) you have to come up with fraud number 3008 and build a story around a fossil that is imagery. Quite pathetic really. And they say Christians have blind faith. That is hilarous when you read this story.

OUG,
the mainstream churches, funded by taxpayers, are at the forefront when it comes to converting ideology into capital. Even the free radicals (the Swedenborgs of the world....like yourself?) actually contribute to this gravy train by helping to make voodoo look credible. Some people will always go with Telstra, even when the upstart competition is half the price ..... but they like to see that they're on a winner!
Finally, prophecy is what is read 'into' holy text, which is almost infinite.

squeers<<..the mainstream churches,..funded by taxpayers,>>can we agree on a large degree of subsidy and favourable tax treatment[by govt]...and then speculate maybe tithe from the loyal faithfull..[funding elite capital raising/franchises,under any pretence

<,are at the forefront when it comes to converting ideology into capital.>..ok give me..that..the dorkins..is making money from sheeple too...that..big pharma gets the largest govt subsidy/

followed closely by its parental big petrochemical/industries/war and other finantial/medical or education[re-education...

dumbing down...the churches..barely rate in comparison..[noting big petro chemical/war..needs big roads/toll/ways etc

<<helping to make voodoo look credible.>>.im often told i make anything i suport look bad/...creditable is a thing i hope not to achieve..[as blame inevitably follows accreditisation

<<Some people..like to see that they're on a winner!>>..im with telstra..because it shows my ongoing right's/communal ownership rights [previously held by 15 million phone subscibers[now held by 1.4 million thieving capitalists..my claiom hasnt lapsed..[thus my claim upon...those who stole it]...in standing on principle..it isnt about price

you..in supporting these foreign offshore multinational conglomerates are..the ones who have seen the price of phone/web connection remain elivated..due to debt burdons/duplication of cheap temp network franchises...while the acces we are allowed doth ever diminish...

noting much i used to do..i cant now...because of copyright restrictions..saying...'not allowed in your cuntry

<<prophecy is what is read 'into' holy text,>>..perpetual increase/proffit is built into free/enterprize..which is all/most finite.

Examinator,

<<It seems one more nail in the Religious Fundamentalist 'intelligent design' argument.>>

In order to put another nail in the coffin of Creationism, we’d have to exhume the body carefully, then gently press the nail into the soft, rotten wood in order to prevent to coffin from falling to pieces before we can put it back in its 150 year old grave.

In other words, Creationism was dead and buried a long time ago. It’s now just a small fraction of loonies who are pretending it’s still alive.

<<It is argued that humans are the only species to have changed the WORLD environment and are altering natural selection with drugs and soon genetically. Or are we simply altering the direction of evolution? In which case how will we evolve (into), why ?>>

By developing drugs and coming up with medical procedures, I think we’ve pretty much brought Human evolution to a grinding halt (for now) because nature now plays an extremely small role in who dies and who goes on to re-produce.

1) “ It is argued that humans are the only species to have changed the WORLD environment”
Not so – a number of species have changed the world environment. Early micro-organisms are believed to oxygenized the atmosphere .The spread of land plants no doubt had a profound affect on world climate & geology.

2) “ how will we evolve (into), why ?”
I ( & many others ) anticipated the next phase will be through IT.
In particular AI, but calling it AI seems to imply that intelligence & consciousness outside the hominid body is not the real/legitimate thing. I have a hunch that the reverse is true – conscious inside the hominid body is merely coincidental ¬–and that its evolution/migration from a limited fresh & blood medium to potentially unlimited electronic medium will be the next evolutionary leap .Not us versus the machine --simply, us.
Viva la singularity

AJ Philips,
I think you're right about intelligent design (sic). in that it is clearly man's creation not objectively observational.

However, I'm a firm believer that like the 1st law of thermodynamics, evolution can't be created or stopped/interrupted (destroyed).

I tend to think that time equals change (evolution) and vise versa. In that context I reason that instead we may altering its course but to delay or stop it is historically illogical and implies gross human arrogance which I reject.

Examinator,

I think you’re mistaking ‘energy’ for ‘evolution’. Evolution is not a form of energy, and the 1st law of thermodynamics doesn’t apply to it at all. Evolution is essentially just the concept of biological change over time. That’s it.

By the way, I liked the “sic” after “Intelligent Design”. I prefer use its original term “Creationism” though, because ID (or “Intellectual Dishonesty” if you will) only came about as a sneaky and deceitful way to attempt to slip Creationism into the classrooms by taking the word “God” out of the equation (Google “of pandas and people” for the full story on this (http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&source=hp&q=of+pandas+and+people&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&aq=0&oq=of+panda&fp=803bcfc5f369f9b)), but as the judge at the Dover trial ruled, ID is still religious - and he’s a devout church-going Christian (so was one of the plaintiffs in the case for that matter).

AJ Philips,

I did say LIKE Thermodynamics 1.
I reason that like MATTER in TD#1, Evolution is immutable regardless of what we do. It will continue, if only because it doesn't work to our time-frame or timetable. The idea that we can stall/delay it is IMHO human arrogance.
As for Intelligent Design (sic) I would argue that there is no evidence of intelligence in nature (existence) merely random actions acted upon by other random actions ad infinitum on an infinite timescale.

ID clearly isn't science (full stop)

Creationism is a human affectation...a need to explain everything, a subset of fight or flight, which in turn is a subset of survival instinct.

Some people appear to be more prone to this need than others give or take conditioning.Given this I find no need to 'bag' the emotional needs of others. Each to their own.

I do however, reason therefore that religiosity having it's hands on education or governmental power is counter productive if not destructive to others humans.

I agree in principal with Hitchins, Dawkings et al but object to their absolutist perspectives....hence I'm a Secular Humanist until convinced otherwise

Examinator,

<<I did say LIKE Thermodynamics 1>>

And I did say “the 1st law of thermodynamics doesn’t apply to [evolution] at all” - it’s nothing like the 1st law of thermodynamics. Not one little bit.

<<The idea that we can stall/delay it is IMHO human arrogance.>>

It now sounds like you're confusing 'mutations' with 'evolution'. It would be arrogant (and just plain stupid) to claim that we could stop mutations, but there's nothing arrogant about admitting that we can defy nature (or Natural Selection), which is the driving force behind evolution.

It’s not like anyone’s claiming to be able to stop gravity, or steamroll over nature like those that built the Titanic.

Nature (or Natural Selection) is the driving force behind evolution. Mutations occur in DNA, some good, some bad, and most neutral. Nature and natural occurrences decide which of those mutations and traits will win out. Take nature out of the equation, by building civilised dwellings and defy disease and injury with drugs and medical procedures and you’ve seriouly hindered the driving force behind evolution.

I really don’t think you understand evolution at all.

nature is not science/..[nature is intel design..[as opposed to random selection..there is no science method in..'natural'..selection

where to next?..Dr. Bruce Lipton,..one of the foremost experts..in the field of epigenetics..and The New Biology, ..xplains that evolution truly works..by means of entities..joining together..to form communities.

Dr. Lipton explains we are surrounded by the proof..that we are poised to take an incredible step forward..in the growth of our species.

“Here we are..on a planet..with 6.5 billion people,..destroying each other..and destroying the planet,..we see ourselves..as single individual/entities....That’s a myth perception.

We’re..not a single..anything...We are a community...of 50 trillion cells..under our skin....

Every cell..has every function..in your body/..in its body...Every cell is a miniature human,..in a sense,..in a large population. So under your skin,..you have 50 trillion citizens.

Each one..has a job,..each..has healthcare,..each..gets nutrition delivered to it,..the garbage is taken out,..and they live in a harmonious society..where,..you represent..yourself..as the entity..but,,,know/..no,..50 trillion cells..are living in bliss and harmony..at the same time.”

He then extends that thought..to society as a whole...If you can live in harmony with 50 trillion cells inside of you,..why can’t a society made of 6.5 billion people..(all made of the same cells),..also figure out a way to live..in peace?
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=bruce+lipton+&search_type=&aq=f

Dr. Lipton
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/09/15/These-Four-Beliefs-Defy-Modern-Science.aspx
:..“And they..[your..50 trillion/cells]..live in a society,..and they have rules and regulations,..and they’ve been here..a billion/years before we were here.

..there’s this old statement..that says,..“The answers lie..within.”

And in fact,..from a biological point of view,..if you understood/the dynamics..of how energy is exchanged..in this system,..how the cells have jobs,..and the rules..that hold them together..in this wonderful, cooperative,growing,healthy,loving..community..that you’ll find in a human-body..that’s in health,

if..you look..into that population..and see how they do it,..it’s like,..just take those rules..and apply it to 6.5 billion people,..and this whole world will instantaneously snap into the harmony..that a human body..can have in a healthy situation.”

This leaves lots of potential..for our future on this earth...

the true secret to life does not lie within your DNA,..but rather within the mechanisms of the cell membrane...it is actually the cell’s/membrane..operating in response to environmental signals..picked up by the membrane’s receptors..that control the..“reading”..of the genes..inside/within

Evolution has already taken place, in the form of urgent driving, and road rage. It has now evolved onto the streets as thugery.
Geelong won the grand final in case you never heard.

AJ Philips,
>'I really don’t think you understand evolution at all.'<

Not at all. I think you maybe taking the whole thing a bit too personal.
I use the third person deliberately.

I counter by arguing that Evolution is a process and mutations are ONE of the MANY components that help define that process.
Other components include the base genetic building blocks (which is inherently unstable or else evolution would never have occurred in the first place), environment pressures etc.

Logically until we can ABSOLUTELY CONTROL, prior to the event ALL components and aspects we aren't stalling/stopping the process merely temporarily redirecting it.

We can't control the random mutations or the the conditions that make up The process of Evolution.

As I understand it Genetic mutations occur at a statistically consistent rate. What is not predictable is their specifics, nature (what), directionality or subtlety.

All this is complicated by the complexity of the organism. The more complex logically the more potentiality for mutations.

By altering some genes, changing medical procedures, drugs(temporary effect) we perhaps minusculely alter the process.

There is a common misconception that genes act independently and singularly in all cases. In reality they tend to act in complex networks and in subtle ways.

Add to that the indeterminate time frame of evolution typically several human lifetimes.

To then declare that we HAVE stopped or stalled the all the elements of and therefore the Evolution, is at best, gross exaggeration or at worst Human arrogance.

Examinator,

You do understand that I’m only talking about Human evolution, don’t you? Because that’s what I thought this thread was about.

Of course, there will still be minor changes overall such as people in hotter climates not needing to be so tall and skinny because they have air conditioners, and people in colder climates not needing to be so short and stocky to retain heat.

But other than minor points like that, yes, we’ve pretty much halted evolution as we’ve known it over the last few billion years.

If you think it’s possible that we could eventually become a super race, or another species entirely while still living in such civilised dwellings; being so protected from nature and disease, and having the ability to move all around to world with such ease, then you can argue that one with the scientists.

On the one hand, changes within species is generally driven by a change of environment; either climate change, or a subset of a species driven by population pressure to adapt to a new environment.
Since we are moving more and more into controlled environments, it is difficult to see further human evolution -at least while we remain on this planet.
On the other hand, 'Survival of the Fittest' ain't necessarily so. The Peacock is quite definitely not 'designed' to survive. It spends almost a year putting a significant amount of energy into growing a tail which not only hinders it's flight and take off times, but makes it visually very obvious.
It appears evolution is about female choice, and arbitrary notions of what makes a good mate; perhaps a case of; "if I stand next to this guy, guess who the tiger eats"...
There is some evidence to suggest enduring cultural notions of beauty can have an affect on racial features, so who knows?

Actually AJ, (and Grim maybe)

I am a bit with examinator on this one, human evolution has not stopped. In fact, the evidence from linkage disequilibrium studies suggests the opposite, that human evolution has been accelerating in more recent times.

One of the causes could possibly be that the pressure from stabilising selection so often found in nature has been reduced through cooperative effort and thus the variety of alleles that can be selected upon has increased and continues to increase at an accelerated pace. The upshot of this is not that humans will evolve into subspecies or a different species, but that the number of loci that can be selected upon through positive selection can increase, because many of negatively selected ones don't become such a burden.

We may have freed ourselves from the 'natural environment', but natural selection is still operating across the species as a whole.

Don't confuse this with speciation though, that tends to occur where there are isolating factors and genetic bottlenecks (often caused by catastrophe or envirnometal change), but if humans continue on as we are, with technology and 'civilisation', then all I can see that there will be two competing types of selection: natural selection still operating (especially when not yet recognised), and that we choose for ourselves (often called 'artificial' selection). Humans remarkable ability for conscious action, cooperation and the ability to plan ahead and alter their surrounding environments will not stop evolution, it will only take us in directions that would not have otherwise been possible.

I'd like to add a couple of notes, because several posts in this thread inadvertently fall prey to the Intelligent Design rhetoric methods that many creationists have picked up from the internet.

1. As Bugsy points out, genetic engineering and selective breeding are not drivers of evolution, but are the sorts of examples creationist loonies like to point to when claiming that the Holocaust wouldn't have happened without Darwin's theory of evolution.

Incidentally, Joseph (Jesus' other dad) was a shepherd. He'd have known pretty much everything about selective breeding that Hitler did.

2. Thermodynamics is cropping up because the second law was used as an early Intelligent Design argument against evolution. That line's been dropped now because it's very easy for people to understand the differences between closed and open systems of energy. The Discovery Institute now sticks to more reliable methods of debate, such as quote mining and plagiarism.

Bugsy<<..human evolution has been accelerating in more recent times...the pressure from stabilising selection..has been reduced through cooperative effort...>>>what cccrap bugsy...see how now many fatal genes..from the past are NOW..allowed expression/via 'surviving'....whereas before..their fatal fruit would see them extinct/morte/dead..thus their genes kept out of the gene pool

but then you state the inverse..[a typical evolutionary/science type re-direction teqnique...lol..claiming both sides..of their own fence..lol

<</...the variety of alleles that can be selected upon has increased and continues to increase at an accelerated pace.>>yet before they were reduced via<<..cooperative evolution...thalidamide evolution comes to mind..lol..[look mum no hands...

that wernt nuthin to do with alleles..that were chemical mutation/..evolution WITHIN THE SPECIES..within the genus..not into new species nor genus

but your inverse logic is ongoing..<<The upshot of this is not that humans will evolve into subspecies or a different species,..>>or any other GENUS..species/genus are not interchangable...not that you evolving nutters even grasp the difference

<<but that the number of loci that can be selected upon through positive selection can increase,..because many of negatively selected ones don't become such a burden.>>...lol positive selection..often results in many unknowable knowns not resulting in good fruit[ie 99 percent of mutation is injurous to the mutant..see last evolution debate]

<<We may have freed ourselves from the..'natural environment',..but natural selection..is still operating across the species as a whole...Don't confuse this with speciation though,>>YEAH YOUR CERTAINLY RIGHT[AND YET WRONG]..LOL

see humans is our genus..black white brindle are its species[eskimo/injun/ab-origonal/native...them is the species within the human genus

<<..Humans remarkable ability for conscious action,..cooperation and the ability to plan ahead..and alter their surrounding environments will not stop evolution,..it will only take us in>>un NATURAL<<directions that..would not have..otherwise been possible.>>

yes lets have more mutagenes mutatye the genus[the forst not human genus...will prove evolution..of genus/into new genus..[cause nothing else has]

<<see how now many fatal genes..from the past are NOW..allowed expression/via 'surviving'....whereas before..their fatal fruit would see them extinct/morte/dead..thus their genes kept out of the gene pool>>

This is exactly my point, OUG.

When it comes to not understanding pretty much anything you argue about, there is no greater example than your good self OUG.
Personally, I would lay off the 'genus' stuff for a while, it makes you look rather ignorant to those that actually know what one (and how they're 'made').

For those religionists who fear the development of super races.

It's too late. It is already happening. There are intellectuals who will do the thinking and ferals who will do the meanial tasks. In the middle there will be the ones who will take orders from the Intellectuals & sort out the unworkable crap, then make the ferals do the work. And so it should be. Now, if we could only breed some decent polititians.

buggsbunny quote<<..Personally,I would lay off the 'genus' stuff for a while,..it makes you look rather ignorant..to those that actually know what one..(and how they're 'made').>>>.golly gosh dear buggs..[bunny]

please enlighten us genious..on how genus are 'made'...lol

its sad you persist in being so completly and arragantly...ignorant

droll...lol

keep dancing funny boy...get some learning about the topic..learn your genus from the species...

darwin knew the difference...[not sure if the dorkins do..

still note darwin wrote..''evolutuion of SPECIES''..not genus..[and its genus evolving into other genus..that evolution/THEORY..espouses...yet has no shed of evidence for..

thus you nutters keep saying either or speci-ating..when you should be genu-s- reflecting..genuflecting]..on genus..

be attempting to be validating evolution of genus..into new genus...thats the theory...thats totally theory..

not one change of genus ever recorded or observed...this means evolution of genus is unlikely..to ever be..scientificly valid/let alone validated by science method...

thus its faith based belief..not science...live with it bugsy

A 'genus' is a taxonomic classification that is determined by taxonomists.

If you want to see a species change from one genus into another, behold the species Helicoverpa amigera. It used to be in the genus Heliothis, but now is in a new genus! Behold, evolution at the stroke of a pen!

Genera are just taxonomic classifications that are used reflect groups of species. At the species level, species themselves are defined quite differently, by using criteria that reflect biological realities, like being able to mate with each other and produce viable offspring (but that isn't necessarily the only criteria used).

As I said, the only people you might fool using that line of argument OUG are those that don't know any better. At least most of those that don't, don't pretend that they do.

So we have a raft of individuals here now addmitting their manner of thinking is not based in intelligent design. The asumption is: the brain has no capacity of reasoning, logic or design other than what humans have agreed upon. Can we believe their conclusions? However we do have some here whose reasoning is rather fuzzy who believe the human brain has innate design and logic patterns that can be verified and are part of the human experience and they have concluded there is design and logic in the universe.

Runner,
There are two differences between you and I. I accept your right to have your opinions and your right to to be wrong.

sadly buggs bunney your decieved as well as decieving

Heliothis
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Heliothis

Definition..Heliothis is a genus
http://www.ozanimals.com/Insect/Native-Budworm,-Heliothis-punctigera/Helicoverpa/punctigera.html

A genus is a low-level taxonomic rank used in the classification of living and fossil organisms...The taxonomic ranks are domain.., kingdom..,..phylum,..class..,..order..,..family..,..genus,..and species....of moth

A moth is an insect closely related to the butterfly,..both being of the Order Lepidoptera...The differences between butterflies and moths are more than just taxonomy....whose larva

A larva is a young form of animal with indirect developmental biology, going through or undergoing metamorphosis...The larva can look completely different from the adult form,..for example, a caterpillar differs from a butterfly....

there are agricultural pests on crop species such as tobacco

.Several of the species formerly placed in this genus are now in the genus Helicoverpa

Helicoverpa is a genus of moth in the Noctuidae family.It contains the following species:* Cotton Bollworm Helicoverpa armigera* Confused Moth ...

Heliothis is a genus
A genus is a low-level taxonomic rank used in the classification of living and fossil organisms. . Species include:
Heliothis peltigera
The Bordered Straw is a species of moth of the family Noctuidae. It is found in Southern Europe and the Near East, but can be found further North too, because it is a migratory species....
heliothis virescens

Oneundergod, how nice to see you extolling the virtues of our natural world, brought to us all through the wonders of evolution and natural selection.

Makes a change from preaching to us about the virtues of a fictitional creator. There's hope for you yet!

suzeonline<<..the virtues of our natural world,..brought to us all through the wonders of evolution..and natural selection...>>evolution is a theory...it didnt..'do'..nothing..theories dont do a thing...

do we have a describing word..and a naming word..or adjective..but somehow evolution....is axchieved naturally[not very scientific..it is used indescriminantly...please advise specificly..if evolution is a noun or adhective...

..explain how it is valid..as science repeat-ablitity...or as a science methodology..[or adds to explaining genomic evolution..not just natures/survivability...

it cleverly...naturally describes what is..[was by nature..[not science...thus not science nor evolution...simply a named unknowable..that appears a science method..[adjective]..but is a buzz word..noun..descriptive of nature/natural process,..but not a science method

while were at it please define..the science of natural..[that does this 'selection'...]..your hypnotised by the buzz words...missing the forest for the trees...every bit of life teaches us about god..who sustains all living ..so it appears..via..'natural'...selectors..not selecetions

but naturally..natural..dosnt mean that much..[in terms of science methodology]...how does..'natural'..define/explain sciernce is bukkiss...its spin for children

we dont know...natural=science..that naturally fools/who reject the god concept..jump on as some clever words describing a non science.. natrure..as evidence of natural selection..meaning/explaining science as methodocal..predictable/progressive evolution...when its not

naturally..chance works on probability/chance...science needs to be more specific..than the so called faith based alternative/generalities...of the other religiously held faiths

if you cant repeat it..its chance..not science...

and no repeat-ablity..nor science method..has been tendered..thus no validations of science has been offered...

thus informing not/those..with faith based ignorance...who's faith falls upon science...have the same unthinking/uncomprehending mantra/faith..as those who claim religious/belief..but dont read the holy texts...to confim it for themself

darwin could well have wrote genus..[but he did write species...just cause you lot are too ignorant to learn the difference..isnt science proof of nothing...

and certainly dont rebut god/the creator[naturally]..the nature..behind natural

Ok oneundergod, thanks for the 'scripture' lesson.
So I musn't believe anything science has told me?

Instead I should believe something a group of fishermen wrote down 2000 years ago?
I am expected to take the word of this bible which says I should believe all it says because of 'faith' in the 'Creator' and his son?

It asks me to believe the world was created in seven days and was flat?

All that is as much rubbish to me as the theories of evolution are to you. I suggest you give up on me!

suzeonline,
Ignorance is bliss and indicates an untrained mind. The Bible was not written by fishermen except for Peter and John and James who also were trained in language expression. The majority of the Bible was written by National leaders and their educators like Moses educated in the leading school of Egypt, David, Daniel educated in the leading school of Babylon, and writers from the school of prophets and Paul from the university of Jerusalem taught under Gamaliel.

If you intend to ridicule please do it intelligently. There is a pattern unfolding in the living Earth and it is intelligent and purposeful design. We are now learning its limitations by our abuse of the environment. There are principles we must live by to remain healthy, and it calls for obedience to observe those boundaries. These principles have been around since creation. It takes intelligence to live within those design boundaries.

For the knockers of the original Biblical text,
There are three occasions at which God interviened creatively to introduce new developments into existence.
1. The first - creation of the universe of matter - Gen 1:1 at the beginning of time, "God created the heavens and the Earth". Our planet began at the beginning of time and space. He then authorised for plants to evolve from the earth - "Let the Earth bring forth reproducing vegetation" Genesis 1: 12.
2. The second - creation of moving breathing creatures from the sea then upon the land Gen 1: 20.
3. The third - creation of human intelligence Genesis 1: 26. The last time God created it was human intelligence and it still remains at the pinacle of moral responsibility and reason.

The word used for creation in the original Biblical text "bara" [to create], only occurrs three times in Genesis 1 whereas on all other occasions God permitted or authorised things already in existence to evolve or develop change, i.e. the break up of land plates to form oceans and land mass Genesis 1: 6.

The six day creation concept is a misrepresentation of days recorded on an ancient education programme for the then students of science. The actual six day creation story became a theory around the time of the Septuagint translation. Believed by the Roman Catholic Church and adopted by Islam in the 7th Century into the Koran. and propagated by Bishop Ussher with his dating of the creation using a literal reading of the Latin which still is used by some.

Philo,
What makes you think that I or other secularists are ignorant of your belief's arguments?
After all they have hardly changed in fact for at least a millennium.
This is despite the world we inhabit has changed beyond all comprehension since the original writings. Meanwhile the religious interpretations of contextually dubious text tend to follow fashions.

Contra this against secularists who's views/understandings essentially change with the information as it is learned.

In essence the difference is in the basis. Religion is static and doesn't meet today's context without significant 'manipulation', massaging and blind faith to get it's devotees through the minefield of life.

In that context I prefer to see where I'm going and not be pushed by your blind faith.

I accept that you do have the right to be blind and tap dance in the proverbial minefield if you choose.

In short when you have NEW evidence then I'll read it but it is a waste of your time constantly patronizingly rehashing the same ole same ole

Philo you have no idea about my intelligence,and the fact that you will not listen to any other point of view than an old-fashioned religious view, shows a very narrow-minded intelligence on your part.

I have grown up as a devout Catholic as a matter of fact, and have studied the bible extensively- mainly as a source of wonderful fiction though!
If you want to believe in the 6 day creation and 1 day off routine, then good luck to you.

I am not against religion as such, but I am against people blindly only following an old religious book and not thinking for themselves.
To me it is a denial of human reason and our ability to think for ourselves.

I am for science, critical thinking, and rational thought.
All these concepts may be foreign to you Phillo.

Darwinian (biological) evolution is just one part of the evolution of our universe since the Big Bang. George Coyne mentally shrunk the 13.7 billion years to one year and came out with this time-table (http://www.thetablet.co.uk/article/614):

1 January: The Big Bang;
7 February: The Milky Way is born;
14 August: The Earth is born;
4 September; First life on the Earth;
15 December: The Cambrian explosion;
25 December: The dinosaurs appear;
30 December: Extinction of the dinosaurs;
31 December:
--19.00.00: First human ancestors
--23.58.00: First humans
--23.59.30: Age of Agriculture
--23.59.47: The pyramids
--23.59.58: Jesus Christ is born
--23.59.59: Galileo is born
--24.00.00: Today

In this scale the Earth’s atmosphere will be gone in 29 days, and in 93 days also the seas will dry out because the sun will be 40% hotter. However, again in this scale, intelligent humans have been around only for a few seconds, so there is still a lot of time left for them to figure out how to escape their annihilation, provided they do not annihilate themselves in the coming “few seconds”, before they have time to evolve - more through “culture” than “nurture” (based on purely biological natural selection) - from homo sapiens to homo adultus.

suzeonline,
Where have I ever said I believe in a literal six day creation? If you read my post carefully you will conclude the opposite. The Earth itself gave birth to a covering of vegetation. The text says God permitted it. "Let the Earth bring forth grass, herb yeilding seed and trees yeilding fruit after its species etc" indicating the imitus of new plants etc evolved out of the womb of the Earth. The conditions were conducive for things to evolve spontaneously

After giving it some thought, I’ll admit that my definition of evolution was far too narrow and because of that, I was being unhelpful to the discussion.

Unfortunately I reacted to a term that Creationists think is a gift handed to them on a plate – “thermodynamics” - as Sancho touched on.

My apologies for being so difficult, Examinator.

George,

That’s correct.

The analogy I’ve heard, is that if you hold your arm out, and the middle of your chest was the initial “bang” (or the start of the expansion of space time), then the formation of Earth would be just before your hand; the start of life on Earth would be around the middle of your palm; the extinction of the dinosaurs would be around a centimetre from the tip of your middle finger and every bit of Human history that we know of - even more that what Creationists are willing to acknowledge - would disappear with the single stroke of a nail file.

Little did the humans living on October 23rd 4004 BC know there’d be people 6012 years later who would think that the universe, and all that there was in it, started on that very day.