A missing link has been found, bearing characteristics of both humans and primates:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/two-boys-close-the-evolutionary-gap/story-e6frg8y6-1225851599690

"Asked yesterday whether the find was the missing link between apes and humans, Professor Berger said that although he did not approve of the simplistic term, it appeared the species was "transitional", with a mosaic of characteristics shared by later hominins from the genus Homo and earlier hominins from the genus Australopithecus.
Professor Berger described the pelvic structure as "very advanced and very human-like".
"They could still climb trees - that was very clear with those long arms - but they were very competent walking bipeds on the ground," he said.

---

Science rarely deals in absolutes. The scientist above quite rightly shies away from such a simplistic term as a 'missing link' because it pigeonholes and simplifies an issue that is far from simple.

I used the term "a" missing link, because this issue has never been about a smoking gun. The point is, there are many different kinds of bipedal, human-like creatures that have existed, be they offshoots such as neanderthals or even more distant relatives such as the various kinds of Australopithecus.

My point isn't to ignite the creation vs evolution debate again, though no doubt that will happen too (and when it happens can we try to remain civil and at least attempt to utilize some degree of logic in discussions?).

My question is thus: is there any point where evidence would be so overwhelming, where people with any degree of rationality could no longer reject it outright, or at the very least, modify the more simplistic traditional creationist fables to be more inclusive of legitimate (as opposed rejecting evidence contrary to their hypothesis) scientific enquiry?

What would qualify in the world of science, as a "smoking gun" as it were?

TRTL
You asked "...is there any point where evidence would be so overwhelming, where people with any degree of rationality could no longer reject it outright, or at the very least, modify the more simplistic traditional creationist fables to be more inclusive of legitimate (as opposed rejecting evidence contrary to their hypothesis) scientific enquiry?"

Answer: No I don't think there is a critical turning point for some.

Many creationists are so entrenched even hitting them over the head with a mallet of evidence will produce no result. Any 'evidence' will be seen as tainted, corrupt or false in the face of faith based belief.

Dear TRTL,

You ask about the "missing link?" and
what evidence would sway creationists?

I don't think that any evidence is
going to sway some people. Especially those
who believe that human beings were created
in the image of God and thus were elevated
above all other forms of life. These people
will find it difficult to reconcile their
views with the concept that life on earth
has evolved through natural processes.

However, many people accept the basic principles
of evolution within the framework of their religious
beliefs. These are people who interpret the story
of Creation as a symbolic, rather than literal
account of the origin of human beings and other
living things. These people don't find this
symbolic interpretation incompatible with the
findings of evolutionary biologists. For these people,
the idea that human beings evolved from lower forms
of life does not diminish the uniqueness of human
capabilities and the accomplishments of human
civilizations.

So, in answer to your question - it all depends on
what you believe, and how strongly you believe it.

TRTL

While I am thrilled at the news of the discovery of near complete fossilised humanoid skeletons, I concur with Pelican and Foxy that this is not sufficient evidence to convince creationist believers.

The arguments put forth by fundamentalist believers reveal little to zero understanding of scientific procedures, genetic mapping, plate tectonics, even the time in the millions of earth years that it takes light from other suns, solar systems and galaxies to reach our planet to be observed in the sky.

That is why we call believe in religion 'faith' - no evidence or rational thinking required.

;Missing link? What evidence would sway creationists?'

A little honest observation instead of missing link number 5005. What a load of crap. Talk about desperate attempts to prove a fantasy. This sort of 'evidence' makes s scientist look very silly indeed. The gullible god deniers are so so desperate to find what does not exist that they will continue to pervert science in order to prove their fallacy

WTF?

I would be content to let these creationist crazies wallow in their own ignorance except that they are now able to wield significant political clout. Just like in the bible belt of the good old US of A politicians do not want to upset the fundamentalist loopies.

We live in a society that allows schools to pander to the “there are no wrong answers” liberal arts movement.

This has allowed many to believe that we have to accept any and every interpretation (sorry every constructed knowledge) regardless of how rigorously that knowledge has been acquired.

I would agree with Foxy.

Creationists have never bothered with evidence before, their policy is simply to deny, deny, deny.

Well I wondered how long it would take runner to come along.

"The gullible god deniers are so so desperate to find what does not exist that they will continue to pervert science in order to prove their fallacy"

There is your answer TRTL.

Good points people, it's a shame that such painstaking research can be dismissed so easily because it doesn't sit well with some people.

runner, stop for a moment. Consider the possibility you may be wrong.

You said yourself, missing link 5005, as though there are many missing links. Isn't that even more compelling evidence?

I'm willing to consider the existence of a god, even though I don't think it's likely one exists.

I'll accept there are things I don't know when it comes to the origin of life on earth.

Why can't you? You lambast others for being arrogant earth worshippers (though this seems like an erroneous term given that the non-religious don't worship by definition) and yet, you display arrogance in demanding that you have all the answers while refusing to even consider other opinions.

Isn't it rude to dismiss someone's hard work without even a second glance?

"is there any point where evidence would be so overwhelming, where people with any degree of rationality could no longer reject it outright, or at the very least, modify the more simplistic traditional creationist fables to be more inclusive of legitimate (as opposed rejecting evidence contrary to their hypothesis) scientific enquiry?"

I think that we passed that point quite some time ago.

To rephrase the words of another

"Some god believers are so so desperate to ignore what does exist that they will continue to pervert whatever it takes in order to cling to their fallacy"

R0bert

"What evidence would sway creationists?"

Absolute resounding proof God doesn't exist.

There is only one species that has the level of creative intelligence and that is man whose existence is probably not more than 10,000 years old. Lesser species do not exhibit the abstract, aesthetic and mathematical logic that man displays.

In the creation story it states Adam viewed many animal species and did not find a suitable partner. God could have just as easily created many human like creatures but only one had the moral and creative intelligence - man.

Darwin never understood the complexity of the single cell and assumed that by basic reasoning that similar skeletal structures had similar ancestors. There is a level of intelligence in the design of the cell that is impossible for science to replicate life from basic inanimate chemicals.

The very fact that we are debating with intelligent logic yet not able to agree intelligence is present in forming existence indicates a fatal flaw in the logic of those that deny an external intelligence is involved in existence.

The fact that such an invalid and misleading term as “missing link” is still around just goes to show how successful Creationists have been in their campaign to cause unnecessary confusion. There are several reasons why the term “missing link” is so invalid.

Firstly, it implies that it’s actually possible to find every stage of development when in fact, considering how smooth the transitions were, this would be as impossible as trying to take a photo of every stage of development in a person’s life - it doesn’t matter how many photos you take, there will always be “gaps” in between any two particular photos.

Secondly, (and presuming you could actually find every “link”) it implies that there is no reason why we shouldn’t have discovered every “link”, when we are actually quite lucky to have discovered any at all considering how specific the environment and circumstances need to be for fossilisation to occur.

Thirdly, the term “missing link” gives the false impression that there is some sort of question mark still hanging over the validity of evolution.

In regards to “smoking guns”, well, there have been more smoking guns than we could count really. This is simply one more that we can add to the mountains upon mountains of evidence for evolution.

To answer the question though, no, there is nothing that will convince MOST Creationists. I’ve done a lot of debating with Creationists (as futile as it is), and one thing I’ve learned is that (in most cases) Creationism is actually a mental retardation of sorts.

I did a bit of Googling to see if I could find any information on the Creationist mindset, and although I was shocked to see how little real study had gone into this phenomenon that still has me baffled (I guess it’s because we’re not supposed to question faiths simply because they’re someone’s ‘faith’), I did find a bit written by a Reverend who is apparently a mental health Chaplain.

Continued...

...Continued

This Reverend refers to Creationism as a “thinking disorder” and gives a good analogy comparing Creationism with anorexia...

“It is rather like dealing with anorexics; thin people who are convinced they need to lose weight, to the point of putting themselves at risk. Plonk them on scales and the scales are wrong. Show them their emaciated reflection in a mirror and they will still see a plump person. Reason with them and you are part of the conspiracy to make them obese. While anorexia is normally referred to as an eating disorder it is also, clearly, a form of mental illness, whose victims can be sectioned and force-fed to keep them alive – which they will interpret as cruelty. Anorexia is something that happens to other people; they are perfectly normal.” (http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/cre_thinking_disorder.htm)

I’m just thankful that when I was a Creationist, I had the curiosity to eventually look into the evidence for evolution, and the sanity to accept what I found. Most are not that lucky and are happy to live in their own little bubble of ignorance and make assertions without knowing, or even wanting to know any of the evidence

Here, allow me to demonstrate...

Runner,

Could you please state why the evidence mentioned in the article is incorrect?

Philo,

<<Darwin never understood the complexity of the single cell and assumed that by basic reasoning that similar skeletal structures had similar ancestors.>>

Now with DNA and an extensive fossil record, we can confirm that his “basic reasoning that similar skeletal structures had similar ancestors” was absolutely correct.

<<There is a level of intelligence in the design of the cell that is impossible for science to replicate life from basic inanimate chemicals.>>

Yes, impossible now. But since you seem to know that it will always be impossible, then perhaps you could answer a few questions for me...

1. Is it impossible for nucleotides to have formed in the primordial Earth’s montmorillonite clay?
2. Is it impossible for nucleotides to join together to form polynucleotides?
3. Is it impossible for polynucleotides to become RNA?
4. Is it impossible for RNA to become DNA?
5. Is it impossible for DNA to attract lipids that form a protective membrane?

Which of these steps is impossible, Philo?

Oh, and one other thing. Complexity does not imply design. Complexity in design arises from either necessity or sloppiness, and a supreme being would not be sloppy, nor would they need to design life to be so unnecessarily complex.

AJ Philips,
The fact a humanoid type creature was found does not prove it was actually a genetic ancestor of modern man. It can only be presented as a theory, not a fact. It may be resultant of another stream.

Genetic information cannot be added to single cell creatures to create more complex species unless external design forces are involved. when this is fully demonstrated by intelligent science minds, then I must uphold intelligent design. Natural environment is not a breeding house for the complexity of species, or the formation of a single living cell. It is as rational as the primitive theory that sour milk can of itself create maggots; which is the level of rational thought used by Darwinians.

Anorexia, is an excellent example of a thinking disorder despite visual and physical evidence to the contrary.

I was always naturally thin - a size 8 in my teens, I'll never forget a girl my age who was a friend of a friend in our camping group. I had been warned that she was recently recovered from anorexia - yet her view of herself and others was still distorted. Camped by a swimming hole this young girl had forgotten her bikini - I had a spare which I knew would fit - if a little loose, she was still painfully thin. When I offered it to her she wanted to refuse saying, that it would be too small for her. I guess the desire to swim won out, and she joined the rest of us for a swim. Interestingly though, even though the bikini had fitted, she would not look me in the eye or even talk to me after I told her how good she looked in the bikini.

For Creationists to accept much of what is obvious to the rest of us would be to destroy their entire being. Which is appalling and a further indictment of the bad that can come from religious belief.

AJ PhIIIps

Did you cease belief in Creationism as an adult? If so, power to you, it cannot have been easy.

Look at Runner, he can only justify himself by insulting others who do not agree with him. Extreme case.

What I find difficult to figure is people like Philo - who appears to have some ability for deduction and reason, but nonetheless can't even accept the moderate Christian POV that his god set the elements of the universe in motion, thus leading to evolution.

AJ Philips,
Just read the Genesis account Genesis 3: 19 and you learn man was actually formed from the chemistry of the Earth - no new theory, just an understanding of a reality that has been presented for 5,000 years.

1. Is it impossible for nucleotides to have formed in the primordial Earth’s montmorillonite clay?
2. Is it impossible for nucleotides to join together to form polynucleotides?
3. Is it impossible for polynucleotides to become RNA?
4. Is it impossible for RNA to become DNA?
5. Is it impossible for DNA to attract lipids that form a protective membrane?

Nothing is impossible for God.

TRTL

you ask 'Isn't it rude to dismiss someone's hard work without even a second glance?'

I would suggest it is extremely rude to deny and dismiss the obvious (Creation and design). This is far more observable than the flawed evolution theory. Whether you choose to believe in it or not is your choice but to have the ever changing and lengthening time period needed for evolution taught as science is an insult to any thinking person's intelligence. The arrogance of the gw bandwagon was largest based on this flawed theory and computer modeling. By all means put your faith in this fantasy. Certainly many are wetting their pants with excitment yet again but as usual no true evidence is forthcoming.

Runner

I have a bikini you might like to borrow...

Isn't it time we moved beyond the scientism of dead white males like Darwin?
Multiculturalism shows us that there are as many diverse explanations for the origins of life as there are cultures, each of them equally valid.
What do the Navajos have to say?
What do the Pitjantjara believe?
Where do the Kalahari bushpersons stand on this?
We need to explore the depths of their wisdom to arrive at a more wholistic understanding of where we all came from.

*even hitting them over the head with a mallet of evidence will produce no result*

Hehe Pelican, that might just increase the size of runner's brain
and finally get him thinking for a change :)

I think people vary. I know some past creationists, JWs and
others, who eventually left their church. Even Farrell Till, an
expert on proving the many mistakes in the bible, is an ex preacher.

Most of them seem to think its not one single and final piece of
evidence that sways them, more like lots of little reasons, which
eventually add up over time. So even if they are in denial on OLO,
the many points made would still get many thinking. Eventually
one day, some simply can't accept the religious babble any more,
even if thrown out of their communities, as happens with ex JWs
ex Bretheren and others who leave.

Runner still can't name me a part of his brain that he has, that
a chimp or bonobo does not have. So I will have to keep reminding
him!

Severin,

Thanks for the laugh you gave me with that last comment. The whole office I work in went quite and looked at me to see what I was doing in my office.

To answer your question, yes, although I’m not proud of it, it wasn’t until I was an adult that I broke free from my Creationism - a young adult - but an adult nonetheless.

I was about 22 and had stopped going to church several years earlier when I was watching a documentary that - just as a passing comment - mentioned that plagues were once believed to be the actions of an angry God. Something in me at that moment clicked as I realised for the first time ever that maybe; just maybe, there were rational explanations for the stories in the Bible and the beliefs of those primitive people who wrote it. That was the beginning of my journey to rational thinking as one curiosity lead to another.

What is easy? Yes and no.

Yes, because the evidence for evolution was so abundant, rational and seemingly conclusive that it was impossible for someone without a thinking disorder to deny; but no, because I suddenly felt like I had been lied to by so many people that I loved and respected - including my own parents. But that feeling eventually faded and was reduced to a feeling of disappointment that those people could be so wilfully ignorant.

I can understand a child, or even a teenager believing in Creationism because they’re simply ignorant to the evidence of evolution; I can understand a child, or even a teenager having the stupidity to continue to deny evolution even when the evidence for it is shoved in their face.

I can understand an adult believing in Creationism because they’re simply ignorant to the evidence of evolution (as I was); but I cannot, for the life of me, understand how a grown adult can have the evidence for evolution shoved in their face and continue to deny it.

That, to me, can only be explained by a severe thinking disorder.

Philo,

<<The fact a humanoid type creature was found does not prove it was actually a genetic ancestor of modern man.>>

Correct.

But our knowledge of anatomies, chromosomes and geography, etc., give us the ability to determine that we would have at least shared a common ancestor with it. In fact, there are so many humanoid fossils that have been discovered, that scientists have difficulties agreeing on which ones we’re directly descended from.

Kinda blows a big hole in the false “there are no transitional fossils” argument of Creationists, doesn’t it?

<<Genetic information cannot be added to single cell creatures to create more complex species unless external design forces are involved.>>

This is a classic Creationist argument that myself and others have debunked so many times, that I’m gonna be lazy this time and simply post a link... http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

Read it an weep my friend.

<<Natural environment is not a breeding house for the complexity of species, or the formation of a single living cell.>>

Give me one reason why it’s not.

And if the natural environment is not a “breeding house” for the formation of a single living cell, then please answer my questions properly rather than resorting to the assumption that it was a God what done it.

<<It is as rational as the primitive theory that sour milk can of itself create maggots...>>

Then answer my questions.

<<Just read the Genesis account Genesis 3: 19 and you learn man was actually formed from the chemistry of the Earth - no new theory, just an understanding of a reality that has been presented for 5,000 years.>>

By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return?

So then, why do you reject it?

Sorry Philo, but the more arguments you present - that I’ve already debunked repetitively here on OLO - the more you confirm the point that the good Reverend and myself have made about Creationism being a thinking disorder, I’m afraid.

Your argument is obviously lost when you resort to personal attacks on my intelligence. That is - belief in an intelligent design force is a mental disorder; such a view is a dawkinism and not a clinical phycologist analysis. I have phycologist clinicians within the family, and they are Christian.

You have presented no evidence that the unseen Creator designed the principles of matter and its behaviour. Obviously you believe the Dawkins delusion, who is neither a leading phycologist or serious science researcher, but an emotive evangelist for atheism - the sad bitter little man. In an interview done by Bern Stein with Dawkins in the film "Expelled" [though I think the film had too much emotive material] he almost concluded that there were some intelligent design that was not a result of natural selection i.e. a god force.

I do not agree with much that fundamentalist creationists hold too and have been denied from the Creation site. However it has not determined that because of their emotive views and action that I will now become an atheist. It is more that they will not accept any term that remotely involves a progression of species and blatently dismiss the whole theory. Many of them will not recognise God designed and used observeable natural forces. Such is the case on the subject of organic decay and death being a created design which I uphold from the same Biblical text they read

Some followers of a God, any God will not look at any evidence no matter how good.
If visitors from another world came, bringing evidence no God exists, some would still hold on the their own comfort blankets.
Maybe some need that blanket, that reason to hope some one is in charge, that the madness that life can be is planned.
Even for us who do not believe, the warm comfortable view is understood but tempting too.
I increasingly am unsure we have the right to call those who believe foolish or lessor people.
And at the same time challenge them, truly fairly honestly to confront the great harm those they follow inflict on us.
Catholics must ask why in the church that gave us mass Christianity have so many done so much wrong, why too have so many given protection to those who carry your Gods words to you.
Those two missing links may well have more humanity in their bones than some who serve a God.

AJ PhIIIps

Thank you for a glimpse into your journey - I expect the feeling of being duped would be one of the worst issues to work through. Once you understand the science, there really is no going back. This is why I can understand and accept those who retain a belief in their chosen religion without taking ancient texts literally.

PS - Good to know I gave you a laugh.

Philo

There are many highly intelligent people who have a delusional disorder, such as my friend who suffered from anorexia. AJ PhIIIps was not deriding your intelligence - just the beam in your eye that prevents you from understanding that this universe is even more amazing, enthralling and mysterious than any religion has ever been able to comprehend.

Interesting that those who understand science in general and evolutionary processes in particular are unanimous that there is no evidence that would sway creationists. What is required is a journey of psychological exploration that is not easy and too threatening for some to take even a first step.

This would not be of concern if people's religion did not have such a major impact on society in general from stunting education through to receiving special dispensation from taxes and even criticism - this delusion has to stop.

What evidence would sway creationists?

Certainly, from what our resident fundies have had to say so far, no amount of evidence would sway them. I think it's what known as "blind faith".

On the other hand, as AJ Philips demonstrates, it is possible for rational people to overcome their deeply ingrained delusions if they open their minds to the overwhelming evidence that supports Darwinian evolution.

And at the same time challenge them, truly fairly honestly to confront the great harm those they follow inflict on us.
Catholics must ask why in the church that gave us mass Christianity have so many done so much wrong, why too have so many given protection to those who carry your Gods words to you. [Belly].

Belly, many catholics raised, departed the catholic church in droves during the 90's never to return. I being one of them. However, I have parents and immediate family who are catholics practicing their faith who have not harmed people; instead supporting and caring for many people, nor have they or others within their congregations known or swept paedophilia under the carpet. I see your point in relation to those people, regardless of whether or not they are practicing catholics, who have given protection to paedophiles.

Here, you seem to be hinting at a generalisation that there are many people of catholic faith who have known about paedophilia and done nothing to address paedophilia.

False. No. Where I was raised in a large country town and churches [54,000 population back then] no paedophilia has ever come to light and that with a thousand at least in each catholic boys and girls schools over 20 years.

Most Australians I have grown up with that possess sensible down to earth faith have not protected paedophilia behaviour.

we are unique,
The resident atheists here prefer to degrade the person rather than stick with demonstratable evidence - there is no God. Their view of the Creator is immature and from the front lobe - man in the sky stuff.

Faith is not merely a belief in ideas, if that were the case the theory of evolution rates in that catagory. Faith demonstrates action on those ideas, that is why Christ taught inspirational hope and selfless love. These concepts are absent from the ideas of atheistic evolution and are demonstrated in the hoplessness of our youth currently leaving school. They have no foundations of reason for being and social responsibility.

At least the graduating youth in my church and many Churches I know commit themselves to charity work and overseas aid, because they believe God designed humans and He wants the best for their lives and for others. God's work is in education, feeding the hungry, and healing the injured and sick and building social values. That is why so many of them serve in the education, housing and medical fields. I am serving on the Board of a charity for intellectually handicapped to create satisfying work for them. The secular society has abandoned them to uslessness.

The atheist network promote abortion, euthenasia, no purpose for life or beyond life; that the person themself is the highest accountable authority. Hitler is the best example of one who demonstrated faith in Darwinism with his attempt to breed a superior race influenced through natural selection, and euthanise any who got in his way.

Philo,

I would appreciate if you would inform me where exactly you stand with all this, because you seem to be swaying back on forth from Creationist to someone who accepts evolution.

I think you need to clear this up first if we are to have a productive discussion here.

<<Your argument is obviously lost when you resort to personal attacks on my intelligence.>>

As Severin pointed out, I did not attack or even mention your intelligence, just your ability to think critically on this particular topic.

<<That is - belief in an intelligent design force is a mental disorder...>>

If by “belief in an intelligent design force” you mean someone who accepts science but believes that a God triggered the events, then no, I don’t think, and have never said that this is a mental disorder. Irrational? Yes, because someone who thinks like that has no way of telling the difference between their God and something that doesn’t exist, but not a mental disorder.

But if by “belief in an intelligent design force” you mean a Creationist who has had the evidence presented to them and still rejects it, then yes, absolutely this could easily be classed as a mental disorder - without question.

<<I have phycologist clinicians within the family, and they are Christian.>>

I’m not sure what you point is here, sorry.

Are these people Creationists? And if so, are you saying that they can’t possibly have a thinking disorder because they’re psychologists? Ever heard of Hannibal Lector? (No, I’m kidding there, sorry.)

You’ve also told me once before that you know an astronomer who bases his calculations on a static universe despite the absolute and irrefutable fact that the universe is expanding. So excuse me if I’m a little cynical about these psychologists that you know.

<<You have presented no evidence that the unseen Creator designed the principles of matter and its behaviour.>>

Nor did I intend to.

Continued...

...Continued

<<In an interview done by Bern Stein with Dawkins in the film "Expelled" ... he almost concluded that there were some intelligent design that was not a result of natural selection i.e. a god force.>>

Yeah, I’ve seen that dishonest documentary and that interview had been seriously hacked and edited to make it look like Dawkins believed that aliens designed us, when in fact, all Dawkins was saying, was that if we had been designed, then it’s possible (but unlikely) that an alien race designed us. But that alien race would still have had to come about by some means of Darwinian natural selection.

<<I do not agree with much that fundamentalist creationists hold too and have been denied from the Creation site. However it has not determined that because of their emotive views and action that I will now become an atheist.>>

You don’t have to.

There are many sophisticated Christians out there who accept science and instead rely on obfuscation and mental gymnastics to maintain their belief rather than ignorance and a literal interpretation of the Bible.

<<Hitler is the best example of one who demonstrated faith in Darwinism with his attempt to breed a superior race influenced through natural selection, and euthanise any who got in his way.>>

Wrong.

Eugenics is based on a misunderstanding of evolution (a misunderstanding that Creationists help to perpetuate), since evolution tells us that artificially narrowing the gene pool is detrimental to our survival as a species.

That’s why the ignorance bred by Creationists can be so potentially dangerous.

Your beef is not with evolution, but with selective breeding. So why aren’t you up in arms about those who pioneered selective breeding thousands of years ago? Because it doesn’t affect your religious beliefs.

By the way, Philo, the answer to my questions before is “no”. They are all steps of abiogenesis that are very credible; some have even been repeated in labs. This is why your claim that abiogenesis “is as rational as the primitive theory that sour milk can of itself create maggots” is total rubbish.

TurnRight- are you serious?

I think when somebody is convinced that people were all the descendants of two gingerbread men that a powerful spirit created out of clay, and that all animal species from penguins to alligators lived within walking distance of noah's house and were stored on a wooden boat (including freshwater fish) that could fit two of every 3-or-so million animal species on the planet (remember, no evolution) and distributed in specific ecosystems around the world- ALL despite even the simplest logic disproving it, NOTHING is going to convince them otherwise.

Every bit of evidence or deviant thinking was fabricated by Satan.

End of story.

I am serious King Hazza, mainly because I don't think the many, many creationists out there can simply be explained as a mental illness. In many cases, it's because they've been raised that way.

Runner's protestations demonstrate his inability to explain why evolution is flawed. He can't explain the existence of these other humanoid species so he goes on the attack. Instead of having an enquiring mind, he goes on the defensive.

There are few things that get me riled up, but one of them is people who refuse to try to understand other points of view.

As an example, although I don't really believe in a god, I can't rule out a god - provided it doesn't contradict what exists in the world around us. The idea of a god, even the Christian god seems possible if they're the kind of god that sets in motion things like evolution.

However, the 5,000 year-old-garden-of-Eden story clearly has holes in it. It doesn't seem to mention hominids, nor dinosaurs and logic tells us we can't cram all of the world's animals on one boat.

If someone can tell me where I'm wrong, then I'm happy to consider that and attempt to find answers. The problem here, is that some creationists won't, which seems to undo all of the good deeds performed by enquiring minds such as Aquinas in bringing Christianity out of the dark ages.

Makes you wonder if there's some kind of 'intervention' for lack of a better term, which would work in these cases.

It seems that as societies become more educated they generally become less religious. Part of this, was that with each scientific discovery that challenged the core creationist fable, churches seemed to lose ground. It makes me wonder whether the resurgence of creationist beliefs in modern times is an organised endeavour or merely a widely held belief set.
If it is organised, then I wonder whether those capable of running such an operation, some of whom must have strong analytical skills given their success, believe in these fables or not.

Various Creationists are academics excelling in their science or archeological fields, at the same time growing and learning daily, sharing their beliefs and knowledge gained via their studies and observations [using evidence, intelligence and their spirituality].

It is only fair to say that many Creationists do acknowledge the evidence in front of them as opposed to ignoring hard evidence or concocting fantasy.

There of course are fanatical Creationists as there are fanatical attributes in every individual relating to certain things. All of us are fanatical about something in our lives or misinterpret things in our lives. Thats another story.........

We are unique only a fool would infer all catholics are evil, or even miss lead.
You will however be aware some Church's would have us believe they are the anti Christ.
I do not claim either but am less than impressed with their self belief.
In Ireland and maybe other poor country's, adherence to church teachings is often the biggest part of education.
Such people often believe in the infallibility of the church, and protect it always.
That is not unique but cult like and a factor in my view of every follower of every God.
I as you are aware, understand the great good in the hearts of most Christians.
But philo and others refuse me the right to my views another defensive thing, rather not let me think as I wish than offend a God that if he existed plans a life on your knees as a reward for total unquestioned obedience in this one.
A slavery few would want , no ability to think or act for your self.

Belly your view of me refusing your right to believe what ever you want is only in your mind - not mine. Reread my posts.

My position:
1. I am not a believer in a six day creation
2. I am not a believer in a universal flood
The Eden story represents a theological point and not actual history.
The flood represents a local known event that was widespread and predictable.

I have heard a theory that at one time the Jurassic Earth was surrounded by a 3 - 5 feet band of ice that allowed man to observe the starry universe in a magnified form and Noah recognised the approach of a metiorite that was to impact the Earth. The Ice melted and when the metiorite passed or hit the Earth the radiation shortened the life of man; before this even it hadn't rained, but warm mists arose from the Earth. The result of the ice melting exposed man to higher levels of radiation. The protein found in the skin that protects us from radiation now shortens our life span. before this event it is recorded humans had lived for several hundred years. Because there is no barrier from the radiation from the sun, our life span has been shortened. A theoritical possibility.

Trouble is TRTL, those deeply entrenched in their religion from birth, don't stand much of a chance to critically evaluate when you have been taught that it is a sin to question.

Most religious people I know do question, they debate and discuss issues surrounding their beliefs without in anyway diminishing their faith or spirituality. Many Christians accept evolution so we are really talking about the more ardent fundamentalists who are restricted from within and without from evaluating 'evidence' if that evidence goes against all they have been taught.

Thankfully within secular societies fundamentalism is slowly diminishing (a dying breed). As we evolve I think faith based beliefs will be tempered with more scientific debates and debates about what it means to be spiritual without necessarily the stringent and irascible fundamentalism that still pervades in some circles (not only in the Christian world).

If we accept that humans are naturally spiritual and find their spirituality in different ways, there will always be some faith based belief, Christianity, Islam, Reincarnation, Spiritual Mediums, Witchcraft, Paganism and Homeopathy could all be placed in that category. All come with a long history (although I hesitate at using the world Witchraft which was a label put on those who dared to disagree with the pervading thoughts of the day).

While we cannot dismiss the spiritual nature of human beings, we can hopefully temper it with some rational and considered debate all the time asking what it means to be spiritual; and at the same time continually evaluating and examining new evidence that sheds light on our past.

I agree with all of your viewpoints since joining OLO Belly and learned an incredible amount from you on many subjects. I thank you sincerely for this.

I comprehend what you are saying on this subject and agree with your viewpoints; however was a little concerned earlier on that you may have believed practicing catholics had over the past 20 -50 years swept paedophilia under the carpet. Am relieved this misunderstanding is cleared up.

Enjoy your week Belly and I will continue to read and learn from your posts.

TRTL

If you do nothing else today please watch the following video, it presents what would we make of history if we could rewind history like a video tape.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOqhEfMOWg8&feature

It is also reassuring to listen to imaginative and reasoned suppositions.

Cheers

runner,

You have offerred an opinion. Where is your counter argument?

Hi Foxy,

I was surprised at this fortunate find. Evolutionary biologists note that records will be found for species which have been successful in the past and for those who have evolved, because they have adapted. Intermediates tend to have been not survived/matured because they didn't fit the old or new niche. Finding an example/sample of a small population millions of years old is therefore a challenge.

An albatross can fly hundreds of kilometres while sleeping, it is believed dolphins can hear in 3-D and humans can solve problems. I think many species are truly amazing, yet in different ways

Philo,

Thanks for the very ambiguous response there. I noticed you still couldn’t say that you accepted evolution, and to make things worse, you descended into a loopy idea that someone - without any evidence at all - had just made up...

<<I have heard a theory that at one time the Jurassic Earth was surrounded by a 3 - 5 feet band of ice that allowed man to observe the starry universe in a magnified form and Noah recognised the approach of a metiorite that was to impact the Earth.>>

So you can believe the above nonsense despite its fatal flaws and total lack of evidence, but idea of evolution just blows your mind.

Astonishing.

<<The Ice melted and when the metiorite passed or hit the Earth the radiation shortened the life of man>>

Do you realise that the only reason Creationists say that humans used to live for hundreds of years is because the chronology of the Bible so incredibly flawed, that that is the only way they can account for the errors?

TRTL,

<<...I don't think the many, many creationists out there can simply be explained as a mental illness. In many cases, it's because they've been raised that way.>>

“Mental illness” is a pretty harsh way of putting it. I prefer the term “thinking disorder”.

I don’t think “because they've been raised that way” discludes anyone with such bizarre beliefs from being considered to have a thinking disorder.

Parents can quite easily raise their children to have a thinking disorder. For example, if a parent were to continuously tell their child that they were fat (whether or not they were) and that they needed to lose weight, then there’s a high chance that that child will eventually become an anorexic.

<<There are few things that get me riled up, but one of them is people who refuse to try to understand other points of view.>>

I can certainly relate to that, but I’m not sure what that has to do with the following...

<<As an example, although I don't really believe in a god, I can't rule out a god - provided it doesn't contradict what exists in the world around us. The idea of a god, even the Christian god seems possible if they're the kind of god that sets in motion things like evolution.>>

I think you’re being way too generous here. While technically, no one can rule out the existence of a god or gods, and although I don’t think we can really put a number on it, I think - from what we can objectively observe, and by applying our practical knowledge - the chances that a god, or specifically the Christian god, exists would be in the order of a 0.000000000000001% chance (give or take). So for all intents and purposes, I think we can say that the Christian god does not exist.

Given that Christians have had over a thousand years to give some sort of evidence for their god and have so far come up with nothing, I don’t think they deserve your generosity there. You’re giving them an undeserved validity.

Hi Olly,

I love reading your posts.
You're one of the people who's taught me
that the only cure for eudcation and information,
is more education and information! :-)!

and yet with millions and millions of fossils still not one transitional fossil (except for the frauds made up by deceitful men). You really have to be desperate, naive or both to swallow this unscientific crap.

Foxy,
For more education and information:
"The Rhetoric of Charles Darwin"
Interview with John Angus Campbell
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_esXHcinOdA

This post illustrates the problem of trying to get beyond opposing dogmatists duking it out.
Campbell recognises both the genius of Darwin and the danger of dogmatism.

Dear Proxy,

Thanks for that and for your kind words
on other threads. (I especially liked
the poem):-)!

On many levels you have failed to follow your own boundaries set in the article. You encourage others to be 'civil' yet refer to the creation theory as a 'fable', hardly 'Civil' as you suggest others to be.

Same old for all including yourself in this forum. Ignorance breeds fear, which breed anger, (Secondary emotion created by primary emotion, (spradlin, 2005). As has been obvious in the evolution debate, this is one very unscientific claim that a pair of hips link an animal to the human form. Further, this is the claim of one individual, what is he scientifically supporting that with? Intersetingly a very signficant point you miss is that despite the existence of animal life that resembles human form, the human remains exclusively the dominant and only superior species in the world....

Also, the fable you speak of....is a living word....try to be a little more respectful of the faith that your nation was founded on!

Hi Foxy,

I enjoy you posts too. Not only are your post insightful: Also, well written, diplomatic and balanced.

runner,

It is an early find and I would not commit to defending the "missing link" against all claims, yet. Hopefully, there will be a peer review. Frauds are known to Church (Turin Shroud)and anthropology (Piltdown Man). There will always be dishonest people. Even Martin Luther King Jnr, has a largely plagarised doctorate, it is widely reported. Critical communities of practice try to stop frauds being perpetrated.

I have acknowledged that (unadaptable) intermediaries are hard to find. The reason is, I repeat, they don't survive in adequate numbers to form a discoverable fossil record. On the other hand, archiac DNA is often present in modern specicies, wherein, scientists have already been able to modify modern birds to have reptile features by turning-on genes suppressed for millions of years. Occasionally, less dramatic regressions occur naturally, such as, human beings born with primate tails.

Oliver

National Geographic and desperate scientist trying to prove their faith should not have to revert to fraud and deceit as is the history of those defending dogmas. The millions and millions of fossils found should do nothing but embarrass those who continue to search for the missing link. It is absolutely laughable and pathetic that after the man made manufacturing of missing links and deceit that some now claim that there is no missing link. Evolution as one man so clearly explained is a fairytale for adults. Creation and design is a thousand times more rational than pseudo science. No amount of lack of evidence after hundreds of years is enough to embarrass these zealots. Then again their previous 'natural; explanations are a complete embarrassment to them also. NO wonder most Americans and most of the world don't believe this silly little explanation even though many have to pretend in order to get a tick at school.

runner,

When geneticists turn-on ancient bird genes, as recorded for all to see on video, and dino-chicks are born, it is not fraud. Would it be possible to recreate an early ancestor of Man from modern homo sapien DNA, today? Probably, not. Yet, I suspect, it will be possible before 2100.

If someone, in, say 2080, created a "missing link", from modern DNA; would you not ask why the constituent ancient genes are present and why the excutive systems governing the on/off switches are present, in a species that did not evolve from earlier forms? If humans had no biological non-human ancestor, we should not carry their ancient DNA.

In a sense, there are fossils in our biology as, (a) anyone who knows how embryos develop will appreciate or (b)can be seen in the the structure of the Brain.

Don't worry oliver,

Runner has never bothered to look at photos of the fossils we have.

He just looks at the stuff in fundy propaganda.

Whenever *yet another* intermediate is found, he thinks he is smart by saying no more were found at the same site.

This is why Literal creationism is waning and it is dragging christianiaty down with it.

Sorry for the thinking christians is all.

Rusty

Yes, I imagine that the "thinking Christians" of OLO are frequently embarrassed by runner's nonsensical rants.

Been studying economics and guess what there are believers and evolutionists in that discipline also. Evolutionist know that you plant a white feather and grow a chook. Believers know that you have to have a hen and a rooster to get the chook. So when you get the monkey to produce an evolutionist I will believe.

Oh Rusty

I thought you would still be out in the field looking instead of making up silly little stories. Then again funding depends on them I suppose. Any more Chinese frauds been printed in National Geographic lately? Found some real evidence before preaching your crap.

All the adaptable genes that are turned on to produce a prehistoric man in a laboritory require intelligent design not natural selection. Mutations happen naturally and are retrograde in effect, it is a defect in a gene or mising genes. What we need is added intelligent design features to form a new human species. Hitler in his intelligence tried this experiment on his nation.

The current logic as demonstrated by actual natural genetic selection is; man could only be the first creature and all others are formed from defective genes or lack of genes in a retrograde form - devolution. The fact is we are able to take humans from remote forests who have never been educated and educate them to the highest university levels of any Western Standard. Such is the case of my friend Beatrix from West Irian whose' father was a primitive head hunter, she currently has three university degrees, fluently speaks and writes in nine languages and is a microbioligist by profession working in the field of medicine. Her race has ben isolated for thousands of years, yet is equal to any westerner if given the opportunity. Many of them have ape like features but this does not make them a missing link.

The ultimate genetic form includes human intelligence and emotion. From man we have design and intelligence unequalled by any other species. Let us celebrate it is a design feature of our genetics.

Hi Philo,

With dino-chicks, the scientists were able to (re-) turn-on existing genes that added vertebrae to chicken tails, added small dinosaur-shaped teeth and turned feathers into scales. The geneticists had the "intelligence" to "design" the quasi-dinosaurs from modern chickens. However, the DNA material and executive on/off switches used, were the leagacy of creatures dead for millions. The manipulation is made using the ingredients now available in which working the DNA, was like baking a cake. No is need for Divine intervention.

My point to runner remains that there are genetic histories visible in DNA and that the evidence is so strong that in a few generations we might even be able to create Human intemediaries. (hythothetically, ethics aside)

Two hundred thousand years ago, there may have been only a few thousand of our direct ancestors to us. On the other hand, there were millions of other primates. It is a needle in a hay stack situation for fossil hunters. Herein, I think sciencists have done well with the discoveries made.

runner,

Like it or not you have not only proto-primates (ek, ek) in your family, you have life-forms as simple as bacteria. Me too, cousin. :-)

What is it with you and the National Geographic Society? I think most people would see the Society as a respected organisation.

Besides, as noted, I reported, the dino-ck cae, was video taped, showing laboratory experiments and their outcomes. No fraud.

What evidence "would" convince you that you are a primate: A great ape; according to primatologiosts?

Oliver,

Don't tell me you are not aware of National Geographic deceitfully promoting its faith.

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/archaeoraptor-fraud-piltdown-bird.htm

Also publishing stories on missing links that they know the Chinese engineers built out of plastics is quite deceitful in most peoples eyes. Not so those who are blinded and so desperate to prove what hasn't and can never be proved.

Like it or not Oliver your explanation of us coming from apes is laughable. If you are unable to see design in the human body you really are totally blinded by unproven dogma or simply don't want to face truth.

You ask me what evidence would convince me? A mute point as there is none. There are only stories built around man's denial of the obvious. It is really quite pathetic seeing desperate men and women trying to convince others of such tales.

To anyone who may have thought that I was being a bit too harsh in this thread, I hope some of the above contributions help you to understand what I meant.

Richie 10, Runner & Philo, thanks for your contributions. I rest my case.

Richie 10,

<<Evolutionist know that you plant a white feather and grow a chook.>>

Do they? Who said this?

<<...when you get the monkey to produce an evolutionist I will believe.>>

And what would that have to do with evolution?

Runner,

<<Any more Chinese frauds been printed in National Geographic lately?>>

Oh, are you talking about the “Archaeoraptor”?

Archaeoraptor was put together by a person who collected fossils - not a scientist - and was rejected by the scientific community. National Geographic is a popular magazine, not a peer-reviewed journal, and the article in it about the Archaeoraptor was not done by a scientist.

So your claim appears to be the only fraud in this case - a Creationist fraud at that.

Thanks for revealing it.

Philo,

<<Mutations happen naturally and are retrograde in effect, it is a defect in a gene or missing genes.>>

The bad ones are. Do you think the vast majority that are either neutral or good are “retrograde” too?

In regards to your “missing genes” I believe the link I provided you with earlier debunks that. Did you bother to read it?

Poor runner,

Nothing but some national geographic this time.

And the large volume of thoroughly reviewed material that supports evolution? hmmmm?

Oh, that's right, the truth takes more time than you could bother spending.

Cheaply derived and cheaply held "theology" is just as good for you, and easier, thank goodness pastor has some.

Rusty

A.J. Phillips you write

'National Geographic is a popular magazine, not a peer-reviewed journal, and the article in it about the Archaeoraptor was not done by a scientist.'

Well you better let Oliver and the many others of your faith know that National Geographic is not your bible just your propaganda tool.

Dear AJ,
I was under the mistaken belief that evolutionists believe that with the passing of much time animals turned into humans and as I said
I will become a believer when a monkey produces a human. As you dispute this I have no idea what an evolutinist believes in.

runner,

According to your reasoning God does not exist. Why? Because The Shroud of Turin is a forgery.

"You ask me (runner) what evidence would convince me? A mute point as there is none." - That is a truly a remarkable statement. It even goes beyond a Peanuts cartoon, I once saw, wherein, Linus refuses to read a book given to him by Lucy; "because it might change the way I think", exclaims Linus!

So, you say no argument, no amount of evidence can sway a creationist.

BTW: It is unlikely any peer-reviwed journal would have made the National Geographic claim, because the paleonologist is meant to produce a side of the Earth (the mould) from which the fossil is lifted. That would make any forgery harder.

Let's hope that no one finds that the Mona Lisa was not painted by da Vinci. Because, then, Art would not exist.

Bottom line, there is a record of species' archiac past present in their DNA

When a monkey produces a human?

Clearly evolution and natural selection was not taught at that school.

Dear Pelican,
Could YOU PLEASE TELL ME what evolutionists believe is the origans of the human race as I was of the mistaken belief that they believed man came from monkeys by chance not by inteligent design,each reproducing after its own kind.

Runner,

How could the National Geographic be a “propaganda tool” when scientists rejected the fossil of the supposed Archaeoraptor?

The Archaeopteryx isn’t a hoax and it’s an intermediate between dinosaurs and birds.

Oliver,

Brilliant response, and brilliant analogy there.

Richie 10,

Since you appear to be so genuine in your apparent desire to understand evolution, I’d be happy to answer that if I may.

Evolution doesn’t say that we came from monkeys. Monkeys are as modern and “evolved” as we are. Instead we share a common ancestor with them - or more recently - with apes. In fact our DNA tells us that we still are apes. We’re simply a different type of ape.

Our closest relative - the creature that we share the most common ancestor with - is the Chimpanzee. Chimpanzees are as modern and “evolved” as we are, although due to the hundreds of intimidate fossils we’ve found of ancient humans, we can be quite sure that the common ancestor we share with Chimpanzees would have looked more like them than us.

Rather than a monkey giving birth to a humans, a good analogy that I’ve heard, is that if you were to hold your mother’s hand, and she were to hold her mother’s hand, and she were to hold her mother’s hand etc., then after 500 kilometres of this hand-holding, you would eventually arrive at the common ancestor that we share with Chimpanzees, which going by our DNA and the fossils found, scientists estimate to have lived around 5-7 million years ago.

We share a common ancestor with every living creature today; it’s all a matter of how far down the line you have to go to get to the common ancestor that we share with another creature.

If you genuinely are interested in understanding evolution, then there's a fascinating documentary about how whales evolved over the last 50 million years from land creatures to the ocean dwellers we now know them to be...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lp6KKg1MVtA (Part 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw0P0H9jcQA (Part 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWt2Hxj3D60 (Part 3)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvP4qiswy3E (Part 4)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2XV-gv6A1w (Part 5)

'The Archaeopteryx isn’t a hoax and it’s an intermediate between dinosaurs and birds.'

Keep dreaming guys and you also believe the earth is flat. So many desperate fraudulent attempts to prove the unprovable. No problem for you guys to put feathers where scales should be and vice versa. Just don't let facts get in the way of your fantasy. If only I had your faith.

Sorry Richie. That should read:

“Our closest relative - the creature that we share the most RECENT common ancestor with - is the Chimpanzee.”

Runner,

The Archaeopteryx is an intact fossil, so how could feathers have been added to it?

Not even Creationists deny that it’s genuine. Although they do omit the many reasons as to why it is a transitional fossil. I’d list them for you, but you wouldn’t bother reading it anyway.

I must confess that when I saw the title that TRTL gave this thread, my immediate thought was "there is no possible evidence, that will sway creationists".

Many thanks to runner, Richie 10 and Philo for justifying my early conclusion.

Each in their own way.

Philo immerses himself in the pseudo-science that is sprinkled around the internet, propagated by earnest, probably very "devout" Christians. Richie 10 takes the "I'm dumb, teach me" approach, then pretends not to understand. While dear old runner operates a machine-gun of reflexes, that denigrates everything he doesn't want to know as "blind faith in science", that he compares to his enlightened state of belief in his religion.

Face it guys. There is nothing that anyone can say that will in any way shape or form prod these folk towards accepting scientific evidence. They think it is just another belief system, and they reject it.

Which is their right.

So long as it does no harm, and is kept away from children and impressionable, easily-led adults.

runner and Richie10,

Genetic evolution has been studied between HIV-1A and HIV-1E. The intermdeiates ("missing lnks') HIV-1B to HIV-1C are known. The HIV-1 species is estimated to have its origin circa 1940s, probably mutating from other an virus. HIV-2, now a separate species, still contains the genetic material showing familial association with its precursor HIV-1. All HIV strains will share common ancestors with other viruses, as you and I do chimps, and dogs with bears, and hippopotani with whales. All these species of mammals and viruses share primodial DNA and are therefore distant relatives.

Even if God did exist, what is the problem with created species being interrelated? Moreover, Christian creationists defend ancient scriptures (cobbled together over centuries) against science; not (hypothetical) God against science. The creationist in the first-order defends the Bible before any God. If God exists, but the Bible has nothing to with that God, defending the Bible would be a rather useless exercise.

AJP,

Thanks for your kind comments. You and I can only try to present a logical case. I enjoy your posts and appreciate that you think before you type.


Pericles,

Good point about belief systems. The difference of course is that scientists and even rational lay (to profesional science) people will change their perspectives based on evidence. A totally different position to runner whom openly admits (above) no amount evidence is adquate to change his/her mind. Of course, creationists are fully entitled to their arrested minds. Unfortunately, though, they miss out on knowledge of things work and how truly amazing "life, the universe and everything" is. By not thinking (not applying their brains), they are like people buy a high performance car and keep it locked-up in a garag and never drive it. Denial blocks insight. A less than ideal situation.

Richie
AJP has kindly answered your question.

Your claim that you will 'believe' when a monkey gives birth to a human is disingenuous. You know very well (or should know) exactly what the theory of evolution is about given you are are arguing so vehemently against it.

As a devotee of science fiction (I fervently agree with C.S Lewis: “science fiction is the only truly mind expanding drug”) I have to say runner et al is hardly alone.
I have always been surprised and disappointed that so few out of so many incredibly talented and amazingly imaginative authors have explored the possibility that we (humanity 2010) are a 'transitional species'.
Arthur Clarke was of course, one of the early exceptions.
Considering the thousands of both serious sci fi and space operas set thousands of years in the future, amongst space faring humans, very few have dealt with the established fact that, when confronted with a new environment, species adapt or die.
The idea that we 'are created in God's own image' appears to be pervasive, even among atheistic science fiction writers.
On a different note, for me an unbeatable argument against intelligent design would be my image of runner, wearing Severin's bikini (with an appendix scar).
As much as I normally enjoy your posts, Severin, that's an image I could do without.
I did laugh, though.

Grim

If we could project sound along with our posts, you would be hearing a most gruntled and slightly devilish laugh at your reaction to my word picture of Runner. Brings a new slant to the words "in god's image" doesn't it?

A sci-fi fan myself, I too have pondered that humans even in the far flung future remain much as they are today. I recall David Attenborough noting that the fact that we and other quadrupeds emerged as the basic template for the larger animals on earth, was simple chance the form which made the transition from water dwelling to air breathing, was a quadruped. Bikinis would be quite different had we evolved from hexapods.

I posit in a not so distant future, along with losing the necessity for an appendix or tonsils, it is possible we will evolve to lose our smallest toes and even our smallest fingers (although this could be bad for nose-pickers).

Another point the creationists might wish to ponder is why when giraffes were 'invented' did the creature retain the same number of vertebrae (7) in its long neck as all other mammals?

Of course, I am suggesting that religious fundamentalists use the brain god gave them for some strange reason, and actually study the world around them and, dare I say, think?

What is interesting is how often the aliens have to be ugly to counter-balance being smarter than us. Even in the terrestrial-based "Time Machine", the morlocks were grotesque, while the eloi were attractive.

Now there are over six billion of us, hopefully runner's ancestor in the Year One Million, wont deny the existence of our bones and the incredible proofs then existing supporting evolution and showing we were their intermediates. Or, might some brains twice the size and one hundred times as effecient as ours' think it all began 4,004 BCE?

Oliver

Maybe humans will evolve into two separate species (the basis for the morlocks and eloi in the Time Machine); the religious and the non-religious.

The religious would develop toughened skin on their knees for kneeling in prayer and their hands would fuse together in supplication. Almost goes without saying their brains would shrink - if you don't use it you lose it. All of which would be a boon to sexually predatory priests.

The non-religious will eventually travel into the universe and adapt to life without gravity - women's hips would become even wider to allow for the larger brains of the high-domed heads of their offspring and men would subsequently learn NEVER to say "your bum looks big in that" - having developed diplomatic skills.

:-P

Severin, :-), What can More I say? Except:

http://en.videowasi.com/yt-L1Cunxy68uo/outer-limits-the-sixth-finger-part-seven/

It occurs to me that without natural (and unnatural) selection, the Ark would have had to be a really big boat. Not just two dogs, but 2 afghans, 2 pekinese...
On the sci fi issue, it bugs me that we still think in terms of vehicles and ports in space. Considering the distances involved, it seems evident that 'space ships' will need to be permanent habitats; microcosms of 'space ship earth'. Once adapted to a low gravity, enclosed and self sufficient environment, such space dwellers would be be incapable of re-adapting to a planetary environment, if they even wanted to.
I think such humans would (eventually) look radically different to us.
I know I've often wished for an extra pair of hands...

Grim,

I don't know if you have seen previous other thread posts on the Ark animals topic: There is a rule of thumb ratio of 10 prey to every predator. Had there been 2 over every kind of animal, the preditors would have killed off all the prey shortly after being released and then many of the preditors would have starved to the death.

There was a seismic event about 6,000 years ago that merged the waters of the Mediterranean to Black Sea see killing much life, and, a heavy periods of rains afterwards in the period of the pharoahs. Later, because the land had been denuded by the first event, it was hard for life to re-establish itself as rain waters kept washing over the bare land. A thousand years later, several religious stories grew around these events, misrepresenting the local event as universal and missequencing the events the flood and heavy rain, which were according to geophysicists separate occurrences.

Had the flood taken animals to a hight covering the highest mountain (see Bible); how did they breath?

Sorry, to be off thread topic, but felt the urge to comment on this other related creationist issue.

Oliver

Many thanks for the link - wonderful stuff. That head! Ouch, good thing that the mutation was brought on well after the 'evolved' man was born.

As for the ark - if people are going to believe that a god magicked everything in the universe, then they're going to believe that the entire planet was covered in water, all animals fitted on a single boat, 2 of each gender did not cause massive inbreeding, there was enough food for all, the predators didn't immediately, after setting paw on mud covered earth, eat all prey animals. Noah's family did not become inbred either. And an entire olive tree managed to survive flooding. And even though there is no mention of marsupials of any description we just have to assume they were on the ark as well. And there must've been massive fish tanks for all the fresh-water critters. Maybe the ark was like the Tardis.

No, I don't see any of the above as a separate issue to the topic rather it underscores the lack of credibility of those who take their bibles literally.

Hey Oliver, I have to say David McCallum has definitely looked better, -at least to my unevolved eye.

Grim and Severin,

It begs the question: Was llya Kuryakin an intermediary or was Duckie spontaniously created with no genetic link to the former? I guess runner would say that IIlya didn't exist, despite the film record. :-)

Creatures of Earth, we mean you no harm. This is a message of encouragement. We observe your progress in understanding the meaning of your current level of consciousness. We see the embryonic forms of what you describe as intelligence and commend the progress you have made in the short period of 3 million of your planets’ cycles.

As the predominant cognitive life form in this region of our galaxy, we wish to advise that our 200 million cycle, silicon based life forms are not directly challenging your perceptions, merely we seek to assist you by pointing to the progress needed to overcome the difficulties you encounter, as your species makes the first rudimentary steps towards the possible development of intelligence.

Creativity, Imagination and Art have long been regarded as “early markers” of cognitive thinking. We note with interest that you have now assisted Apes, Elephants and most recently seals, to participate in painting. You will note of course, that these species have not yet developed the propensity for a) making money from this or b) cheating or c) assigning meaning. This will develop naturally as it has in your species.

Science and Medicine are progressing well however, we note that each of these has not yet been separated from the inhibitors imposed by other domains such as your social, political, religious and ecological domains. This is a direct consequence of your diverse interpretations of intelligence. In a few thousand cycles we suspect you will be able to define intelligence, even long before you achieve it.

Your species continues to create “meanings” for the purpose and function of “a creator” which is interesting. Your species has gone from a handful of “religions” to 34,000 in just 2,000 years.

Mathematically we expect you to complete this intermediate phase by 2065 cycles. By which time there will be 12.4 billion of your species and precisely 12.4 billion religions. Unfortunately, you have failed to demonstrate so far; just how all these “religions” improve your definition of “intelligence” or how intelligence quotient might be increased.

Imagination (early marker) is no substitute for intelligence.

Oliver

I am sure your question is very witty, just not sure who Ilya Kuryakin is/was. I presume that David McCullum played this character in the past, although post Steve in the Outer Limits? Although the evolution from egg-head to Ukrainian(?) to British eccentric sounds fine by me.

@ Spindoc

For intelligence to flourish one needs both imagination and reason. Imagination being the medium and reason the seed.

Hey Oliver, I'm thinkin' Duckie would prefer to be remembered as looking more like the fifth Beatle than ol' mate Steve. Severin's point about the head is well taken; thinkin' Steve's mum (or the mum of his putative peers) wouldn't have looked much better than runner in a bikini... Probably why aliens with big heads invariably wear floor length gowns.
Spindoc, some good points, although I question the figure of 34,000. Thinkin' we might be closer to 6 billion now. Our 3 resident Christians don't seem to agree on much.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the topic - well if one draws a very long bow....

One of my favourite comedies is "Mars Attacks".

Grim

Great point about the floor length robe - no 1950's Sci-Fi would dare to be without them - they were also very useful for indicating someone of high status. Tight fitting shiny suits were more a '60s thing.

With special effects reaching the standards attained in "Avatar" I guess the days of egg-heads and rockets dangling on a piece of fishing line are long gone.

There is no stopping evolution in film or life is there

Maybe this will convince the creationists

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

And even if it doesn't, it's still worth watching

Lol, stevenlmeyer! I loved that clip.

Severin is correct in suggesting that if Creationists believe in all the other silly fairy stories in the bible, then they are most surely never going to believe in any 'missing link' that might disprove the creation theory.

missing link ..what a joke
we have one of them every few years or so

recall lucy..ended up to be a bit of creative pr
recall the pig teeth and the many other frauds..no doudt a few more as i read the posts..abouve...i seen many of these missing links

but no transitional has persisted...teqniclly there should be thousands...but not one transitional has survived..even then the list of so called transitionls..is under ten...its a joke

there are no means for genus to change genus
where the fish coldblood/mammel/transitional..then there are the other absurdities...[life crawling out of the salty sea..[see salt came from life..it couldnt have been salty..pre life

but we have these genious types avaiding the species barrier..and forgetting its many fold more so for genus/barier..science has even decreed..first life is of the agenda..see life comes from life..fullstop

anyhow i go to read the gloaters..who gloat ignorant of the facts inherant in THEORY...who grasp at fraud straws..to support thier hopes..not the science fact

thuink why a true scientist can look at a single hair..or fish scale and decide its a new species..each creation is unique..at the genus level..thats science...

but think why the darwin godhead wrote
...the THEORY..of evolution of the ...SPECIES..
because genus dont evolve..its the boundry of species

anyhow will read and repeat the previous rebuttals of the science wanna-be true-bies..but then again..why interfere with those..with so little to believe in..they grasp at straws..faith in science is faith all the same

some put the prophet/messenger intoi their godhead..be it dorkins or jesus..they have many following..by faith alone

Grim and Severin,

I guess one main difference between the Beatles, including the fifth, and aliens is, the latter are typically folliclely challenged.
It is rare to have full agreement on an OLO thread, yet, surely it is universally agreed that Mars Attacks in fun knee. On the other hand, Nelson Eddie and Jannette McDonald’s, “Indian Love Call”, might go down there with worst films ever made.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87bUBB-rwFc

My money would be on the “Indian Love Call” killing off the unadapted aliens over microbes (War of the Worlds). Even we terrestrials have only built-up immunity to listen to it, three or four times in a decade. The existence of this song runs against any argument for intelligent deign. Likewise, if such music is produced ex nihilo, how could one claim God compassionate?

Stevenlmeyer,

Nails work better at confounding one, as to the true state of ex-parrots, than do the creationist claims to fasten ex-folk tales on their perch.

Moreover, nailed ex-parrots act as an effective metaphor of Genesis. Was the parrot’s name, “Adam”?

Spindoc,

It could be more confronting with 12.4 billion Messiahs, each wishing martydom at the hands the other 12,399,999.999. "Kill me", "No, Kill me"...

Hey Oliver, I'm folliclely challenged, and I can't sing like Nelson Eddy (although I could probably act about as well as he could); is there anything to be made of that?
As for Mars Attacks, I thought it was a little heavy handed, in true American fashion. I prefer Doug. Adams (books, not movie or series) and Pratchett.
OUG, I agree about 'missing links and transitional species; load of crap.
Is a sugar glider a 'transitional species', on it's way to becoming a marsupial bat? Only time (about a million years) will tell. In the mean time, I think they are perfectly happy just being possums.

Hey Grim,

I first came across The Hitch Hicker's Guide on the radio. It was curious first experience given no earlier exposure or forewarning. I too much enjoy Doulgas Adams. As you say, it is different humour to Mars Attacks. Doug Adams was a very talented writer; way out of the box.

I still have my hair. Hence, I must be lower down the evolutionary scale than you.

OUG,

Please refer above on HIV:

Posted by Oliver, Wednesday, 14 April 2010 10:52:22 AM

i will let the picture search speak for itself
lets egsamin the scale of the skull
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.profleeberger.com/images/taung001_1_.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.scientificblogging.com/paleontology%3Fquicktabs_1%3D1&usg=__5yUNMZkDrCPEm_OK9wazr5EBitY=&h=254&w=318&sz=11&hl=en&start=6&sig2=9WFe1xLmrudliqJEGwVXfg&itbs=1&tbnid=WCbmwCFUqkM08M:&tbnh=94&tbnw=118&prev=/images%3Fq%3DAustralopithecus%2BSediba.%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG%26rls%3DMEDA,MEDA:2008-36,MEDA:en-GB%26gbv%3D2%26tbs%3Disch:1&ei=XyHMS_bLMpSekQXK95y3BA

this is austro-whatever
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.solarnavigator.net/biology/biology_images/skull_human_specimen.jpg&imgrefurl=http://my.mmosite.com/4e2a5569588f985a6758e139361d1d63/blog/ritem/d86440bfec22b609cac0449093a36321.html&usg=__C4Mwmv8v6uO1jNnqk4QE-MF8np4=&h=334&w=287&sz=14&hl=en&start=3&sig2=ujcln6RdKtGnUXgIZ4J_2g&itbs=1&tbnid=P3TuQyeM7w4YtM:&tbnh=119&tbnw=102&prev=/images%3Fq%3DAustralopithecus%2BSediba.%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG%26rls%3DMEDA,MEDA:2008-36,MEDA:en-GB%26gbv%3D2%26tbs%3Disch:1&ei=XyHMS_bLMpSekQXK95y3BA
so is this
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2010/04/09/alg_skull_australopithecus.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/04/08/2010-04-08_fossilized_skeletons_may_be_missing_link_between_apes_and_humans.html&usg=__QQmW8ow-3ozXAaqBuYYpIIslRm4=&h=321&w=485&sz=38&hl=en&start=1&sig2=hIXzAtd7rMkUxEmc4pDrhQ&itbs=1&tbnid=p07gzUS2sgiwLM:&tbnh=85&tbnw=129&prev=/images%3Fq%3DAustralopithecus%2BSediba.%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG%26rls%3DMEDA,MEDA:2008-36,MEDA:en-GB%26gbv%3D2%26tbs%3Disch:1&ei=XyHMS_bLMpSekQXK95y3BA
and this
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_tAugm-UtTIw/Sb5JAqVyDUI/AAAAAAAADKo/THhbBHpjPRE/s320/ConeheadSkull2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php%3Ft%3D921043&usg=__KHUI10-gdu64A7yaHjElr-V0ZRg=&h=294&w=310&sz=24&hl=en&start=7&sig2=KZiFFYujmAqqvF7PexBGIQ&itbs=1&tbnid=dMyl4JQ2O0t_UM:&tbnh=111&tbnw=117&prev=/images%3Fq%3DAustralopithecus%2BSediba.%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG%26rls%3DMEDA,MEDA:2008-36,MEDA:en-GB%26gbv%3D2%26tbs%3Disch:1&ei=XyHMS_bLMpSekQXK95y3BA

even this
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.liquidmatrix.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/brain.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.wopular.com/tiny-insect-brains-can-solve-big-problems&usg=__8P6zSCG4c6D2yTxCZqysygrl2fU=&h=299&w=400&sz=15&hl=en&start=14&sig2=gbVPETA8PdIbeK6wVnZGyw&itbs=1&tbnid=E_O7QPUIjQLRuM:&tbnh=93&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3DAustralopithecus%2BSediba.%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG%26rls%3DMEDA,MEDA:2008-36,MEDA:en-GB%26gbv%3D2%26tbs%3Disch:1&ei=XyHMS_bLMpSekQXK95y3BA
so i go to page two
here is two more

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://anthropologynet.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/australopithecus_final_large.jpg&imgrefurl=http://anthropology.net/2006/02/18/drawing-a-digital-australopithecine/&usg=__0qlN8yjkvviskIzQ_mQ6V2LWc-0=&h=424&w=400&sz=36&hl=en&start=26&sig2=akIqZFBc0hkMIwqW1gwMoQ&itbs=1&tbnid=cI0ZhWOI6hzhnM:&tbnh=126&tbnw=119&prev=/images%3Fq%3DAustralopithecus%2BSediba.%26start%3D18%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26rls%3DMEDA,MEDA:2008-36,MEDA:en-GB%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D18%26tbs%3Disch:1&ei=aCLMS7D-MoygkQXou4DCBA

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/d22f0e43cc87b4001a7f7b047f1baa86%3Fs%3D128%26d%3Didenticon%26r%3DG&imgrefurl=http://en.wordpress.com/tag/australopithecus-sediba/&usg=__NMgS4USfEZWOXjtM0tkYKlYops0=&h=128&w=128&sz=7&hl=en&start=27&sig2=VYjr9Vc_L7_oR02BxsN0Rw&itbs=1&tbnid=b3iBmrwflHXHiM:&tbnh=91&tbnw=91&prev=/images%3Fq%3DAustralopithecus%2BSediba.%26start%3D18%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26rls%3DMEDA,MEDA:2008-36,MEDA:en-GB%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D18%26tbs%3Disch:1&ei=aCLMS7D-MoygkQXou4DCBA

here is that picture of an ape..then humans
compare the differance of the ape/then the human..clearly there is more the same with two/from the left and the modern human..than one is like two
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.parcbench.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Missing_Link.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php%3Ft%3D129987%26start%3D0%26sid%3Da9c9c99b6211f0b82b614fcfbd644644&usg=__zvJt8ELLapAeynWvHL42WlPuzl4=&h=389&w=767&sz=160&hl=en&start=8&sig2=WOdIo6Pgve8NCyFfRsp2bQ&itbs=1&tbnid=fWbb6WPiLULpLM:&tbnh=72&tbnw=142&prev=/images%3Fq%3DAustralopithecus%2BSediba.%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26rls%3DMEDA,MEDA:2008-36,MEDA:en-GB%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D18%26tbs%3Disch:1&ei=sCLMS-fjFoygkQW7trzBBA

this picture seems to show the frragments..that underpin your theory
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.scientificamerican.com/media/inline/blog/Image/sediba_skeletons(1).jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm%3Fid%3Dmore-on-australopithecus-sediba-the-2010-04-09&usg=__hl-SFktGV9M_GYmGpWqRLoiHSA8=&h=686&w=680&sz=85&hl=en&start=2&sig2=F1W3Ly3npZAm4Zkh78j1hw&itbs=1&tbnid=Gi7YXSdANSrRCM:&tbnh=139&tbnw=138&prev=/images%3Fq%3DAustralopithecus%2BSediba.%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26rls%3DMEDA,MEDA:2008-36,MEDA:en-GB%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D18%26tbs%3Disch:1&ei=sCLMS-fjFoygkQW7trzBBA

here is the evolution explained in clear terms
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_tGHzOEp3UKA/S74Z-xT0qmI/AAAAAAAABKQ/4sl90jiwpKY/s1600/Kansas.jpg

here is what your ausatro looked like
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ACJB-7fQU3s/StAJqvutxiI/AAAAAAAAAAM/HNvf-bNgtus/S220/my%2Bnew%2Bavatar.jpg&imgrefurl=http://sguforums.com/index.php%3Ftopic%3D27331.0&usg=__vr2cZSa2lGj2UCZG7PjQcCiOkWo=&h=174&w=220&sz=12&hl=en&start=64&sig2=z_HPa8WAWreKgBDpgBUdMA&itbs=1&tbnid=MYXG5r1qwWyKZM:&tbnh=85&tbnw=107&prev=/images%3Fq%3DAustralopithecus%2BSediba.%26start%3D54%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26rls%3DMEDA,MEDA:2008-36,MEDA:en-GB%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D18%26tbs%3Disch:1&ei=2SPMS96HEcqIkAWDudC1BA

if your making some point oh-liver..re hiv..go ahead and make it

you know it came via science..using monkey serum/contaminated by ape hiv.to make live virus polio vacine..if you got a point make it clearly..

to quote the length of your absurd miss direction i quote you...<<All HIV strains..will share common ancestors with other viruses,>>ok please give your evidence

you continue,..<<as you and I do chimps,>>your evidence?

but you create quick joinders..now your hiv variations OF SPECIES..means we are decended from..[to quote you..in your deceptive wordplay..<<and dogs with bears,..and hippopotani with whales.>>>no doudt the missing links will be revealed by you..to be you mr hippo?

but you continue your missdirection..based on hiv..<All these species of mammals and viruses share primodial DNA>>..and are therefore distant relatives...missing links?..there seems no limit to your broad brush/off

its barely worth replying..your extracted quote is simpliustyic redirective gibberish..please give the context ..full context from which you extracted this bit of clever spin

clearly your making it up..as you go..knowing others will get confounded..by your/science gibberish..

say what your trying to confound..
dont just join some spin and call it evidence...lol

your a despiritly funny man...sad really..i expected better..but you clearly cant destiguish your species from ya genus

did you see them microscopic animals of the sea..on the news today..put there by god alone..to confound the wise..[in their own eyes]..remember..were related to them too

Hey, OUG. Have you ever heard of the neat little service they provide at http://tinyurl.com?

Your first link could have been condensed to http://tinyurl.com/y2h97vs if you used it.

Or for a more amusing shortening of your links, you could try http://www.shadyurl.com, which condenses your first link to a shorter, but suspicious looking http://5z8.info/start-trojan_u5p7h_racist. Considering the deceitful content of the links you provide, I reckon www.shadyurl.com would be more appropriate.

By the way, you’re a little late to this thread unfortunately. We’ve already been through the alleged hoaxes of evolution on this thread. Runner did a good job of making a fool of himself with them before.

i have no beef with you mr pill lips..so dont start

i simply copied the save link off the google photo's

you trust google..then the links GOOGLE provided..should be completly valid

im completly illiterate..
but studied the science..and read verosiously

hiv is a hiv virus..get it

hiv1 or hiv 2 or hiv 1006..all hiv...= all a genus..

all are a GROUP OF A SPECIFIC VIRUS

..to infure that evolution..of a specific species..[since the 40's..[lol]...of a species..WITHIN ITS GENUS..is any evidence of genus evolving..is completly insane

its like saying red hair is proof of apes turning human

just because your word rich..but science poor dont be trying to make points..on off topic spin

have a nice day..go read some real science..
begin with darwins 4 volume evolution of SPECIES..its a good read..but..species evolving..>>within their genus..is NOT any proof of genus..evolving into any new genus

[say virus...evolving into a new genus..
say bacteria/genus..or the genus of cold blood species..evolvuing into warn blood genus..or even fish genus evolving into limbed creatures..that all is outside species evolving..genus is a barrier spin cant overcome...get it

these are all unproven..that fish arc-oh-op-tricks..with limbs..has no shoulder blades..

but why try to talk to a believer..
you are free to believe anything you wish...

but clearly..

by your lack of facts..have a belief../faith in science decievers..trying to remove the god concept..despite claiming the procces god uses naturally/..

natural selection..belongs to god..the nature of nurture

what would convince me?..science making..even one life..
[using its own dust]..or make even a single cell..using its own membrane..

science is run by frauds..wanting to give you their next..adverse reaction

its sad you chose to be..so ignorant of the science/deception..go study/present facts..

im sick of rebutting opinion

t have wasted enough time on mr red/blue..mate-tricks..mr pill lips
from
http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=gd&q=genus+spread+HIV%2D1B+to+HIV%2D1C+&hl=en-GB&rls=MEDA,MEDA:2008-36,MEDA:en-GB

go to
http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089%2F088922203771881149

<<..To estimate the prevalence of HIV strains...other than the predominant HIV-1B..subtype in the U.S.

..blood donor population..we genetically and serologically characterized HIV...in infected blood donations collected throughout he United States from 1997 to mid-2000...Using a combination of DNA heteroduplex mobility..and DNA sequence analyses..of the env and gag regions of HIV-1

..we determined that 285 of 312 infections..were caused by HIV-1B..and six by non-subtype B HIV-1..(four HIV-1C, one HIV-1AE, one HIV-1A)...Genetic distances of greater than 14% in the envelope V3–V5 region of the four HIV-1C strains indicated that they did not share a recent common origin. HIV-1 group M, N, and O, and HIV-2 specific peptide serological testing..of the 20 PCR-negative samples..determined that one infection was caused by HIV-2..and none by HIV-1 group N and O...>>clearly as it was a us study..the russion experiments will be in a minority

..<<The major risk factor for infection with a non-HIV-1B strain..was sex with an HIV-infected person..from Africa>>>thats a deception..they resulted from africans..deliberatly infected with the african virus..via the polio trials conducted in africa

..<<..although three of seven non-HIV-1B-infected subjects did not fit that category.>>these were from the russion trials

..<<For four of seven non-HIV-1B-infected subjects..the subtype detected was consistent..with the African country of origin..>>trial of the polio live virus<<..of the infected person..or of their sexual partner.

..<<The frequency of genetically confirmed non-subtype-B HIV infection..in a geographically dispersed group of infected U.S. blood donors in 1977–2000 was therefore 2.0%..(6/312).>>the same numbers would apply in a russion test..but inverse..as to its predominate strains within the genus hiv

read the full text
http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1089/088922203771881149
im over mr red..pill-lips redirections and ignorant muttering

OUG,

My comments were sourced from a biology books. I can have a search of journal articles from university's databases. But, not now,. Sorry. I
running to dealines in my non-cyber life.

Are you saying that the biologists are wrong. That HIV-1 didn't evolve, it was spontanously created by God? Why would God do such a thing?

mjpb,

It was some tine ago which has challenged keyword searches. However, I have found the following BBC report and Time Magazine:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2573723.stm

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,400020,00.html

Also,

http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/stories3/121202_jury.htm

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2479&dat=20021215&id=B1k1AAAAIBAJ&sjid=iyUMAAAAIBAJ&pg=185,35426531

Please refer to December 6 in BBC Report. My memory of earlier claims involved the Police, not the Attorney General. Agreed, perhaps, I need to look at the matter more closely. Any pursuit by police might involve Law being in contempt of the Grand Jury, not protecting paedophiles? He does seem to have left for the Vatican to avoid questioning.

- What does the Pope do? … Promote him:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/08/international/worldspecial2/08cardinals.html?_r=1

oliver quote..<<Are you saying that the biologists are wrong.>>no im saying that they arnt saying that sopecies evolving means anything more than species evolve..as posted many times...species evolve..BUT NEVER OUT OF THEIR GENUS

..<<That HIV-1 didn't evolve,>>.of course the species evolved in its genus/hiv..but thats as far as it goes...let me know when it evolves into a bacteria...lol..it simply cant happen

<<it was spontanously created by God?>>there is theory...ON YOUR SIDE..that virus evolved..into life..its completly delusional..unsupported by evidence..and certainly has not EVER been replicated..i dont speculaTE ON THEORY...JUST FACTS..AND HOW SOME GRASP AT STRAWS TO MEET THEIR EXPECXTATIONS...NOT SUPPORTED BY SCIENCE/BY THE WAY..sorry about caploc

<<Why would God do such a thing?>>it would be speculation..but lok at it this way..god is spirit..he said let there be light...then whatever he saw in the light he played with..trying to figure out/this god/life thing..

he needs but say be and it is..

i guess to keep it simple#..my theory is god trying to know/thyself..ok im not a virus..so what am i..ok im not a bacteria...not a fish..not a goat etc..etc..

i guess one day..
you can ask him yourself
till then..know the genus barrier holds absolute..

let science make but one like it..simply speaking it hasnt...and cannnot..i was where you guys are now 20 years ago..till i studied the subject..species evolve..genus cant..

science..cant even make its own cell

cheers eh oliver

ok its gone silent again
just like with the explain evolution debate

see there are cettain seals that must be broken
the lie of evolution
the lie of ursury
the lie of written oath etc etc

it needed to be done by a fool who confounds the wise
one rejected by his own..even by his own
wearing a rainbow on his head

these impossable things have been done

but you continue to ignore that for god the impossable..is simply the way he operates..no man can be god..god is wholy spirit..sustaining all living their lives

you put so many things before god..you put these faulse godheads before god..you claim to use logic/science/need /greed ahead of the only one

there are many who claim to be his..claim to be his authority on earth..but your deluding..you put human messengers and thier mess-age..before..the only..before the unique..the natural who underpins each life..emmanuel..god within..that you do to the least you to to god

here we have holy men raping children..forgiving their own..when their betrayal of innocents should be beyond redeeming..yet god forgives them their tress-pass..but the church should not side with the unholy..decievers..who chase people awqay from the one-ness

god calus us to love..to grace..to mercy..simply to serve..his creation..HIS created...as he does..if your not serving good..you can never 'get god'....

he who leads you should serve you..just like god serves each of us our very lives..if your not being served..why do you follow?

as the quaran says..MAKE FIRST ONE LIKE IT..and simply speaking..no scientryst can/has nor will...for god is one

OUG,

"here we have holy men raping children..forgiving their own..when their betrayal of innocents should be beyond redeeming..yet god forgives them their tress-pass..but the church should not side with the unholy..decievers..who chase people awqay from the one-ness"

Above, I unintentionally misposted, yet I note your replay. I agree with you but would add that the Christian God would only forgive if penance is true and contrition is evident. That is, they render themselves to the Courts (contrition) and pray for forgiveness, if truly sorry. Only then according to that Faith would they be forgiven in Heaven. They can still be punished here.

Sorry, I did wish to pull the thread ofm the Missing Link topic and thus should leave it the Abuse Scandal to the proper thread.

its all important oliver

i got many high horses..those who decieve deliberatly..may be forgiven by god..this is totally true..

trouble being..the rest of us..who too are forgiven..[by god]..yet refuse to accept the vile..thus share the hells simply via hating the scum..and scum they are..

im sorry about poluting an important missdirection...miss presumption of a missing link...we all miss the point../behind the con-cept of a link..to sway those needing a belief..based on others thought

anyhow lets se the godhead replacements..make just one like it..before we accept... their theories..as go-spell..theories arnt science..

and the missing link is only a theory..ok the bone fragments are fact..but them being fact of what..needs science proof..not just their egsistance..

red hair egsists..but that dont prove..a missing link..an ape had signs it walked..i see apes do that today..it dont validate anything but to../those..needing yet an other belief system

evolution is prefaced with ..the theory of...and that is all it is..a theory..built upon specious fact..of species evolving..when the genus evolving..that is the inferance,..

BUT that of species evolving..equating proof..of genus evolving ..is not based in science evidence..nor scientific replicat-ability..thus is spurilous..to any knowing the strictness of true science..ie make just one like it...first

natural selection..by its name and nature...
cannot equate to any form of science meth-odoligy,..

thus decieves only the igno-rant..
or those wanting..needing..to be decieved