Key points of Evolution

Wow, really? What a profound insight. I hope you realise that it also works in reverse. Huh? Deny that there are fossils? You really could have phrased that better. Suffice to say that none of those are key points of the theory of evolution, although some provide evidence to support it and microbiology and biology as a whole both incorporate and utilise the theory of evolution.Also, guess what; biological evolution is only biology. The fact that other fields of study are necessary to understand natural history is simply due to the fact that reality is complex and interrelated. Reality tends not to come in discrete little boxes, each marked with its own exclusive and non-overlapping field of study. Biologists do need vast amounts of time for their theory to work. So do geologists. Guess what. When you look at the Earth, the solar system and the universe as a whole, you see ample evidence of an old Earth and an old universe. All you have demonstrated is that fields of scientific study overlap and that often it is required that one understand something from Field A to explain something from Field B.The way you describe the process almost makes it sound like biologists are saying to their geologist colleagues "No, that's still not long enough! Go back and come up with a better answer.", which is just a fantasy.Evolution has occurred for billions of years. Therefore, we need to know that the Earth has existed for billions of years in order to understand evolution. It all sounds fairly non-controversial to me. So people tend to think that they themselves are right. Wow. You really are presenting some startlingly original ideas today.Of course, one of these interpretations of the evidence is correct and one is wrong. Or maybe both are wrong. Perhaps you might like to put your money where your mouth is and say what you actually think is right, instead of sniping away at people, in messages that amount to little more than "Both sides are so dumb and I am so clever...lol".

---

Mutate and Survive

That is exactly what I'm saying.PaulK has done a nice job spelling it out for you in Message 31, but, just for the sake of clarity, here are some examples of what I do consider to be some of the key points of the theory of evolution;

• Evolution is the change in allele frequency within populations of biological organisms over time.
• Evolution is driven by random mutation and natural selection.
• Individuals with beneficial characteristics will be more likely to survive and thus more likely to pass on their genes.
• Through the gradual accumulation of small changes populations eventually diverge and speciation occurs.
• All life on Earth is descended from one, or at most a few forms of simpler life.

How am I doing so far? Seriously, that's great. I just think that your posts could do with a little more substance that's all. Just taking pot-shots at Darwinism doesn't really amount to an argument.

---

Mutate and Survive

antiLIE, I am in agreement that this thread is probably not the best suited to your needs. Since you seem to have a problem with so-called "macroevolution", might I be so bold as to suggest that you peruse this thread, which directly addresses that very issue?

---

Mutate and Survive

Hi Wumpini,Your survey does not say what you seem to want it to say. Firstly, it does not appear to be a "Gallup poll" as such. The article is unclear on who exactly carried out the poll, only that it appeared in American Men and Women of Science".

quote:

---

The survey, which had a 60% response rate, asked scientists the same Gallup Poll question posed to the public in 1982 and 1991.

---

It is clear that the survey used the same questions as the 1982/91 Gallup polls, but not that Gallup carried out the polling. Also, it is worth noting that a presumably self-selecting 60% response rate is not great from a statistical point of view, but it is hard to say what kind of bias this might impart, if any.My main problem is with your claim that; The survey says nothing of the kind. It says;

quote:

---

Scientists almost unanimously accept Darwinian evolution over millions of years as the source of human origins. But 40% of biologists, mathematicians, physicians, and astronomers include God in the process.

---

This tells us that 40% (yes, that's 40%, not 45%; presumably, there were 5% who didn't commit either way) believe that God had some role in human origins, but not that they consider that evolution would have been impossible without God. This 40% figure doubtless contains many different shades of opinion, from out-and-out creationists, to those who merely believe that God created the conditions for evolution, as per this quote;

quote:

---

Two biologists from Ohio refined the question about God and evolution. One said, "God created the universe and principles of energy and matter, which then guided subsequent evolution." The other said God did not guide the process "but did create the conditions that allowed the process to take place."

---

These two scientists would clearly be included in the 40% figure, but they are clearly a long way from your characterisation of their position as believing that "the theory of evolution is [not] sufficient to explain the diversity of life on this planet". Belief in God as a prime mover does not equate to disbelief in evolution as being the explanation for biodiversity.The vast majority of scientists believe in evolution, even if many of those involved in this survey are so-called "theistic evolutionists". When considering biologists, I am sure that the figure would be much higher in favour of evolution. For a good idea of how widely accepted the theory of evolution is, visit the NCSE's Project Steve. The project boasts 822 signatories to a statement in support of evolution. That my not seem many, but when you consider that only scientists called Steve, or derivatives thereof are allowed to sign, it puts things rather into perspective. Since only about 1% of US residents are called Steve, Stephan, Stephanie or similar, this suggests that there are at least 82 200 scientists who support evolution! That some also believe that God set the process in motion is not relevant in a science class, where such subjective (and horribly un-parsimonious) concepts have no place.

---

Mutate and Survive

OK. So that's a child's textbook. Elementary school texts don't contain sophisticated analyses of the evidence, because they are for elementary school kids. You are a grown-up. Try reading a grown-up book if you want evidence. Um... archaeological evidence? Evidence of controlled fires minus evidence of fire-lighting tools I expect. Evidence like fragments of food materials and cooked bones, that sort of thing. Of course, I'm speculating, but just because I don't know exactly what evidence claims about H. erectus are based on doesn't mean that there is no evidence. Why not try finding out about the digs where H. erectus fossils have been found (not using a children's book). Children's book. It's a children's book. But you don't even know what that evidence is. You have said as much yourself in admitting that your only research has been one skinny elementary school book. So you would dismiss the opinions of thousands of palaeontologists without bothering to find out what their evidence actually? That may be why you are having difficulties with these topics. If you actually want to find out something about H. erectus, try looking at some of these links for a start;http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/homoerectus.htm
Homo erectus - Wikipedia
Anthropology | Smithsonian National Museum of Natural HistoryOr you could go out and find a proper book on the subject; not one for children.

---

Mutate and Survive

Well they do, just at a very basic level. Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm saying. Analysing evidence and drawing conclusions are what highly educated professional scientists do, not elementary school kids. School books just contain a few of the facts, as they are understood by the professionals in the field. By necessity, they don't contain much background info because children are only capable of learning so much at one time. The whole point of education is that as one progresses, the topic is dealt with in increasing detail, with an increasingly direct engagement with the evidence itself. They are meant to be accurate, but not authoritative. Big difference. What really? Pictures of dinosaurs and man together? Depicted as being around at the same time? I'll bet they don't. Seriously, if any book has pictures of dinosaurs and humans co-existing, it's a shitty book.If the book merely contains a few artists impressions of Homo erectus or dinosaurs, what of it? These kinds of illustration are not meant to be gospel; they're illustrative. They are also usually based on fossil finds, at least they will be if they appear in a book that's any good. That is how it may appear to you, but one of the humbling things about science is that it teaches us that things are rarely as easy to assess and understand as we might wish, especially when one employs hunches and "common sense" instead of evidence. I assure you, the more you familiarise yourself with the evidence for hominids, the age of the Earth and evolution, the more sense it will make. First however, you need to really engage with the scientific knowledge regarding these subjects.

---

Mutate and Survive

More likely it was because however bad this book is, it's writers weren't dumb enough to believe that dinosaurs and humans ever co-existed. Kids like cool pictures. It gets their attention when they can see dinosaurs fighting, and hopefully, they might pick up some facts along the way. Dinosaurs did fight you know; or are you suggesting that T-Rex was a vegetarian? Yeah, that certainly is a pretty damning review. What does this prove exactly? All I can work out from this is that your book is pretty crappy and not really suitable for the purposes for which it was designed. This is not a startling revelation. School textbooks tend not to be written by scientists, but by professional writers, with little or no experience of real scientific endeavour. I wish this wasn't the case and increasingly it isn't; more and more textbooks are being written or edited by the appropriate professionals.That this book leaves much to be desired is clearly not something that you have imagined, but it's just one book. I don't know what you are trying to prove here. I haven't seen any sign of this. You haven't mentioned any evidence, only one crappy children's book. That isn't evidence, nor, as you have pointed out, does it contain evidence. All it contains is information which may or may not be thoroughly accurate. If you want to look at some actual evidence, you are going to have to dig a little bit deeper. You haven't read all of them, now have you? All you have done is find one textbook that contains a few flaws. Pointing to one shitty book does not mean that you can claim that all school books are inaccurate. I wish that all textbooks were perfect, but we don't live in a perfect world. My advice is to get over it and buy a better book!Edited by Granny Magda, : Fixed really unfortunate mistake.

---

Mutate and Survive