Why does evolutionary science seem to be

...can easily be shown as flawed and full of historical errors. so what are you referring to--christianity, biblical literalists, religion in general?

quote:

---

But you shouldn't use evolution to disprove religion either. That's where evolution goes wrong.

---

who needs evolution to disprove the inerrancy of the bible? nowhere in evolution or its supporting theories does it state "the bible is wrong". the lack of corroborating archeological evidence shows that the bible is flawed. the almost identical myths from babylon, egypt, persian, greece, etc. provide a better explanation for the sources of the "word of god" than saying some entity outside of the natural world did all of this for us.yes, i know people will say that i am just being a naturalist, but think of this, what else is there that can be or could possibly be supported with real evidence beside what we can detect in reality?now i await the tongue-lashing about "reality". at least that is better than being horse-whipped!

thank you, taqless. one question to everyone--how did we get this far on such a simple post? i think asgara answered beautifully. i have no idea where jazzlover keeps his intriguing friends, i just wonder if they are allowed visitors on weekends. straightjacket, please!

the biblical stories, including the creation myth, were a way for ancient people to explain a reality they could not comprehend. these stories, especially the conquest stories and exodus, were most likely created to impress the other cultures in the area that had the same kinds of conquest stories in their mythologies. creating a history for the isrealites also created their cultural bonds. now they could be a "people". our dilemma--people take these myths as literally true and historical. (if you don't believe what i just wrote, please, do some research)no where does evolution say, "the bible is incorrect." what we should say is that the objectively gathered evidences in the fields of archeology, anthropology, biology, etc. do not support the biblical stories. so the biblical stories are not scientific? they weren't meant to be.

Well put!

The biological species concept says that a species is a population (or group of populations) that have the potential to interbreed and produce viable, fertile offspring. (Campbell's Biology 5th ed.)The biological species concept is not applicable in all situations, such as when dealing with asexual organisms. Some different species can mate and create fertile and non-fertile hybrids. Mules are non-fertile. Many fish species can hybridize within the same genus. Wolf and dog and coyote orgies, oh my! The biological species concept seems to break down in many situations, doesn't it?However, one thing that no one that I know of mentioned was that reproductive isolation isn't just at the genetic level. It also involves habitat isolation, temporal isolation, behavioral isolation, mechanical isolation and gametic isolation. (Campbell)Some organisms don't normally meet (lions and tigers) in the wild.Species can also be isolated based on when they mate.Some species are also just not attracted to other species, or they see the other species as food or competition.Sometimes the parts just don't fit!Sometimes the gametes, even if they are in the same general area (water, uterus), just aren't attracted (chemically) to each other.The species that we see producing viable hybrids have either had their normal environmental barriers broken down or are just not that far away from their common ancestry with another species.The "discrepencies" in the biological species concept, however, do not strengthen the case against speciation nor show that "kinds" actually might mean something.

quote:

---

I don't like the methods we use to break down species. Why we could use the same methods on man, well we do in a sense with the term race, but whats keeping science from breaking man down like they have the finch?

---

The barriers between the finches, I would say, would most likely be behavioral. Each finch has a specialized beak for its specific food. Also, habitat isolation would also probably play a part.The bahavioral and habitat barriers that exist for the finches do not exist for humans.

quote:

---

We can sit here and theororize the issue until we are blue in the face. That’s not what I am here to do. I want answers not theories

---

A theory is an explanation of the facts/observations. They are answers. You a making a common mistake by using the colloquial definition of theory in a scientific debate.

quote:

---

We are taking pieces of realities puzzle, and are using theories to arrange them to suit the will of our imagination.

---

We are looking at the puzzle of reality, but the theories exist b/c of the observations/facts of nature and natural phenomena, not vice-versa. I like the puzzle analogy. However, it would be correct to say that theories are the explanations to why the pieces fit togehter the way they do. Theories don't produce/make the evidence. Theories explain what is already there.

quote:

---

Forget about about what team we are all on. Let's keep our eye on the ball, and the ball in this game is the facts.

---

Actually, facts really don't mean much and aren't very useful w/o an explanation. As a teacher, I don't care if my students can just spit out facts. I try to get them to synthesize, analyze, and apply information. Thinking critically is more important than mere fact.(added by edit)I am sorry if my 'attempted' explanation of pre-zygotic 'barriers' to hybridization was not up to snuff and a little watered down. I'll try better next time jagz. Sorry if I offended your "scientific sensibilities".[This message has been edited by hitchy, 02-12-2004]

quote:

---

So your wrong there for saying no, for Neanderthal is not the same kind.

---

More correctly speaking, Homo sapiens neanderthalensisare either a subspecies that was "absorbed" into the the modern human line, Homo sapiens sapiens, or a closely related species w/in the same genus, Homo. Now, you say kin are "of the same nature or of the same kind." How can you say then that neanderthals were not "of the same kind"? You can play games with other groups of organisms, like the Galapogos finches and call them all the same kind b/c they can still interbreed (only if we remove the behavioral isolation, though), but when it comes to humans, we have to be distinct and not subject to the rules and laws of nature!?!

quote:

---

How do we know if a theory is right or wrong? We don't, until it is considered a fact there will always be a question that's why we call it science. Let's keep things in perspective; if an answer can neither be verified right or wrong, then is not that answer more of a question than an answer? Granted I will aknowledge the reality of theories to be explanations, but an answer hardly. To me theories are just another question to be answered. I have to keep things in their proper perspective regarding keeping the scientific method sound. Therefore to me a theory is not an answer, but rather a question or an explanation that can not be regarded as fact. I am after the facts.

---

We have many theories. Can you say that all of them cannot be "regarded as fact"? Name some and we shall see...Oh, one more thing. If you are going to use a quote from me, don't leave out part of it in order to change the meaning of the quote. I said that facts don't mean much without an explanation. Your excising of the last part of the quote changed its meaning to fit your purposes. That was dishonest and not in good faith.