For instance, if two organisms contain genetic material that is 95% similar in structure, and given the FACTS of natural selection and mutation, it is reasonable to deduce that these two organisms were closely related in the fairly recent past. To say that the opposite might occur, to suppose that the creatues are genetically close because their environmental niche is close, is to ignore basic biological facts, including that of unrelated speciments which occupy the same niche in different places, examples of which are frequent in nature.

There is also no theory that man 'descended' from monkeys. Much more accurate would be to say that there once was an animal that was not quite a monkey OR a man, and that two branches of it diverged, and one became 'monkey' and one became 'man.'

------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master

"Ignorance"
Ignorance is being uninformed. Uninformed of what? Technically everyone is ignorant, only in different fields of expertise. The homeless on the street may know more about life or the psychology of generosity than we do.

Why the irrational treatment of the Bible?

------------------
"...[They've] been so completely dumbed down by the media, by tabloid scumbags, by the Christian "right", by politicians in general, the school, parents who are dumber than their parents were, who are dumber than their parents were, and all of whom think that they can bring up a child just because they got down in bed and had a little sex...well, frankly, here is an audience that knows more and more about less and less as the years go by...We are talking about a constituency...that knows nothing. This is pandemic; terrifyingly, paralyzingly pandemic. They know absolutely nothing."
- Harlan Ellison, on the Media Consumer of today.

In the mean time, here's a cool article on Fundamentalism.

http://www.neopagan.net/ReligiousReich.HTML

As far as evolution and man coming from monkeys...no. Man once existing in a primate-like species and evolved into what we are today, yes.

IMO religion was born out of our natural need to understand the universe. Only people couldn't, so in order to do so they created gods and said their god created the universe. An easy answer to a difficult question.

------------------
"Great Idea!!" - DARKSTAR
This post is sponsored in part by the Federation Starship Datalink

"What? No, no. The Bible is real. All those other Gods are fake, just made up only our God is real."

Which deserves a 'Sweet Black Jesus!'.

------------------
"...[They've] been so completely dumbed down by the media, by tabloid scumbags, by the Christian "right", by politicians in general, the school, parents who are dumber than their parents were, who are dumber than their parents were, and all of whom think that they can bring up a child just because they got down in bed and had a little sex...well, frankly, here is an audience that knows more and more about less and less as the years go by...We are talking about a constituency...that knows nothing. This is pandemic; terrifyingly, paralyzingly pandemic. They know absolutely nothing."
- Harlan Ellison, on the Media Consumer of today.

quote:

---

Which deserves a 'Sweet Black Jesus!'.

---

quote:

---

I've heard Christians say the same thing about ancient mythology

---

Saiyanman Benjita: Evolution is known to be as much a fact as gravity is. Although our description of these may not be complete, we know they exist. Before Newton quantified gravitational force we knew that if you held a stone and left it go it fell to the ground. Just because someone can't live long enough to see the effects of evolution, it doesn't mean that it can't be proven. When I did Biology in first year we were presented with 7 or 8 observed facts which prove that evolution exists. 100% proof, if you like. I can't remember them all, but one of the easiest to see is the study of a growing human foetus. In it's development the foetus is seen to go through stages which resemble an evolutionary path. For instance, a growing embryo has gills, which become some gland (thyroid, I think) later in development. "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" is a phrase which is bandied about quite a lot, but isn't entirely accurate. It is more correct to say that ontogeny(study of embryos) reveals some aspects of phylogeny(study of evolutionary development).

More proof comes from the study of the Galapagos islands, where the development of birds which came from mainland south america can be seen as they progressed from island to island.

More proof comes from extensive fossil records.

Several case studies have observed evolution due to natural selection eg. a particular breed of bird(can't remember the name) which only eats one specific type of seed. When the weather is wet(over the course of a year), the seeds are large and fleshy, and the birds with smaller bills are at an advantage as they can eat faster, become better nourished, are chosen by the opposite sex, mate, and rear offspring. When the bill sizes are measured by biologists, the next generation of offspring have a marked decrease in bill size. If the weather is dry, the seeds are hard, and those birds with larger bills can crack open the seeds better, so the next generation of birds has a measured increase in bill size. The results show an accurate correlation between the weather and the bill sizes. There are many observed cases like this. Although the results aren't as dramatic as evolving a new organ or something, they are significant, and it is easy to see that environmental changes have an active role to play in the genome of the species.

There is an abundance of proof of this type. It might be worth trying to check some of this out for yourselves before trying to argue about it.

Tora Ziyal:

quote:

---

Ignorance is being uninformed. Uninformed of what? Technically everyone is ignorant, only in different fields of expertise. The homeless on the street may know more about life or the psychology of generosity than we do.

---

Hobbes: Your explanation of the origin of religion is exactly correct. The events in the Bible are just exaggerated versions of events that may or may not have happened.

------------------
*Kenshiro gets off bed made from solid stone*
*Bed made from solid stone explodes*
Fist of the North Star

------------------
Luke Ford: "What's it like having a dick in your ass?"

You have to have a B.S or M.S. in Library Science to be actually qualified as a librarian. Everybody else is a clerk or a parapro.

------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master

And I'm not actually even an aide, yet. They haven't filled their last two positions.

Gurgeh:

Your example of birds is flawed. The English Pepper Moth (I believe that was the name) comes to mind. When the trees were white, the white moths survived more easily, due to coloration and being able to blend. The trees turned black with soot, and then the black moths became prevelant. The trees were cleaned up, and the white moths again became dominant. This is NOT evolution. This is natural selection. There's a BIG difference. The species is not evolving into another species.

Now show me a time when one of a creature's decendents becomes incapable of reproducing with another of the original creature's decendents, THEN you'll have proof of evolution. Maybe.

Actually, the long-term example of Gurgeh's bird statement can be clearly seen in the finches of the Galapagos, who clearly have a common ancestor, who have adapted to fill different niches, and who do not now interbreed.

------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master

Anyway, my point is... Couldn't something similar be done w/ the fossils we have of past members of the Homo and Australopithecus genera? Presumably, matches would be found, which would show that today's humans are, in fact, related to those other species.