I dont think this debate is really going anywhere....

since it's gonna get locked anyway....


Get religion for your brain today!

TerribleTwo, do you believe in Intelligent Design and/or Creationism (in any of its various forms)? At least come clean with us before telling someone more knowledgable than you on evolutionary theory that modern humans decended from apes as well as re-writing of the accepted meaning of 'scientific theory'.

Just to inject some more fuel to this fire:

There are (I would suggest plenty of) intelligent design believers, such as myself, who do accept that organisms "evolve". However, this does not mean we accept the premise of "evolution", the blanket term bandied about to encompass the theory that all life evolved from simpler organisms.

"Evolution", as defined by the shift in population allele ratios, or even the division of one into two species caused by genetic drift over time has some pretty good evidence growing to support the theory. "Evolution", when defined as the development of complex organisms from simpler ones, has some gapping holes in the theory. Michael Behe has several excellent scientific books on this subject... see link for first two very readable to the layman books:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=michael+behe&x=0&y=0

Well if the creationists/ID folks admit that evolution does NOT say humans evolved from apes, but rather that at some time in the past a species (the "missing link") branched off in 2 different directions - one eventually becoming apes & monkeys, the other eventually becoming hominids - then their whole argument runs out of what little steam it had to begin with.

Behe attempts to use the "irreducable complexity" argument and got absolutely ripped up a new one in the Dover Trial because his argument doesn't hold water in the Real World. Behe isn't a scientist by any strech of the imagination. He exists to push his agenda Creationism under the covers of Intelligent Design.

Pushing ID (aka Creationism) won't get you very far in the scientific community since when it encounters something it can't explain, it says "God did it".

Watch Intelligent Design go down in fire in the US courts

I realize genetics is hot #%&*$# right now, but the simple truth is that the fossil evidence we flakey crack pots have been unearthing for many years now doesn't support that. Are we saying here that simple organisms evolved from complex organisms?

Jroc, read Avimimus comment about unilateral progress to higher forms. There is no end goal in sight, that is not how it works. Example always taught to college folks is sickle cell anemia. A response to malaria but look at the cost. That's a gene mutation where the end really didn't justify the means. Not all mutations are beneficial.

Hardly.

I at believe in both evolutionary forces and the Almighty guiding hand of God.

The book of Genesis is, like much of the Bible, allegory. From nothing, something. From darkness, light. Then the Earth, and then the oceans. First life in the ocean, then...etc., etc. I disagree with the literalists counting back six thousand years, as what is a day to a timeless being?

When we look to the story of Adam and Eve, we find their transgression is the discovery of right and wrong - cognative thought - as what makes them different from the animals. Communication they already had, according to the Bible, but not this sense of conciousness.

And the amazing thing is that God doesn't give it to them - they take it for themselves.

My own views on Godly Intervention are that it is rare and more in a general steering fashion. God doesn't make little kids have cancer any more than God hands out winning lottery tickets. God didn't make West Africans more resistant to malaria than other people on the Earth (and when one has both of the recessive genes that allow it one get sickle cell anemia), but God make the general rules that makes DNA resilent enough to replicate and flexible enough to change.

As to the man-from-monkey statements: if the "missing link" were to exist today, it would be classified as a primate and most likely an ape. Personally I find it much easier to swallow than the part of the theory that says people came from fish and amphibians.

Well, if a mutation into a simpler organism conveyed some survival advantage wouldn't that still be considered evolution? I don't think evolution necessarily has to be in the direction of higher complexity, but rather a higher likelihood of survival. After all, surviving to pass your genes along to the next generation is what it's all about, not some kind of biological bling contest.

On the contrary: my atheist professor had no objections to my work, and I have IMO gotten far.

Speaking purely on a personal level I don't posit "God did it" as an excuse to explain something unexplainable. Quite the reverse: that which I have learned in genetics, biochemistry, and physics I find astounding in it's impressive complexity, and beautiful, which I attribute to the Designer. When I find I don't understand something or am unable to explain it, certainly I will still say God had a hand in it, but that's not to suggest that there are as yet still undiscovered scientific reasons that can explain the issue.

As for Behe being unscientific: well, we'll have to agree to disagree. Your link refuting him and his ideas... well, as I learned biochemistry quite separately from Behe (was introduced to his work post doctorate) and rather from atheist professors, I have points of disagreement with the nova program, but that's another topic.