How many links do you want? Of course you are going to cling to your predetermined conclusion if you refuse to look at any links provided, refuse to open a book, and refuse to acknowledge any scientific study in the areas of biology, evolutionary biology, anthropology, paleo-anthropology, genetics, physics, or organic chemistry.

You've been given a myriad of examples, in this thread. You've either ignored them, argued semantics, or moved the goal posts. No one can help you but yourself Beachbum. As I read back through this thread, many people came to the same conclusion regarding your arguments: you need to read more. Your lack of understanding does not falsify science.

Anyone who wants to see the examples that have been provided should have a look at posts 94-116.

__________________
SUPPORT THE TROOPS: RIDE A BIKE

its funny how youre trying to argue the existence of evolution when you dont even understand science at a fundamental level, never mind any specific theory. thats whats really funny.

hey, i have this hunch that the earth has a chewy, chocolaty center. given your belief that something doesnt need to be proven to be taught in a science class, we can add my "theory" of chococentricity to the curriculum. also, i heard that every time someone masturbates, god kills a kitten; i suggested including this "theory" in the science class at a local high school but they rejected the idea and i was thrown out by security. perhaps i should take this to the courts...

__________________

Well yea, science is certainly separate from humanity ... Since when are they the same?

Yes, precisely, I'm claiming that the divergence in chromosome count is a subject already addressed by science. This is definitely hearsay as far as you are concerned. And my point was precisely that some people, apparently including you, depend entirely on this hearsay as their source of knowledge about science. How unscientific of you.

Science is obviously not a who but a what. Science is an approach to understanding the world by observing it and modelling those observations to allow for prediction of future observations. It is not a source of knowledge but rather a policy for obtaining it. When people talk about what science indicates, all they mean is that other people have, through the application of science, generated a reliable model of the observations they have made.

Typically, they report these scientific observations, and the reasoning behind the models they've synthesized, in scientific journals. These journals are peer reviewed by other scientists, so these observations are tested and retested many times, and the reasoning behind the models is criticized and revised. Of course, if you're a paranoid enough nut, you might think all scientists are in some kind of conspiracy to trick the world into believing lies...

These journals are tangible and readable, unlike God, so the only reason they might be a mystery to you is your own laziness or lack of interest. Many journals may be difficult for a layman to read because they are quite technical, using vocabulary that only the educated might understand. Science is not necessarily layman-friendly, but it is definitely approachable if you care to educate yourself. While these journals are the direct source of scientific information, there are books and articles which are more layman friendly, symposiums of research that simplify and comprehensively analyze the results. Of course these are less reliable and perhaps skewed in favor of the authors' biases, but they're a good place to start.

You demonstrated curiosity regarding a question you had regarding evolution. I was simply letting you know that there are articles out there you can read on the subject. If you don't care to put the effort into it, don't whine to me about it. It is not my desire or responsibility to convince you that the issue about chromosomes is already addressed. If you would like advice on how to find these articles, I'd suggest http://www.google.com/.

Also, just because you don't understand something about a theory doesn't mean the scientific community doesn't understand it. Just because you think you see a hole doesn't mean it isn't already filled. Science isn't a dogma like religion. There is no equivalent of the Bible which you are handed and expected to read. To learn what scientists have found, you're going to have to search, yourself.

Without humanity there is no science. Science is just a collection of ideas assembled by humanity. I am not saying that they are the same. I'm saying that they are linked and that the human part is dominant. Hence the perfect mathematical science expected by some people is not what we have in reality. Our "science" is not only incomplete, but biased.


Actually, I was trying to get past your hearsay and find a source. I guess Google is all you got. Since you apparantly know how the 1 creature on Earth with new genetic operating system could reproduce, and you can't condescend to share the process with the group, you could at least tell us who told you it was "proven by science"(some kind of source other than just an assertion).

__________________
War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Strength.

It's a post 9/11 world.

I still don't understand what exactly you mean by humanity, and you do not seem to have the right idea about what science is. Science is not "just a collection of ideas assembled by humanity". If you're saying that science and "humanity" are linked, but that one is dominate, you're suggesting that they are two opposing forces, which makes absolutely no sense... Also, what do you mean by the "perfect mathematical science"? And regarding your last statement, how is science "biased"?

I recall reading articles about the subject, however I do not have them on hand. I could go googling for them myself, but no thank you; I have no reason to. It's up to you get find the gumption to do your own research.

Creationism and evolutionary theory are not necessarily mutually exclusive to one another. I personally consider myself to be an evolutionary creationist for example.

It depends. Certain creationists hold that God created humans as they are now, rather than just causing the beginning of the universe and allowing it to unfold naturally. In that case they are mutually exclusive.

if you dont take the bible literally, they are not mutually exclusive.

__________________

What I said is: "Creationism and evolutionary theory are NOT NECESSARILY exclusive to one another". I personally believe in evolutionary creationism rather than say the tenets of the old testament. I believe that an unknown force (God) at the beginning of time and space created matter and anti-matter which was the catalyst for the big bang which proceeded to then bring the universe into being. From this, the evolutionary process began to take shape.

Although from the outset this explanation may seem to some to be far fetched, it nevertheless has more basis in reality than the alternative athiestic assertion which assumes that matter and anti-matter emerged from a clear blue sky so to speak. In other words, it seems more or less improbable to believe that the universe emerged from an empty void of nothingness. The reality is that distinct things emerge as a result of a process of quantiative changes to something else. These quantiative changes in other words, eventually result in qualiatitive changes which results in something becoming something else.

For example, when a liquid like water is frozen quantiative changes will occur to the molecular structure of it, then at a certain point, those quantiative changes will result in qualitiative changes whereupon the liquid water will change its form into a solid form - ice. In other words, quantiative changes will change the form of something into something completely different even though the internal structure of the thing is the same. Other examples are the acorn and the oak tree, and the tiny baby and the elderly person.

So in this way it sounds reasonable to me that in the absence of a more rational scientific explanation, a form of external intervention - a force of somekind - must of been responsible for creating the universe. This does not negate from the fact that the physical sciences ought not to continue in its quest to discover the meaning of our very existence. On the contrary, it is only quantum science which is capable of providing definitive answers to the mysteries of the universe. But probably not in our lifetimes, unfortunately.