Religion and science are incompatible (believers, behavior, divine, morality)

[Mozart271]

alice, As I said before, you are entitled to your opinions. I am just playing devil's advocate here. Since you read Origin of Species and Maynard Smith, etc--obviously you read Darwin's logical argument for speciation based on many successive small adaptations. And you might also consider punctuationism (Gould/Eldridge) to be at play, wherin a species may remain in relative stasis for long periods of time, if its environment does not change. But what if a group of some species gets isolated, say, by some geographic event, from the original population? The new environment may have different selection pressures, and these members of the species will adapt by selection of favorable traits. What if at some point in the future, these two groups meet up again, and their genetic makeup has changed enough that they cannot produce viable, or fertile offspring? They are now by definition two different species. (For example, horses and donkeys are two different species, but are genetically close enough to reproduce--but the offspring mule is sterile.)

So macroevolution is simply microevolution occurring until the two genomes are sufficiently different to not be able to combine to produce viable or fertile offspring.

If you believe the Bible is the word of God, fine. But do you believe every word with a literal 21st Century interpretation? Couldn't it be that God created the creatures "separately" by way of macroevolution? Could it be that God infused humans (or Adam and Eve, if you will) with a soul, but there was, millions of years ago, a common ancestor with the apes? Must the creation of Adam have been from actual clay in an instant, or could it have happened over millennia by evolution? After all, we are literally made of all the same stuff ("clay") as the earth and everything else in the universe.

As I said, please don't take this as an attempt to argue with your beliefs--it's just that I wanted to throw out a couple of ideas and see what you thought.

[GCSTroop]

Originally Posted by alicenavada

I do not, however, believe that they are evolving into something ELSE.

I'm not trying to challenge you on this alicenavada but I would like a little clarification on this statement, if you don't mind. By changing into something ELSE what exactly do you mean? The way I take it is that you mean one species can never take the shape or form of another species already in existence. In other words, a polar bear will never turn into something ELSE such as a parrot. On that, I would agree because evolution doesn't state that.

But, if you are saying that the polar bear species will never take the shape or form of something to where we could no longer call it Ursus Maritimis than I disagree. That is, of course, unless Ursus Maritimis goes extinct before it has the chance to adapt to its environment which is exceedingly diminishing.

Here's another example. Recently, scientists in Borneo discovered the first lungless "frog". First Lungless Frog Found It still shares the characteristics of frogs/toads found in the Genus Barbaroula (which are part of the fire-bellied toad Family Bombinatoridae) but it is indeed a different species. The species name being Barbourula kalimantanensis. What's interesting about this new specimen is that it shares an evolutionary event with that of some caecilians and salamanders.

However, this does not mean that the frog is turning into a salamander, it just means there was an evolutionary necessity for it to be lungless in the similar fashion it was for salamanders to remain/become lungless. It is what we call convergent evolution - Convergent evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[jadybug]

Originally Posted by coosjoaquin

I'll convert when I see a tag stitched in the very fabric of space time at the edge of the universe that says

To:My beloved humans

From:God(the christian one)

Otherwise I'd be really embarrassed if I prayed to Jesus Papa and then saw:

To:My beloved humans

From: Thor

Or

To:My beloved humans

From: Satan

Or even

To:My beloved humans

From: [blank]

Would Jesus coming in the clouds work? You had a choice to make, and so did God, I guess we know both of your answers/choices. 1 Peter 1:4-14; 1 Peter 2:9. See you in line...beam us up Jesus!! (Jesus, don't leave Earth without Him!)

P.S. You couldn't pay me enough money to return to your, "logic." And, don't worry as I do know you feel the same way (I used a lot of the same lines BTW).

[coosjoaquin]

Originally Posted by jadybug

Would Jesus coming in the clouds work? You had a choice to make, and so did God, I guess we know both of your answers/choices.
1 Peter 1:4-14; 1 Peter 2:9. See you in line...beam us up Jesus!! (Jesus, don't leave Earth without Him!)
P.S. You couldn't pay me enough money to return to your, "logic." And, don't worry as I do know you feel the same way (I used a lot of the same lines BTW).

Originally Posted by Tim Minchin

So you're gonna sacrifice your life
For a shot at the greener grass,
And when the Lord comes down
With his shimmering rod of judgement,
He's gonna kick my heathen arse.

When jesus comes I'll convert, if he goes "sorry mate, its too late now" then by all means tell me I told you so.

[Campbell34]

Originally Posted by Mozart271

WOW. Aren't we the smart one! (But why be surprised at a silly, non-substantial reply to a reasonable post on evolution?) Who's the "Evolutionist"? If you mean Darwin, Huxley, Haldane, Dawkins, Gould, Lewontin, Wilson, Eldridge, Vrba, Smith, White, Hrdy, Briggs, Conway-Morris, and about 99.9 % of all scientists, then yes, I have listened to them.

For examples, you may want to read a book by one or more of the above scientists. Dawkins' "The Ancestor's Tale" is a good start. You may also read White's "Lucy", Gould's "Structure of Evolutionary Theory", or even Darwin's "Descent of Man".

It turns out, based on molecular genetics (not a belief, but actual studies of DNA), that there is not even any real validity in putting humans in a separate genus from apes, as we are apparently closer genetically to chimps than chimps are to orangutans--so, by cladistic classification (I doubt you know what that is) we are not in a separate family.

Cheers, have a banana.

According to Richard Leakey, "Lucy's skull is so incomplete that most of it is imagination made of plaster of paris" So I guess 99% of Evolutionist believe in plaster of paris. And thats about the only real evidence they are going to be able to come up with to support their theory. It requires a lot of imagination to believe in Evolution.

The idea that humans are closer to chimps, than chimps are to orangotans was based on a crude techique called DNA Hybridizanation. This techique is not used by those working in molecular homology, yet it works well to help in the indoctrination of the scientifically illiterate.

[Mozart271]

Originally Posted by Campbell34

According to Richard Leakey, "Lucy's skull is so incomplete that most of it is imagination made of plaster of paris" So I guess 99% of Evolutionist believe in plaster of paris. And thats about the only real evidence they are going to be able to come up with to support their theory. It requires a lot of imagination to believe in Evolution.

Here's the rest of Leakey's comment, showing that you did the stereotypical Creationist tactic and took the quote totally out of its context. Leakey had no intention of implying human evolution had not occurred; his arguments were that perhaps Lucy was not in the direct hominid line, but he has always maintained that his discovery Homo habilis is a direct ancestor to Homo sapiens.

Richard Leakey said that Lucy's skull was so incomplete that nearly all of it was "imagination made of plaster of Paris."(84) ... "Lucy may be considered a late Ramapithecus." (85)

And here is a recent quote from Leakey regarding the skeleton of "Lucy" currently going on tour:

"It's a form of prostitution, it's gross exploitation of the ancestors of humanity and it should not be permitted," Leakey told The Associated Press in an interview at his Nairobi office. (my italics)

Case closed on that.

The idea that humans are closer to chimps, than chimps are to orangotans was based on a crude techique called DNA Hybridizanation. This techique is not used by those working in molecular homology, yet it works well to help in the indoctrination of the scientifically illiterate.

First of all, what is "DNA Hybridizanation?" (I will assume it's a typo and not a sign of scientific illiteracy ) Second of all, your statement is pulled directly out of a Creationist website.

From the British journal Nature 429, 382-388 (27 May 2004), in a study done by a international chimpanzee chromosome study group:

Estimates of nucleotide substitution rates of aligned sequences range from 1.23% by bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) end sequencing3 to about 2% by molecular analysis1, 6, 7, 8, whereas the overall sequence difference was estimated to be approximately 5% by taking regions of insertions or deletions (indels) into account9.

So the difference may be 1%, 2%, up to 5%...Zowie.

Sequence coverage of the euchromatic portion of the long arm of chromosome 22 (PTR22q) is estimated to be 98.6% (33.3 megabases (Mb)). Accuracy was calculated as 99.9983% from the overlapping clone sequences and 99.9981% on the basis of Phrap scores16.

There may have been some inconsistencies in the earliest studies, but I'm OK with 99.998% accuracy. What you left out of your comment was, while scientists may not be using the exact techniques of a few years ago, they have improved them.

I won't say the cladogram showing chimps to be closer to humans than to orangs is the final word, it could end up that gorillas fall somewhere in between--but the point stays valid.

[Megande]

Religion answers questions that science can't, such as "why are we here?" and "what is our purpose". Science has nothing to say about those things. Science is a method for understanding the natural world, the world that I believe that God created. I have no problem believing that He did so through evolution.

As of yet in my life, I have not had to choose between what the Bible says and what science says. It simply hasn't happened (and I have 22 years of education, so its not like I haven't been around). Interestingly, Francis Collins, the head of the Human Genome project and world renown geneticist, also fails to see any conflict between Christianity and science and records his evidence for both in his book "The language of God." If you are actually interested in this question as opposed to looking for a fight (on either side), you should really read it. It is excellent.

[Megande]

Also, C.S. Lewis, the brilliant Oxford scholar and arguably the most famous theologian of this century also found no incompatibility between science and Christianity.

[sanspeur]

Originally Posted by Campbell34

According to Richard Leakey, "Lucy's skull is so incomplete that most of it is imagination made of plaster of paris" So I guess 99% of Evolutionist believe in plaster of paris. And thats about the only real evidence they are going to be able to come up with to support their theory. It requires a lot of imagination to believe in Evolution.

The idea that humans are closer to chimps, than chimps are to orangotans was based on a crude techique called DNA Hybridizanation. This techique is not used by those working in molecular homology, yet it works well to help in the indoctrination of the scientifically illiterate.

Scientifically illiterate? You do realize that most of the developed world is laughing at you creationists don't you?

TED | Talks | Susan Savage-Rumbaugh: Apes that write, start fires and play Pac-Man (video)


Never mind Lucy.. TED | Talks | Zeresenay Alemseged: Finding the origins of humanity (video)

[MontanaGuy]

Campbell34 wrote:

According to Richard Leakey, "Lucy's skull is so incomplete that most of it is imagination made of plaster of paris" So I guess 99% of Evolutionist believe in plaster of paris. And thats about the only real evidence they are going to be able to come up with to support their theory. It requires a lot of imagination to believe in Evolution.

You make it sound like Richard Leakey doesn't believe in evolution. I actually met him in person at a book signing event in Seattle many years ago and attended a lecture he gave about evolution. Of course his parents Louis and Mary are famous for their work and discoveries regarding human evolution and Richard established himself as an expert as well. During his many years of active field work his group has discovered a large number of high quality fossils of early man. It must have been at least a decade ago when he was in a plane crash and lost both of his legs, I think it might have been in the early nineties, and was no longer able to continue his field work. Anyway my point is that Richard Leakey is not a good source to quote from to promote an anti evolution point of view considering his stature as a highly respected scientist who has spent his life studying evolution.