Do you think our ancestors are gorillas?

You have a good point there. We are a brotherhood with the whole planet. Makes good sense to me!

Our ancestors were not gorillas, but gorillas and humans did have a common ancestor.

What does Dawkins says about this? just wondering

I don’t see why one has to drag atheism into this equation. I believe in the interconnectedness of all life and that we are stewards of the lifeforms we consider lesser life including all animals.

Gorillas rights, eh?
sounds like buzzword babble based on conjecture by one who doesnt entirely understand humanism, evolution, and animal rights.

We shouldn’t be killing off species, we shouldn’t be ignoring the destruction of creature after creature. Even if we weren’t related to everything on this earth… That’s still no excuse for blind destruction. A person shouldn’t take responsibility just because your crimes are against a distant cousin. They should take responsibility simply because their crimes are against something that is alive.

Thanks, Delirium. Couldn’t have said it better.

You may not agree (and neither do I) that how we value life should be predicated on evolutionary lineages, but don’t most of us have some sense that some life forms merit more care than others? Is killing a gorilla the same as killing a mosquito? Killing a dolphin the same as killing a crab? Killing a poodle the same as killing an earthworm?

How we rank the value of life is hardly grounded in science. Largely it comes down to our capacity for empathy; humans have the ability to look at our own fears and desires and see that other, even unrelated, beings share those fears and desires to some extent. We can imagine how we would feel if we were being menaced with harm or death, and we’re reluctant to subject other beings to those terrors.

Clearly, some beings are more like us in their capacity to suffer than are others, but can we really know what their subjective experiences are? I think we would agree that a gorilla’s must come closer to our own than would that of a fly. But does that mean that a fly can’t suffer? I’m not sure we’ll ever know.

There have been cultures that have taken this business of empathy for suffering very seriously for millenia. Devout Buddhists, Hindus and Jains won’t knowingly kill animals except under the most compelling circumstances. Taking a reasonable amount of care not to kill is hardly an onerous burdon. I get along just fine without swatting flies or mosquitoes. I don’t know whether or not they can suffer, but I don’t want to risk it.

Why is your question interspersed with things like “alleged” and “supposedly” in ways meant to cast doubt on evolution? Do you even understand evolution? I doubt it.

He has exhibited previously that he does not understand it, shilolo.

Just out of idle curiosity what has evolution got to do with animal rights?
(Feel free not to answer)

Also, lightlyseared, I would add the question, what has atheism to do with this issue (as Marina said as well)? I suspect the syllogism is that since Richard Dawkins is an atheist and evolutionary biologist, and made the aforementioned statement, that it must all tie into atheism.

So does that mean only atheists are concerned about animal welfare and animal rights?

I would sugest not, but the first comment on the you tube page might make you think otherwise.

God says to eliminate all his creatures?

One does not have to think hard, or look very far, to see that we are not only connected to all animals, but to every living thing as well. Like harp stated, we have empathy for animals that we see exhibit “human” characteristics, but we cannot know the extent to which other living beings experience the world.

On another note, because we are all connected, we have to consider the fact that we are not only involved in living among each other, but also involved in the destruction of each other as well. Whenever I walk on grass, or drive my car, I am killing living things. As the human animal we are subject to the proverbial laws of the jungle: we need to eat, we need shelter, we need to protect ourselves. How we achieve these goals is varied; some choose force over harmony, but that’s another topic.

Let’s tackle one subject at a time then we’ll tie it all together later.

First able, let’s stick to what Harp is talking about. Dawkins tackles the argument for cabbages’ rights, too. He deftly reasons, “We have kind of a continuum. There’s a sliding scale from gorillas and chimpanzees, being very close to us, and cabbages being a very long way away; and there’s no reason why we should erect a wall—we should erect a fence—at any particular place.” Forgive me if I missed something obvious, but did he not just refute his own position?

When I mentioned about killing other animals I don’t mean what some people do to make the animals suffer more than they should, but isn’t it true that no matter how you kill an animal you will make that animal suffer? Now, if we are to protect animal rights do we only care if the specie is in danger of extinction or do we protect all the other animals as well? If we do then what would we eat? Couldn’t eat chickens, pigs, cows, etc., do you see my point?

If the charge is that there is no rationale for not including all species—beast, broccoli and bacteria alike—in this morality called “speciesism,” and Dawkins “answers” this by saying there is no reason why we should draw a line at any given place in the evolutionary tree, then hasn’t he conceded the argument?

So what, exactly, do you think the great evil is that would be done by protecting all the world’s animals? I guess I just don’t understand what the OP’s point is… it is perfectly possible, perhaps even better for us, and definitely better for the planet for us to not eat animals – so it certainly isn’t unimaginable to live in a world where all the world’s animals are protected. Richard Dawkin’s comments seem to make perfect sense in this regard. Of course, none of the OP points have anything what-so-ever to do with atheism, aside from the fact the Richard Dawkins was involved in the discussion. I’m quite confused as to why atheism is even mentioned. Regardless, to answer the question, yes I believe we are related to gorillas, monkeys, and the like. We are, afterall primates. So I don’t really think in this day and age that there is much to debate about in that regard. We can simply look at the DNA and compare ours to other primates and it is quite obvious that we are closely related.

@Maverick I would agree with you to protect all animals and become vegetarians, but I bet most people including atheists wouldn’t agree with this point of view, for if they did they would be vegetarians themselves. We will tackle the atheism issue later, don’t get ahead of yourself. I know you are eager to prove me wrong.

The problem with what Dawkins is proposing is that from his point of view we don’t only would have to protect animal’s rights but also all forms of life. His now reasonless rationale relies purely on emotions: “There are some animals that there is some reason to think can suffer—can think, can reason, can suffer emotion—which deserve, and must have, a greater moral consideration from us than other animals.” Note this well: Dawkins has admitted that the atheist’s case for morality is based purely on emotions. Moral rules must, therefore, extend to those animals which we deem capable of suffering emotionally.

For one thing, we have very little ability to tell where to draw this new line—for example, it may not be too hard to accept a gorilla emotionally suffering, but what about a cow, sheep, pig, or what about a cat? What about an alligator or snake? A Chinchilla? A kangaroo? Or a squirrel? Whale? Do these animals have emotions? Do they suffer emotionally, or just physically? The idea of emotional suffering being the basis of morality itself has fundamental problems. Does this mean that if a majority of people are angry at a certain species, then it is acceptable to exterminate? Or if a member of a lower sentient species becomes angry and attacks a human, then can we defend ourselves? Or are we obligated to respect the attacker’s emotions?

@shilolo Not everybody agrees on the theory of evolution, after all is just a theory. There are many pitfalls on this theory and we will get into details later on. I think this thread is gonna get even more interesting as we get in deeper debate. I am glad all of you are zealous of your ancestors and are open minded to discussion without offending each other

@Lightlyseared That’s a good question to ask Dawkins

You cannot say that evolution is ‘just a theory’. It is a theory, and theories have to go through a lot and have a lot of evidence to become a theory, rather than say a hypothesis.

I have just bought The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, but I am also planning to buy and read The Dawkins Delusion, as it’s always best to get both sides ;)

@shrubbery I completely agree with you. All I’m saying is that we can’t rely on theories alone and because we can’t reproduce these findings in the laboratory; therefore, there is a lot of inconclusive evidence. There are other reasons why this theory is inaccurate as well. I’m sorry but I didn’t mean to disrespect this theory. Some people believe in it as if it is a law and it is wrong.

Sorry ed, thanks for clearing that up. I completely agree with you. I do think that evolution is the best “answer” we’ve got, and that you can be religious and accept the theory at the same time. Sorry for the threadjack

There are certain aspects of this theory that make sense; we would have to go into more details to understand the premises of this theory as there are some assumptions made that have no solid foundation.

I’ll get back to you once I’ve read Dawkins and his opposition ;)

Evolution is as much of a theory as gravity is.

anyways, theory is better than wild nonsensical speculative stories any day

While ethics can be informed by science, ultimately ethics don’t derive from science. Science is ethics-neutral; it explains what is, not what should be. Our concern for ethics is rooted in the age-old observation that we’re happier, more fulfilled and more at peace when we seek the well-being of others.

Scientifically, it makes all the sense in the world to eat opportunistically. Purposely excluding a whole swath of food possibilities is hard (but maybe not impossible) to justify on scientific grounds alone. But ethics makes its own case.

At a minimum, ethics compels us to look after the interests of our fellow humans. We generally recognize that not meeting that ethical threshold pretty much guarantees an unsatisfying life. Plenty of people leave it at that, but for many others that ethical standard doesn’t go far enough.

You can’t disentangle ethics from “theory of mind”, the recognition that self-awareness, the property we call “mind”, makes suffering (as opposed to simple pain) possible. One way then of framing this ethical question then is to say that our obligation to seek the welfare of others extends as far as “mind” extends. Which creatures have mind, and to what degree, is not an easily answered question.

I find, as do others, that I’m not ethically at ease knowingly killing, or causing to be killed, any sentient being. I can’t know where self-awareness starts and stops, so I’d rather give the benefit of a doubt. Cabbages, I’m reasonable confident don’t have mind. I can’t say that this doesn’t pose some complications, but they’re not by any means unworkable. I do find that I can’t be at ease, though, living to a less rigorous standard.

Its obvious that you don’t understand evolutioary science… So if you Really want to have this debate I’ll be right here waiting. I am always willing to school someone. :)

(you have no solid ground so far… We CAN reproduce these things in a lab. Everything is based on theories. In science we consider a theory to be Stronger Than A Law. A theory is tested and proven to be correct a thousand thousand times a day. And not ONCE fails those tests. Considering biblical validity is based on an authoritarian “because I said so” approach, I’m not sure you’re in a position to be taking shots at Evolution.

@delerium Interesting. So does science acknowledge that even though our minds and senses have been satisfied, and we can say that yes, this is true and does exist, we cannot assert something as fact, because in reality, we cannot know if something is true (as in a “universal truth”)?

A scientific thoery is a “model” explaining how the world works. To test the theory experiments are designed and carried out to see if what the theory predicts will happen does actually happen in reality. If the prediction matches reality the theory remains. However you can not prove a theory to be true you can only disprove it or not disprove it. So yes if you are looking for universal truths science is not for you. (you could perhaps try philosophy)

The theory of evolution has been tested repeatedly and has not yet been disproved. What is some what amusing is the fact that so many people have such a problem excepting evolution yet don’t bat an eye lid at some of the theories that quantum physics produces. You can see evolution at work all around you every day without even trying, for example there are diseases that are developing resistance to antibiotics (survival of the fittest).

I wasn’t really looking for a universal truth, there is no way we could know either way. I just always thought science to be slightly arrogant, insisting that the practice of science is the only way to decide if something is true or not (like not taking into account emotional response or personal experience). Science thinks if a hypothesis cannot exhibit the rules of science then it must not be fact. For example, oriental medicine has been existence for centuries, but until western science “proves” it works, it is just assumed it doesn’t work. How many Chinese people are there? But this is way off topic…

Tinyfairy: Yes. Calling something a theory is protection against the tiny chance that something can be proven wrong in some reach of the galaxy somewhere. Its protection against a what if. In science there are no absolutes. Science is actually Very simple. Science is asking a question, having a hypothetical answer (a hypothesis), and running tests to see if that holds true. It can be something as simple as seeing if a plant needs water to grow or something as complicated as how digestion works.
I would never call science arrogant. Science is a process of using logic to determine an answer. Science is the opposite of guessing. That’s the only way to have confidence in an answer. Science does take in to account the placebo effect (emotional response and personal experience).
There are plenty of Christian scientists who are still alive and haven’t died from lack of medicine.
Applying whiskey to a wound has been a technique for a long time, and can work… it just isn’t the best way of going about it. A doc is going to raise his eyebrows at you if you forgo antiseptic for a ‘lil bit of booze. You could call that arrogance, closed minded-ness, or experience.
Its also a better idea to assume something doesn’t work if you’re unsure and go for things we absolutely know work.
An example would be starving to death and finding a mushroom in the woods (although starving in the woods would be hard… but… uh…. just go with the metaphor). Do you take a risk and eat it? Do you not eat it and hope that you come across something else before you die? It could be perfectly safe. The scientific method simply takes the guessing out of the choice.

Science doesn’t work for universal truth. It doesn’t try to. I can’t use the scientific method to disprove the existence of god. Interesting that the existence of god can try to disprove science.

looking over this it can seem like i’m grumping at you, Tiny, but I don’t intend to be. All of that was said in a very prancy fun manner

Thank you delerium. You answered my question.

Never a problem. There’s few things that I enjoy more than talking about stuff like this.

@Harp Your input makes more sense than that of Dawkins. At last we are justified to continue eating hamburgers and chicken fajitas.
I think we have beaten this subject to death, now we go on with evolution. I know many of you are eager to get into this subject. So there we go….......

Evolution has always been evolving and changing; it is impossible to prove that the theory of evolution is absolutely true. It maintains that all these natural processes began millions of years ago and that the earth is billions of years old. Therefore, this can’t be proven in the laboratory. No one was present at the time when the world started and the species began to appear, so did the species derived from inert material then into more complex forms? These are just pure assumptions based on recent observable evidence taking into account that these natural processes have occurred steadily at the same constant rate without considering factors like the atmospheric conditions of the day. Although science has shown us absolutes like gravity, this is not the case for coral reefs’ growth at a constant rate and say these lived millions of years ago.

Another problem with this theory is that Carbon-14 decay can’t be assumed to have happened at a constant rate. The Carbon method is not accurate enough to extrapolate the life of complex animals and/or homo-sapient like Lucy and assure they lived millions of years ago.

It is known in the scientific community that the earth’s rotational movement has been slowing down and it is therefore believed that 4 or 5 millions years ago a day only lasted around 22 hours. Now, this will put everything in perspective and contradict the dating methods used so far or at least the pre-conceived notions as of when an actual specie lived. Every time a new discovery is made, scientists have to adjust the timing which they have defined for a certain specie to have lived.

Evolution works beautifully in a closed system where a certain specie changes or mutates through time as its environment changes, this is one clear example where even biologist Thomas Hunt Morgan from Columbia University came to the conclusion based on laboratory results that when a gene within a specie is altered, this results in a mutation within the same specie, contrary to what “DeVries claimed that if a gene changed — if it “mutated” — it would create a new species in a single jump”.

Mutations outside a specie are so random we can’t begin to assume there is a definite link between species as we have learned since our early years in school. I remember learning that fish evolved through long periods of time and mutated to become reptiles. Have any of these mutations actually occurred? I would think this hasn’t happened yet unless I missed something. Perhaps someone in the collective can illuminate me on this.

There are a lot of flaws in your ‘logic’. Most of what you said didn’t make much sense as a defense against evolution. It really just sounded like you read a lot of actual things and misinterpreted them (perhaps due to lack of education).

“Evolution has always been evolving and changing; it is impossible to prove that the theory of evolution is absolutely true.”
Are you saying that the theory has been changing, or is the flaw that you find with evolution the fact that it is something that we’re constantly building upon? It doesn’t change. The definition stays the same.
“It maintains that all these natural processes began millions of years ago and that the earth is billions of years old. Therefore, this can’t be proven in the laboratory.”
No shit, sherlock. But we can study what we know of the situation and come to conclusions about its potential. Logical conclusions. With Evidence.
“No one was present at the time when the world started and the species began to appear, so did the species derived from inert material then into more complex forms?”
The flaw here is the word inert. There have been experiments done to show that amino acids can be formed by passing an electric current through a flask of methane. Its ironic that you’re willing to spend all this time looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of the earth but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by tribesmen sitting in their tents guessing that the earth is a couple of generations old…
“These are just pure assumptions based on recent observable evidence”
Again, no shit sherlock. That is the definition of SCIENCE. We’re not absolutely able to know so we’ll learn as much as possible and create theories that take in to account the reams of evidence that we have. EVERYTHING is educated guesswork. Medical science, history, anthropology, botany, psychology, etc. If you find flaws with educated guesswork you should be curled up in your closet hiding because the entire world is based on educated guesswork. Key word: Educated.
“taking into account that these natural processes have occurred steadily at the same constant rate without considering factors like the atmospheric conditions of the day.”
Uh… actually.. that’s exactly the factors that are taken in to account.
“Although science has shown us absolutes like gravity, this is not the case for coral reefs’ growth at a constant rate and say these lived millions of years ago.”
Gravity isn’t an absolute, like i’ve said before… its a theory. I have no idea what you’re trying to say about reefs. Either there’s some horrid grammatical mistake or you’re not actually saying anything. Are you talking about the gravitational effect on the reefs? Are you saying that their growth is not absolute? (We know that nothing is absolute. That’s why we call everything theories. Educated guesses. And times of boosted growth are actually taken in to account… if that’s what you’re saying is missing.
“Another problem with this theory is that Carbon-14 decay can’t be assumed to have happened at a constant rate.”
Did you just seriously link me to an ANGELFIRE page and expect me to take you seriously? Here, I have something for you too… did you know that Jesus is an Alien?
“The Carbon method is not accurate enough to extrapolate the life of complex animals and/or homo-sapient like Lucy and assure they lived millions of years ago.”
Carbon dating only works on organic material up to around 60,000 years old. Some real research might help you understand this… What is radiocarbon dating?. Its also important to realize that we don’t just use the radiocarbon dating method and trust it ultimately. We use MANY testing methods and are only comfortable with it if it all comes out saying the same general timeframe. Here’s a good list of the many ways we use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_methodology_(archaeology) ............Also…. lucy is an Australopithecus Afarensis and not a homo sapien.

I’ll deal with the next half after lunch.

No doubt there is a glib rationale as to why there are no human fossil records in the same strata as the dinosaurs. According to the creation hypothesis, all life forms were created the same week…
Where is the laboratory analysis to refute the fossil record?

Well according to Pratchett and Gaiman the fosil record was actually a practical joke.

By whom? Every paleontologist…ever? In that case,

Good one!~

Holy crap, a good omens reference! YAY!

I’ll find the quote…
I’ll… try.

**Comes back six hours later because she got distracted and re-read the whole book**

I find it mind boggling that Newton‘s_law_of_universal_gravitation is a theory

“If you sit down and think about [God] sensibly, you come up with some very funny ideas. Like: why make people inquisitive, and then put some forbidden fruit where they can see it with a big neon finger flashing on and off saying ‘THIS IS IT!’?”

-Terry Pratchett/Neil Gaimon

A law is a statement or principle that ‘describes’ a phenomenon, Theories are coherent, well-substantiated explanations.

After lunch is now tomorrow when I have a chance. I read a book instead. (Damn you people and your quoting of my favorite book Good Omens.)

Although it is true that the general scope of the Theory of Evolution has been widely accepted by the scientific community, we can’t rely on this theory as something complete for obvious reasons. This is true no matter how you look at it. I wasn’t referring to the definition but to its conclusions; due to the fact that we will always continue to find new fossils, scientists will have to continue to adjust previous findings. Just think for a minute about your statement: “We use MANY testing methods and are only comfortable with it if it all comes out saying the same general time frame”, that means if you try two, or three different methods and all fall within the same range, why will scientists would have to change these dates when new discoveries are made?

“why will scientists would have to change these dates when new discoveries are made?”

What….. are you saying…..
When we find new things… NOTHING is adjusted. Nada. Zip. If we find something that doesn’t fit with what we know so far… that’d be huge. Insanely huge. If we found a wombat skeleton buried next to a trilobite, we’d know there was something wrong. That has Never happened.

“But we can study what we know of the situation and come to conclusions about its potential. Logical conclusions. With Evidence” To a certain extent this is true, however, there will always be the infusion of guesswork based on who is conducting the experiment based on his/her pre-conceived notions of how old something should be

If a new fossil is discovered somewhere and scientists used all their dating methods and they fall on a certain date that contradicts previous findings “guesswork”, they will find a way to slightly change previous assumptions as far as dates is concerned. I remember reading an article about it, but I can’t now find the link

You obviously have never been in a lab in your life. That’s not how it works, no matter what you feel like assuming. They don’t change the assumption. They add evidence.
We find new things, yes, but we don’t rearrange anything because we’ve found a new fossil.

“Charles Darwin realized that evolution was not a process which was
destined to lead to higher forms of life. He referred to evolution as buds on a
branch, each bud with the capacity to be different. Each living thing that evolves
and survives to reproduce is adapting to a specific niche. It is not evolving to
become a higher form of life. Some adaptations are so specific that the organism
actually decreases its chance of survival if a slight change takes place in its
environment.
The fossil record has many examples to show that this is true. It shows
very clearly that evolution is not a direct line in any direction, but has thousands
of directions. Some survive, others do not. In other words, there is no intelligent
design.

One of the main reasons that fossil evidence proves evolution is that
predictions can be made and verified. That does not mean a prediction of the
future, but a prediction that another scientific discipline will be able to verify some
already discovered evidence. Any theory that is established in science to the
point that it becomes a scientific law must be able to be counted on to be reliable.
Think of all the scientific principles that we predict will happen when we drive a
car, fly a plane, take a medicine, or put on glasses. These things work because
science works. Science works because with most sciences we can predict what
will happen in nature very accurately.
There are many examples of evolutionary predictions about fossils that
were later proven to be correct. Three examples are whales, elephants, and gill
slits.
It was predicated that fossil evidence would be found that would show the
transitional forms between land mammals and the marine mammals. At least
three new fossil forms of whales have been found to show a connection between
the modern whale and their land dwelling ancestors. In the process, scientists
have learned much about adaptation of the skeletal structure for life in the
ocean.
Secondly, elephant embryological evidence shows development of four
tusks – two upper, two lower. The two lower degenerate and do not develop.
This led scientists to predict that some day fossil remains would be found of
elephant ancestors with four tusks; they were also found.

Some fossil sharks have seven gill slits and some have five. It was
predicated that fossil sharks would be found in transition with six gill arches; they
were found also.
There are a number of predications that have been made concerning
extinct plants as well as animals, but the important point to remember is that
there is no reliable explanation, other than evolution, to explain fossils.”

I doubt that you’ll read all of that. But that says it better than I can. If those are the preconceived notions you’re complaining about… you’re beyond logic. I can refute incorrect logic. I have trouble dealing with these widely unbased accusations because it becomes obvious that you have never actually studied any science and you’re just repeating things you’ve heard. And not repeating them correctly. I don’t intend to be rude… but that’s the reason I had to deconstruct your entire statement before. It really felt like you were babbling about something you’d heard but didn’t really understand. It didn’t make sense on a human communication level.

Evolution is not just an explanation for how life came about. Evolution has direct consequences on your life right now.

Infectious diseases from tuberculosis to wheat rust are making a comeback as they evolve resistance to our defences. Antibiotic-resistant superbugs like MRSA and VRE are a growing problem. Bird flu might evolve and spread to humans leading to a pandemic.

If you don’t try and understand the power of evolution you have no concept of how serious the threat is.

Boy, does evolution sound scary from that point of view.
Alternatively, one might view the propagation of stronger organisms as a progression of the natural order.
Perhaps their time has come.
Logically, of course, supplantation of the human race isn’t likely to take place for quite a while, so no need to panic…yet. Muuuuaaaahaahaaahaaahaaa.

;^)

Er… you missed the point there didn’t you.
This is something that is happening now.
20 years ago TB was all but wiped out in most Western countires now we have strains that are resistant to most antibiotics and those that are still effective are more likely to kill your liver than the TB.

It may be survival of the fittest but what makes humans the fittest is that big lump of grey jelly between the ears. But it only works if you use it.

I am not totally against evolution, I said this before: “Evolution works beautifully in a closed system where a certain specie changes or mutates through time as its environment changes, this is one clear example where even biologist Thomas Hunt Morgan from Columbia University came to the conclusion based on laboratory results that when a gene within a specie is altered, this results in a mutation within the same specie, contrary to what “DeVries claimed that if a gene changed — if it “mutated” — it would create a new species in a single jump”

I totally agree with you Lightlyseared that infectious diseases are getting stronger and more resistant to the current set of antibiotics we have today, this is why is extremely important to continue R&D to come up with new antidotes that will stop the new bacteria that has learned to overcome the current medicines mankind has developed. Brazil is the latest example of what we have discovered to work better. ”“It was remarkable to see just how potent moxifloxacin was,” says Chaisson. After just two weeks of therapy with moxifloxacin, 21 percent of the sputum samples were negative and cleared of visible disease”

Clearly evolution as a whole to say that we come from amino acids is insane from my point of view. I know a lot of you are willing to defend your point until the last breath of your life. If you feel you have convincing evidence, I challenge you to present your case and claim this prize It’s worth a try, give it a shot, perhaps you can convince these scientists, you never know. GOOD LUCK!!!

Well, Ed, consider yourself insane then. There is a tremendous amount of credible scientific evidence published in the top journals demonstrating how the process might have started. In fact, the first replicon was likely an RNA unit (not DNA) that subsequently incorporated amino acids (enzymes) for other functions and eventually DNA. Just because we can’t observe today something that was transiently present billions of years ago doesn’t mean it didn’t exist.

ps. Evangelicals who reject evolution are not real scientists. At least not ones willing to do good science.

Well do you wanna take their money?

considering he’s coming up with weird ass kinds of evolution proves his true intentions. Cosmic evolution. That isn’t part of evolutionary theory. Nor is the big bang. He’s a fake scientist who is making up lies and half truths and presenting them as absolutes.

I love the link to that “prize”. Prove beyond indisputable doubt… How about a billion dollar prize proving that God exists, beyond a reasonable doubt. If you choose to believe people that lived 2000–5000 years ago about the origin of life, so be it.

Ed… hope you don’t live in Baltimore because moxifloxacin resistant TB has been isolated there.

@lightly- I most certainly did not “miss the point there” as you say. The premise of evolution is the mutation from species to species. Unless you are assuming that (within the span of the last 20 years) the Tuberculin bacilli have become a separate, specific organism, I fail to see an evolutionary connection. One might as well claim that each Carib Indian who survived Christopher Columbus’ onslaught of syphilis, smallpox, and other nasties are a new species of human, simply because they developed a stronger immune system. Perhaps, though, in a million years, they shall.
Point: Evolution takes a bit more time. Be patient.

Actually, knot… not only do diseases replicate much faster than people do, they also mutate at a much higher rate than we do. RNA retroviruses evolve at a breakneck speed. That’s why HIV is unfixable. We have cured AIDS. Time and time and time again, but the virus mutates just enough that our antibiotics don’t work and antibodies can no longer recognize the virus. It is, at least on the surface, a totally NEW kind of virus.

Shilolo can explain all this MUCH better. I won’t go on because i’ll probably bungle it. Plus, its always fun to answer your own area of expertise.

@knotmyday The premise of evolution is NOT the mutation from species to species. Evolution is a theory about survival of the fittest.

In the words of Darwin

“I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given for the sake of convenience to a set of individuals closely resembling each other…. it does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluxtuating forms. The term variety, again in comparison with mere individual difference, is also applied arbitrarily, and for mere convenience sake”.

In fact it is very hard to define what a species is and where one ends and another begins. In the case of bacteria it is nearly impossible.

Outstanding answers delirium and lightly. I was contemplating a long-winded response, but you two have summarized the paradigm accurately and succinctly. I would add to delirium’s post to say that because HIV mutates so readily, scientists view individual isolates as quasispecies. Even within one individual patient you can find several clones at the same time that are genetically distinct. As lightly said, it can be very difficult to draw the line between one species and another.

Excellent discussion! @shilolo, here is a point that I have been personally debating:
The defining characteristic of a virus (single or double stranded, RNA, DNA, RNA/DNA retro) is mutability and change. Are the processes of recombination, reassortment, and antigenic shift truly examples of transmutatory micro-evolution or are they merely the end function of the nucleotide coding? When it is the nature of an organism to continually rearrange its own genome, can such changes accurately be labeled “evolution” or is it an entirely separate process altogether?

Also, while I appreciate Darwin’s semantic rationalization (from chapter 2, “Variation Under Nature” of the aptly named The Origin of Species, which has unfortunately been trivialized in various publications and wikis) quoted above, I find a far less obscure and contextual quotation to be “…we may feel certain that the ordinary succession by generation has never once been broken, and that no cataclysm has desolated the whole world. Hence we may look with some confidence to a secure future of equally inappreciable length. And as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection,” from chapter 9, “Recapitulation and Conclusion.” No doom and gloom there.
While I enjoy the The Origin immensely, to impressively quote from it while ignoring the equally relevant works of Huxley and Futuyama (et al.) concerning phenotype/genotype changes resulting in the transformation from species to species would be the equivalent of shooting oneself in the theoretical foot, and then placing that foot in one’s theoretical mouth.

Small changes are the basis evolution as you according to the modern synthesis. Whether or not they actually effect the evolution of species can depend on many factors such as dumb luck or natural selection.

The phenotype (not the genotype) is the object of selection. A small change at the DNA level can lead to a large change at the phenotype level. For example one nucleotide out of place in the Sonic Hedgehog gene can lead to human being born with only one eye.

Oh and while there has not been a cataclysm that destroyed all life there have been five mass extinctions that reduced the number of species on earth by significant amounts.