The "missing link" is probably no longer missing...

[dpastern (Dave Pastern)]

Originally Posted by xnomad

You should read what the creationists in the US have to say about this. If these people had their way, we'd all still be living in the Middle Ages.

http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?t=93704

yeah well...several US states are already introducing legislation that schools must teach the creationist way of evolution, rather than the Darwinian way. I always find it amusing, since the US constitution forbids religious interference with the government, why are so many religious nuttos in power making these sorts of decisions?

The evidence against creationism is totally overwhelming - no sane mind could consider it, or at least should. Sadly, like love, religion is usually blinding. This is a fantastic find that shows nature at its best. I had a disagreement with my boss @ work today - who believes that keeping the mind and body strong will ward off viruses like the flu etc, and that the flu pandemic early in the 20th century would never happen again. It's only a matter of time before nature and viruses evolve into a strain that is totally resistant to our antibiotics. It's not a matter of if, but when.

Dave

[Darth Wader (Wade)]

Was going to bite my tongue, but I can't resist. I was sent to a religious school and the answer to Darwin's theories there was "perhaps god's day is equal to a greater amount of time to man." Wow, how totally misguided. It still makes me furious that this was the extent of evolution I was taught in school - in religious studies, complete with around half an hour of nonsensical debate - that's it.

I think teaching creationism is taking a huge step backward in the development of our species and it will be a cold day in hell (excuse the pun!) before I send my kids to a school which teaches these fairy-tales.

Needless to say I am not a very spiritual man

[Miaplacidus (Brian)]

Sure, a deity-implying "theory" of origins is just as valid as a deity-redundant theory of evolution, and obviously deserves to be presented as a legitimate alternative in all school science classes.
As too, so I assume, are aboriginal creation myths and Hesiod's "Theogony".

One in, all in...

[marki]

Originally Posted by Darth Wader

It still makes me furious that this was the extent of evolution I was taught in school - in religious studies, complete with around half an hour of nonsensical debate - that's it.

Wade I am not sure how old you are but private schools now whether they be catholic, anglican, uniting church, islamic etc must teach evolution as part of any biology, human biology or lower school biological science course or they will not receive funding from the relevent state Govt's. No funding, no school. The curriculum is set and students must be able to succeed in public examinations in fact they must do better then the public system kids or the school will lose prestige and thus enrollments (League tables are very important). I teach science in a catholic school and although I don't teach biology I know my collegues go all out in teaching evolution as an explaination to the origin of species on this planet. To not teach the relevent curriculum is considered good reason for termination of employment. What the religious education teachers teach is up to them but we do not skimp on the science where I work and the kids are not dumb.

Mark

[Robh (Rob)]

In an attempt to diffuse some potential conflicts ...

One needs to make a distinction between the fundamentalist Christian right (as seen in many states in the US) and the beliefs of the greater religious body of Christians. The fundamentalists take a literal interpretation of Genesis in the Bible and are responsible for a lot of the angst involved with evolution- the so called young Earth creationists. They do not accept any form of evolution and are the instigators of the intelligent design argument.
Evolutionary creationists take a metaphorical approach to Genesis. The Earth was not literally created in 7 days etc. God is seen as the cause of the universe and is its sustainer. Evolution may simply be a mechanism used by God. So, for the believers there is no conflict between evolution and creationism. It is no more fanciful to think that God began it all with the Big Bang than to believe it happened by random chance.
You cannot use science to disprove God's existence.
You believe or you don't believe!

Regards, Rob.

[Miaplacidus (Brian)]

Well said, Rob.

The issue isn't what people choose to believe (being a closet mystic myself) but rather what deserves to be included in school science curricula.

Peace be upon you all.

Brian.

PS Reminds me of that joke about a kid who gets both explanations: the "Adam and Eve created in God's image" theory from Mum, Darwinian evolution "up from the apes" from Dad. Obviously confused, the kid asks his mother to rationalize the apparent contradiction. She explains: "I was talking about my side of the family, your father was talking about his".

[marki]

Originally Posted by Miaplacidus

Well said, Rob.

The issue isn't what people choose to believe (being a closet mystic myself) but rather what deserves to be included in school science curricula.

Peace be upon you all.

Brian.

Brian, creationism or any other mystic system of belief does not belong in a science classroom as there is nothing remotely scientific about it nor could it be unified with scientific theories. It belongs in religious education classes being taught by those who are versed in the subject. If it were to be introduced into the science classroom it would be ridiculed and certainly never taken as a serious explaination. In fact it would have the exact opposite effect that christian and other believers would hope for. I have never understood why people would want it be part of any science curricula. I doubt it would make it any more valid. I think Rob nailed it. You either believe or you don't, thats your right.

Mark

[TrevorW]

I would have thought if god created humans he'd have done a better job

[Robh (Rob)]

Originally Posted by marki

Brian, creationism or any other mystic system of belief does not belong in a science classroom as there is nothing remotely scientific about it nor could it be unified with scientific theories. It belongs in religious education classes being taught by those who are versed in the subject.
Mark

Mark is right.
Religious beliefs are not resolved through scientific method and therefore do not belong in the Science classroom. Scientific problems are not resolved by religious beliefs. One is a matter of scientific method, the other a matter of faith. Even though separated, the two can live happily side by side.

Rob.

[Stuart78 (Stuart)]

Yeah but if we evolved from it then what did it evolve from????

[Miaplacidus (Brian)]

Er, well, thanks Rob and Mark. I'm glad you agree with me.

(l'm going to have to find a sarcastic emoticon somewhere. Otherwise people might really think I genuinely believe we should be teaching Hesiod is science classes...)

I did say closet mystic, you know.

[Jen]

Originally Posted by Miaplacidus

Er, well, thanks Rob and Mark. I'm glad you agree with me.

(l'm going to have to find a sarcastic emoticon somewhere. Otherwise people might really think I genuinely believe we should be teaching Hesiod is science classes...)

I did say closet mystic, you know.

Try this emoticon hehe

[Miaplacidus (Brian)]

Oh, Jen, why O why didn't I think to consult with the emoticon queen first?

Thanks for that.

[Jen]

Originally Posted by Miaplacidus

Oh, Jen, why O why didn't I think to consult with the emoticon queen first?

Thanks for that.

your welcome lol

[marki]

Originally Posted by Miaplacidus

Er, well, thanks Rob and Mark. I'm glad you agree with me.


I did say closet mystic, you know.

Sheesh you could have just said so it would have saved me a rant

Mark

[Enchilada]

Looking a the despicable behaviour of some people in Society these days, you wonder if relating to animal kingdom to missing links of humankind is just a wee bit arrogant. Other simian species are so much better behaved.
Stuff evolution or religious dogma - they probably both got it absolutely wrong!

aka. Monkeys, in the end, are far better and more evolved than humans!

[marki]

Originally Posted by Stuart78

Yeah but if we evolved from it then what did it evolve from????

It goes a little like this. All life forms on this planet found to date have a basic code consisting of 4 deoxyribonucleic acids (DNA), Adenine and Guanine (the purines) and Cytosine and thymine (the pyramidines). In some very old and primative types of bacteria thymine can be substituted by uracil but it is rare to find this in DNA. These four bases combine (A - T) and (C - G) and when grouped in long chains with the nucleotides covalently joined through 3', 5' phosphodiester bonds serve as the carrier of genetic information. The sequence of the chains is very important and determines what the organism will be. As an organism is exposed to all sorts of environmental factors such as chemicals and radiation the sequence of DNA can change by a transition mutation (purines or pyramidines substitute eachother) or transversion mutation (a purine is substituted for a pyramidine) or a frameshift mutation (the insertion or deletion of one or more bases in the chain). Now mutations are fairly rare in normal conditions for example a gene can be copied 100000 time or more before an error occurs but it does happen. This can be accelerated by exposure to certain factors (e.g. UV radiation). If the mutation is advantagous (ie allows the organism to out perform its rivals) it will flourish and reproduce in greater numbers whilst those less apt will fade into history. Over time (millions of years) new species will come into being and it is believed the more complex organisms (ie mammals) are the product of many mutations and enviromental pressures over the eons (ie eat or be eaten). Why do we believe this? As stated at the begining, all life on this planet use the same 4 bases to code with the difference being the order of code. Species that are related will have slight changes to the code but can still be linked to one another as much of the coding may be identical. This along with the fossil record, though incomplete (yes even with this find) shows ongoing changes which produce a map back to our ancestors. But where did this creature evolve from??? If you went back far enough probably a single celled prokaryote (yes even further then Berts flat worms) that once dwelled in the primordial soup (salty water) that existed as Earth became a nursery for life. Where did they get their DNA from??? The purines and pyramidines are nitrogenous organic compounds (cyclic) and the precursors of these have been found in metorites as well as dense gas clouds in space. It would not be difficult for the precursors to react in the correct conditions and form the basis of the genetic code. But do remember like all things in science, the theory of natural selection and evolution is just that, a theory based on collected evidence which suggests this may be the case. It will probably change and evolve itself as better methods of analysis and technology advances. I know they had to re-write "Bergy's Manual of Determining Bacteriology" as the links between species determined by visual grouping did not hold up to the scrutiny of DNA testing.

Hope this helps

Mark

[Enchilada]

Faith, right or wrong, for some, says otherwise.
Knowing does not equate to knowledge,
nor does science relate to belief.

What about the RNA - the real / true key to the evolutionary process?

[leinad (Dan)]

Very interesting. Makes me wonder, how beautiful it is that we have evolved(if we have), and what is the next step in the evolution process? If there is one? Immortality? That in itself could turn into a theological debate.

[cruiser (Brett)]

Latest update:
http://www.smh.com.au/world/science/...0521-bh81.html

At least some scientists are asking questions too.