DC10

The theory of evolution is usually thought of as being applicable only to things that are already alive. However, I think it is true to say that many ideas in the scientific literature about the origin of life itself rely on selection processes akin to natural selection.

And design isn't? But this question is not dealing with the emergence of life. It IS dealing with the after. So we agree that design isn't the best available explanation for the biodiversity we currently observe on our planet? (Sorry, just joshing with you!)

Perfectly true, but every "emergence" hypothesis I have seen has involved some sort of Darwinian-type selection. I think it's also worth emphasising - since you've raised it! - that there's no current consensus on the emergence bit, and also that it's pretty embarrassing (imo) it hasn't yet been simulated in a test tube.

So we agree then that this is not fact? What is not a fact?? I certainly agree that I can find no example of an evolutionary tree that shows a picture of the common ancestor you said you were after. And I stand by my comment that an evolutionist is highly unlikely to point at a fossil and say "this is a common ancestor". But I also stand by my comment that evolutionary theory predicts - in fact requires - that there were common ancestors.

So in other words, there is no common ancestor fossil found? Well, as I said previously, it's not something that interests me, so I don't know what specimens are known from that period. But however would one know if one had found it? Evolutionary theory predicts that there was one, but I doubt anyone would ever pretend they'd found it. (Except maybe a journalist trying to sell a story, or a marketing guy trying to sell a book, or a conman trying to sell a fossil).

Try "The Ancestor's Tale" by Richard Dawkins if you're still interested in this. He doesn't give trees, but he does discuss what several common ancestors (or concestors, as he calls them) might have looked like, with accompanying pictures. The concestor between amphibians and "reptiles" is the same, in his account, as that between us and amphibians (don't blame me, I'm just reporting it!) - "rather like a salamander but [it] probably had 5 digits on both front and back legs." (btw - These days, with the increased use of cladistics, "reptiles" as a group tends not to be discussed as such; the clade that includes them also contains birds. Dawkins refers to the clade (reptiles + birds) as "Sauropsids", although I'm not sure how widespread this usage is. Not a topic that interests me much, I'm afraid.)

(Sorry - hit "return" too early)

It's interesting how evolution text books raise the issue, and then slip into discussions about the relative "costs" of asexual vs sexual reproduction, or why particular ratios of male:female are what they are, or how sex chromosomes have evolved. The one book I have found which addresses it head on (Skelton's "Evolution: A biological and palaeontological approach") concludes: "The evolution of sex has been described as one of the outstanding unanswered questions in evolutionary biology". One thing's for sure - if the 2 sexes don't evolve at the same time, Game over.

Without seeing the tree to which you refer, I think most such trees assume a common ancestor at each and every junction - thus the inverted "v" of the 2 "twigs" is where their common ancestor lies - move back towards the "trunk" and the next inverted "v" is where the next common ancestor is, etc.

Except that I see such terms and expressions used every time evolutionary processes are spoken about. As do I, and it annoys me more than it should. But it's not in anyway representative of informed mainstream evolutionary thought, in my view. That being said, the impression of design in evolution is perfectly well recognised by very many experts, from Darwin through Gould to Dawkins.

Thanks for posting this. But I think you should be gentler to poor Richard. He's probably just trying to earn his keep, attempting to translate the works of scientists into articles his readers will find interesting. Apart from your comment on mathematical modelling, I suspect most evolutionists would agree with your criticisms, but then shrug and say "the guy's just a journalist".

Well, you need to compare it with the other three forces of nature. If gravity was as strong as electromagnetism, we would be squashed against the earth surface immediately after birth. Thanks for that. Of course, I know what the 3 forces of nature are, but for the benefit of others - what's the 3rd? (Then perhaps we should get back to the thread).

I hope you are joking. It is considered weak because it takes a humongous amount of mass for it's affects to be noticed. Actually, I didn't know that, so thanks - what's more, it makes sense. How are you on string theory? (btw - I hope you're not suggesting I have - or I am - a humongous amount of mass). How am I on string theory? Well . . . ummm . . . I know the theory exists. And I sort-of get the idea of what they say about it. . . . That's about it. If you are asking if I agree or disagree with it - What do I know? I've never worked on the experiments. But the subatomic particles do exist - muons, leptons, etc. There's enough out there to verify that at least. How they operate is a whole different ball of wax, though. And no, I'm not suggesting you area humongous amount of mass. That would be the planet gravity pulls you towards. My reason for raising string theory was a remark I saw associated with Professor Hawkins comments. I 'm afraid that I didn't keep the article as it's not an area that interests me greatly (probably because I don't understand it), but, from memory, Hawkins came to his conclusion having read "some elegant mathematics" in "an area of string theory". Hawkins is certainly a deliberately provocative writer, but I suspect he chooses his words well. The counter-arguement might therefore need to rest on an understanding of the "elegant mathematics", rather than logic or rhetoric. Which counts me out completely - I'll stick to ToE. Are you talking about Stephen Hawking....or someone else?? Whoops - sorry, I often do that - confused the name with Dawkins. I did indeed mean Stephen Hawking.

I hope you are joking. It is considered weak because it takes a humongous amount of mass for it's affects to be noticed. Actually, I didn't know that, so thanks - what's more, it makes sense. How are you on string theory? (btw - I hope you're not suggesting I have - or I am - a humongous amount of mass). How am I on string theory? Well . . . ummm . . . I know the theory exists. And I sort-of get the idea of what they say about it. . . . That's about it. If you are asking if I agree or disagree with it - What do I know? I've never worked on the experiments. But the subatomic particles do exist - muons, leptons, etc. There's enough out there to verify that at least. How they operate is a whole different ball of wax, though. And no, I'm not suggesting you area humongous amount of mass. That would be the planet gravity pulls you towards. My reason for raising string theory was a remark I saw associated with Professor Hawkins comments. I 'm afraid that I didn't keep the article as it's not an area that interests me greatly (probably because I don't understand it), but, from memory, Hawkins came to his conclusion having read "some elegant mathematics" in "an area of string theory". Hawkins is certainly a deliberately provocative writer, but I suspect he chooses his words well. The counter-arguement might therefore need to rest on an understanding of the "elegant mathematics", rather than logic or rhetoric. Which counts me out completely - I'll stick to ToE.

I hope you are joking. It is considered weak because it takes a humongous amount of mass for it's affects to be noticed. Actually, I didn't know that, so thanks - what's more, it makes sense. How are you on string theory? (btw - I hope you're not suggesting I have - or I am - a humongous amount of mass).

That is irrational. It is not possible to be both creator and creature at the same time. I'm not sure there is anything rational about string theory. Or sub-atomic particles, for that matter. If gravity is a weak force, how come it hurts to fall over?

Well said, Aviel. I find it a bit difficult to believe Hawking actually did write "God didn't create the universe" as boldly as that - can anyone please post the actual quote, with a bit of context?

Amen! And Any Opinion Or Teaching Otherwise Is Just A Repeat Of The First Recorded Lie In Creation Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said,,,, Yea, hath God said.... ? Genesis 3:1 Followed Closely By The Second Lie And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: Genesis 3:4 Affirming The Heart Of Sinners But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death. Proverbs 8:36 Seriously Cool, Huh Well, I'm not sure "seriously cool" is a phrase that would leap to my mind, but it might well describe the feeling I get when I read the Genesis account. It's beautiful language - I only wish I had Hebrew to read it in the original.

You obviously have no idea what inerrancy means. Inerrancy means that everything in the Bible is truthfully recorded and is recorded without error. Is this view entirely consistent with those of the article that started this thread, in your view? I would really appreciate learning the scriptural basis for inerrancy, if someone could point me to it. Doesn't matter if what I said is consistent with the view the OP. Innerancy is what it is. The basis for inerrancy is that the Bible is inspired by God according to Paul in 2 Tim. 3:16. God does not inspire error. The Word of God was superintended on the writers and they wrote without error what God had them write. It may well not matter, for the reason you give. However, it is the article that started this thread, and so is at least germane, and a proper basis for discussion. The "doctrine of inerrancy" - may I call it that? - is new to me, and the article is the first I have seen that was relevant. I was just interested to learn if the views of Worthy members were or were not in agreement with the article. Perhaps I could put it this way. If you were to ask someone if they agreed with the doctrine of inerrancy (please rephrase this into any form that you recognise!), and they said "yes", and then they went on to expound the points raised in the article, would you feel inclined to correct them, or would you say "well said"? Thank you for taking the time to reply.

Well Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160 Maybe But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Matthew 4:4 These All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 Two For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 2 Peter 1:21 Will Do He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. John 12:48 Until Judgement Day? Thank you for taking the time, Fresno. And I'd like to take the opportunity to say how much I appreciate all your work on these threads. It seems to me, at first sight (I will study your citations in greater depth), that these scriptures are not incompatible with the view discussed in the article that kicked off this thread. Would you agree with that?

You obviously have no idea what inerrancy means. Inerrancy means that everything in the Bible is truthfully recorded and is recorded without error. Is this view entirely consistent with those of the article that started this thread, in your view? I would really appreciate learning the scriptural basis for inerrancy, if someone could point me to it.

They have NOT uncovered human skulls millions of years old. Not one! There is a lot of info on this. When "London Man" bone was discovered there was a lot of WOW and front page news. When the bone went through intense study and testing, it was discovered that the bone was of a man who died with the rickets.......... and of course posted in the back of the newspapers. Same for Peking man and the Germany bone. They don't have one. Lucy Fails Test As Missing Link â