Let's not forget that if a genetic trait is not expressed, or that it doesn't somehow aid in reproductive success, it is useless evolutionarily speaking. This means that if there is a small change, it better have a significant superior trait in order for it to become commonplace. I would call that a big change.

These changes must come in clumps. What good is the larger brain size unless you also get the larger skull, interconnecting nerves, increased blood flow, etc, that come with it? I would call that one amazing ludicrous step. There must have been a point at which an animal that we call ape gave birth to an animal that we call man (primitive or whatever). Even more incredibly, this man had to mate and his offspring had to carry and express his genetic traits.

Evolution is filled with these ludicrous steps. Consider, for example, the evolution of an eye. You have to have an eyeless animal give birth to an animal with a functional eye(s) to make any evolutionary sense. -The supporting skeletal structure and muscles, the lens, the retina, the optic nerve, the connection to the brain, etc. - the list is endless. Miss one of those parts and you just have an ugly blob on the face of an organism that no other organism is going to want to reproduce with. (I know, I know, they can't see it - but you get the point). When you consider the incalculable odds (easily statistically impossible), I'd say we've got a miracle.

Nick, I'd love to hear your several plausible theories of how life started. Aliens? So far I've seen evolution and something involving a higher power. I believe most choose evolution for the simple reason that they don't want to acknowledge a higher power. But isn't evolution just too incredible left alone? At least give me that you see my point.

Audio,

Thanks for the link, I will check it out when I can give it the proper amount of time.

I do not think I have misused the term 'theory' at all.

There are many varied theories about quantum physics, string theory, even the Holy Grail - the Theory Of Everything (TOE), which unites all known forces into a single equation.

Evolution is considered a theory because it has yet to explain the method used to get from point a to point b in a repeatable demonstration. For this reason, I doubt that it will ever pass muster to become scientific law but so far it goes like this:

You have a group of apes, then something happens to alter their genes and they become humans. It took a long time.

I believe that is what I said. Except that I would say that a capable offspring is one that has less of a chance of becoming a meal - in the context of your example.

I was rather jocular with my earthworm comment. You are correct that it does take time. However, apes and humans do not share the same number of chromosomes (apes have 48 - we have 46) so I am at a loss to explain the method that caused the change. The evolution argument would be much stronger if they could make that connection.

If monkeys and man are so very similiar, why are pig heart valves used for transplant instead of monkey heart valves?

You are also correct in that this is a very complex field of study. Natural Selection is Darwin's theory as to the origin of Species but it lacks proper depth to be the theory of the origin of man. Much as Bohr's model of the atom is good enough for High School chemistry but lacks the proper complexity for College Physics.

I am very sorry Nick. As much as I respect your opinions, a source of MSNBC isn't going to cut it with me. Not that I matter at all - and I won't speak for anyone else but for me......... no.

Nice to have an intelligent exchange as opposed to the other new thread.

What?!

Acknowledge?!

I've said over and over that whether or not there's a higher power has absolutely nothing to do with evolution, in my opinion. Andrew said the same thing from a Christian point of view.

We're talking about the origin of species and how we evolved. You have to be positively kooky to believe that we aren't closely related to apes! Go read about Koko and her friends, for heaven's sake! They're just like we are, only slightly simpler.

MSNBC is a news organization. It's not Faux News, and that story isn't about research they conducted. I don't know the answer to those questions about genetics, but I do know they're irrelevant.

As a matter of fact I do believe in a higher power of sorts. I don't believe in it the same way you do, that's all, and I certainly don't believe that it snapped its fingers and *poof* there everything was. I also believe in a spiritual connection between everything, in fact I don't see how one can deny that in one sense we're all part of the same thing. To me it makes more sense that the higher power is an integral part of everything, not something standing outside it.

And it couldn't care less who's religious, whether you chant or pray, or anything else; that stuff is all for people to feel secure - which is perfectly valid up to the "and you're not" point. Unfortunately that point is a very short step for a lot of people.

The universe didn't get here all at once; it took about 15 billion years to get here, and it hasn't stopped expanding at a breakneck speed yet. Nobody will ever know what started it, and we'll only be able to theorize about how life began here.

Or maybe we'll be able to create life out of primordial crap one day and prove how it happened. Who knows.

George Bush only has 48 chromosomes, yet 51 percent of the population think he's human. :p :p

Sorry... but this thread was just too high quality for this forum.... there... now I've lowered it back to DA7 status.

On a serious note, there are those who believe that evolution is not a slow process.. but one that happens in spurts... think about cross-breeding and whatnot....

Some say the saline content in our tears closely matches the ph of what the oceans were when we lived in the water.

Some say our appendixs was used back when we needed to digest our food.

Some say our coccyx is a vestige of our ancestors that lived in the trees.

Some say that in the first few weeks after conception, that we are practically indistinguishable from many other animals at the same stage of conception.

And finally, we all evolved from a single celled organism.... where do you think you came from... mitosis is a beautiful thing.

AK

Hmm... I'm missing something here. You believe in a higher power, but that power is either incapable or chooses not to involve itself in the formation of man? Is your higher power an entity, or is it some kind of cosmic energy that we all posess and can tap into, or is it just undefined? What is it about (macro)evolution that you find so compelling that you are an evangelist for it?

Audiorigami - I've been waiting for you to jump on Nick for relying on his common sense and intuition regarding the similarity between humans and apes. What's up?

Not exactly correct. It would be more correct to say that at one point, an ape gave birth to an ape with different DNA. That ape had offspring which carried its modified genes. Then, after many, many generations, with exactly these small steps along the way, one could call the offspring a different species. I see your point, and must agree that any genetic change which impairs the ability to produce offspring will in effect end the line of the host organism. I think you may not grasp the gradual change involved. It didn't go Ape>Human. It went Ape1(for a long, long time)>Ape2(which is only slightly different, and for a long, long time)>Ape3(slightly different)...repeat,repeat,repeat...>Ape"N". At any step, you could choose to compare an ape and the "original," Ape 1, and think "wow, they're so different." With humans, there is literally fossil evidence--you can see the progression from ape ancestor to modern human. You're just disregarding the immense time required, and the gradual nature of change.

The eye has been used as an example for years by those who wish to ignore the evidence showing that evolution occurs. It has been disproven time and time again. Please see this webpage, which addresses a typical related misquotation of Darwin's own writing, and watch this video from a PBS special which talks about experiments in modeling the evolution of the eye. This site, written by a Stanford researcher , describes in detail the structures of the eye and the various forms of light-detecting organs in the world today.

Your argument is a bit flawed. You assume that all the structures peripheral (no pun intended) to the eye itself must be there for the eye to work. You're incorrect. Those structures simply are there in human eyes. Consider the following:

The planet Earth is bathed in radiation from the sun. Much of this radiation reflects quite predictably from objects on Earth (specifically within the part of the spectrum called "visible light.") The first optic organs were most likely single cells which could only detect light or dark (there are still organisms with these organs). The ability to detect movement would have been next (this would involve only simple optic cells, and furthermore, would have given a great advantage to organisms who could detect predators). The formation of the lens would have occured next, beginning with a simple layer of enzyme to aid in focusing. We're still at a relatively simple stage in development. Next would come things like distance detection (which would require a more specialized lens) and color detection. The structures around these primitive eyes would have been equally primitive, but as detection of optical phenomena became more and more helpful to organisms, the structures supporting those eyes would also have evolved to become more robust.

As an aside, consider the flaws inherent in the human eye. Blood vessels run across its surface, making it delicate, and the location of the optic nerve within the eye itself causes a "blind spot." Haven't you ever done the optical trick with two dots which shows you quite clearly where your blind spot is? My point is that if the human eye was designed, it could have been designed better.

Here's one for you. If you look at a plot of sensitivity of the human eye to different colors, the human eye has the strongest sensitivity to a green-yellow color at a particular wavelength. If you then look at a spectral plot of the luminance of the sun, there is exactly the same spike at that wavelength. The sun gives off visible radiation most strongly in the yellow-green region, and because our eyes evolved on this planet, the human eye shows greatest sensitivity to that color exactly.

Don't believe me? Buy two laser pens of exactly the same wattage--one red, one green. Despite the fact that they use the same batteries and draw the same power, the green one will appear "brighter." This is a direct result of the evolution of the eye on our planet.

And many choose the higher power out of a lack of understanding. Evolution occurs. You cannot dispute this. Bacteria develop resistance to medications, case in point. Where we can debate, however, is how life started. I admit, I am certainly no expert in organic chemistry, but there is evidence for the formation of replicating chains of amino acids from raw molecules. There is, however, no such evidence of aliens depositing a fully-functional cell on Earth. I choose to believe that which has been supported by evidence. That doesn't mean the theory of alien-depositing is disproven, it just means it's less likely than abiogenesis.

Similarly, I don't think anything "disproves" the possibility of a "higher power." But I will not ignore evidence that suggests that evolution explains the origin of species. If another sentient being "caused" the beginning of our universe, I'd love to have a beer with them and talk.

Where did I say that?

Who's to say "that power" didn't create evolution?

AK

Sorry Andrew - that was for Nick - the post above yours.

Audiorigami - hoo boy you spent some time. I'm not going to be able to go through that until tomorrow.

Until then...

Oh and Andrew I agree that the higher power could've used evolution. Thats kinda my point.

That was the point of my original post was you can still be very spiritual, and not practice a religion that is at odds with science. The problem here is that Christianity has sunk it’s roots deeply into the depths of the human psyche. It took me a number of years to free myself from the psychological impact it had on me, as a kid growing up in this Christian culture, trying to make sense of it.

The reason the story of Adam and Eve , original sin etc. comes into the discussion is it’s part of the Christian world view, and the their explanation of life’s origin. You may call it an over simplification but it’s the basic story right? Earth created in 6 days, Adam and Eve etc.

There are extreme view points on both sides, I find mine to be the middle ground. Nick views are very similar to mine except he hasn’t found or experienced a practice that taps into this spiritual realm. It is quite an amazing thing and as real as any other human experence. Without it I would not be where I am now.

I don’t practice to make myself more feel comfortable, but to elevate my condition of life, get over the problems that keep me from being where I want to be, and yes to try and make sense of this life, world.

I would think there are other civilizations on other plants out there throughout an endless universe, that evolution is an expression of the energy, power of the universe itself. I think we as a species are now able to come to terms with real concepts of how and why this is happening other than making up fairytale like stories with personifications of “gods”, that fly in the face of reality.