This is the old "there's no inter-species evolution" argument, and it's not based on facts but on the wish to believe certain mythology. Doesn't it seem a little farfetched if you really think about it? Species just appear by the hand of God, and then they begin to evolve?

A geneticist will laugh at you for advancing that idea.

Click on the quotation marks above the post.

Far fetched relative to what Nick? Our current understanding of things? If you or I could go back in time as little as 150 years and share with society what is common knowledge now in regard to our advances in knowledge and more importantly our understanding of how to apply this knowledge, we would have been the laughing stalk of the scientific community then. A man on the moon? Rovers on Mars? Deep space probes splashing down on a distant planets moon? The possibility of cloning? A hybrid, environmentally friendly automobile that can transport people safely and comfortably over hundreds of miles? A computer that does what? Nonsense! Not possible! Lunatic! A brick short of a full load. We would have been outcasts of society for promoting those concepts without proof to back it up. Yet, here we are today.
All the ingredients were already here on the earth to do all those things. We just didn't know or understand the applications. Knowledge and understanding are like that. You don't get it, until you get it. I'm sure in the next 150 years there will be advancments that would astound and confound us today.
Funny how the simple solution to some of todays advancements were the impossible hurdles of yesterdays progress. I'll say again what I posted early on in this thread. I don't think we really have a clue how big, how complex or how miraculous this whole thing is. Mans established religions aside and all the preconceived idea's that accompany that paradigm, I am convinced there is an encredibly advanced genious designer behind all of this for reasons we may not fully comprehend yet. Shouldn't the scientific community with their passion for discovering the truth about things maintain an open mind toward the possibility of this yet scientifically unsubstantiated concept? Isn't that by definition what a scientist does?

And there will be things 150 years from now that we can't imagine today - assuming we don't blow ourselves up first.

But does that mean Pythagorus was wrong? Or Einstein?

Or Darwin?

Of course not. And of course there are lots of things we don't have a clue about. That doesn't mean that any of the infinite number of false propositions is true.

A man on the moon? Rovers on Mars? Deep space probes splashing down on a distant planets moon? The possibility of cloning? A hybrid, environmentally friendly automobile that can transport people safely and comfortably over hundreds of miles? A computer that does "Nonsense! Not possible! Lunatic! A brick short of a full load. We would have been outcasts of society for promoting those concepts without proof to back it up. Yet, here we are today.
All the ingredients were already here on the earth to do all those things. We just didn't know or understand the applications. (Knowledge and understanding are like that). You don't get it, until you get it. I'm sure in the next 150 years there will be advancments that would astound and confound us today.

This just so totally explains the bible doesn't it? And it's concept of creationism. It's what they were able to concieve back then, of what and who we are and how we got here. I'd say in 150 years from now there well be fewer and fewer practicing christians, as we evole as a species, we'll grow bwyong the myth and fairytale culture that has had control of our society for hundreds of years, and mankind as a whole for thousands.

I had a friend in high school named Bwyong.

Darwin only came up with the idea. That was over a hundred years ago. Since then, his ideas have been refined and no counter-evidence has been seen except the God-of-the-gaps.

mixandburn, I apologize for what you call a smear campaign, but if you look a couple of pages back you'll see the Wedge Document, written by the Discovery Institute, and they basically invented the concept of ID in order to legitimize creationism and get Christianity into places it doesn't belong. Again, I apologize if my tone indicated that Christianity was at fault. It's not, only anyone who claims ID is science. It is not.

Also, here's an on-topic update:

ID Loses in Pennsylvania Court: Cannot Be Taught In Biology Class

I told myself I was going to stay out of this debate, but I have one thing to say.

Being here in Hawaii, I am surrounded by absolute, non-debatable evidence that these islands have been forming here very slowly for millions of years. You can see layers and layers of lava built up over millions of years everywhere you look. You can go to the Big Island and WATCH the process in action, for pete's sake.

Even a child can see the process with their own eyes and understand. How anybody can actually believe that the Earth is just a few thousand years old while faced with such overwhelming evidence that it is not is so out of whack, it makes me question the very sanity of anyone who blindly believes in ID or creationism.

No amount of "faith" is strong enough to make me ignore what I can see with my own 2 eyes.

I didn't answer this:

But they *did* evolve in that way. There are always going to be genetic variations - they occur on their own, and a biologist can tell you how many times per thousand. From what I've read, there's just one gene that controls color.

This is the problem right here: people who discount evolution don't know anything about it. No offense - I mean that as a general statement.

***

Mark, people will go to extremes to convince themselves that what they're seeing is what they need to believe. There was an article in the NY Times a couple of months ago about two groups of people visiting the Grand Canyon. One was looking at the wonder of how it was formed over millions of years. The other was seeing how it was formed recently. Both were looking at the same rocks!

But in all fairness, I know of only one person on this site who believes that nonsense. The line is that it's been proven over and over "by non-Christian scientists" (that's always part of it) that the earth is 6000 years old, dating to the time of Adam.

Someone pointed out that they figured this out by geneology - i.e. using the science of genetics! - to determine when Adam was around.

Nick, that's not a valid comparitive example. The erosion that created the Grand Canyon is an extremely slow process that is not visible to the naked eye - thus is open to interpretation.

Here, you see the new land being formed right in front of your eyes. You can watch the lava snaking over older, cooled lava from previous eruptions. You look at it, then look up at the side of the mountain and see the very same processes created the entire 10,000' mountain rising above you. And the 20,000' more of mountain below you as it extends down to the ocean floor. And the other 18 islands and atolls that make up the Hawaiian Archipelago.

It's happening now, today, right in front of you. Only one interpretation is possible - this has been going on here for millions of years. No speculation or illogical leaps of faith are required - only eyesight and common sense.