"The Unintended Darwin"

[GeoFisher]

Long read...but yes....it was fantastic.

[apb]

I believe your friend would do well to actually learn something about evolution. I can recommend the book "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry Coyne as an easy to read overview of evolution. A lot has changed since Darwin first proposed his theory of evolution by way of natural selection. Much Darwin got right, some he got wrong, and we now have a much better understanding of evolution.


A few points. First, "Darwinism", as some refer to the theory of evolution by natural selection is a scientific theory. It is not a philosophy, religion, political view, ideology, a moral guide, etc. It is a theory that explains the diversity of life on our planet. It is not a mechanism that produced life. How life started is the realm of abiogenesis. Evolution starts once there is a self-replicating organism. How that first self-replicating organism first came about is certainly interesting, but not relevant to Darwin's theory. That first organism could have come from natural means (e.g., the primordial soup), god, aliens seeding the plant, meteor strike bringing single celled organisms, etc. Once that first self-replicating organism is present, then natural selection can take over. Natural selection is completely silent on the existence of god. It deals completely with the natural world, not supernatural.


"If human existence is of Darwinian origin, what is the anchor used for ethics and morals?”


Humans are social animals. For humans to live in groups some order is needed. In short, "morals" evolved along with humans to allow them to live cooperatively. Think about it. If everyone thought it ok to kill others, steal from their neighbor, covert their neighbor's goods or wife, and commit adultery, then it would not be possible for humans to live together peacefully as a group. Further, in early human societies, parents were a great source of information on game patterns, location of other food sources, water, and shelter. All the things that make survival easier, so respecting them helps you to survive too. Yep, you can get the basics of the 10 commandments without a god.


Let me throw this question back at you. I hear many religious folks suggest that without a higher authority (God) to answer too, we would all be running around raping, killing, pillaging, etc. Seriously??!!! That says so much more about the person making that ludicrous statement than those who they are saying it against. Think about it. That person is admitting that the only reason they are not running around raping, killing, etc. is through extortion (have to answer to God). I believe that the vast majority of people, religious or not, would behave with respect to others even without the threat of damnation. Morals do not come from god, they evolved along with humans.


"Darwinian imperatives not only suggest, but also almost demand the possibility of a “super-race.”


No, they absolutely do not! We know that all modern humans (Homo sapiens) first arose in Africa. Around 100,000-120,000 years ago these first modern humans started migrating out of Africa. Slowly, these groups spread out to all corners of the globe. Biologically speaking, there are no races of humans. We are all the same species. Race is merely a social or political term and has no place in natural selection. Further, evolution does not suggest superior or inferior species.


The rest of that paragraph (example using three races of humans) is so incorrect it is beyond wrong and really shows how little your friend understands evolution via natural selection. The only thing that your friend got right was that there is only one race of man. A very brief summary. Modern humans evolved from an earlier ancestor. At various times in the past there were multiple "humanoid" species on the planet at the same time. For example, when the first modern humans (Homo sapiens) left Africa, you have Neanderthal, Denisovans, and possibly Homo floresius (the "hobbit" species) in parts of Europe and Asia. All of these species, including Homo sapiens, evolved from a common ancestor (probably Homo heidelbergensis or Homo erectus). There is also evidence that Homo sapiens mated with Neanderthal and Denisovans at least occasionally. DNA analysis has shown that we have some minor Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA in humans today. This is the only time in human history that there is only one humanoid species on the planet.


"Two things, one, it was “from one man,” not one slightly sub-human ancestor, and two, the Bible tells us that “one man” was Adam, a special creation of God, formed in His image and likeness.


Actually, there are two different versions of this in Genesis, at least in the King James version that I have. In one version, God makes man and woman at the same time. In the other version, he makes Adam first, and then Eve from Adams rib. Which version is correct, and how do we know? Actually, a rhetorical question. Neither is correct. There is no evidence at all that there were ever only two humans on earth. At one time in the past there was a bottle neck where human populations were estimated to be as low as 1200 people. I won't get into the problems with inbreeding if only 2 humans were involved.


We've discussed the gay part plenty of times before. No need to go there again.


Oh, and our national motto, that was made official in the 1950's. Certainly not something from the founding fathers. And many of us on the left see the government as a necessary evil. I would be quite happy with smaller government.

[waterdog101]

I believe your friend would do well to actually learn something about evolution. I can recommend the book "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry Coyne as an easy to read overview of evolution. A lot has changed since Darwin first proposed his theory of evolution by way of natural selection. Much Darwin got right, some he got wrong, and we now have a much better understanding of evolution.


A few points. First, "Darwinism", as some refer to the theory of evolution by natural selection is a scientific theory. It is not a philosophy, religion, political view, ideology, a moral guide, etc. It is a theory that explains the diversity of life on our planet. It is not a mechanism that produced life. How life started is the realm of abiogenesis. Evolution starts once there is a self-replicating organism. How that first self-replicating organism first came about is certainly interesting, but not relevant to Darwin's theory. That first organism could have come from natural means (e.g., the primordial soup), god, aliens seeding the plant, meteor strike bringing single celled organisms, etc. Once that first self-replicating organism is present, then natural selection can take over. Natural selection is completely silent on the existence of god. It deals completely with the natural world, not supernatural.


"If human existence is of Darwinian origin, what is the anchor used for ethics and morals?”


Humans are social animals. For humans to live in groups some order is needed. In short, "morals" evolved along with humans to allow them to live cooperatively. Think about it. If everyone thought it ok to kill others, steal from their neighbor, covert their neighbor's goods or wife, and commit adultery, then it would not be possible for humans to live together peacefully as a group. Further, in early human societies, parents were a great source of information on game patterns, location of other food sources, water, and shelter. All the things that make survival easier, so respecting them helps you to survive too. Yep, you can get the basics of the 10 commandments without a god.


Let me throw this question back at you. I hear many religious folks suggest that without a higher authority (God) to answer too, we would all be running around raping, killing, pillaging, etc. Seriously??!!! That says so much more about the person making that ludicrous statement than those who they are saying it against. Think about it. That person is admitting that the only reason they are not running around raping, killing, etc. is through extortion (have to answer to God). I believe that the vast majority of people, religious or not, would behave with respect to others even without the threat of damnation. Morals do not come from god, they evolved along with humans.


"Darwinian imperatives not only suggest, but also almost demand the possibility of a “super-race.”


No, they absolutely do not! We know that all modern humans (Homo sapiens) first arose in Africa. Around 100,000-120,000 years ago these first modern humans started migrating out of Africa. Slowly, these groups spread out to all corners of the globe. Biologically speaking, there are no races of humans. We are all the same species. Race is merely a social or political term and has no place in natural selection. Further, evolution does not suggest superior or inferior species.


The rest of that paragraph (example using three races of humans) is so incorrect it is beyond wrong and really shows how little your friend understands evolution via natural selection. The only thing that your friend got right was that there is only one race of man. A very brief summary. Modern humans evolved from an earlier ancestor. At various times in the past there were multiple "humanoid" species on the planet at the same time. For example, when the first modern humans (Homo sapiens) left Africa, you have Neanderthal, Denisovans, and possibly Homo floresius (the "hobbit" species) in parts of Europe and Asia. All of these species, including Homo sapiens, evolved from a common ancestor (probably Homo heidelbergensis or Homo erectus). There is also evidence that Homo sapiens mated with Neanderthal and Denisovans at least occasionally. DNA analysis has shown that we have some minor Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA in humans today. This is the only time in human history that there is only one humanoid species on the planet.


"Two things, one, it was “from one man,” not one slightly sub-human ancestor, and two, the Bible tells us that “one man” was Adam, a special creation of God, formed in His image and likeness.


Actually, there are two different versions of this in Genesis, at least in the King James version that I have. In one version, God makes man and woman at the same time. In the other version, he makes Adam first, and then Eve from Adams rib. Which version is correct, and how do we know? Actually, a rhetorical question. Neither is correct. There is no evidence at all that there were ever only two humans on earth. At one time in the past there was a bottle neck where human populations were estimated to be as low as 1200 people. I won't get into the problems with inbreeding if only 2 humans were involved.


We've discussed the gay part plenty of times before. No need to go there again.


Oh, and our national motto, that was made official in the 1950's. Certainly not something from the founding fathers. And many of us on the left see the government as a necessary evil. I would be quite happy with smaller government.

this is a long read, but if you read it all, it will make sense. in your post I read where you touched on a couple points in this read. I found this interesting and hope it helps someone.
http://www.kjvbible.org/exwords.html

[kygorski]

Some of us old OLD farts still can recite the the pledge of allegiance. We weren't doing bad before that was added. The hand over the heart replaced the raised right arm something about a practise in the early 40s.

[waterdog101]

Some of us old OLD farts still can recite the the pledge of allegiance. We weren't doing bad before that was added. The hand over the heart replaced the raised right arm something about a practise in the early 40s.

I remember saying it every morning before class started. standing and placing the hand over the Heart was done, to replace the salute, because the salute looked to much like the Nazi salute. here is a little history on the Pledge of Allegiance.

In its original form it read:
"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."In 1923, the words, "the Flag of the United States of America" were added. At this time it read:
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."In 1954, in response to the Communist threat of the times, President Eisenhower encouraged Congress to add the words "under God," creating the 31-word pledge we say today. Bellamy's daughter objected to this alteration. Today it reads:
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

[Cyril]

I believe your friend would do well to actually learn something about evolution. I can recommend the book "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry Coyne as an easy to read overview of evolution. A lot has changed since Darwin first proposed his theory of evolution by way of natural selection. Much Darwin got right, some he got wrong, and we now have a much better understanding of evolution.


A few points. First, "Darwinism", as some refer to the theory of evolution by natural selection is a scientific theory. It is not a philosophy, religion, political view, ideology, a moral guide, etc. It is a theory that explains the diversity of life on our planet. It is not a mechanism that produced life. How life started is the realm of abiogenesis. Evolution starts once there is a self-replicating organism. How that first self-replicating organism first came about is certainly interesting, but not relevant to Darwin's theory. That first organism could have come from natural means (e.g., the primordial soup), god, aliens seeding the plant, meteor strike bringing single celled organisms, etc. Once that first self-replicating organism is present, then natural selection can take over. Natural selection is completely silent on the existence of god. It deals completely with the natural world, not supernatural.


"If human existence is of Darwinian origin, what is the anchor used for ethics and morals?”


Humans are social animals. For humans to live in groups some order is needed. In short, "morals" evolved along with humans to allow them to live cooperatively. Think about it. If everyone thought it ok to kill others, steal from their neighbor, covert their neighbor's goods or wife, and commit adultery, then it would not be possible for humans to live together peacefully as a group. Further, in early human societies, parents were a great source of information on game patterns, location of other food sources, water, and shelter. All the things that make survival easier, so respecting them helps you to survive too. Yep, you can get the basics of the 10 commandments without a god.


Let me throw this question back at you. I hear many religious folks suggest that without a higher authority (God) to answer too, we would all be running around raping, killing, pillaging, etc. Seriously??!!! That says so much more about the person making that ludicrous statement than those who they are saying it against. Think about it. That person is admitting that the only reason they are not running around raping, killing, etc. is through extortion (have to answer to God). I believe that the vast majority of people, religious or not, would behave with respect to others even without the threat of damnation. Morals do not come from god, they evolved along with humans.


"Darwinian imperatives not only suggest, but also almost demand the possibility of a “super-race.”


No, they absolutely do not! We know that all modern humans (Homo sapiens) first arose in Africa. Around 100,000-120,000 years ago these first modern humans started migrating out of Africa. Slowly, these groups spread out to all corners of the globe. Biologically speaking, there are no races of humans. We are all the same species. Race is merely a social or political term and has no place in natural selection. Further, evolution does not suggest superior or inferior species.


The rest of that paragraph (example using three races of humans) is so incorrect it is beyond wrong and really shows how little your friend understands evolution via natural selection. The only thing that your friend got right was that there is only one race of man. A very brief summary. Modern humans evolved from an earlier ancestor. At various times in the past there were multiple "humanoid" species on the planet at the same time. For example, when the first modern humans (Homo sapiens) left Africa, you have Neanderthal, Denisovans, and possibly Homo floresius (the "hobbit" species) in parts of Europe and Asia. All of these species, including Homo sapiens, evolved from a common ancestor (probably Homo heidelbergensis or Homo erectus). There is also evidence that Homo sapiens mated with Neanderthal and Denisovans at least occasionally. DNA analysis has shown that we have some minor Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA in humans today. This is the only time in human history that there is only one humanoid species on the planet.


"Two things, one, it was “from one man,” not one slightly sub-human ancestor, and two, the Bible tells us that “one man” was Adam, a special creation of God, formed in His image and likeness.


Actually, there are two different versions of this in Genesis, at least in the King James version that I have. In one version, God makes man and woman at the same time. In the other version, he makes Adam first, and then Eve from Adams rib. Which version is correct, and how do we know? Actually, a rhetorical question. Neither is correct. There is no evidence at all that there were ever only two humans on earth. At one time in the past there was a bottle neck where human populations were estimated to be as low as 1200 people. I won't get into the problems with inbreeding if only 2 humans were involved.


We've discussed the gay part plenty of times before. No need to go there again.


Oh, and our national motto, that was made official in the 1950's. Certainly not something from the founding fathers. And many of us on the left see the government as a necessary evil. I would be quite happy with smaller government.

I believe your friend would do well to actually learn something about evolution. I can recommend the book "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry Coyne as an easy to read overview of evolution. A lot has changed since Darwin first proposed his theory of evolution by way of natural selection. Much Darwin got right, some he got wrong, and we now have a much better understanding of evolution.


A few points. First, "Darwinism", as some refer to the theory of evolution by natural selection is a scientific theory. It is not a philosophy, religion, political view, ideology, a moral guide, etc. It is a theory that explains the diversity of life on our planet. It is not a mechanism that produced life. How life started is the realm of abiogenesis. Evolution starts once there is a self-replicating organism. How that first self-replicating organism first came about is certainly interesting, but not relevant to Darwin's theory. That first organism could have come from natural means (e.g., the primordial soup), god, aliens seeding the plant, meteor strike bringing single celled organisms, etc. Once that first self-replicating organism is present, then natural selection can take over. Natural selection is completely silent on the existence of god. It deals completely with the natural world, not supernatural.


"If human existence is of Darwinian origin, what is the anchor used for ethics and morals?”


Humans are social animals. For humans to live in groups some order is needed. In short, "morals" evolved along with humans to allow them to live cooperatively. Think about it. If everyone thought it ok to kill others, steal from their neighbor, covert their neighbor's goods or wife, and commit adultery, then it would not be possible for humans to live together peacefully as a group. Further, in early human societies, parents were a great source of information on game patterns, location of other food sources, water, and shelter. All the things that make survival easier, so respecting them helps you to survive too. Yep, you can get the basics of the 10 commandments without a god.


Let me throw this question back at you. I hear many religious folks suggest that without a higher authority (God) to answer too, we would all be running around raping, killing, pillaging, etc. Seriously??!!! That says so much more about the person making that ludicrous statement than those who they are saying it against. Think about it. That person is admitting that the only reason they are not running around raping, killing, etc. is through extortion (have to answer to God). I believe that the vast majority of people, religious or not, would behave with respect to others even without the threat of damnation. Morals do not come from god, they evolved along with humans.


"Darwinian imperatives not only suggest, but also almost demand the possibility of a “super-race.”


No, they absolutely do not! We know that all modern humans (Homo sapiens) first arose in Africa. Around 100,000-120,000 years ago these first modern humans started migrating out of Africa. Slowly, these groups spread out to all corners of the globe. Biologically speaking, there are no races of humans. We are all the same species. Race is merely a social or political term and has no place in natural selection. Further, evolution does not suggest superior or inferior species.


The rest of that paragraph (example using three races of humans) is so incorrect it is beyond wrong and really shows how little your friend understands evolution via natural selection. The only thing that your friend got right was that there is only one race of man. A very brief summary. Modern humans evolved from an earlier ancestor. At various times in the past there were multiple "humanoid" species on the planet at the same time. For example, when the first modern humans (Homo sapiens) left Africa, you have Neanderthal, Denisovans, and possibly Homo floresius (the "hobbit" species) in parts of Europe and Asia. All of these species, including Homo sapiens, evolved from a common ancestor (probably Homo heidelbergensis or Homo erectus). There is also evidence that Homo sapiens mated with Neanderthal and Denisovans at least occasionally. DNA analysis has shown that we have some minor Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA in humans today. This is the only time in human history that there is only one humanoid species on the planet.


"Two things, one, it was “from one man,” not one slightly sub-human ancestor, and two, the Bible tells us that “one man” was Adam, a special creation of God, formed in His image and likeness.


Actually, there are two different versions of this in Genesis, at least in the King James version that I have. In one version, God makes man and woman at the same time. In the other version, he makes Adam first, and then Eve from Adams rib. Which version is correct, and how do we know? Actually, a rhetorical question. Neither is correct. There is no evidence at all that there were ever only two humans on earth. At one time in the past there was a bottle neck where human populations were estimated to be as low as 1200 people. I won't get into the problems with inbreeding if only 2 humans were involved.


We've discussed the gay part plenty of times before. No need to go there again.


Oh, and our national motto, that was made official in the 1950's. Certainly not something from the founding fathers. And many of us on the left see the government as a necessary evil. I would be quite happy with smaller government.

I know enough about evolution to know that there are huge unexplained holes in it. Apb is correct in his summation in the first part of his reply, particularly that the study of biogenesis is the research into how life began. From my reading thus far, the research is not going well. "How organic wholes of this kind originally arose within an entirely inorganic environment remains a mystery." -Errol E. Harris So it is true that Darwinian Evolution only explains the diversity of life, not life itself. And of course, evolution is small change over time. But do not these small changes lead to speciation? Or maybe Apb believes in the theory of punctuated evolution where sometimes change has spurts of rapidity. As for his contention that Evolution is not a philosophy, I must take exception, it is the very definition of Philosophy garbed in the clothing of Science! Macro-evolution has never been observed, it operates to slowly to experiment upon, and the conclusions arrived at are speculative at best.

He misses my point completely on morals and ethics. Morals and ethics may be societal, just as the Nazi regime's morals and ethics. It is not that man cannot produce ethics without God, is it the the quality of those ethics, and the moral authority to implement them. Human ethics are relative and usually dangerous to some particular sub-set of society. If the best anchor for society is humanity, that sub-set faces a grave future.

"'Darwinian imperatives not only suggest, but also almost demand the possibility of a “super-race.' No, they absolutely do not!" (from Apb above) I stand by my statement! His refutation is simply a description of the evolutionary process of how man became a man! Then he writes, "The only thing that your friend got right was that there is only one race of man." Interesting claim! (I agree with him on this point but we are discussing evolution) I fail to see where he has the luxury to avoid the evidence that leads to racism in his philosophy of life! Evolutionarily speaking, how can he claim there is only on race? Race is determined on a genetic level and there are slight differences genetically in the diversity of Humanity. To ignore that then he would have to ignore the great diversity of the canine species, there is only one race of dog! (I speak from the Darwinian perspective here) But looking at it from a Darwinian perspective, how can that be? Is it not possible that minute change within Homo sapiens could lead to a new branch off the current limb? It is undeniable that they is diversity within the Human race (Home sapiens). Are not these differences genetically generated? Are they not "small difference" and changes from the original appearance of Home sapiens from whatever his ancestor was? Did he not "evolve" from that ancestor incrementally, in tiny "advances"? Is it not possible that each divergent step could lead beyond Home sapiens to a "more evolved" superior creature? To say that the branch of humanity is "set" genetically is to deny the progression evolution has made from the very beginning. If the progressive divergent step does not make the one who has taken it superior to those who have not, then what are we talking about? If procreation between the divergent groups within Homo sapiens is still possible to day does not mean it will be possible a million years from now!

As to his argument aimed at the Book of Genesis, that there are two creation narratives, as an unbeliever he does not see the purpose behind them. Just as he accused me of ignorance of evolution and natural selection, I can lay the same accusation at his door when it comes to Biblical hermeneutics. He sees what he wants to see, just as he said of me and evolution. A closer examination of Genesis One and Two causes the differences to evaporate. For example, to use his example, Genesis One says this about the creation of man, "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him, male and female He created them." (Vrs. 27) But Genesis Two says God created woman some time later. Where in Genesis One is the time frame given? Is Genesis One correct? Yes it is, did He not create both male and female? He is assuming many of the events around the creation of woman recorded in Genesis Two did not take place on the sixth day! Is it not possible that they did? How does he know that the information recorded in Genesis 2:5 do not revert to Genesis 1:9 time frame?

To may way of thinking Apb has done nothing to make me want to revise my original essay Bonefish published here. It is clear that Apb and I will never agree and just as I do not accept his argument, neither will he accept mine. I don't think He made his case. There are those who may still be on the fence about this argument, and it is for that reason the debate is good. He no doubt think I am an ignorant rube, a science denier, a religious fanatic, and that's okay. He is a lost soul groping in the dark trying to justify his atheism. My purpose is to bolster the faith of the believer and reassure him that all the barrage modern skepticism need not be overwhelming and is in fact a matter of faith as much as believing on God and the Bible is.

Charlie, Bonefish's neighbor and author of "The Unintended Darwin

[MrSplitshot]

popcorn.jpg

[kygorski]

Before moses, before hamerabi there was a society and maybe before that, we may some day find out. Super human? what didn darwin know about the gnome? What did the ancients know about cloning? The tree anaology is right to an extent. St Patrick used a clover to explain the trinity, Wonder what he thought when someone showed him a 4 leaf clover? And then came the dumb part. That the left[liberal] is against God, and loves government. heres my take on this. Conservatives make rules for the liberals to live, and they choose to ignore the part of their law that they don't like. Prove me wrong. Thats the golden rule you got the gold you make the rule.

[DJD]

Conservatives make rules for the liberals to live, and they choose to ignore the part of their law that they don't like. Prove me wrong. Thats the golden rule you got the gold you make the rule.

That's a different take! Ok I'll pick one... Gun Control. You know the Libs (not all of them) have pushed for this for years. Feinstein, obama, attorney general and scores of other Libs keep trying to impose their will and laws on us law abiding folks by citing crime stats that don't even back their personal agenda.

Heck there is a Bill right now dealing with conceal carry I think it's already being discussed on another thread. Conservatives in Congress are trying to unburden us law abiding legally licensed CCDW folks from restrictive laws in certain states.

[kygorski]

Who has the majority of weapons? Usually the government. So how do you get to be a governor? Uh would wealth be a problem reaching that status? Would wealth be a problem maintaining that status? Gun control is not the answer to my question, I don't know what the answer is, hence "the golden rule which is?

[apb]

Cyril,

First off, thanks for signing up and taking the time to respond. You have obviously spent some time thinking of these things, so maybe we can both learn something new. Let me just hit a few of your comments point by point.
“And of course, evolution is small change over time. But do not these small changes lead to speciation? Or maybe Apb believes in the theory of punctuated evolution where sometimes change has spurts of rapidity. As for his contention that Evolution is not a philosophy, I must take exception, it is the very definition of Philosophy garbed in the clothing of Science! Macro-evolution has never been observed, it operates to slowly to experiment upon, and the conclusions arrived at are speculative at best.”

Yes, whether the changes are gradual or punctuated, you can end up with new species or speciation. Not sure where you are getting the “evolution is philosophy”. Darwin’s evolution by way of natural selection is first and foremost a scientific theory. In fact, the unifying theory of all of biology. The only places that I have seen it described as a philosophy, religion, or anything but a scientific theory is on creationist web sites and literature. If that this where you are getting your info, I suggest you read up on evolution from biology based literature.

As far as not observing macro-evolution, I’ll dig up a link or two for you to read. Others can explain it much better than me.

“Human ethics are relative and usually dangerous to some particular sub-set of society”

Change that to can be dangerous, and we are in agreement.


“I fail to see where he has the luxury to avoid the evidence that leads to racism in his philosophy of life! Evolutionarily speaking, how can he claim there is only on race? Race is determined on a genetic level and there are slight differences genetically in the diversity of Humanity. To ignore that then he would have to ignore the great diversity of the canine species, there is only one race of dog!”

I have not discussed my philosophy of life. As to the rest, consider this. There is more genetic variation in a single troop of chimpanzees (our closest relative) than there is in all of the people alive today. Yes, we are all that closely related! Certainly there are minor genetic variations between populations, but not much. Biologists long ago abandoned the idea of race in humans cause it just does not work. Local breeding populations is the term most often used. With humans, that’s pretty much the whole planet. Yes, there are many breeds of dogs, but I am talking humans here, not dogs. Big difference!

“Is it not possible that minute change within Homo sapiens could lead to a new branch off the current limb?”

Yes, if a population of humans become separated somehow (no exchanging of genes between that group and anyone else), you could end up with another species of human 100’s of generations down the road, in addition to the current species of human (Homo sapien).

“It is undeniable that they is diversity within the Human race (Home sapiens). Are not these differences genetically generated? Are they not "small difference" and changes from the original appearance of Home sapiens from whatever his ancestor was? Did he not "evolve" from that ancestor incrementally, in tiny "advances"?”

Yes to all of those.

“Is it not possible that each divergent step could lead beyond Home sapiens to a "more evolved" superior creature? To say that the branch of humanity is "set" genetically is to deny the progression evolution has made from the very beginning. If the progressive divergent step does not make the one who has taken it superior to those who have not, then what are we talking about? “
Define “more evolved, superior creature”. Evolution does not suggest that there will ever be a “superior creature”, just one that is better adapted to survive in its current environment. I never suggested that humanity is set genetically. We continue to evolve.

“A closer examination of Genesis One and Two causes the differences to evaporate.”

In rereading these two verses of Genesis, you are correct, there is no mention of a time frame. This opens it up to interpretation. One assumes, possibly incorrectly, that since verse one says god created man and woman, and that verse two, indicates that Adam was shown the garden of eden, and all the animals, and asked to name them, and that later god decides that man needs a companion, that it was at a later time. Either interpretation could be correct, or wrong. If I understand the link that waterdog posted correctly, we the first mention (verse 1) is correct. However, whenever I heard the story in church years ago it was always verse 2.

When man is instructed to go forth and multiply and replenish the earth, does that indicate that there was something prior to the time of Adam? I don’t have an answer, that is why I ask.

Guess my issue with taking the bible literally is that it has been translated various times from different languages, by humans. Changes in language do occur. Further, there are some words or phrases that are not directly translatable between two different languages. As an example of the first, 100 years ago if you called someone “gay” it meant they were happy. Now it means they are a homosexual. Big difference in a short time! Also consider that biblical scholars suggest that were 4 or 5 different authors represented in the first 5 chapters of the bible. This from examining word phrasing, use of different words, etc. in the original texts. Further, some portions of the bible were taken from other sources. The flood story and Noah, for example, were taken almost verbatim from the Epic of Gilgamesh, a Babylonian/Sumerian myth written some 500-600 years before the bible.


“He no doubt think I am an ignorant rube, a science denier, a religious fanatic, and that's okay.”
Nope, not at all. I found your essay well thought out. However, I also found that your comments on evolution quite incorrect.

“He is a lost soul groping in the dark trying to justify his atheism.”

Your opinion, but quite wrong and offensive. 7 billion people in the world, thousands of different religions. Are you so arrogant to suggest that yours is the only correct one? I am quite willing to admit that my religious views (or lack of religion) may be incorrect. Are you?

Waterdog, thanks for the link.

[apb]

As promised, some links to more info on macroevolution and examples:

http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowl...world-96679683


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html


http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/20...-evidence.html