Dear Easyrider....

[brandx1138]

Actually, we Homo Sapiens have the largest forehead of all the primates, even our primate ancestors. It's due in no small part to our larger frontal lobes as part of the neocortex, which allows us many unique abilities, one of which is what we call "consciousness"; this allows us to be self-aware and subjective and perceiving ourselves as separate from the environment, which led to many other ideas, one being religious thinking.

And our ancestors didn't drag their knuckles (as far as we can tell); they probably used them to move around (like chimps and gorillas do today) before they became upright like us. If their knuckles dragged, they wouldn't be able to move around well enough and would probably die off before they could continue that gene amongst the population. It seems like you have this warped idea of what our ancestors were like. Where exactly did you get this information?

That's a good question. It's speculation, considering no one has ever conclusively identified by DNA evidence ANY specific hominid as being man's direct-line ancestor. Not a single one.

So let's put your speculation up next to my speculation...

You speculate that there's an incorporeal being who has an intelligence infinitely superior to humans for which no one has ever stumbled upon one shred of credible evidence. It's not even a testable claim!

I speculate that primates (for which we have evidence of) were our ancestors (for which we have DNA evidence of) and before they stood upright, they walked on all fours (for which we have fossils showing the hip joints of a bipedal primates that are not like any primates alive today dating back millions of years ago by independent tests). My speculation (for which I'm sure there would be evidence of in their bone structure) is that they most likely walked using their knuckles (as opposed to dragging them). That's the claim I'm making. Your claim isn't coming from out of left field, it's more like another dimension!! I've given you several links on the topic of evolution including the narrower topic of human ancestory. You've decided not to talk about those links and instead decided to continue to drool out your talking points. When you've come up with a shred of testable evidence for the existence of God, then you might be able to step back on the field to play ball.

Just to make it very clear, here is just ONE example of the DNA evidence you requested:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com ... 4.html#6.1

In it you will find some research on the lineage of humans. The oldest DNA they have extracted is from 60,000 year old skeletal remains. What they seemed to have found is that the old "Out of Africa" theory that you may have heard of (where some scientists think Homo Sapiens appeared more or less in its present form from Africa before spreading out) might not be quite true. See? This is the beauty of science. The more we discover, the closer we can get to truth. But people like you don't like things to change. It's too hard to keep up with the new theories. You want everything tidy and neat and told to you in storybook form. Well, reality isn't like that. Get used to it.

But none of this negates the theory of evolution itself. Like I said, if you need evidence of that theory, read Darwin first and then go here for newer information: www.talkorigins.org

[QED]

We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions.28

http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resou ... tevolution

Henry Gee is a strong supporter of Cladistics. Common descent is a necessary assumption of Cladistics so you won't see him arguing against that! I think it's more important to note that there are very few academics who would deny that there was a time when the only Fauna on the planet was aquatic. While it may be too much to interpolate a particular kind of organism into the role of the first amphibian, the sequence of water, land and finally air is about as secure as it gets. One simple fossil find could instantly demolish this model, so we can't relegate it to the dustbin of untestable theories.

[Openmind]

This is just sad, really. Possibly the most one sided thread I have ever read.

Easyrider, good luck.

[QED]

This is just sad, really. Possibly the most one sided thread I have ever read.

Easyrider, good luck.

I agree that this debate got off to a bit of a lumpy start, but it seems perfectly reasonable to pitch speculation against speculation in order to see which is more speculative

[Openmind]

Nevertheless, because of the lack of any direct evidence for evolution, evolutionists are increasingly turning to dubious circumstantial evidences, such as similarities in DNA or other biochemical components of organisms as their "proof" that evolution is a scientific fact

Oh my God! What a shocker! Evolutionary scientists are turning to........DNA? For their evidence?!?!?!

WHAT ARE THEY THINKING!!!


P.S
What the hell else would you look at when analysing genetic similarities between organisms????

[Negative Proof]

There you go again with reaching inferences. "Suggesting..."

That's what theories are. Suggestions... that work.

Just because something is suggested doesn't make it wrong. And, very admittedly, doesn't make it right, though if it works if tested for the time being, discarding it due to uncertainty would be very counterproductive. Science makes no claim to infallibility. If new information ever surfaces that renders a theory incorrect, or if the theory fails to work, then science will discard all research and claims that were dependent upon the failed theory.

Nevertheless, because of the lack of any direct evidence for evolution, evolutionists are increasingly turning to dubious circumstantial evidences, such as similarities in DNA or other biochemical components of organisms as their "proof" that evolution is a scientific fact. A number of evolutionists have even argued that DNA itself is evidence for evolution since it is common to all organisms. More often is the argument used that similar DNA structures in two different organisms proves common evolutionary ancestry.

I'd really like you to be able to list these evolutionists, and to explain what makes these practices "dubious".

And, the rest of the body of your post was smug creationist propaganda that wishes it knew the definition of religion and the inner workings of the faithless mind. I skimmed, but I'm not really interested. What do you think the implications of evolution being a religion are (assuming, for the sake of argument, it were true)? The only reason to even assert that is so that creationists can point fingers at evolutionists and snicker and say "You have a religion, too! You're on the same level as us!" It seems that a person of faith would find calling evolution a religion quite offensive.

Or, perhaps the reason for comparing evolution and religion is to call into question the integrity of those involved in its fact checking, assuming that they would invent reasons out of thin air to keep their "religion" alive. Wouldn't this be a blatant statement of mistrust in those responsible for reconciling religion and science? In which case, your position from intelligent design would be completely destroyed. No, I see calling evolution a religion as a bit more problematic for your position than it's worth as a cheap joke.

Maybe if I was interested enough to read this uninformed article, I'd know which of the above s/he was going for.