Study finds twist in human evolution

[Achilles]

If they did, then they didn't evolve, the simply adaped?

What is the difference between evolution and adaptation?

 

A red bird and a blue brid mate and get a purple bird.

Species cannot interbreed.

 

Of course, as i've seen- evolution uses natural selection- where the genes are selected without mating, and then used at mating to produce a new species.

Natural selection is the process by which organisms that are sufficiently adapted to their environments survive long enough to pass on their genes. Those that aren't, don't. Mating has to happen first.

 

therefore, i find no proof that apes or whatevver type of monkey it was were relate to humans when we don't actually know the evolutionary genome as of yet.

We have both genomes and they are 98% similar.

 

my other question is this: i huans did evolve, why didn' all the apes or whatever monkey it was evolve along with them over those many, many, years?

They have - within their own species.

 

I honestly don't like the idea of my ancestors beings apes. it just seems so.... wierd.

Technically they weren't. Humans and apes shared a common ancestor. One branch became our ape-like ancient ancestors and another became theirs. One did not come from the other.

 

here's onother question out in the open: What if earth isn't as old as many people think it is? what if the geology info of it being millions and billion s of years old is wrong?

We have multitudes of ways to do geologic dating. They would all have to be wrong.

 

I think that earth is only about ten thousand years old- as our sun isn't going blue yet- and if it was billions and trillions of years ago, wouldn't it be blue by now?

Why blue? Why not pink or green?

 

and if it was billions and trillions of years ago- wouldn't the moons be about twice as far away from earth than it is now, as via the discovery that the moon moves just slightly farther out of orbit each year? explain that to me.

How did you come to decide that it would be twice as far away? Do you know how close the moon was to the earth when it was formed? Do you know how long the earth had been around before the moon was formed? Do you know how much the moon moves away each year?

[Ray Jones]

I honestly don't like the idea of my ancestors beings apes. it just seems so.... wierd.

So, what's so weird about it? I mean.. I think it's pretty astounding. Also, primates are great animals, with genetic and many other similarities to humans. they use tools and logic to solve problems. They act as team. They have a somewhat complex social structure.

 

In fact I do not mind "coming from the apes", or other animals.

[Jvstice]

Arcesious: Achilles has answered you right. No person who actually knows evolutionary theory would claim that humans come from any still living group of apes, or that the apes came from a still living group of monkeys. Just that there is an ancestor in common to apes and humans if you go back far enough. Likewise, there are fossils that indicate what an ancestor to both apes and monkeys would look like. Or an ancestor to all primates. They have found transitional fossils in many of these cases with traits in common to both groups, but more primitive than both groups in other ways. I might reccomend you to look up Chris Beard's In search of the Dawn Monkey, if you are interested in classification of some of the ancestors of modern primate groups. He barely touches on the apes, but his discussion of the fossil reccord and methodology is pretty thorough so that you can see how he reaches his conclusions, whether you agree or disagree.

 

The regular chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) has long been said to be genetically our closest ape relative. They have compared the DNA to that of the pygmey chimpanzee (Pan paniscus) and found that both are equally distantly related to us. Most thought that they would be more closely related to one another than they are to us before they looked up their genome, but both groups are slightly closer to us than they are each other. We group both species of chimpanzees within the same genus though, and give humans an entirely different one. A large part of that is based on anatomical and behavioral differences, but if you were going purely on genetic similarity we should be grouped closer, not further.

[JediMaster12]

After reading the topic post I thought I should say that the anthropologists are forgetting that not everything is that linear. A. robustus and the more gracile Australopithicus existed roughly the same time. Personally I am more inclined to believe that to start there were a whole bunch of these subspecies but through evolution, those that simple couldn't survive, didn't. Also the other problem is that the some of those skeletons may be within the same genus but they don't look too much alike.

 

As to the whole monogamy thing, that is way over my head. The sad thing with archaeology is that the fossil record is incomplete and that all we are digging up is just one moment in time and not specifically a whole life.

[Achilles]

Personally I am more inclined to believe that to start there were a whole bunch of these subspecies but through evolution, those that simple couldn't survive, didn't.

At the mouth of the evolutionary tributary, there couldn't have been more than one, however there is little doubt in my mind that further down the way there were more subspecies than we are currently aware of. History is written by the winners as they say

[JediMaster12]

I would agree with you on that quote Achilles. Of course you do have to take in mind that Darwin conceived we had a common ancestor. With genetics that is where you get the different subspecies.

[Jvstice]

JM12: There's something to it. Orangutans differ in size between males and females so that adult males are about 2x the size and mass of adult females, and they are the most promiscuous of the great apes.

[PoiuyWired]

I would agree with you on that quote Achilles. Of course you do have to take in mind that Darwin conceived we had a common ancestor. With genetics that is where you get the different subspecies.

 

Also remember that even a relative small difference in the genetic code can have quite some difficult physical appearance. And size is just a really tiny segment of things. Plus, there are many external factors to size, things like diet, lifestyle, environment, culture... not just genetics.

 

For something easier to understand, look at dogs, a great dane and a chihuahua is a bit different in size and looks. But genetically these two can interbreed, though i won't even want to imagine the Great Dane being the father, that spells... dead chihuahua.

 

Point, "simple species" as not as simple as one might think, and its about who is able to adapt EVEN BETTER to a specific environment and time. The world is changing, so what works great today does not mean it would work equally good tomorrow, when things changes.

 

oh, there is also the theory of "sub species" close enough to each other interbreeds creating newer ones, but I think that is a whole different topic.

[Arcesious]

Different species' of cats can interbreed, so can birds. that's interbreeding. i said interbreeding of a different species or family, not of a different phyla.

 

I needed to correct my statwement on the moon, but i didn't get the chance before you guys read it. the moon should actually be about a dozen miles farther away from earth than it is now if it is trillions of years old along with earth, give or take a few unknown events that we haven;'t theorized that could cuase it to shift so drastically. still- hopw long is the average lifespan of a star the size of our sun? trillions, billions, millions, decitrillions, Octiquadrillions?

 

How can natural selection occur when it needs different genes to mix to occur from interspecies breeding? the new gene just can't come out of nowhere, except with bacteria and insects. some animals can't interspecies breed, but some can. if that is the only way evolutionc an work, is the natural slection concept of evolution just wrong in one of it's side aspects?

 

Evolution is the complete change of a genome from seemingly nothing that can cause it, which doesn't make much sense. Adaptation is through breeding with a slightly different species of the smae family/phyla of animals. An animal can't just 'change' to adapt, it has to breed to get it's mixed adaptable genes to go into it's offsrping.

 

Evolution doesn't sound so massive when you think of it's minor concepts and not the macro evolution concepts-whihc i doon't believe of the macro evolution concept since natural slection doesn't seem to work the way i see it being explained.

[Achilles]

I needed to correct my statwement on the moon, but i didn't get the chance before you guys read it. the moon should actually be about a dozen miles farther away from earth than it is now if it is trillions of years old along with earth, give or take a few unknown events that we haven;'t theorized that could cuase it to shift so drastically. still- hopw long is the average lifespan of a star the size of our sun? trillions, billions, millions, decitrillions, Octiquadrillions?

Not sure where you're getting "trillions" from. Current estimates put the universe at approximately 13.7 billion years old, our solar system at about 4.5 billion years old, and the moon at approximately 50 million years after that. If you have scientific evidence that would shift those estimates by orders of magnitude, please feel free to present it so that we can benefit.

 

How can natural selection occur when it needs different genes to mix to occur from interspecies breeding? the new gene just can't come out of nowhere, except with bacteria and insects. some animals can't interspecies breed, but some can. if that is the only way evolutionc an work, is the natural slection concept of evolution just wrong in one of it's side aspects?

As I've pointed out elsewhere, you don't need to add new genes in order to add information. A-G-T-C and C-T-G-A are different "codes" even thought I haven't added any letters. Natural selection simply eliminates genomes that are poorly adapted to the environment.

 

Evolution is the complete change of a genome from seemingly nothing that can cause it, which doesn't make much sense. Adaptation is through breeding with a slightly different species of the smae family/phyla of animals. An animal can't just 'change' to adapt, it has to breed to get it's mixed adaptable genes to go into it's offsrping.

Evolution happens when coping errors (mutations) occur in the genome during reproduction. Some mutations are beneficial, some are neutral, and some are detrimental. The detrimental mutations are weeded out via natural selection. I'm sure you will pick most of this up over the next couple of years as you progress through high school.

 

Evolution doesn't sound so massive when you think of it's minor concepts and not the macro evolution concepts-whihc i doon't believe of the macro evolution concept since natural slection doesn't seem to work the way i see it being explained.

Frosh biology should help to clarify a lot of this for you. I'm sure your instructors will be more than happy to help work though any points not sufficiently explained by your text books.

 

I hope that helps.

[Arcesious]

Well, i still don't believe everytihng about evolution, but some of it just seems to be a differeent way of explaining Science itself without evolution in the first place. in the end, it isn't so bad anymore- except that i don't beleve Humans evolved from apes still, which yuo may call stubborness if you wish, but i'll just keep that opinion, as evolution isn't really that big of a a deal for me in my lifetime, except with the advancment of medical science for keeping me healthy.

 

But one last question- what causes natural sleection? what is the 'mind' behind natural selection? what controls it if DNA and RNA only copy each other and cannot adapt themselves? what is Natural slection caused by, since as i've leanred in school, DNA controls the assembly of a cell and clusters of cells, and RNA creates only DNA but never changes it because it does not have it's own mind, and is not linked to the mind of the creature possessing it, and therefore adapting with natural slection doesn't make sense?

Just plain and simply, since a rope of nucleotides cannot be switched around by RNA when RNA creates DNA, and visa versa, then how do they switch around since nothing is driving them to switch around to adapt?

[Jvstice]

Arcesious: Evolution is nothing more than species (and populations of species) changing through time. Dictionary.com gives a lot of more specific definitions, and annoys me in that they as often as not confused evolution of stars and cosmic events (unfolding according to a predictable pattern) and biological evolution (which is a random, not a directional process). Half the definitions they posted attempted to imply directionality of simple to more complex in the history of life on earth.

 

Wikipedia's is better in that it seems more accurate, but I was hoping to simplify things for you and their article definitely doesn't simplify the issues involved. I will point out that the existence of evolution is a different debate than the origins debate, though they are related.

 

We have documented evidence of evolution occuring for almost 150 years, since Darwin published his "On the Origin of Species." In that time we enough have evidence of heritability, mutation of genes, adaptation to local environments, and other evidence that these processes are ongoing, to fill whole libraries. These processes are different than the origin debate, but sort of flows naturally from it.

 

We can look at rates of mutation that currently take place in two closely related species. We can then ask, if the rate of mutation and adaptation remained constant, how long would be sufficient to go back before both were part of the same species, or a common ancestor?

 

The thing is that the predictions that geneticists make by looking at still-living organisms and trying to trace them back matches pretty closely what archeologists actually find in the fossil record. Also, both of these forms of knowledge also match pretty closely different radioactive dating methods.

 

Yes, there are assumptions made in each of these tests, that if the assumptions proved invalid it would skew the test as to when the starting point would be for what information you were looking for.

 

Achilles: I don't think that there will be a point where abiogenesis as an origin is proven. I think we will reach a point where it may be proven to be scientifically plausible, but not actual.

 

Science advances knowledge by observation and attempting to disprove hypotheses by observation. I can see how we'd come up with a test to prove, can living matter be created from non-living matter. That is a different question than "did living matter spontaneously arise from non-living matter over a long period of time in numerous steps?" One is observable, the other is not with any conceivable technology anywhere on the horizon.

 

Perhaps if you could travel faster than light, and go where the light from the earth was several billion years ago, train a telescope with such perfect resolution on the earth that it were capable of picking out individual strands of DNA, RNA, or individual cells, and you knew the specific location on the earth's surface, and atmospheric conditions were such that you could see through the ancient Earth's atmosphere with enough detail, you might be able to observe the answer to such a question. I can't imagine a way of getting an instrument that precise over such a long distance though, much less setting it up far away enough so that you could look back that far in time, but still get the data in real-time.

 

And the experiments in A.I. or M.I. as many in the field like to call it now, that is not true abiogenesis they are studying. Minds are trying to recreate life either from scratch, or in digital form.

[mur'phon]

what is the 'mind' behind natural selection?

 

There is no (proven) mind behind natural selection.

 

what controls it if DNA and RNA only copy each other and cannot adapt themselves?

 

The thing is, when DNA copy itself, it sometimes make a mistake, which can cause the creature the mutation ocured in to get diferent physical traits. This hapens quite often, and means that a lot of creatures have not only have direct copies of their parents DNA in their bodies, but also mutated DNA.

 

 

then how do they switch around since nothing is driving them to switch around to adapt?

 

Nothing is driving them to adapt, but since a few mutations are advantegous, those with such mutations are more likely to reproduce.

 

An example is when a scientist took a group of lizards from one island with few predators to another island with many predators. The lizards where big and slow, and had no way to defend themselves as they had no need to do so in their natural enviroment. The scientist goal was to observe when a speicie dies out. 20 years later, He found quite a few lizards alive. Theese lizards where much smaller, and survived by hiding from predators. How it happened is simple, the new conditions favored the small lizards, who then got a better chance of reproducing, thus making the specie adapt.

 

An example of mutation is almost all animals with camoflauge collours. Where mutations have caused the lucky ones to blend in with the suroundings.

 

 

Hope this answers your questions

[Achilles]

except that i don't beleve Humans evolved from apes

That's ok because no one does. As I pointed out earlier, that isn't a hypothesis offered by science.

 

Achilles: I don't think that there will be a point where abiogenesis as an origin is proven. I think we will reach a point where it may be proven to be scientifically plausible, but not actual.

Was this intended for the abiogenesis thread? I don't believe I've even mentioned life origins here.

 

I believe your conclusions are based on your sense of incredulity. Your best case scenario sounds dangerously similar to a scientific theory, unless of course, I misunderstood your point.

 

Thanks.

[Arcesious]

Huh. but why did the lizards adapt to to become small when the DNA mutations are random? And now i at least know i'm not the only one who doesn't believe humans evolved from apes or whatever monkey it was.

[Achilles]

Huh. but why did the lizards adapt to to become small when the DNA mutations are random?

Random mutation = some lizards are smaller, some are larger, and some are the same size.

 

Natural selection = In environments where smaller lizards have a competitive advantage, they will survive while the others die off. After hundreds of generations, the entire population is smaller.

 

And now i at least know i'm not the only one who doesn't believe humans evolved from apes or whatever monkey it was.

Do you mean ape-like ancestor? If so, then you misunderstood the point. Both apes and humans came from a common ape-like ancestor.

[mur'phon]

After hundreds of generations, the entire population is smaller.

 

In this case however, disaster meant that it only took a few generations.

Sorry for the prickyness

[Achilles]

I was just trying to be conservative with my estimates

[Jvstice]

Achilles: Don't dismiss me without addressing my point please.

 

My best case scenario was to illustrate just how many technological advances we'd have so that actual abiogenesis, (rather than the potential being there) would even be a testable hypothesis. As it is, it's utterly untestable. There is no timetable for it to ever be testable with even forseeable technology. Some of this has to do with the tools we have to look at hte problem vs the tools that we'd need to be anywhere near as precise as you want. Also, some has to do with the nature of the kinds of questions science is equipped to ask, verses those it's not.

 

I'd say that very much speaks to the title of the thread. Is your question relevant to science, or not? Does it give testable, replicable results? Are they observable so that observer bias doesn't come into it? From everything I've seen, no. There's no way to get beyond the hypothesis state. In that regard, it's about as useful as sigmund Frued's speculation about human nature. A scientifically untestable hypothesis is worthless to science, except that it serves to steer thinking scientists away from what not to do.

 

Is there a way of asking a question about abiogenesis and recieving an answer where you could find consistent laws for creating life by introducing enough complexity to a system? I have serious doubts that any such thing is built into universal law.

[Achilles]

Achilles: Don't dismiss me without addressing my point.

I addressed your point in post 39. Based on your message here, you didn't care for my response, but I can't help that.

 

My best case scenario was to illustrate just how many technological advances we'd have so that actual abiogenesis, (rather than the potential being there) would even be a testable hypothesis. As it is, it's utterly untestable. There is no timetable for it to ever be testable with even forseeable technology.

Perhaps an interesting argument for the abiogenesis thread. This is an evolution thread. No one brought up abiogenesis until you did a few posts ago. It is completely non sequitur to the conversation and we already have a thread in progress on that topic.

 

Is your question relevant to science, or not? Does it give testable, replicable results? Are they observable so that observer bias doesn't come into it?

Which question are you referring to?

 

From everything I've seen, no. There's no way to get beyond the hypothesis state. In that regard, it's about as useful as sigmund Frued's speculation about human nature. A scientifically untestable hypothesis is worthless to science, except that it serves to steer thinking scientists away from what not to do.

I agree that a scientifically untestable hypothesis is worthless to science. I think that might be why scientists occasionally do things like look for ways to test their hypothesis. Sometimes they don't find a way first try.

 

Is there a way of asking a question about abiogenesis and recieving an answer where you could find consistent laws for creating life by introducing enough complexity to a system? I have serious doubts that any such thing is built into universal law.

From wikipedia:

The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed not to be true, or alternately that another preferred but unproved premise is true instead.

Cheers!

[Jvstice]

Achilles: Oops. Sorry about posting the wrong thought in the wrong thread.

 

It's worthwhile to seek answers to the questions of evolution, evolution of human life, etc. We expand our understanding of both the universe, and our place in it, as well as gain a respect for the rest of nature and natural law. I wouldn't be surprised if we find most of the answers to these questions within our lifetimes, at least to a preliminary consensus within the scientific community as to the overall direction of direct descent. So not quite the near future, but not unforseeable either.

 

I do think it's entirely possible we might most of the gaps filled in the primate family tree. A lot of the DNA tests on neandertals and modern people by the Bryan Sikes, the DNA tests on modern humans, and the recent DNA and archeological tests done with Homo floriensis seem particularly encouraging to me for filling in the great ape branch of the family tree. Also, the recent entrance of archeologists into paleopsychology to try to reconstruct the way that some of our prehuman ancestors thought and behaved based on the tools they made and used also seems a major step forward.

 

Also Chris Beard and others' finally fully separating the evolutionary trees from the great chain of being (what was with those ladder depictions from early this past century anway?)to get a more logical idea of place on the family trees is encouraging for the primate philogeny as a whole.

[Arcesious]

Several points in my science book:

 

Science is fallible and prone to error

Science is only deals with the physical realm

Science cannot prove anything that cannot be witnessed- ex: how life began

Science is often limited to models and diagrams, as soem things are impossible to witness.

Therfore, science is limited to a certain point.

 

Hmm.... This evolution doesn't seem much different from my textbooks, whihc teach agaisnt evolution, as i go to a Christian school, but everything siad in the Christian textbooks relates to evolution exactly, except for man's evolution'. I don't see why they need to conflict except for the difference in belief of man's evolving or being created by a higher being, because they're pretty much exactly the same. Pretty much, evolution seems the smae as what is taught that doesn't mention evolution. therefore, fighting over whether it's correct or incorrect is kinda breath wasting, when they almost completely agree! What if God let's animals evolve, but Man didn't evolve? The Bible practically says he let animals evolve (adapt as is says), but not man, and some similarities between them that seem like man's evolution from monkeys he put there on purpose...

That would work for my beliefs, but you people who don't Believe in God can still believe waht you want, as i no longer have any problems with what you beleive and know as fact. Thnaks for clearing up this conflict i've been having Achilles, now i have a way in which both my beliefs in God and proven science no longer conflict.

[mur'phon]

Science is fallible and prone to error

 

Add the fact that it has a self corecting mecanism, which means that the errors are found and eliminated, and I would agre

 

Science is only deals with the physical realm

 

The thing is, as long as we only know about the physical realm, dealing with any other seams kinda pointless

 

Science cannot prove anything that cannot be witnessed- ex: how life began

 

True, but it can make a hypothesis increadibly likely, using the self corecting mecanism- ex: humans evolved from the same ancestor as modern apes

 

Science is often limited to models and diagrams, as soem things are impossible to witness.

 

Is it a better way to deal with things that cant be witnessed

 

Therfore, science is limited to a certain point.

 

Until something can fill the things beyond said point I think I'll keep to my limited science

 

as i no longer have any problems with what you beleive and know as fact

[Achilles]

Science is fallible and prone to error

Correct, which is why scientists are skeptical by nature and demand the highest levels of evidence before something is commonly accepted. Compare this to religion, which claims to have unfettered access to absolute truths, which coincidentally cannot be backed up with any evidence or objectively tested in any way, and dogmatically rejects any argument which contradicts its foregone conclusions.

 

Science is only deals with the physical realm

Correct, assuming that by "physical realm" you mean "the natural world". Science deals with emotions and our spiritual nature as well. What it does not do is presume supernatural causes. Compare this to religion which presumes supernatural causes for absolutely everything (from origins of the universe to bridges collapsing in midwest cities).

 

Science cannot prove anything that cannot be witnessed- ex: how life began

Incorrect. This is like stating that you cannot prove that your dog pooped on your carpet because no one witnessed it. If all your windows and doors are locked and undamaged you can rule out the possibility that someone broke in and pooped on your carpet. If you live alone, you can rule out the possibility that it was someone else in your family. If you are potty-trained and pretty consistent about using the toilet and if you are not prone to memory lapses, you can probably rule out that it was you that did it.

 

At this point you could probably safely assume that it was the dog, but scientists would probably want more proof before they felt comfortable drawing a conclusion. They would want to know when the last time the dog had been outside. They would want evidence that showed that dogs have been known poop on carpets in other situations. They would test the carpet elsewhere in the house to see if there was evidence of other poopings in the past. They would want to send the poop away for analysis, hoping that the contents would hold traces of the dog food that Fluffy eats. Only once every other testable alternative explanation could be ruled out would scientists accept that was your dog, but they wouldn't have to see it happen in order to determine that it happened.

 

Science is often limited to models and diagrams, as soem things are impossible to witness.

Correct, for reasons that I've already addressed above.

 

Therfore, science is limited to a certain point.

Correct. And goddidit is an intellectually rigorous alternate explanation how? Yes, by way of comparison, religion is limitless in its ability to explain the universe. The fact that it uses the same bludgeon for every question is beside the point.

 

Hmm.... This evolution doesn't seem much different from my textbooks, whihc teach agaisnt evolution,

Huh?

 

I don't see why they need to conflict except for the difference in belief of man's evolving or being created by a higher being, because they're pretty much exactly the same.

Because it would probably be far too embarrassing for your school to deny the theory of evolution when there is so much evidence support it. At some point they are interested in churning out bright young students that can compete for jobs in the secular world. Unfortunately, they also have to pander to the fact that if your parents didn't want for you to have a christian education, they would have sent you to a public school. Therefore, they have to teach evolution, but can't teach that it applies to god's chosen.

 

Some food for thought though:

Why do humans share the same building block as all other living things (DNA)?

Why do humans use sexual reproduction, just like all other animals?

Why do humans acquire their body plans early in embryonic development, just like almost all other animals?

Why do humans have a spine, just like all other vertebrates?

Why are humans warm-blooded, just like all mammals?

Why do humans have hairy bodies, just like all mammals?

Why do humans have four-chambered hearts, just like all mammals?

Why do human females produce milk, just like all mammals?

Why do humans have 5-finger hands (including opposable thumbs and fingernails), just like all primates?

Why do humans have binocular vision (eyes facing forward and work together to produce images), just like all other primates?

Why do human males tend to be larger than human females, a characteristic common in other primate groups?

Why do humans share 97% of their DNA with all other hominids?

Why do humans share 98% of their DNA with apes?

Why do humans have so many vestigial organs and traits, if they were perfectly designed by a perfect creator?

Why it that, even with all this evidence, some people still cannot accept that we are highly sophisticated animals that evolved over hundreds of millions of years just like every other living thing on this planet?

 

therefore, fighting over whether it's correct or incorrect is kinda breath wasting, when they almost completely agree!

I disagree. There is only one correct answer. The hang up isn't that science has even a shred of evidence that religion is correct, it's that religion refuses to accept any explanation for our existence that doesn't include god.

 

What if God let's animals evolve, but Man didn't evolve?

I would be perfectly ok with that hypothesis if there was any evidence to support it. Unfortunately, not only is there not any evidence but there is an insurmountable mountain of evidence that points the other way.

 

The Bible practically says he let animals evolve (adapt as is says), but not man, and some similarities between them that seem like man's evolution from monkeys he put there on purpose...

Why would god seek to intentionally deceive us?

 

That would work for my beliefs, but you people who don't Believe in God can still believe waht you want, as i no longer have any problems with what you beleive and know as fact. Thnaks for clearing up this conflict i've been having Achilles, now i have a way in which both my beliefs in God and proven science no longer conflict.

Glad I could help

[Arcesious]

Yeah, but i'm still skicking with God.

 

With the science cannot prove anything that cannotb e witnessed thin, here's what i manet: the origin of the universe- an event that is all but unobservable.

 

 

With your saying huh? abotu my tectbooks thing, i go to a christian school with christian science books.

 

God would make monkeys and humans similar as a test of one's faith in him.

God creates a fallible race becasue out of goodness he woulg later make them infallible and perfect along with him in the end. there are some things i cannot explain about as to why because you do not see it the way i do, whuich i don't expect that to be understood. If you were a perfect God, a beign that could do anything, the you wouldn't make a race greater than yourself, but you would make them fallible. As God, you would be so good that you have a desire for others to experience perfection along with you. and in perfecting mankind out of fallibleness in the end, you would therefore be able to be perfect by having someone to prove your perfction to. Man's flawed concepts of Go are what arise many speculations suhc as 'the God paradox', and as one Bible verse says, can't rember what it was- tihnk it was Isiah something, it pretty much says "no one can think at the level of God, and their limited understnading of him often leads them to having flawed concepts of him'. that's not exactly how that bible verse goes, but ithat's what it means. God is perfection, and therefore nothing can fully undeerstand him. He is almight, but he intentionally created humans as fallible, a great plan i do not expect you to understand. I'm not trying to be arrogant here, but there are some things that only a person who believes in God fully and faithfully can understand that one who doesn't believe in him cannot because he thinks the bliever of it is the one who is decieved. that, i expect only one who has an open mind to understand.

 

Anyways, agree partly with evolution in some respects as i might, i won't give up God, no matter how much 'evidence' and fact you use. But i bleive discussing more about the God's truth or unttruth will only becoem pointless for me, as all odds are agaisnt me. i'm not giving up a fight or retreating, but i don't expect the understnading i have of God to be understood by you, which you will take as me not understnading you, and you may consider this as me being arrogant, whihc i am not even though it soudns very much that way, which i also don't expect to be understood. don't get me wrong- you guys are very intelligent people and can understnad many things very well, but this is the one thing you probably can't the way i see it. therefore, i suggest we do not discuss agaisnt God any more since it will only be pointless for me, and we get back on topic and not mention God. Pleas edon't tka ethat as arrogan though, i'm not trying to come accross as 'above you' or anything, when i'm no better than you, as we are all equals, and i am likely less intelligent in science than you.

Huh- reminds me of a bible lesson i had last week, titled 'Inpersuadableness...

eh- goodbye. i'm tired of discussing this whne i know i won't win in your sight, so i guess i'll just go see if that 'Imperial Knights RP' thread is alive agian.

(no hard feelings please if i came accross as being arrogant towards you guys. Also, again, my conflictions with science and God are reolved in my sight, so i don't really care if science kinda proves man's evolution on a 2-3% difference, as i still think God did it because it can work either way, and animals are diffeenent than man in that cetain respect and God probably made them able to 'evolve' naturally, decribed as 'adpat' in the bible.)