Yes. Evolution.

[geo]

Sorry to take this thread on a tangent, but I just stumbled on this interview with Richard Dawkins. I think this interview is about 1996.

An excerpt:

Skeptic: In your speech the other night you said that the perceptual systems of animals represent the world as their near, or possibly even far, ancestors constructed them based upon natural selection. Can the world evolve faster than the sensory systems of the animals? Are many animals living today in a sensory world that no longer exists, as when the moth flies into the candle flame?

Dawkins: When a moth flies into a candle flame presumably it is responding to the candle flame as if were a celestial object at optical infinity and acting appropriately to that situation, not the one it is in fact currently facing. It frequently happens that the real world evolves faster than an animal's cognitive map of it.

Skeptic: Does that ever happen to human beings?

Dawkins: Human beings are completely surrounded by the equivalent of "candle flames." Notorious examples are our desire for sugar and fat--in nature the rule is, whenever you can get them, eat them. But when there's a surplus of those substance, they become bad for you. Most of what we strive for in our modern life uses the apparatus of goal seeking that was originally set up to seek goals in the state of nature. But now the goal-seeking apparatus has been switched to different goals, like making money or hedonistic pleasures of one sort or another. Natural selection equips us with "Rules of Thumb," which in a state of nature have the effect of promoting the survival of our selfish genes. The Rules of Thumb go on, even though in this world of "candle flames" they no longer promote our inclusive fitness.

http://scepsis.ru/eng/articles/id_3.php

[johnson1010]

I think the discussion of chicken v egg is still debated greatly for a couple of reasons.
1/ because difference in view between evolution and creation
2/-because we didn't witness it happening we have trouble believing.

from :
http://www.booktalk.org/post77401.html

Regardless of the chicken/egg discussion there, there is a statement to be addressed about evolution in the above.

Warning. Here come da science.


Evolution and Creation are not competing theories any more than Chemistry and Alchemy are competing theories. One is absolute bogus magical thinking and the other is the scientific study and report of objective observed data.

Creation is not the alternative to Evolution. It is an assertion without evidence in a vain attempt to keep an out-dated mode of thought relevant by surrounding it with quasi-scientific jargon in a hope to impress the un-informed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_taxonomy

Here is why humans are primates.

Very simply, if you follow our taxonomic classifications it not only describes our morphology, biology, and reproductive strategy, it also describes the exact process of our evolutionary past.

Notice that humans fit into the descriptive characteristics of each of these divisions and advancement down the chain of daughter sets is an additional characteristic which defines us and separates our species from other organisms which do not share our evolutionary heritage but also these classifications INCLUDE all animals which DO share those characteristics up to that point making them our evolutionary relatives.

When you see a word on this list such as “Craniata”, that does not mean that we simply evolved FROM this category, it also means that we still are intrinsically a part of that group. That is, we still are organisms with a brain enclosed in a skull. That goes the same for every single item on this list, and likewise for any other organism which shares these characteristics with us.

NOTE: Clade is the label given to some taxomonic groupings.

Humans are:

Biota [all life on Earth, including precellular life]
Humans are alive

Clade - Cytota [all cellular life; LUCA, Prokarya, Bacteria]
Humans are cellular organisms. Putting us in the same group as all cellular life on the planet

Clade - Neomura [like Archaea, also included, oldest neomura, common ancestor with them]
A differentiation of cell walls. Ours are composed of glycoproteins, rather than peptidoglycan.


Domain - Eukarya [like Bikonta, also included, oldest eukaryotes, common
ancestor with them; cellular nucleus; first eukaryotic multicellular organisms; plants]
Humans' cells are nucleic

Clade - Unikonta [only one flagellum, think sperm cell; like Amoebozoa, also included, common ancestor with them]

Clade - Opisthokonts [like Fungi, also included, oldest opisthokonts, common ancestor with them]
Indicating the use of a posterior flagellum.


Clade – Holozoa
Here we exclude fungus.


Clade – Filozoa
Animals and nearest single celled relatives.


Kingdom - Animalia/Metazoa
Surprise, humans are animals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metazoa
We must ingest other organisms to survive, we go through changes in our life cycle, and we are mobile.


Subkingdom - Eumetazoa [remotest origin of animal motility]
We have differentiated tissue. IE: lung tissue is for breathing, muscle is for moving.

Clade - Bilateria [having bilateral symmetry]
We share this trait with all animals which are bilaterally symmetrical.

Remember that this is a continuous description of the human animal, and also mirrors our evolutionary path. These are the steps that were taken in our long evolutionary path from single celled organism to Homo Sapien.

Superphylum - Deuterostomia [forms the anus before the mouth in early development of the digestive system.

Phylum - Chordata
We have spinal cords


Clade - Craniata [animals with skulls]
Humans have skulls.


Subphylum - Vertebrata [...and backbones]


Infraphylum - Gnathostomata[...and jaws]

from here we go either cartilage down to sharks or calcified bone which leads to land animals.


Superclass – Osteichthyes
We have bony skeletons.


Class - Sarcopterygii [Includes lobe-finned fish and all land vertebrates.]
Outcroppings of the body which will later evolve into limbs.


Infraclass - Tetrapodamorpha
Superclass - Tetrapoda [...and four limbs for terrestrial locomotion]
Clade - Amniota [...and amniotic eggs ("terrestrial" eggs)]
now we are described as having four limbs and the development of the amnion which allows for dry land birth. this puts us in common with all animals with four limbs who give birth on land. All animals with these characteristics share a common heritage with us to this point.


Subclass - Synapsida
having to do with the temporal fenestra in the skull. (The soft spot on your temple where your jaw muscle runs up the side of your head.) Reptiles are anapsid (no fenestra) or diapsid(two temporal fenestra). They diverge from us here.


Order – Therapsida
Larger fenestrae than other types, jaws more complex.

Clade – Theriodontia
Differentiation of teeth, incisors and molars.


Suborder - Cynodontia
here we see the development of the canine tooth
Clade - Epicynodontia
Infraorder – Eucynodontia
Speaks further of our tooth structure.


Clade - Probainognathia
Clade – Chiniquodontoidea
Gaining mammalian cheracteristics.


Clade - Mamaliamorpha
Clade – Mammaliaformes
“mammal shaped”


Class - Mammalia [all mammals]
are a class of vertebrate, air-breathing animals whose females are characterized by the possession of mammary glands while both males and females are characterized by hair and/or fur, three middle ear bones used in hearing, and a neocortex region in the brain. Some mammals have sweat glands, but most do not.

Subclass – Theriiformes
We give birth to live young without the aid of a shelled egg.


Infraclass - Holotheria
Superlegion – Trechnotheria
one of most prominent features of this group is the "hypertrophied postvallum/prevallid shearing mechanism. Its how your incisors work.


Legion - Cladotheria
Sublegion - Zatheria
Infralegion – Tribosphenida
These include the groups of ancestors leading to us with varying changes in morphology.

Supercohort - Theria
Cohort - Eutheria
we diverge from marsupials here, as eutherians have placental birth.


Magnorder – Boreoeutheria
External testicles. Enter the ball-sack.


Superorder - Euarchontoglires
Grandorder - Euarchonta
Epiorder – Primatomorpha
Pairing down animals which share less and less with primates until we get to:


Order - Primates [arboreal prehensile locomotion; terrestrial bipedal leaping in some cases; Strepsirrhini, Prosimians, also included, oldest living primates, common ancestor with them]

Primates are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primates

Humans are, literally… by definition, primates.

[geo]

Humans are, literally… by definition, primates.

Primates with guns you mean.

[johnson1010]

Dawn wrote:

I've been hearing lately of significant non-religious scientists who are themselves convinced that Evolution does not account for what we now know when figuring in the Information carrying nature of DNA. Used to be we just had to account for matter and energy...There are a significant number of well respected quite secular (as opposed to religiously motivated) scientists discarding the theory of Evolution--for what? they don't know, but they see clear evidence of design.

Dawn, I would be very interested in some quotes you might provide in support of this claim.

I wrote:

creationism and evolution are not at all on the same level of credibility.

Creationism is a hold-out for our personal secret desires to be superior in some fundamental mystical way from all other animals. Evolution dissolves our favorite fairytale about how the world was created specially just for us, because we are so special, by clearly and conclusively demonstrating that we are just one link in a terrifically long chain of organisms with traits behaviors and propensities passed down to us from the primordial ooze which birthed our eukaryote ancestors. It is for this vanity, and this vanity ALONE that creationists refuse to acknowledge the obvious and abundant truth of evolution.

[EndlessLaymon]

Great vid thanks for the upload.

[BooksByAnthony]

I just don't really understand why so many have such an angered, missionaryesque approach to dealing with those whom have a different belief than you?

To be completely honest there is no concrete irrefutable evidence of Macro-evolution (a frog turning into a monkey). There are sooo many missing links between species, to just "assume" they haven't been found yet is the same as to just "assume" that the earth was created in 7 consecutive, 24-hour cycles.

That being said, I do not see how evolution or creation is either A or B...Can we think out of the box people??? Why can't they coexist? Did you ever tend to think that maybe "How" is the process, what happens physically, biologically, chemically...the step by step process, but maybe isn't the answer to "Why?" (the underlying intent of why that process even exists, or works the way it does, or why when the earth spins it's inertia creates gravity? or why mathematics is universal?)

Nikoa Tesla, perhaps the smartest man to ever walk the planet, believed in this theory...he did not believe in Einstein's theory of "organized chaos"...an organized universere with no organizer. He believed more in an actual "organizer" if you read his papers thoroughly...

I don't know, I am not like everyone else, or Dawkins, saying this is absolute, this isn't. Evolution (micro anyways) is undeniable...those who deny evolution are just as polarized to their ideals as those who claim there CAN'T be a god...not that they don't see any credible evidence, in their opinions, but those who claim it is impossible, and those who don't believe them are morons (sounds like a missionary to me...calling those whom you believe to be "dumb" insults, and attacking their insecurities to coerce them to abandon their personal beliefs in favor of your own).

I'm just saying let us be rational gentlemen and women, and respect eachother's arguments on their rationality, and merit. I can disagree with person X, but still respect the integrity, and rationality of their stance, while still maintaining my own securities in my own beliefs.

Thank you, sorry to ramble.

[Frank 013]

Books
To be completely honest there is no concrete irrefutable evidence of Macro-evolution (a frog turning into a monkey). There are sooo many missing links between species, to just "assume" they haven't been found yet is the same as to just "assume" that the earth was created in 7 consecutive, 24-hour cycles.

Not really, there have been enough transitional species discovered that we can safely say that organisms do transform at the macro level… Is it really very hard to grasp the concept? How many changes can say a dog go through and still remain a dog? Plenty as seen in selective breeding programs… however there is a point where the “dog” will loose enough commonalities with the rest of the species and is defined as something different. There are already species of dog that cannot breed with each other… they will eventually become true sub-spices and then different species altogether.

Books
Evolution (micro anyways) is undeniable...those who deny evolution are just as polarized to their ideals as those who claim there CAN'T be a god...not that they don't see any credible evidence, in their opinions, but those who claim it is impossible, and those who don't believe them are morons (sounds like a missionary to me...calling those whom you believe to be "dumb" insults, and attacking their insecurities to coerce them to abandon their personal beliefs in favor of your own).

I can safely say that no atheist here on BookTalk denies the possibility of some god being in the role of a prime mover or similar role… however there is no good reason to believe such a thing. The only people around here that “believe” without any doubt whatsoever are the fanatical religious and they do not respect the integrity, or rationality of anyone else’s stance.

Later

[johnson1010]

I just don't really understand why so many have such an angered, missionaryesque approach to dealing with those whom have a different belief than you?

Because one of these is patently untrue and in no way an equivalent, or alternate explanation for the dazzling diversity of lifeforms on the planet.

To be completely honest there is no concrete irrefutable evidence of Macro-evolution (a frog turning into a monkey). There are sooo many missing links between species, to just "assume" they haven't been found yet is the same as to just "assume" that the earth was created in 7 consecutive, 24-hour cycles.

Well, there isn't really any such thing as "macro-evolution." It is a term created in a last ditch effort to discredit descent with modification which is observed daily in human time scales on a regular basis, and is irrefutable, and creating an imaginary second category of evolution which is supposedly distinct and un-affiliated with the same processes regularly observed in the lab, in kennels and in your own children. The distinction attempted to be made between Micro and Macro evolution is really just the same process oberved in one generation (micro) vs over many generations (macro).

That being said, I do not see how evolution or creation is either A or B...Can we think out of the box people??? Why can't they coexist? ...

The addition of a god component, when not a blatant categorical attempt to throw god a life-line, as in the current discussions of including creationsim in the classroom, is an attempt to explain away mysteries which are not readily explained with current models of science. for instance.

With evolution we explain explicity exactly how one species evolves over time to become a species of a different type. This is supported with the fossil record where there are clear examples of "missing link" creatures, as well as living specimens such as the "mud puppy", also supported through developemental study of the featus, and through genetic heritage markers readily observed in the DNA molecule. What we may not fully understand is just how these information molecules fist shaped, though we do have some good theories how that happened as well. When you throw up "god did it" for the explanations for how those molecules first formed, you do not at all explain how those molecules formed. you just name the mystery "god" and call it good. This prevents further meaningful investigation into the matter by any researcher who is apt to write off a mystery as un-solveable because it is "god's realm". So, in the long run not only have you not explained the mystery you set out to solve, you have also introduced a whole world of additional mysteries which are beyond the reach of observation, and thus meaningful explaination.

Nikoa Tesla, perhaps the smartest man to ever walk the planet, believed...

No doubt Tesla contributed great things to the world of science, but that does not mean we should give un-due credence to other things he believed simply because he had other good ideas. Excelling in electrical engineering does not equate to knowledge in genetics, taxonomy or how to cook gourmet food. Becuse Tesla said so... or Einstein, or Sagan, or anybody else holds no water. There must be proof of their beliefs or it is just an opinion.

This is not a difference of opinion, or preference of behavior.

This is not a case of "Well, i like sleeping on the right side of the bed. NO! I like sleeping on the left side!"

This is a case of staggering amounts of data accumulated over hundreds of years, using millions of man-hours, by the best trained scientists in their feild, all coming to the same conclusion in overwhelming majority that the evidence says evolution is true. And it is confirmed in numerous braches of study, by numerous scientists without direct affiliation with eachother, and often by competitors for the same money, backing, and prestige.

All of that vs. some people's insistance that creationsims is real because they don't want to be related to monkeys, or that they believe it deminishes our standing in the cosmos. Wishful thinking in other words. Without proof.

[johnson1010]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c03_1213054333

On creationism.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=00e_1288019225

Evolution of dogs

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=dc7_1291130089

evolution of cats

Thanks, AronRa.

[johnson1010]

The Penn and Teller "BULLSH*T!" Treatment on intelligent design.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5fc_1175734380
Part 1

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9fa_1175722937
Part 2