ScienceInTheBible.Net - From Cal

[VaporTrail]

Yeah, I'm not sure about that.. I think using religion as a crutch against homosexuality is maybe a bigger problem. The religious are allowed to have their own schools that can have any curriculum they want. Catholic school and the like. So far as I know most employers don't ask you how you feel humans got from primitive to modern as a prerequisite for hire.

 

Could give a rats ass about who's puffing whose peter. The issue of homosexuality has been decided, and it won't really matter to the majority of the next generation. Half of Americans think that God created us in the form we are today. That's troubling from the standpoint of scientific advancement.

[LogicIsForSquares]

Nice answer. Ignorant and poorly formed but I expect that here.

I could have picked the side of the religious loons just to be sassy and different.

[MLD Woody]

I agree with and like both of the posts above me...

 

 

"Half of Americans think that God created us in the form we are today. That's troubling from the standpoint of scientific advancement."

 

 

That especially

[calfoxwc]

It's ridiculous to say that if schools don't teach evolution,

 

then (whine, bitch) they shouldn't teach anything.

 

Let people have whatever opinions they have, without

all the woodypeckerbutthead personal insults hatred.

 

And, I simply said let the students discuss both sides.

Failing that, it's anti-creationist brainwashing. That's

what the libs won't admit to, but it all comes down to

vicious manipulative politics, and social engineering.

 

I post opinions to show that it isn't just me that has a certain opinion.

And, polls work for lib weinies ONLY when they suit their gay agenda.

Always the same thing - woodypeckerbutthead will claim something like

"only dumbass conservatives believe in the magic book", referring to the Bible,

and I can post professor emeritus, polls showing that a lot of people believe...

and all of a sudden opinions are bad.

 

This entire board is about opinion. Somebody that refuses to believe in anything

that isn't totally science based...may as well give up on man made global warming

real quick.

 

But they don't. When it suits their contrary hater agenda, opinions are one of their gods.

 

woodypeckerbutthead is an opinion nazi wannabe.

[The Cysko Kid]

Everyone is avoiding discussing the apes' poor evolutionary achievements next to their brothers from another mother, namely people. They have literally all the pieces parts we do and then some, inherited the same genes as we did from a common ancestor, this is the theory of evolution, people also diverged from that ancestor at the same time or near enough for this sort of long time evolutionary hypothetical, both in Africa but yet we developed a sophisticated brain but the apes who are incredibly genetically similar to us today had no need to evolve from apes to man. They would have had to face the same hardships as primitive man in the same-ish place.

 

To me this is an acceptable question that indirectly supports intelligent design. After all we didn't just evolve a bit different. We went to the moon chimps are still loving in the jungles of Africa with no known language (although, as I pointed out it is proven that apes are capable of understanding and communicating through rudimentary human language)

 

You guys consider yourselves intellectual. Woody said he welcomed points of view supporting their beliefs.

[The Cysko Kid]

Or o could just say everyone was an old liberal douchey young crotchety teabagger idiot woodyprckrr poopy face lololol

[MLD Woody]

I am not an expert Cysko, but I would wager to guess your concern has been brought up by tons of people tons of time before and there is an answer out there. If it was truly something evolution theory busting then the theory would be adjusted or thrown out, because that's how the scientific method works.

[MLD Woody]

It's ridiculous to say that if schools don't teach evolution,

 

then (whine, bitch) they shouldn't teach anything.

 

Let people have whatever opinions they have, without

all the woodypeckerbutthead personal insults hatred.

 

And, I simply said let the students discuss both sides.

Failing that, it's anti-creationist brainwashing. That's

what the libs won't admit to, but it all comes down to

vicious manipulative politics, and social engineering.

 

I post opinions to show that it isn't just me that has a certain opinion.

And, polls work for lib weinies ONLY when they suit their gay agenda.

Always the same thing - woodypeckerbutthead will claim something like

"only dumbass conservatives believe in the magic book", referring to the Bible,

and I can post professor emeritus, polls showing that a lot of people believe...

and all of a sudden opinions are bad.

 

This entire board is about opinion. Somebody that refuses to believe in anything

that isn't totally science based...may as well give up on man made global warming

real quick.

 

But they don't. When it suits their contrary hater agenda, opinions are one of their gods.

 

woodypeckerbutthead is an opinion nazi wannabe.

 

 

I will just ignore your normal liberal bashing, conspiracy theory, conservative victimization BS for a sec

 

 

If you want to discuss it, great go ahead. Do it in a social studies class. Do it in a private school. Do it at a church. But in a PUBLIC school SCIENCE classroom we should teach ideas backed up by science. In 13 pages of this thread + Ken Ham's entire debate I have not heard one bit of scientific evidence in support of creationism. You don't teach something next to actual science just because people believe in it. Thank god we don't decide what is or is not worthy of a science classroom based on public opinion. The public is scientifically illiterate. We should keep the scientific community in charge of what is or is not worthy to teach. It shouldn't be up to what people believe just because their parents did just because their parents did... etc etc.

 

So, public opinion on creationism doesn't make it true. It does't make it science. It doesn't mean it should be in the classroom.

 

Again, you have not given any real reason for why it should be in a SCIENCE classroom.

 

 

I never said they shouldn't teach anything, learn to read you dumbass. I was saying if Cysko can nitpick about why evolution shouldn't be taught, based in his reasoning, we could remove most of the curriculum. Again, I am in favor of students that understand the world around them. Not students that point at an old ass book and say that is the only answer.

 

 

Just like gay marriage won't be an issue when the older generation is gone I feel like religion will have much less power. Look at the polls you posted, the more educated and younger you are the less likely you are to believe in creationism. Extrapolate that to religion in general and these type of isses won't be nearly as prevalent going forward.

 

 

 

 

But of course you won't actually get any of this. You will morph it into your black and white political ideologies and just act like the victim. You will respond with childish name calling, attack liberals, thrown in some other stupid shit and call it a day. You will think you have made a great point and none will be there. You might ad some stupid shit about your farm. But in the end, you won't do anything to support your side or answer any question. You might think you did, and act like you did, but you won't. You'll just ignore it and move on to the next thing some right wing talking head from some biased media source is telling you to be angry about. They will play on your emotions and misconceptions and use your gullible self to drive their political machine.

[gftChris]

So I'm back in the office now...looks like I missed a beat?! Anyway, it's 9am, I haven't had breakfast yet, so there may be a few typos, but I'll attempt to address the general points raised here (because Cysko specifically requested it - I feel all warm and fuzzy inside):

 

Q. Why should we teach evolution in schools? It doesn't really help prepare you for a job.

A. I think this has been reasonably well addressed so far but I'll give my thoughts on the subject. The basic point woody was trying to make is that if you look at a curriculum and focus solely on what will help you when landing a job then a very large amount of what is taught can be thrown out as well. Most people here are not scientists - quick show of hands, who has dissected a frog in their working life? So most of science can be thrown out? No, because science actually applies to what most people do. For example:

- The principals of physics underpin woody's engineering career.

- Things that affect cal's farm like the water cycle, crop mutation/GM, soil management etc are based in biology, chemistry among others

- If DieHard had wanted to move from being a grunt into the ballistics side, he would have been able to do so (presumably) thanks to a basic understanding of the physics involved; or to the medical corps, a comprehension of human biology would have helped facilitate that

- I don't know what other people do - I'm not going to pretend that steve's music is helped by learning science, but the sounds made can certainly be explained, why the frets are spaced just so far apart, why the string has to be tightened just so and the rest; and musicians are making use of that knowledge, particularly people creating the instruments.

 

Part 2 of the answer is a more socio-political aspect. Should a school's sole purpose be to prepare the student for his/her future career? It's a good starting point - it should certainly create young people capable of entering their chosen profession. But is that all it should do? Besides, at what point do you choose your profession? I basically only got interested in my field in the final year of my degree. All I knew is that I had been exposed to a wide variety of subjects, some more interesting than others, some less so, and I went with the subject(s) that I found most interesting.

 

So no, not many people go on to be evolutionary biologists. Nor do many (in the grand scheme of things) go on to be anything in particular; not doctors, not builders, not butchers, not bakes, not candlestick makers. But it's the wide range of subjects taught that help a young person find what it is they like, what it is they could possibly stand doing for their life without killing themselves.

 

On top of that, I believe that it's a school's job to produce well rounded individuals capable of holding a conversation on most general topics. This is why I absolutely would be outraged if schools stopped teaching religious education - a general understanding of the major religions in the world in my opinion dramatically decreases the amount of religious hatred out there. Once people understand that basically every religion's major credo is peace, tolerance and forgiveness, we move away from the state of affairs where we have people - not just Americans, but British, French, all kinds of Africans (see CAR for details) - claim that the other religions are all terrorists, or want to kill/convert everyone else, and you move to a culture where people can, as they have in the past, live well enough with people of other religions in the same city. That's a discussion for another topic, though.

 

It's why we continue to learn about history, even though a working knowledge of 15th century crop rotation isn't particularly useful for anyone except cal; even though being able to tell whether a piece of pottery was greek, roman, egyptian, or other is of absolutely no value to more than a minute percentage of the global population. An understanding of the past and the things people have done before them, the sacrifices made by people like DieHard in the name of their freedom are not forgotten. Otherwise things like 4th July would have no meaning to anyone except fireworks and beer.

 

Q. If men evolved from apes, why are there still apes?

A. Let me run through the basic premise, just to make sure I understand it. If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys (or your chosen precursor to humans)? This is a good question, but slightly wrong. We didn't evolve from monkeys/apes/gorillas etc; all four evolved from a common ancestor. We're now separate species that would need to undergo millions of years of evolution to again coincide. For example, your PC and your laptop both are built on the fundamentals of basic computers, but while you can tweak your PC to make it better, and you can tweak your laptop to make it better, you can't turn a PC in to a laptop. Not my best example, but the premise is there. You'd have to basically go from scratch to go from PC to laptop or vice versa - while some components might be transferable, the basic structure is very different.

 

 

A better question would be: Why, if there was a common ancestor, did an evolutionary split happen, when all members of that same species would have had to face the same difficulties? It's an understandable question, and one that has been asked countless times before. I don't know enough about evolution to give you a concrete answer - try the rest of the internet, I'm sure it's been asked. But it basically comes down to a couple of points from what I understand.

1) Just because a species split, and a genetic mutation made the new species better, it doesn't necessarily make the old species defunct and unable to survive - they'd been surviving fine up until then. It just means that the new improved, ape 2.0 might have a better chance of surviving in a similar habitat.

2) A big change like being able to walk on two feet instead of four can lead to 'reproductive isolation' - that is, after a few generations (I'm not sure how many), there are sufficient walking apes that they basically stick to reproducing with each other, leaving the common ancestor to continue reproducing with itself.

 

In order for a species to become naturally extinct, you would need either for it to be unable to compete and survive in its environment - this is why we no longer see homo erectus (let's leave the gay jokes for now), because a more evolved version basically eradicated them; or you'd need a more evolved species to mate with all of the ancestor species in time to make sure that all descendants had the mutation.

 

It's my understanding that when man could walk on two feet, it was such a monumental shift that meant the new and old species were not competing for the same resources - think of the concept of man coming down from the trees; we then became more efficient at gathering ground food, and in time hunting animals with tools, rather than relying on physical attributes. As I say, this is my understanding, so I may be wrong, but I believe this is the general idea.

 

Q. Why shouldn't children be able to debate the merit of creationism versus evolution at school?

They should, if they want to, just not in the science room. Science is about knowledge, looking at the world around us, making observations, making predictions based on the observations, and using the results of subsequent experiments to refine your predictions. Once it becomes refined enough that your predictions are all coming true, you hand it over to your friends to poke holes in it. If they can, back to the drawing board, if not, if goes in to the wider community for hole-poking. Once everyone has poked as many holes in it as they can, and it still holds up, it becomes a theory. Not to say that a theory is infallible - general relativity has its flaws, for example - but that the general concept is right and that a few tweaks might be needed.

 

This is the scientific method and there's nothing about creationism that fits that concept. If you want to discuss intelligent design then feel free - I'm certainly not ruling out the idea of a creator that is overseeing evolution, it's just that we can't actually see any proof of it, and that's what science craves, proof. If you can show any evidence of intelligent design, beyond saying "it is so complex, it must have been designed" then the entire scientific world would embrace it and convert to your religion of choice, I promise you. Assuming it had been rigorously examined, used to predict, all the stuff we said before. Unfortunately, I don't think there'll ever be proof either way of an intelligent creator guiding evolution.

 

Which leaves us with the concept of still discussing it, but not in the science labs. Discuss it in your religious education classes, discuss it maybe in your sociology class, maybe even touch on it in history. Just don't try to teach it as science because it isn't scientific.

 

 

Right, I'm off for breakfast.

[MLD Woody]

Applause

 

 

 

Now I have 2 exams back to back. That was a good read though.

[BrownsKidd]

Let me first say that not all religious people are goons or are a threat to scientific research. In the past the Roman Catholic Church fit that bill (Galileo anyone), and in many ways still does. But don’t throw the baby out with the bath water with absurd ad hominem attacks and hyperbole.

 

Are the idiots in religion? Absolutely.

Are there idiots in this thread that hold opinions, against religion, that are as weak as many arguments and debates that Christians hold, absolutely.

 

The biggest contributor to Christian idiocy is that they have inflated “the bible” and have put it on the same plane as God himself or Christ. Many Christians forget that the Bible has very human origins. Certainly, those that wrote the original texts some 2000+ years ago were inspired by what they had heard or seen. There were also many, many more letters written about Christ and his life which, because of the Roman Catholic Church, never made it to the canon. The bible had a very human origin which was put together by a bunch of Bishops in the catholic church, which at some point in time, locked down scripture so that only priests and the RCC could view and read it, leaving the mass populace with no opportunity to read it for themselves. This lead to huge errors, traditions, ceremonies and beliefs that many people, including non-catholics adhere too today.

Fortunately, the reformation came and Protestantism arose, and now we have access to those scriptures, (which of any religion, out date and out-number all other religions) so now we can read and interpret for ourselves. The Reformation was in the 1600’s, and there are many that are still battling all the wrong that the RCC did to Christianity. One of those wrongs was the over inflation of the Bible, which is still with us today.

For many, they read and interpret everything literally. That is wrong. Anyone, with any literary sense should read Genesis and know that the creation account is allegory and metaphor. It was written by Moses who had to relate to the people in a way they could understand it. Literal interpretation when allegory and metaphor is obvious is wrong and leads to such nonsense debates.

 

There are many Christians, post RCC, that feel that there is potential for religion and science to be in harmony. The problem is that there are idiots on both sides of the coin with agendas, and then there are those that would love to be able to sit down and discuss things rationally without calling the other side names like we were in a 3^rd grade debate club.

Still, my opinion remains, if Christ is who he says he is, then we have all the reason to believe that there a hand in creation that could very well be in alignment with science. Prove to me that Christ isn’t who he says he is and science wins.

[gftChris]

Prove to me that Christ isn’t who he says he is and science wins.

 

This isn't how things work. The burden of proof should be on Christianity as a whole to prove he is who he says he is.

 

But I completely agree, the vast majority of religious people aren't bible-wielding, gay-bashing science-haters. Being a Christian myself, I should know, and I do know. Getting to a personal level, though, religion for me isn't just about worshipping god, jesus or the virgin mary. It's about living by the lessons jesus taught. Sure. it's great to go to a worship festival, and hearing thousands of people singing praise, the energy is electric, but that's not what it's about for me. Two or three days a year doesn't make you a good person, it's the every day acts that do.

[VaporTrail]

 

Still, my opinion remains, if Christ is who he says he is, then we have all the reason to believe that there a hand in creation that could very well be in alignment with science. Prove to me that Christ isn’t who he says he is and science wins.

 

 

You're resorting to faith in the absence of evidence. If you want me to believe that, show me the evidence, otherwise I'll choose to trust nothing. Liked your post otherwise, but the burden of proof is on you.

 

Everyone is avoiding discussing the apes' poor evolutionary achievements next to their brothers from another mother, namely people. They have literally all the pieces parts we do and then some, inherited the same genes as we did from a common ancestor, this is the theory of evolution, people also diverged from that ancestor at the same time or near enough for this sort of long time evolutionary hypothetical, both in Africa but yet we developed a sophisticated brain but the apes who are incredibly genetically similar to us today had no need to evolve from apes to man. They would have had to face the same hardships as primitive man in the same-ish place.

 

To me this is an acceptable question that indirectly supports intelligent design. After all we didn't just evolve a bit different. We went to the moon chimps are still loving in the jungles of Africa with no known language (although, as I pointed out it is proven that apes are capable of understanding and communicating through rudimentary human language)

 

You guys consider yourselves intellectual. Woody said he welcomed points of view supporting their beliefs.

 

Cysko, this is a question that is still being explored. We know that gorillas have 48 chromosomes and humans have 46. The locus has been identified where two chromosomes of the common ancestor fused to create what we know as human chromosome 2. This is where we believe humans and gorillas diverged.

 

The molecular basis of evolution is extremely complex, and there is not a single organism that the scientific community truly understands (though they're working on it), the organism we might know most about is the model organism, the fruit fly. We know a few things about evolution - that mutations are random, some will work, most will not. We know that a mutation of a single base-pair can cause major changes to the phenotype (visible characteristics of an organism), in humans, sickle cell anemia is an example of this in humans. These changes can alter the shape of the proteins that they code for, and the shape of the protein defines the function.

 

Now, when you take the human chromosome fusion into account, you have an architecture that will play out very differently from the separate two chromosomes, the consequences are arguably much greater than that of a single point mutation. Some genes that were accessible in separate form will be inaccessible in the fused form and vice versa. This mutation, probably in conjunction with many others, created new proteins and a new developmental blueprint for the growing organism. This organism was weak - much weaker than its closest cousins - chimps, bonobos, gorillas. In order to survive, these creatures hid in caves from everything else that was bigger and stronger than it. Humans needed a new strategy to survive, and the way it arose was through group fitness. Humans don't have penile spines, though they appear in mammals and other primates, which is believed to increase the time of copulation and increase pair bonding. While humans were weaker than everything else around it, more resources were placed on the development and growth of the brain. The human brain is so much different than everything else in the world, that I can understand the desire to resort to an intelligent desire to explain the discrepancy between our brains and those of our closest relatives. However, we're working with an incomplete picture, so you're jumping to the conclusion of an intelligent creator without any real evidence to suggest so.

[BrownsKidd]

For those that want some evidence, I would suggest a video (it was on netflix) called a Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel. He wrote the book first, and a few others, then produced a movie. Lee was a Harvard or Yale educated atheist and, if I remember correctly, the lead editor at the Chicago Tribune for sometime. He was a staunch atheist who converted after doing research work to try and disprove Christianity. He did the research due to his wife converting.

It's a good watch even for those who care nothing about Christianity to at least get a good foundation for why we believe what we believe instead of getting your material from the Daily Show, Louis Black or Bill Maher. It goes a lot deeper than just "believing it because it's in the Bible"...

 

And I will say that yes, the burden of proof is on us, yet it's easier to proof the life of Christ than it is to prove the theory of the big bang.

[LogicIsForSquares]

I believe Jesus existed. I just don't believe that he was some jew wizard sent from god to save humanity.

[BrownsKidd]

I believe Jesus existed. I just don't believe that he was some jew wizard sent from god to save humanity.

Your so eloquent. It's just not believing that he lived, but that His claims of himself were right or wrong.

You then have to look at history, not just the bible, to rely on what he said, how he died, and his resurrection. CS Lewis said it right when he said that Christ is either Liar, Lunatic, or Lord. What does the evidence say?

[The Cysko Kid]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

 

Lot of unanswered questions about why we evolved vs chimpanzees that failed to evolve. Nothing in here provides a more plausible theory than a higher power guiding human evolution along. No speculation on why the chimpanzee failed to evolve and we evolved rapidly. This is where science has no more answers than religion

[LogicIsForSquares]

Your so eloquent. It's just not believing that he lived, but that His claims of himself were right or wrong.

You then have to look at history, not just the bible, to rely on what he said, how he died, and his resurrection. CS Lewis said it right when he said that Christ is either Liar, Lunatic, or Lord. What does the evidence say?

The Romans kept great records. You think they wouldn't mention that a guy named Jesus was performing miracles? Even if it was just "hey this jewish guy is performing evil magic so he had to die".

[BrownsKidd]

The Romans kept great records. You think they wouldn't mention that a guy named Jesus was performing miracles? Even if it was just "hey this jewish guy is performing evil magic so he had to die".

The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate and the existence of early Christians in Rome in his final work, Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.^[1]

 

^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ}

[MLD Woody]

Religion can claim to have all the answers it wants. The point is they need some evidence to support any of it. I don't take a really old book and tradition as meeting the burden of proof.

 

I also still don't get why having some gaps in the theory that are currently being investigated makes it no better than just saying "god did it" or "intelligent design" and calling it a day...

 

Prove all of this or it is no better than this old idea we can't prove any of

 

Alright.

[gftChris]

The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate and the existence of early Christians in Rome in his final work, Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.^[1]

 

^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ}

I think there's no doubt that there was a guy called jesus christ who lived two thousand years ago and was an excellent man, with excellent teachings and a large following. What's in question are things like immaculate conception, water in to wine, walking on water (or presumably wine, though this is unmentioned) and resurrection. You think those are easier to prove than the big bang? I disagree. The proof for the big bang is overwhelming, though the cause is still up for (scientific) debate. No doubt some will say 'god did it' and some won't.

[LogicIsForSquares]

The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate and the existence of early Christians in Rome in his final work, Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.^[1]

 

^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ}

Yeah I know he was mentioned by Tacitus. Did Tacitus conveniently leave out that Jesus was a super hero?

[The Cysko Kid]

I think there's no doubt that there was a guy called jesus christ who lived two thousand years ago and was an excellent man, with excellent teachings and a large following. What's in question are things like immaculate conception, water in to wine, walking on water (or presumably wine, though this is unmentioned) and resurrection. You think those are easier to prove than the big bang? I disagree. The proof for the big bang is overwhelming, though the cause is still up for (scientific) debate. No doubt some will say 'god did it' and some won't.

It's as unanswerable as why did we evolve at a much faster rate than pan or chimpanzee who we apparently directly diverged from when pan has all the same attributes which allowed us to evolve from chimpanzee like creature to modern humans in roughly the same environment the chimpanzee failed to do so in.

[VaporTrail]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

 

Lot of unanswered questions about why we evolved vs chimpanzees that failed to evolve. Nothing in here provides a more plausible theory than a higher power guiding human evolution along. No speculation on why the chimpanzee failed to evolve and we evolved rapidly. This is where science has no more answers than religion

 

Except that this line of thinking is based off of the incorrect assumption that chimpanzees "failed to evolve."

[The Cysko Kid]

They failed to evolve to a level of human intelligence despite bring sourced from the same genetic material and having all the tools we do and having the same environment to evolve in. It seems very conspicuous and unanswerable as to why exactly we are the only species able to evolve to our level especially in such a relatively short time. It's not ridiculous that people have long thought our ascension to masters of the earth from simple monkey folk was helped along by another force

[VaporTrail]

They failed to evolve to a level of human intelligence despite bring sourced from the same genetic material and having all the tools we do and having the same environment to evolve in.

 

Right, just because we have a common ancestor, it doesn't follow that everything will evolve in the same manner. The genetic material that we have has very significant differences to the genetic materials of our closest relatives.

 

 

It seems very conspicuous and unanswerable as to why exactly we are the only species able to evolve to our level especially in such a relatively short time.

 

 

Not really. Take a look at dog breeds. The little foo foo dogs are dumb as rocks and useless. Compare their intelligence to a German Shepherd and they're significantly smarter. The divergence in dog breeds didn't take a particularly long time. When you consider the infinite amount of forms that genetic material can take, it really shouldn't be surprising that sentience will eventually arise in the race to be the most fit for life. Humans just happened to be the species that had the right combination first.

[Legacy Fan]

Fuck apes & dog breeds. We still have bacteria. Protozoa.

 

 

Simple ass bacteria. We can identify the types in a humans mouth, the bioavailability of each type, the specific location of the different bacteria ( saliva, dental plaque, gingival sulcus). We can't figure out why twins with identical genotypes present different cases/severities of periodontitis (gum disease/alveolar bone destruction).

[The Cysko Kid]

 

Right, just because we have a common ancestor, it doesn't follow that everything will evolve in the same manner. The genetic material that we have has very significant differences to the genetic materials of our closest relatives.

 

 

 

Not really. Take a look at dog breeds. The little foo foo dogs are dumb as rocks and useless. Compare their intelligence to a German Shepherd and they're significantly smarter. The divergence in dog breeds didn't take a particularly long time. When you consider the infinite amount of forms that genetic material can take, it really shouldn't be surprising that sentience will eventually arise in the race to be the most fit for life. Humans just happened to be the species that had the right combination first.

That's a fair point but we bred dogs selectively to suit our tastes. One might call it intelligent design. That argument kind of works against you there

[Legacy Fan]

That's a fair point but we bred dogs selectively to suit our tastes. One might call it intelligent design. That argument kind of works against you there

Corn (teosinte) also.

[VaporTrail]

That's a fair point but we bred dogs selectively to suit our tastes. One might call it intelligent design. That argument kind of works against you there

 

Eh, I suppose so. Well, take what Legacy said about bacteria, then.