Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Human Genome Confirms Evolution

Posted by michael on Thu Feb 22, 2001 10:20 AM
from the hand-of-god dept.
xpccx writes "Here is a very interesting article at MSNBC by Arthur Caplan, Ph.D., director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. He states that "The genome reveals, indisputably and beyond any serious doubt, that Darwin was right - mankind evolved over a long period of time from primitive animal ancestors. Our genes show that scientific creationism cannot be true." This is arguable but should spark quite a debate." Even Kansas agrees.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Human Genome Confirms Evolution | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 933 comments (Spill at 50!) | Index Only | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13
  • Let's hope little girl doesn't do project on this. by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @05:38AM
  • Awful by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:15AM
  • dating techniques by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:20AM
  • Re:Did anyone ever doubt it? by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:23AM
  • We're never going to know... by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:50AM
  • Re:Darwin VS God by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @07:10AM
  • Re:Prove it to Joe Shmoe by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @07:28AM
  • wrong by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @07:37AM
  • Re:Does it really prove it? by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @08:29AM
  • Account of Creation by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @09:25AM
  • Re:Linnaeus Vindicated by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @10:30AM
  • Re:Some background and few remarks on evolution... by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:12PM
  • Re:Does it really prove it? by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:22AM
  • Re:Some background and few remarks on evolution... by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @07:41AM
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 22 2001, @06:10AM (#411241)
    During my decade of playing scientist, I often had to support myself by teaching. During these bouts of masochism, I would often be assigned to a lab section. In these clases I would find the depths of the complete lack of understanding of what proof is and is not, what science is and is not. From an educational standpoint, it was depressing. From a professional standpoint, I see the abject failure of the educational system to provide a clue to the masses. You can bring a student to knowledge, but you cannot make them think.

    That said, many of these lab reports used single or multiple "observations" to prove the thing being tested. That is, the assumption was made by the student that the appearance of the phenomenon was proof of the truth of the hypothesis. It was amazing how many people came in believing this nonesense.

    Scientific experimentation never ever proves anything. It can disprove only (the proof side involves checking on all possible permutations of things, and that is not possible in times long compared to the age of the universe). Hence, what one needs to investigate are the predictions of a theory. This was the other thing that students got wrong. A theory is a hypothesis, an idea, that makes predictions. If the theory does not make testable predictions, it is not a scientific theory. If you cannot objectively test an idea's predictions, how can you possibly assess the validity of the idea?

    "Scientific Creationism" makes no predictions. It is an attempt to codify a system of beliefs into a particular language. As such, it is not a scientific theory. If it made testable predictions (say structural predictions on the form of proteins in similar organisms) then it would be testable and therefore falsafiable.

    And that is the difference. Evolution, or rather, evolution-like theories, which make specific predictions are testable and falsafiable. If you find sufficient evidence that can convince a skeptical group of unbiased investigators that there is a disparity between the prediction and the observation, then you may rightly claim that the theory (or one area/mechanism) is false. The flip side of this is that if you find no such evidence, then your results are consistent with the theories predictions. One of the other more important aspects is that even if one particular mechanism in the theory is found not to be correct, it may not invalidate the entire theory, rather just that mechanism. From this, people build on existing theories with new theories that can explain the observations, and make more predictions. So even if Darwin's orginal mechanisms are not quite right, the latest proposed ones fit the data even better than before, and make testable predictions that are being looked at as we speak.

    Compare this to a biblical dogma derived "theory" which makes no testable predictions, provides no method of falsification, and generally does not allow room for disagreement. "Scientific Creationism" is not science (as it fails the testable hypothesis portion of the requirement for a theory). It is dogma. In a new set of clothes. Do not be fooled.

  • Re:First Evolution (Score:4)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 22 2001, @05:32AM (#411242)
    All our genes are belong to Darwin.
  • Kansas, eh? by abischof (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @05:38AM
  • Re:Imperfection by jandrese (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @08:28AM
  • Re:Linnaeus Vindicated by phil reed (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @07:52AM
  • Re:This Doesn't Disprove "Scientific Creationism" by phil reed (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @07:59AM
  • Re:This Doesn't Disprove "Scientific Creationism" by Eccles (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @05:57AM
  • You cannot "disprove" something by Chacham (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @05:41AM
  • Re:You cannot "disprove" something by Chacham (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @02:54PM
  • Won't change closed minds by Groucho (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @05:37AM
  • Re:First things first. . . by Python (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @12:31PM
  • Re:Yea! by hawk (Score:2) Friday February 23 2001, @05:35AM
  • Flood Science by Per Abrahamsen (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:38AM
  • by Per Abrahamsen (1397) on Thursday February 22 2001, @05:38AM (#411254) Homepage
    The only form of creationism I know involves an omnipotent creator. Such a creater can obviously do anything (that's omnipotent for you), including faking evidence of evolution. However, any theory requiring an omnipotent creator is unscientific, as it can never be disproved. One requirement for a scientific theory is that is falsifable, i.e. it is possible to design an experiment with a possible outcome that would disprove the theory.

    Which makes me wonder, what is this "scientific creationism" thing? Creationism without an creator? Or just another abuse o fthe word scientific?

    Note that "scientific" does not mean "true". A theory can be scientific and false, or unscientific and true.

  • Re:Proof of Evolution? by Noel (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @07:35AM
  • What do you get... by Noel (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @07:44AM
  • Re:What do you get... by Noel (Score:1) Friday February 23 2001, @09:39AM
  • Re:Does it really prove it? by AxelBoldt (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @01:10PM
  • Re:Does it really prove it? by AxelBoldt (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @12:55PM
  • Re:Does it really prove it? by AxelBoldt (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @01:19PM
  • Re:What? by slim (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:24AM
  • Re:Darwin VS God by jd (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:26AM
  • Re:But what's the point of this article? by Mars Saxman (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @03:45PM
  • Re:This Doesn't Disprove "Scientific Creationism" by William Tanksley (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @01:12PM
  • Re:It doesn't prove anything. by Jeremy Erwin (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:51AM
  • Oh, what an interesting article... by Millennium (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @05:59AM
  • by WaldoJMU (2651) on Thursday February 22 2001, @05:41AM (#411267) Homepage
    This is a very well-written and interesting editorial... but it's not a scientific article.

    Dr. Caplan does an excellent job of pontificating his viewpoint - that Darwin was right and "all those who thump their bible and say there is no proof" are wrong; he very clearly and concisely tells us that the proof of evolution is in our genes, and that every scientist worth his/her salt agrees that there is no other explanation other than Darwinian evolution.

    However, not once does he lay out the proof of which he speaks. Whether Dr. Caplan's viewpoint is correct or not, this article is nothing more than an emotionally persuasive argument with no scientific credibility whatsoever. It's well and good to say that there is undeniable evidence of Darwinian evolution in the human genome - that's what most people have been hoping for, searching for; but if such a sweeping statement is going to be made, especially to the rather scientifically ignorant masses that MSNBC and other mainstream media outlets serve, then it must be backed up by the actual evidence in question, lest we fall into the trap of believing a Big Lie that simply gets repeated enough times.

    Science is detailed observation of the natural world, and this article offers no such observations, only emotionalism. I would greatly enjoy reading a scientific paper on this subject.
  • Evolution is not a fact... by kraut (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @05:56AM
  • Re:Does it really prove it? by bjb (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @08:38AM
  • Re:yeah, but... by Squid (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @10:23AM
  • Re:Some background and few remarks on evolution... by Squid (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @12:21PM
  • Re:Creationists Questions by Squid (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @12:23PM
  • by freeBill (3843) on Thursday February 22 2001, @07:19AM (#411273) Homepage

    ...against scientific creationism does not mean that scientific creationism is, in fact, right.

    Note that Caplan (who has said much more interesting things than this: see, for instance, his interview on cloning on the Charlie Rose Show) may not be actually saying as much as some people are assuming he's saying. He specifically states that the Human Genome Project results disprove "scientific creationism," not creationism. Since "scientific creationsim" refers to a specific movement, it is entirely possible they have made statements and predictions which are contradicted by this new evidence. He goes on, however, to imply that the new evidence proves something more broad about creationism in general, which is clearly false.

    I believe that the best arguments against scientific creationism are not scientific arguments, but moral and religious arguments. I will offer two below: one theological and one practical.

    My theological argument is based on the fact that I believe in a God of truth. If God created the world 4,000 years ago or so, then he created it as if it had existed for billions of years and as if life evolved slowly over time. Thus he is a God of deceit. Since it is more important to me that God be truth than that He created the universe a few thousand years ago, I choose to believe that those who believe the Bible says the universe was created (relatively) recently are wrong. Note that, even if I chose to believe that God was deliberately deceiving me, I would still have to decide whether I should accept that deception as what He wants me to believe.

    When I go to the Bible to see what it says, I find that the statements there are vague and contradictory. It is not at all clear that the 7-day creation story is to be taken literally. There are other places where creation appears to take place over a long period of time.

    I also note that my belief that God is truth is not unambigously supported in the Bible. While there are several places where "God is truth" is clearly indicated, Jeremiah just as clearly says that he saw God lie to other prophets in order to trick Ahab into an ill-starred battle. The belief on which I found this theological argument is a belief and nothing more. But I think it is preferable to the alternative.

    We have seen other times when religious communities believed just as strongly as the creationists that the Bible said things which in the end proved to be untrue. An obvious example was the geocentrism on which many scientists were persecuted during the Copernican revolution and beyond. Today we do not believe that the Bible says the earth is the center of the universe, and it clearly is not. I suspect someday we will see virtually universal agreement that the Bible does not say anything one way or the other about evolution or about Darwinism. And I suspect we will find the current debate as quaint and silly as we now view the torture and excommunication of those who suggested the sun was at the center of our solar system.

    This historical perspective leads me to my second argument against scientific creationism: the practical argument.

    As a practical matter, it seems like the goal of Christians should be to generally encourage belief in God and to avoid things which discourage belief. I believe this is the central tenet of evangelism, that we should emulate the life of Christ, the Evangelist.

    Observing history, it is clear to me that the Copernican revolution did some damage to belief in Western Europe not because Copernicus sought to sow disbelief but because the assumption of the church was that he would. By tying belief to a doctrine which was not in fact clearly indicated by scripture, the church ensured that (when the evidence came in supporting the heliocentric model) the community of Christianity was damaged far beyond what it would have been had it not taken such a dogmatic stand.

    It seems to me that, as a practical matter, we Christians have a moral obligation to avoid taking a stand on evolution which will be as damaging to our community as was anti-Copernican dogma.

    And it should be made clear this is, in fact, what most Christians believe. The vocal minority of scientific creationists may get the most press. But surveys show that many, if not most, people who believe in God (again a majority) also believe in evolution. Remember that Darwin was trained as a minister and never believed he was attacking the Bible or belief in God.

    Indeed, the head of the public effort to decode the human genome, Francis Collins, is very open about his Christianity and his belief that genomics do not in any way threaten God. Here is a quote from him:

    God is not threatened by all this, I'm happy to report. I think God thinks it's wonderful that we puny creatures are about the business of trying to understand how our instruction book works because it's a very elegant instruction book indeed.
  • Re:Nonsense by spitzak (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @10:02AM
  • Creationists are violating god's will by spitzak (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @10:11AM
  • Re:I wonder... by lambda (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @05:26AM
  • by jamiemccarthy (4847) on Thursday February 22 2001, @05:46AM (#411277) Homepage Journal
    In other news, the NEAR probe's landing on Eros finally proves, once and for all, that Copernicus' heliocentric model of the solar system was correct!

    I'm glad we can finally know for sure that Aristotle's earth-centered model [rice.edu] was wrong.

    Jamie McCarthy

  • Re:This Doesn't Disprove "Scientific Creationism" by Glytch (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:29AM
  • Re:Did anyone ever doubt it? by danbeck (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:53AM
  • Re:Americans & creationism by danbeck (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @07:00AM
  • Re:Americans & creationism by danbeck (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @08:00AM
  • Re:Did anyone ever doubt it? by danbeck (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @08:01AM
  • Re:Did anyone ever doubt it? by danbeck (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @08:07AM
  • Re:Did anyone ever doubt it? by danbeck (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @08:10AM
  • Re:Did anyone ever doubt it? by danbeck (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @08:14AM
  • Re:It doesn't prove anything. by ewhac (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @10:55AM
  • Re:This Doesn't Disprove "Scientific Creationism" by Chris Burke (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @07:12AM
  • Re:This Doesn't Disprove "Scientific Creationism" by Psiren (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @05:38AM
  • by bgarrett (6193) <garrett@memesAAAis.org minus threevowels> on Thursday February 22 2001, @05:36AM (#411289) Homepage
    Please distinguish between the "Bible-thumping zealots" and people who actually practice the tenets of Christianity while at the same time taking a reasonable viewpoint. By "reasonable" I do not mean "scientifically mainstream", however. The fact that living things change over time is quite plainly true. The fact that all DNA is constructed from the same basic building blocks is also true. The revelation that a fraction of the former estimates for human DNA are actually relevant is interesting, but ultimately it doesn't prove anything along the lines of "we are descended from bacteria". The fact that we may have genetic sequences in common with bacteria is not in itself proof; we're also composed in part from minerals like iron, and I see nobody suggesting that human beings evolved from rock. Shared components do not in and of themselves prove ancestry.
  • Almost, but not quite interesting by cluening (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:44AM
  • Re:Almost, but not quite interesting by cluening (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @07:28AM
  • What this really proves by jjr (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:40AM
  • Re:Scientific Creationism? What is it? by Art Tatum (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @01:52PM
  • Re:Did anyone ever doubt it? by FFFish (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @07:23AM
  • Re:Did anyone ever doubt it? by FFFish (Score:2) Friday February 23 2001, @10:18AM
  • Re:Did anyone ever doubt it? by DarkClown (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:25AM
  • Re:Did anyone ever doubt it? by DarkClown (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:59AM
  • Re:Did anyone ever doubt it? by DarkClown (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @10:07AM
  • by caveman (7893) on Thursday February 22 2001, @05:35AM (#411299)
    If DNA is god's signature, then all we need is his credit card number. And behold, let there be sixteen-way xeon systems! And the users did rejoice, and did feast upon the CPU cycles.
  • ag·nos·tic - n. by rtfm (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @05:55AM
  • Re:Not necessarily by Bob McCown (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @05:58AM
  • Re:Does it really prove it? by InfinityEdge (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @08:20AM
  • Re:Prepare for the toads you blasphemeres by Arrgh (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @09:15AM
  • Re:Creationism and Evolution work TOGETHER by Arrgh (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @09:19AM
  • Arrrrrrrgh! by Arrgh (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @09:28AM
  • Re:This Doesn't Disprove "Scientific Creationism" by PD (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @10:13AM
  • Re:It might even PROVE "Scientific Creationism" .. by PD (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @11:02AM
  • Re:This Doesn't Disprove "Scientific Creationism" by PD (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @07:26AM
  • Re:This Doesn't Disprove "Scientific Creationism" by PD (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @07:33AM
  • Re:This Doesn't Disprove "Scientific Creationism" by PD (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @10:58AM
  • You and the other person who replied to me are completely misunderstanding me.

    Evolution is a fact. Species change from one form to another over time. Speciation has been observed at least twice, both in the laboratory and in the wild. No one disputes that evolution occurs.

    There is a theory about how evolution occurs: It is called "The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection". That theory has a great deal of support. There is another theory out there. It is called "The Theory of Evolution through Acquired Characteristics." Otherwise known as Lamarkian Evolution. Lamarkian evolution does NOT have any support at all, and the theory is not favored by anybody now.

    Get it?

    1) Evolution is an observed fact.

    2) Scientists have come up with theories to explain the fact of evolution.

    3) The Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection is the currently supported theory.

    4) The Theory of Evolution through Acquired Characterists is not favored anymore.

    5) Both theories described evolution. Both theories were about the fact that species change over time. One theory proved useful, one did not.

    I hope that was more clear this time. As you can see, I am right. :-)
  • And just what is a creationist? by kanaka (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @09:54AM
  • Re:Some background and few remarks on evolution... by PureFiction (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @07:38AM
  • Re:Insulting by PureFiction (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @08:07AM
  • Re:Religous Bigotry by PureFiction (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @08:11AM
  • Re:If God's a programmer by PureFiction (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @08:12AM
  • Re:Um, what proof? by PureFiction (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @08:25AM
  • Re:What about virii? by PureFiction (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @08:27AM
  • Re:I hate to break it to you by PureFiction (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @08:30AM
  • Re:Christians -- evolution -- God by PureFiction (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @08:34AM
  • Re:Wildly OT by PureFiction (Score:2) Friday February 23 2001, @11:42AM
  • Re:Once again... (Score:3)

    by PureFiction (10256) on Thursday February 22 2001, @08:16AM (#411322)
    I BELIEVE that God created everything.

    Do you beleive this because you want to, or because of cold hard evidence presented to you?

    Evidence for evolution: 122,345,566 pieces of evidence.

    Evidence for creationism, aka GOD: 1 billion people attesting their faith.

    Hmmm.. which one seems more logical. A large cult of fanatics? Or maybe reprodcuble, logical scientific fat... Hard choice!
  • Sorry to knock you out of your ivory tower... by Mike Buddha (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @08:20AM
  • Re:yeah, but... by woggo (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @10:30AM
  • suggested reading: Thomas Kuhn by woggo (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @07:25AM
  • Re:yeah, but... by woggo (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @12:55PM
  • Re:yeah, but... by woggo (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @03:50PM
  • Re:yeah, but... by woggo (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @05:06PM
  • yeah, but... (Score:4)

    by woggo (11781) on Thursday February 22 2001, @06:09AM (#411329) Journal
    The real problem with this debate is that it invariably deteriorates (rapidly, even in serious articles) into evolutionists cracking jokes about Bible-thumping and fundamentalists. Now I don't agree with fundamentalists, but this pattern really annoys me, because it seems to be little more than a foil for the fact that the evolutionists don't have a falisfiable theory either.

    I will say that evolution is one of the better explanations we have today, but phlogiston [infoplease.com] was once the best explanation we had for combustion. Evolution is not falsifiable -- even if it were, no amount of science can disprove a mystical, revealed truth.

    I guess I could also bring Nietzsche and Wittgenstein's views of "science as a religion, flawed like all the others" into the fray, but I fear I will catch enough heat for this.

  • human versus mammal DNA by peter303 (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:13AM
  • Dozens of "missing links" by peter303 (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:19AM
  • beyond any serious doubt? by peter303 (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:41AM
  • Re:Darwin VS God by Heart and Soul (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:23PM
  • a little perspective... by Zog (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @12:42PM
  • '..indisputably and beyond any serious doubt'? by Prince Caspian (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:35AM
  • Re:Darwin VS God by winterstorm (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @07:09AM
  • Re:What it does prove ... by kevlar (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @08:31AM
  • Re:This Doesn't Disprove "Scientific Creationism" by kevlar (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @08:30AM
  • Re:Darwin VS God by nosferatu-man (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @07:23AM
  • Re:Not going to change any minds by ElrondHubbard (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @05:41AM
  • Star Trek by Pope Slackman (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:11AM
  • Proof by REVerence by Weasel Boy (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @09:49AM
  • Re:This Doesn't Disprove "Scientific Creationism" by ethereal (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @08:34AM
  • Re:What it does prove ... by ethereal (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @08:36AM
  • Re:This Doesn't Disprove "Scientific Creationism" by ethereal (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @12:22PM
  • Reusable Source Code... by dclydew (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:17AM
  • by Zico (14255) on Thursday February 22 2001, @07:18AM (#411347)

    No matter what side of the issue you're on, this article offered nothing to decide the matter. It didn't even look like it was trying to convince a non-believer, just a bluff to try to sound superior to "those who thump their bibles." (I just did a Google search on Caplan, it seems like that's his standard level of dialogue when he's censoring or chastizing a Christian point of view.) Why would a neutral person think that mapping the human genome decides the matter definitively? If it does, Caplan didn't even come close to showing that. And this clown actually gets paid to teach students?


    Cheers,

  • Re:Scientific Creationism? What is it? by st. augustine (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @05:52AM
  • Re:Flood Science by st. augustine (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @07:39AM
  • Re:What ARE those introns... by Cassandra (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @11:06AM
  • Re:This Doesn't Disprove "Scientific Creationism" by Cassandra (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @11:29AM
  • Re:This Doesn't Disprove "Scientific Creationism" by Cassandra (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @11:43AM
  • Re:Darwin VS God by grappler (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:41AM
  • Re:Interesting Editorial by grappler (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @08:52PM
  • Re:Not necessarily by Sloppy (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:04AM
  • What is six times nine? by Sloppy (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @08:24AM
  • [OT] size of universe by Sloppy (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:08AM
  • Re:Not a Shocker by sethg (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @09:30AM
  • Re:What ARE those introns... by sethg (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @10:12AM
  • by sethg (15187) on Thursday February 22 2001, @09:41AM (#411360) Homepage
    We have long known that we would share much in common with other creatures. I don't think any scientific creationist has ever denied this. Why should God use more complex tools to create life when so much of it is reusable? Perhaps as a software developer, I see the inherent need for reuse of code whenever possible that others might not. All this shows is that evolution would have had to do less work to get to the point that complex life has gotten to. It is in no way the smoking gun that proves the theory.
    One way to prove the theory of evolution (or at least, demonstrate that it has a much higher probability of truth than any competing scientific theory out there) is to show examples of bad designs that can only be explained by evolutionary constraints:
    In parthenogenetic lizards of the genus Cnenidophorus, only females exist. Fertility in these lizards is increased when another lizard engages in pseudomale behavior and attempts to copulate with the first lizard. These lizards evolved from a sexual species so this behaviour makes some sense. The hormones for reproduction were likely originally stimulated by sexual behaviour. Now, although they are parthenogenetic, simulated sexual behaviour increases fertility. Fake sex in a parthenogenetic species doesn't sound like good design to me.

    In African locust, the nerve cells that connect to the wings originate in the abdomen, even though the wings are in the thorax. This strange "wiring" is the result of the abdomen nerves being co-opted for use in flight. A good designer would not have flight nerves travel down the ventral nerve cord past their target, then backtrack through the organism to where they are needed. Using more materials than necessary is not good design.

    In human males, the urethra passes right through the prostate gland, a gland very prone to infection and subsequent enlargement. This blocks the urethra and is a very common medical problem in males. Putting a collapsible tube through an organ that is very likely to expand and block flow in this tube is not good design. Any moron with half a brain (or less) could design male "plumbing" better.

    Perhaps one of the most famous examples of how evolution does not produced designed, but "jury-rigged" traits is the panda's thumb. If you count the digits on a panda's paw you will count six. Five curl around and the "thumb" is an opposable digit. The five fingers are made of the same bones our (humans and most other vertebrates) fingers are made of. The thumb is constructed by enlarging a few bones that form the wrist in other species. The muscles that operate it are "rerouted" muscles present in the hand of vertabrates (see S.J. Gould book "The Panda's Thumb" for an engaging discussion of this case). Again, this is not good design.

    For more in this vein, see Evidence for Jury-Rigged Design in Nature [talkorigins.org].

    Of course, you could argue that an Intelligent Designer created all these species in an apparently jury-rigged fashion for a different purpose, but what is that purpose?
    --

  • You're right, God is the ultimate cop-out by alienmole (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @07:52AM
  • No God required by alienmole (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:51AM
  • Re:No God required by alienmole (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @07:38AM
  • Re:Conceptually Equivalent by alienmole (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @07:46AM
  • Re:The next equivalence by alienmole (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @08:24AM
  • Re:Hawking-Hartle No-Boundary Universe by alienmole (Score:2) Friday February 23 2001, @08:28AM
  • You almost certainly won't see this... by alienmole (Score:2) Friday February 23 2001, @01:49PM
  • by alienmole (15522) on Thursday February 22 2001, @07:22AM (#411368)
    But from the big-bang onwards we don't require from a god to explain the Universe.

    This brief summary [pbs.org] describes Hawking & Hartle's proposal for a no-boundary universe, in which the issue of what happened before the big bang is taken care of with some neat mathematics. The bottom line is that the progression of time from the big bang as a "beginning" is just something we perceive from within the universe - looked at from an appropriate conceptual/mathematical perspective, there's no problem.

    In this model, what happened before the big bang is a little analogous to the problem of "where does all the water go that falls off the edge of the horizon?" was when we believed the earth was flat. The imagined problem disappeared once we comprehended the larger structure.

  • Re:Darwin VS God by Royster (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:34AM
  • Re:Darwin VS God by Royster (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @09:29AM
  • Re:What ARE those introns... by Trelane (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @07:46AM
  • In response... by jwriney (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:58AM
  • Noooo! by sharkey (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @05:34AM
  • Re:This Doesn't Disprove "Scientific Creationism" by CokeBear (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @09:06AM
  • Re:Biologists are weird by thefallen (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @10:45PM
  • Re:First things first. . . by thefallen (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @10:47PM
  • Won't change anyones mind by rw2 (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @05:41AM
  • Re:Won't change anyones mind by rw2 (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:46AM
  • Re:Won't change anyones mind by rw2 (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @07:27AM
  • Re:Won't change anyones mind by rw2 (Score:2) Monday February 26 2001, @10:15AM
  • Re:Proof of Evolution? by Fly (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @05:50AM
  • Re:all conclusion and no evidence... by technoCon (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @08:43PM
  • Finally They Get A Clue by ckuske (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @05:52AM
  • Re:Not necessarily by Black Parrot (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @05:37AM
  • Re:This article confirms that scientists are troll by Black Parrot (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @05:43AM
  • Alas by Black Parrot (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @05:34AM
  • by Black Parrot (19622) on Thursday February 22 2001, @05:41AM (#411387)
    > But not only could it be God's creative signature but also an "easter egg" left in our programming to baffle scientists for millenia.

    And the easter egg is a pop-up that says
    ALL YOUR BASE PAIRS ARE BELONG TO ME

    --
  • Re:Does it really prove it? by Darth Maul (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:41AM
  • Give a man a break. . . by Salgak1 (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:00AM
  • by Salgak1 (20136) <salgak@EEEspeake ... inus threevowels> on Thursday February 22 2001, @05:30AM (#411390) Homepage
    Talking about science disproving a religious belief, or vice versa, it 100% grade-AAA bovine excrement. They aren't really in competition: science relies on the repeatable experiment as its' basis, and religion relies on articles of faith as its' basis. It's not that they're incompatible, it's that they're asking totally different questions.

    Science asks: How ???
    Religion asks: Why ???

    And now, I'll sit back, and await the flames from both the pure-science fanatics and the pure-religion fanatics. . .

  • Re:This Doesn't Disprove "Scientific Creationism" by ChadN (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:04AM
  • by ChadN (21033) on Thursday February 22 2001, @05:59AM (#411392)
    Everything is not based on faith... Take my word for it.
  • Re:First things first. . . by angelo (Score:1) Friday February 23 2001, @02:42AM
  • Re:man...you have ZERO understanding by angelo (Score:1) Monday March 05 2001, @02:17AM
  • Re:Almost by flimflam (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @10:25AM
  • Re:Puh-lease by flimflam (Score:1) Friday February 23 2001, @10:38AM
  • Re:Jumping the gun by flimflam (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @10:30AM
  • You might want to pick another example by flimflam (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @11:06AM
  • Evidence not Proof by trongey (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @05:47AM
  • Re:Darwin VS God by trongey (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:40AM
  • Re:Scientific Creationism? What is it? by trongey (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:49AM
  • Re:Scientific Creationism? What is it? by trongey (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @09:45AM
  • all conclusion and no evidence... by GI Jones (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @09:50AM
  • still a theory *sigh* by wemmick (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @05:29AM
  • Darwin VS God (Score:5)

    by Numeric (22250) on Thursday February 22 2001, @05:41AM (#411405) Homepage Journal
    To play Devil's Advocate:

    I took a Darwin class in college and debated the issue Darwin VS God, where I interviewed a Catholic priest as a primary source, as well, as read through some Church documents. From what I gathered and remember, the Church states, God began the process of creating humans (The presence of a soul in humans separates man/woman from animals). In other words, he didn't say "Hocus Pocus, I am going to pull Adam and Eve from my magical hat." The "process of creation" could be something quite similar to Darwin's evolution theory. The Biblical tale of Adam and Eve should be interpreted as "folklore". So this story doesn't fully address nor fulfill "Creation vs. Evolution" debate in the present day. God and Darwin can be both correct.
  • Re:This Doesn't Disprove "Scientific Creationism" by Moofie (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:22AM
  • Re:Define "correct" by Moofie (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:28AM
  • Re:Darwin VS God by Moofie (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:29AM
  • Re:Creationists won't care. by Moofie (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:42AM
  • Re:Does it really prove it? by Moofie (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:45AM
  • Re:Creationists won't care. by Moofie (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @09:12AM
  • Re:Creationists won't care. by Moofie (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @09:22AM
  • Re:Define "correct" by G-funk (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @01:38PM
  • Age of the earth and universe by mustard (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:00AM
  • Re:Not a Shocker by noims (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @05:58AM
  • Not going to change any minds by SnowDog_2112 (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @05:30AM
  • God Created Evolution by PantherX (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:47AM
  • Re:Define "correct" by GregWebb (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:26AM
  • Holy Slashdot Nerve Hit by JMax (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @12:35PM
  • Re:Creationists won't care. by woodja (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:44AM
  • Re:Creationists won't care. by woodja (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @04:06PM
  • Not necessarily (Score:5)

    by 0xdeadbeef (28836) on Thursday February 22 2001, @05:31AM (#411422) Homepage Journal
    I mean, God could have been one half-assed programmer.

    --
    Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
  • Re:Almost by 31eq (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:22AM
  • Re:Darwin VS God by 31eq (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:26AM
  • As Incompatible As It Gets by IntelliTubbie (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:48PM
  • by IntelliTubbie (29947) on Thursday February 22 2001, @05:29AM (#411426)
    All the DNA evidence in the world can't disprove "scientific creationism." In fact, nothing can disprove scientific creationism. It's unfalsifiable, and therefore there's nothing "scientific" about it. A creationist could simply say that God chose to create us with DNA containing similar components from other living things. And who are we to question His choice? Maybe these virtually identical strands of DNA are God's creative signature -- his way of demonstrating that all life is connected to its Creator. I don't believe it, but hey, you can't disprove it.

    Cheers,
    IT
  • "Its" is a possessive pronoun. by _archangel (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:44AM
  • My mistake by _archangel (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @05:49PM
  • by VSc (30374) on Thursday February 22 2001, @06:13AM (#411429) Homepage

    Account for my English it's my second language. Don't pick on words.

    Some background:

    First, I think we all agree that solid science relies on facts (or, emperical data) and comes up with a plausible hypothesis to try to explain their relationships (like, cause and effect, interdependence etc) and once the hypothesis is shown to predict relyably the outcome of a certain process, the law is stated with a theory to support it (that is, a 'law' simply states how things shoud work - 'unsupported body falls until it meets the ground' and a 'theory' explains the mechanism). So, we have the distinction between 'facts', 'hypothesis', 'law' and 'theory' layed out here.

    Clear minded science, obviously, should look at evidence first and form a theory basing on that.

    'Facts', in turn, is something which can be observed and repeated.

    So, on to the topic: here's how the evolution theory roughly goes:

    • Everything started with a Big Bang (infinitely dense 'cosmic egg' less then a protom in size exploded into out universe)
    • Basic chemical elements were formed
    • With the course of time matter formed itself into galaxies, stars and planets
    • On earth, the chemical elements of primordial soup, under the influence of radiation and electrical discharges, formed more complex ones, which in turn started to self-replicate
    • ...and evolved into first living cell
    • ...which in turn evolved into more complex organisms
    • and on to the humans, in a process called 'macroevolution' (as opposed to 'microevolution', which goes on presently within the boundaries of spieces)

    Correct me if I'm wrong on this outline (well that was a rough one anyway).

    An interesting observation: there is no factual prove of any of these steps having taken place . (the obligatory disclaimer: read before you flame).

    • Big Bang: cannot be repeated or observed. Hence, it's not domain of science in the first place (yes you can speculate and theorize, but science deals with facts). Besides, you know what this 'cosmic egg' is? An ultimate black hole. Black holes are not known to explode. Instead they collapse in themselves because of own gravitational pull.
    • Spontaneous formation (not proven for same reasons - impossibility to observe): oft-quoted second law of thermodynamics: chaos increases. Big Bang is a gross violation of it, as is formation of cosmic bodies and self-organization of matter.
    • Imagine an explosion. Stuff goes in all directions, approx. the same speed. Because in case of Big Bang, there's nothing to hit, the matter would fly in all directions forever, without hitting anything and without stopping, without forming anything. To particles cannot collide if they have the same speed.
    • Generation of more complex chemical compounds. Not proven. Generation of amino-acids from the elements in primordial soup is chemically impossible. First: water is deadly for their stability (if those *were* ever formed, they would instanteniously dissolve). Second: amino-acids are composed entirely of 'right-hand' compounds (chirality: elements having same chemical characteristics but being mirror image of each other). So, if needed compounds were indeed formed by chance, the result would be 50-50, which would cancel the whole reaction altogether.
    • Abiogenesis - creation of life from non-life. Not proven.
    • Macroevolution (development of more complex organisms from simpler ones): sorry, not proven. First, there are no 'intermediate' forms found. Every single one is complete and functional. Darwinism states that evolution is a gradual process, taking millions of years. Hence, almost 100% of fossils should be intermediate forms, with clear links. The links are missing.
    • In case with man, the fossils which are credited as being intermediate forms are few and far between. Besides the fact that they are reconstructed from just a few bones, they all are recognized to be whether an ape or a human.
    • Use of microevolution as explanation for macroevolution is a stretch. Microevolution goes on within spieces, on existing genetical material, while macroevolution supposedly creates new spieces. There's no fossil or evidential proof for that.

    Well here were few suspicions about the theory of evolution which so many hold as fact today. I tried to show that every step is taken on faith and is not proven scientifically (e.g. with facts) but instead explained away with more theories or ignored.

    The suggestion is to rather have no theory at all than a lousy one, which is based solely on naturalistic world view of most of scientific community and s.c. 'public'. The fact that 'we are here after all' does not prove evolution yet.

    I invite discussion.

    __________________________________________

  • old joke by Wah (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @10:25AM
  • Re:What ARE those introns... by Catullus (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @10:36AM
  • Re:This Doesn't Disprove "Scientific Creationism" by ryanr (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @07:51AM
  • What? by Shotgun (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:05AM
  • Maybe God is a good programmer by rana (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @08:54PM
  • Re:This Doesn't Disprove "Scientific Creationism" by dublin (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @11:49AM
  • Re:Only bad science requires faith. by dublin (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @11:58AM
  • Re:Darwin VS God by dublin (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @01:33PM
  • Re:Darwin VS God by dublin (Score:2) Saturday February 24 2001, @05:07AM
  • The straight scoop from God! by Izaak (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:10AM
  • Old news by gcoates (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:11AM
  • Re:It doesn't prove anything. by tommyk (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @11:15AM
  • Re:First Evolution by rking (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @12:51PM
  • by Janthkin (32289) on Thursday February 22 2001, @05:33AM (#411443) Homepage
    The story, I'm afraid, was completely useless. "This proves evolution!" they say. "These discoveries are the end of the argument!" they trumpet. But the story doesn't really explain HOW this result marks the end of creationism. Anyone seen a good scientific paper on this yet, or must we wait until they get published? Before alienating millions of fundamentalist Christians, it'd be nice to have the facts....
  • Re:Linnaeus Vindicated by Valdrax (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @07:20AM
  • Evolution semantics by Valdrax (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @08:00AM
  • by Valdrax (32670) on Thursday February 22 2001, @07:05AM (#411446)
    Oh, but in many ways it is a religious belief.

    The very fact that we share proteins and cellular structures in common with bacteria dictates that we must share genes in common with them. We've long known, for example, that mouse biochemistry is very similar to our own. Logically, we must share a great majority of genes with them. That the tools used to make similar structures are similar in no way denies divine creation of these things.

    We have long known that we would share much in common with other creatures. I don't think any scientific creationist has ever denied this. Why should God use more complex tools to create life when so much of it is reusable? Perhaps as a software developer, I see the inherent need for reuse of code whenever possible that others might not. All this shows is that evolution would have had to do less work to get to the point that complex life has gotten to. It is in no way the smoking gun that proves the theory.

    Let us remember what so many in the scientific establishment attempt to deny: evolution is nothing but a theory. It is a good one, and it is the only one that makes sense if you posit the lack of existance of a creating force. However the fanatical willingness to overlook flaws in the model is just as much a matter of religious (atheist) dogma as some of the twisted logic of some of its opponents.

    The problem comes when one puts their faith in the belief that there is no God. Rather than accept the possibility that they are wrong and respect the beliefs of others, dedicated evolutionists will attempt to push their doctrine as fact, much as this author has done.

    In truth, these people will hold their doctrine of evolution to less standards of proof than they would hold a religious man's beliefs. Though as religious man is treated a fool for believing in a being that he has never observed, evolution, which has never been observed, is not treated as rigorously. In fact, when confronted with gaps in the fossil records, evolutionists countered with the puncuated equilibrium theory. This theory holds that the reason for the gaps is that evolution suddenly happens across all species for a short period of time and then stops for millions of years. Brilliant! Now, if we cannot observe evolution it is not disproven because it may never happen in our lifetimes, or, indeed, in the lifetime of all of human civilization.

    This gleeful "slam dunk" article that revels in taunting an evolutionist philosophical rivals is one of the worst examples of athiest zealotry that I've seen. In his rush to say, "I told you so," the author misses the simple fact that a divine creator could've used common tools in the creation of life just as easily as random luck. This is no proof, and this antagonistic little chestbeating is not worthy to be called news. Until we can see evolution definitively happen in a higher life form, we cannot accept the theory of evolution as proven no matter what other incidental evidence encourages support of the theory.

    (Incidentally, I'm a theistic evolutionist. I believe very strongly that evolution is true, but that it was guided by a divine plan. However, as someone who does not assume that there is no God, I have no turned a blind eye to flaws in evolutionist doctine. I believe that they will be plugged one day, but I am not willing to outright dismiss the idea that evolution is the only possibility.)
  • of course from man's point of view by DirkGently (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @07:00AM
  • Re: A good book on the subject... by SpinyNorman (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @08:32AM
  • Re: A good book on the subject... by SpinyNorman (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @07:56AM
  • Re:No, it's BAD news for darwinists by SpinyNorman (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @08:18AM
  • Re: A good book on the subject... by SpinyNorman (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @09:50AM
  • Re: A good book on the subject... by SpinyNorman (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @10:58AM
  • Re: A good book on the subject... by SpinyNorman (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @02:44PM
  • Re:i·di·ot - n. by PeelBoy (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:57AM
  • Re:i·di·ot - n. by PeelBoy (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @10:11AM
  • Re:i·di·ot - n. by PeelBoy (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @01:21PM
  • debate.slashdot.org by ErghArgh! (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @10:25AM
  • Re:Does it really prove it? by revscat (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @07:02AM
  • Re:No. NAACP exists solely to profit from racism. by el_chicano (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @09:25AM
  • Re:Teaching Religion in The Melting Pot vs. Canada by el_chicano (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @10:54AM
  • Re:Did anyone ever doubt it? by el_chicano (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @11:06AM
  • Re:Less Opportuntity in Texas than in Mexico? Hehe by el_chicano (Score:1) Saturday February 24 2001, @10:33AM
  • Re:Did anyone ever doubt it? by el_chicano (Score:1) Sunday February 25 2001, @04:15AM
  • Both Sides are Arrogant and Unyielding by Skynet (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @07:42AM
  • Re:Albert Einstein... by Skynet (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @08:16AM
  • Re:No, it's BAD news for darwinists by Kukuman (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @10:18AM
  • Conclusions and no evidence indeed by jamesc (Score:1) Friday February 23 2001, @08:24AM
  • Once again... by sddefrag (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @07:42AM
  • Re:WHAT A BURDEN FOR MOSES... by sddefrag (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @07:49AM
  • Re:Christians -- evolution -- God by sddefrag (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @07:59AM
  • Re: A good book on the subject... by sddefrag (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @08:07AM
  • Re:Once again... by sddefrag (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @08:37AM
  • Re:Christians -- evolution -- God by sddefrag (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @09:18AM
  • Re: A good book on the subject... by sddefrag (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @09:28AM
  • Re:What is a Theory and how does it apply to Evolu by sddefrag (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @09:52AM
  • Re:Adaptation YES, Evolution.. Missing Link.. by sddefrag (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @09:59AM
  • Re: A good book on the subject... by sddefrag (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @10:10AM
  • Re: A good book on the subject... by sddefrag (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @12:46PM
  • On Stanley Miller by DoctaWatson (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @09:52AM
  • Real trolls. by winse (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @10:01AM
  • Doesn't Seem Like 'Proof' To Me by MisterBad (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @03:30PM
  • Imperfection by kettch (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:46AM
  • DUH by kettch (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @08:07AM
  • Creation by HydroCarbon10 (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:50AM
  • Re:Did anyone ever doubt it? by roca (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @08:37AM
  • Re:Darwin VS God (Catholics vs. Christians) by roca (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @09:23AM
  • Re:You can't beat ignorance with arrogance by roca (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @09:42AM
  • Re:This Doesn't Disprove "Scientific Creationism" by wiredog (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @05:42AM
  • Re:ag·nos·tic - n. by wiredog (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:35AM
  • Re:This Doesn't Disprove "Scientific Creationism" by EasyTarget (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @07:15AM
  • Asimov by Skyfire (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:38AM
  • Re:Does it really prove it? by johnathan (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @08:12AM
  • Creationism is Impossible to Disprove by Sammy76 (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @05:37AM
  • Re:yeah, but... by td (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @12:03PM
  • Re:yeah, but... by td (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @03:28PM
  • Re:yeah, but... by td (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @04:41PM
  • xjesus by cainem (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @10:09AM
  • What this article is going to spark... by ChozSun (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @11:38AM
  • Re:What ARE those introns... by Hard_Code (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @07:37AM
  • Re:Some background and few remarks on evolution... by elb (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @12:34PM
  • Re:Does it really prove it? by TheHornedOne (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:42AM
  • Re:Scientific Creationism? What is it? by TheHornedOne (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:45AM
  • Re:Did anyone ever doubt it? by Betcour (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @07:22AM
  • Re:Did anyone ever doubt it? by Betcour (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @07:27AM
  • Re:Not so fast. . . by iamriley (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @09:51AM
  • Did anyone ever doubt it? by omarius (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @05:28AM
  • Re:This Doesn't Disprove "Scientific Creationism" by Tackhead (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @07:36AM
  • Re:What ARE those introns... by Tackhead (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @07:58AM
  • Re:Not going to change any minds by Tackhead (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @08:26AM
  • Re:Prediction by Myddrin (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:31AM
  • Re:enough already by Myddrin (Score:2) Friday February 23 2001, @11:19AM
  • Re:This Doesn't Disprove "Scientific Creationism" by jovlinger (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @09:07AM
  • Re:This Doesn't Disprove "Scientific Creationism" by jovlinger (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:00AM
  • Re:This Doesn't Disprove "Scientific Creationism" by jovlinger (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @08:34AM
  • Re:Proof of Evolution? by ErikZ (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:44AM
  • Re:This Doesn't Disprove "Scientific Creationism" by tak amalak (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:57AM
  • Re:First things first. . . by homebru (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @05:59AM
  • Re:Sure we Evolved! by fizban (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:55AM
  • Re:Almost, but not quite interesting by fizban (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @07:19AM
  • Padding by volpe (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @07:30AM
  • Good grief by volpe (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @07:54AM
  • *Still* a theory? Yeah right. by volpe (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @08:05AM
  • Re:Good grief *puzzled* by volpe (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @12:18PM
  • Re:Star Trek by Wog (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @04:11PM
  • Re:Proofs and Conclusions by mozkill (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @07:00AM
  • Re:Not a Shocker by bungalow (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @02:22PM
  • Re:This proves nothing of the sort. by bungalow (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @02:35PM
  • Re:But what's the point of this article? by cetan (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @08:13AM
  • Re:Almost by jtdubs (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:32AM
  • Re:Darwin VS God by jtdubs (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:43AM
  • Re:Darwin VS God by jtdubs (Score:1) Thursday February 22 2001, @07:16AM
  • Re:Darwin VS God by jtdubs (Score:2) Thursday February 22 2001, @06:12AM
  • Viruses by