quote:

---

Jan. 7, 2006. 01:00 AM
JAY INGRAM

It seems that scientists are taking the offensive in the controversial issue of evolution versus intelligent design. And it's none too soon.

Intelligent design (ID), the creationism of the 21st century, has grabbed headlines, as school boards across the United States considered adding it to high school science courses or textbooks, on the pretext that it represents an alternative to the Darwinian theory of evolution.

But the ideas are not alternatives. Of all the coverage of intelligent design, very little actually explored the differences between ID and science. Now, those crucial differences are being highlighted in recent articles in Science, Natural History and Skeptical Inquirer.

It really all comes down to evidence. A scientific theory, like evolution, stands or falls on the basis of the evidence gathered for or against it. ID claims to have collected evidence against evolution, but those claims — how can something as complex as this have evolved by random mutations? — are mere words. The proponents offer no detailed scenarios for the creation of complex living systems, except that some unidentified "designer" must have had a hand in it. But, there are no artist's initials, no trademark of creation, just the excuse that evolution couldn't have generated it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
I was hoping that you, in particular PB, would give us a very scientific EM-telurics tutorial to explain the light show. My bad. Carry on with the witch hunt.

---

[ 08 January 2006: Message edited by: Papal Bull ]

I do believe that "Evo Devo", or the emerging science of evolutionary developmental biology, is an exciting development.

quote:

---

No, I think this is a thread where know-it-all little snots beat their hairless little chests in trying to cadge someone with slightly different opinions into what will inevitably be a futile lesson in mud-slinging.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by aRoused:
Yeah, I got your Homo heidelbergensis right here..

---

quote:

---

Homo heidelbergensis (nicknamed "Goliath") is an extinct species of the genus Homo and the direct ancestor of Homo neanderthalensis in Europe, while similar "Archaic Homo sapiens" found in Africa (ie. Homo rhodesiensis and Homo sapiens idaltu) are thought to be direct ancestors of modern Homo sapiens. Homo antecessor is likely a direct ancestor living 750,000 years ago evolving into Homo heidelbergensis appearing in the fossil record living roughly 600,000 to 250,000 years ago through various areas of Europe. (...) The species was tall, 1.8 m (6 ft.) on average, and more muscular than modern humans.

---

Natural selection, properly understood, is the antithesis of chance

quote:

---

The beauty of Darwinian evolution is that it explains the very improbable, by gradual degrees. It starts from primeval simplicity (relatively easy to understand) and works up, by plausibly small steps, to complex entities whose genesis, by any non-gradual process, would be too improbable for serious contemplation.

Design is a real alternative, but only if the designer is himself the product of an escalatory process such as evolution by natural selection, either on this planet or elsewhere. There may be alien life forms so advanced that we would worship them as gods. But they too must ultimately be explained by gradual escalation.

Gods that exist ab initio are ruled out by the argument from improbability, even more surely than are spontaneously erupting eyes or elbow joints.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ronb:
Dude. You're out of your depth here. in "Darwinian" terms, there is absolutely no physical difference between homo sapiens sapiens of 50,000 years ago and us. Zero. Nada. Absolutely no discernable new traits have popped up since then. While it is possible to break one's neck at a standstill, it isn't likely.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

ronbdude, explain to us how dinosaurs roamed the earth for over a hundred million years and didn't so much as develop and opposing claw or learn to knit some sweaters. Cats were at the top of the food chain for 40 million, and all they can do is meow and eat tweetie birds. We're here 5 million, and we're landing on the moon, splitting atoms and haunting internet forums. What's up with that, genus dude ?.

---

Fidel, you obviously have no understanding of evolution.

Perhaps you might consider reading up on it a bit to bring you up to speed.

[ 11 January 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

Your question:

quote:

---

What's up with that, genus dude ?.

---

The answer: Nothing. Nothing in what you posted has anything at all to do with evolution.

A book reference would only have done something for someone who was interested in learning about evolution. I admit I threw the reference in there just to momentarily derail your thought processes.

You are manifestly not interested in evolution, nor any book that may be enlightening, and in fact did your best to derail this thread with inane comments and posting of meaningless pictures.

[ 13 January 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]