OT- Evolution

[Sanjuro]

For as long as it lasts:
sometimes I challenge posts on this forum. I will try never to attack the poster.
If Creationism is to be taught in science classes, churches should be giving readings from Darwin...

That's the same kind of argument of asking someone the question, "When did you stop beating your wife?"

With all due respect, I disagree. There is a religious-led argument to use science classes to teach a religious POV with NO scientific evidence: balance would require giving science the same access to the religious platform.

[Fusilier]

You should teach each of the theories EQUALLY. If you teach one theory, you should teach the others along with it.

This isn't correct. Only one of these is a theory, and its evolution. In science a theory is not used in the same fashion as common speech. It doesn't mean a guess or a hunch.

In science, a theory is an explanation of facts. In that sense, evolution is both a theory and fact. Creation has no facts, therefore it is not a theory - it's what we call an untested hypothesis.

Theories also must be falsifiable and with evolution it is, and creation isn't.

Remember, gravity is "just" a theory.

Evolution does happen, but there is evidence that 'human evolution' from the various hominds are actually false since many of the hominds that we are suppose to have evoloved from, actually existed at the same time as homo sapiens sapiens.

Ahh... you do realize that evolution is not a ladder? It is not linear. Of course they existed at the same time or evolution wouldn't be possible. You don't outgrown an evolutionary path.

[Raellus]

I am a practicing Christian with a degree in anthropology. I am also a public school [history] teacher. I like to think that I am a thoughtful, well educated, rational person of faith.

Evolution is a theory, but one for which a lot of scientific evidence exists.

Creationism, on the other hand, is a belief. It doesn't really meet the criteria of being a theory because it can't, at present, be tested at all.

Intelligent Design is a theory for which very little, if any, hard scientific evidence exists [yet].

Does that mean that there is no God or that he/she/it did not design the universe? Not necessarily.

Should Evolution be taught in public schools? Yes. It should be presented as a theory for which much evidence currently exists.

Should Creationism be taught in public schools? In a world religions class, sure. In a science class, no, not until compelling scientific evidence comes to light.

[pmulcahy11b]

If you're going to teach Christian creation myths in school alongside evolution, and remain Constitutional, then you have to teach ALL creation myths. Every last one of them. That's a ridiculous mess, as is choosing one religion's creation myth and forcing it on all kids.

That's my say. Out here.

[95th Rifleman]

A friend of mine has a saying about evolution, it's tongue and cheek and very British so my American friends, please don't be offended.

"If Evolution is true, why does America still exist?"

Jokes aside, I'm a pagan (I follow Nordic tradition). Being a member of a polytheistic faith gives me a different, more open, mindset than the monotheistic big three. We acknowledge that our traditions, myths and sagas are not literal truth, but a different kind of truth.

Did Odin really hang from the tree of life, on his own spear, for nine days and nights to learn wisdom? Is this truth? maybe, maybe not. What is true is the moral that all tings must be earned, that wisdom can not be attained easily or without sacrifice, this is truth.

We take this attitude to other religions, other creation myths and sagas. We don't see them as literal truth but encourage followers of those faiths to see the moral truth within their faith.

Evolution isn't a faith, it's science. In the UK it is taught in science class while the religous stuf is taught in R.E, we prefer it this way. Allot of British people find the religous extremism in Amerian christianity to be very, well, silly.

[simonmark6]

Not all religious extremity in Christianity comes from America and not all American Christians are extremists, I've seen a lot of strange ideas come out of sects here too, most of the "American Extremist" myths come from uneven reporting rather than truth.

When I was younger I was involved in a group called Operation Friendship and I had the privileged to visit with several American families. All had a quiet, gentle faith and all were among the most rational and tolerant people I have ever met.

I agree, however, that Evolution belongs in the Science class and Creationism is part of the Christian belief system that in schools belongs in the Religious Studies classroom.

[Legbreaker]

I agree, however, that Evolution belongs in the Science class and Creationism is part of the Christian belief system that in schools belongs in the Religious Studies classroom.

Absolutely agree with that. Personally the best description for me would be Agnostic with Atheist leanings - until I can see some cold hard facts and evidence of a higher power, I'll go with physics, chemistry, etc all the way. Yes, it would be nice if there was something after death, but since nobody can actually prove it, I'll just content myself with the decades I know I've had and hope to have in the future before snuffing it.

Humans are animals. We exist simply to procreate and continue the species, or more specifically, our individual line of the species, just like every other living organism in the universe. Just from a logical "continuation of the species" standpoint, it makes more sense for evolution to be correct than any other philosophy.

Sure, teach creationism as an alternate viewpoint, but without evidence there's no way it should be given any more weight in the syllabus than say the works of Shakespeare or Impressionist art. At best it should be taught as a part of history classes as a way people thought and how it influences today's society, right alongside sun worship and the Aztec human sacrifice.

[Targan]

Wow. Reading the posts in this thread has honestly been a joy. Thank you, above posters.

I am an atheist and I am very strongly of the view that in a democratic country with freedom of religion, religion should be kept entirely out of government, judicial processes and the science curriculum in education. Creationism, intelligent design, they are fine to be taught in the home, in churches, even in religious studies classes in schools (as long as those classes aren't compulsory). But I'd fight to my last breath to prevent any children of mine being forced to attend classes where myths are taught as facts.

I don't want to see any religious symbolism in government or judicial institutions. I have no issue with people believing in any kind of mysticism they like in the privacy of their own homes or in churches and other houses of worship. Just keep it out of public, taxpayer-funded institutions.

[Fusilier]

Jokes aside, I'm a pagan (I follow Nordic tradition). We acknowledge that our traditions, myths and sagas are not literal truth, but a different kind of truth.

Not the truth? Don't be so sure...

http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/7883/memesodinkillsicegiants.jpg

[B.T.]

Not the truth? Don't be so sure...



:D

Now I'll have to get these coffee drops out of my keyboard!

[Cdnwolf]

There is a third option.... we are all a scientific experiment by aliens. It would explain the giant leap forward in evolution that scientist can't explain about our brain size doubling in one generation. I like the ending of Battlestar Galactica and how they were responsible for the rise of Homo Sapien species.

[atiff]

There is a fourth option - we are all figments of our imaginations, plugged into the Matrix.
:P

[Webstral]

I like the ending of Battlestar Galactica and how they were responsible for the rise of Homo Sapien species.

You liked the ending of BSG... It's on now. Oh, it's on now.

[pmulcahy11b]

Or the 2001 version -- aliens put a supercomputer we later called TMA-0 on the earth that altered our ancestor's DNA.

[Cpl. Kalkwarf]

Evolution is just a theory. Speculation and hypothesis based upon assumptions, and some known facts (that are occasionally updated when new info is discovered). We have not been around long enough to really notice any major evolution.

If man descended from apes why are apes still around? Do things evolve?

As far as the Big Bang theory well if you want me to believe that something came from nothing, that sounds like quite a leap of faith to me :P

I live for the now, and tomorrow. I learn from the mistakes of yesterday. I don't worry about the details too much. That's my philosophy of life.

Is there a god or divine being or lots of them, don't hurt to pray and believe they might be right. And if they are wrong then just consider it a bit of oddly directed time that may or may not have been put to better use.

Evolution and Creationism are both Theories in that they require some belief in that not all the facts are known or proven.

just my thoughts on it.

Do I believe in God, sure. I talk to him all the time. Do I believe in science? yup you betcha. Creationism or Evolution? I think they are both right and wrong as far as which parts are true and which are not, heck guess we will find out eventually. Maybe not in out lifetimes or heck it might be the next life if there is one. :D

I have seen just as many close minded scientists as I have closed minded religious zealots;) (its funny how the seem awfully familiar from the outside.;):p

[pmulcahy11b]

Evolution is just a theory. Speculation and hypothesis based upon assumptions, and some known facts (that are occasionally updated when new info is discovered). We have not been around long enough to really notice any major evolution.

If man descended from apes why are apes still around? Do things evolve?



By those standards, everything is a just a theory -- including whether your or I even exist.

We notice evolution every time we have to develop a new flu vaccine or a drug-resistant strain of a disease pops up -- the viruses and bacteria have evolved to adapt to existing methods to wipe them out.

Man didn't descend from apes, both evolved from a common ancestor that existed long before. The evolutionary branches "split" long before there were either apes or men; their branches never "crossed" in the first place.

Just trying to clarifying a few things. Evolution doesn't work the way most people think -- species don't really "descend" from one another, they just change to adapt to the prevailing biological and climatological conditions at the time. No, that's not really right either -- species don't deliberately change to adapt, they acquire a set of random mutations that allow them, step by step, to better fit into their niche.

And, as any good scientist will admit, any current theory is subject to change or even be thrown out completely at any time -- such is the nature of learning and science.

[Matt W]

Evolution is only a problem if you're American. No other nation requires conservative politicians to deny the "theory" of evolution. Even the Vatican is OK with the "theory" of evolution - just like they cope with the "theory" of gravity

[pmulcahy11b]

I want a taco...

[ArmySGT.]

If you never had it before......... Tastes like chicken.

[pmulcahy11b]

If you never had it before......... Tastes like chicken.

Which one? The Taco, or the Theory of Evolution?:D

[ArmySGT.]

Which one? The Taco, or the Theory of Evolution?:D

Theory of Evolution. No one knows what the meat in the taco is.

[mikeo80]

I am requesting a cease fire.

Each person's belief is exactly that. That belief belongs to that person.

I have my own series of beliefs. They belong to me. Right or wrong as others may interpret them, they are mine. I am not going to get into my beliefs, because that would be adding fuel to the fire that is this thread.

So, please, no more. Let's get back to T2K. That is a universe we all have agreed to inhabit in one way or another.

My $0.02

Mike

[Targan]

We notice evolution every time we have to develop a new flu vaccine or a drug-resistant strain of a disease pops up -- the viruses and bacteria have evolved to adapt to existing methods to wipe them out.

Man didn't descend from apes, both evolved from a common ancestor that existed long before. The evolutionary branches "split" long before there were either apes or men; their branches never "crossed" in the first place.

Just trying to clarifying a few things. Evolution doesn't work the way most people think -- species don't really "descend" from one another, they just change to adapt to the prevailing biological and climatological conditions at the time. No, that's not really right either -- species don't deliberately change to adapt, they acquire a set of random mutations that allow them, step by step, to better fit into their niche.

Yes, yes and yes. Good descriptions there, Paul.

We can travel to the Galapagos Islands today and see the same things that Charles Darwin saw. He practised science in a modern, empirical way. He observed something for which there was no scientific explanation and developed a theory to explain it.

We humans use some of the mechanisms of evolution to modify animals and plants to our own ends. It's called selective breeding. All of our modern food crops, nearly all of our domestic animals, have been heavily modified through animal and plant husbandry to display characteristics we find useful.

Broadly speaking, that's how evolution works too. Living creatures with random mutations that prove useful tend to do better in their environment than their 'pure-strain' relatives. Their descendants carry those useful mutations and over time that strain diverges from its relatives. There's nothing mystical about it.

As for the Big Bang, that theory doesn't necessarily call for you to believe that 'something came from nothing'. We can't observe what came before the Big Bang, sure, but there are many possibilities. Universes may only expand to a certain point before contracting back down to a singularity and starting the process all over again. Ancient universes may eventually collapse into themselves as all matter is eventually eaten by black holes. I'm much more comfortable with those theories than the idea than some omnsicient, omnipotent being that I can't detect at all created the universe in 7 days.

[Legbreaker]

Evolution is just a theory. Speculation and hypothesis based upon assumptions, and some known facts (that are occasionally updated when new info is discovered). We have not been around long enough to really notice any major evolution.

LMAO
Oh, wait, you're serious!? :eek:

There are litterally masses of evidence supporting evolution, so much that it's impossible to list even a small part of it all (although fossils, genetic diversification, etc are a couple).
Where's even the faintest scrap of evidence backing up creationism? It simply does not exist outside of the heads of those who want to believe in it. Sure, you can say those fossils were created by a higher power, but how can you PROVE that? At least those same fossils can be dated using scientific processes.

Evolution is happening daily. It can be seen at work in some of the short lifespan creatures such as insects - a dozen generations over just a few months and you go from a species unable to cope with a particular pesticide to one that virtually bathes in it every morning without harm. The same thing can be seen in longer lived creatures and plants if you spend the time and effort observing.

[Cpl. Kalkwarf]

LMAO
Oh, wait, you're serious!? :eek:

There are litterally masses of evidence supporting evolution, so much that it's impossible to list even a small part of it all (although fossils, genetic diversification, etc are a couple).
Where's even the faintest scrap of evidence backing up creationism? It simply does not exist outside of the heads of those who want to believe in it. Sure, you can say those fossils were created by a higher power, but how can you PROVE that? At least those same fossils can be dated using scientific processes.

Evolution is happening daily. It can be seen at work in some of the short lifespan creatures such as insects - a dozen generations over just a few months and you go from a species unable to cope with a particular pesticide to one that virtually bathes in it every morning without harm. The same thing can be seen in longer lived creatures and plants if you spend the time and effort observing.

No not serious, just stirring the pot. :D

I question Both allot. Science has almost become a religion. When one questions it those that profess it react almost if not, then just like questioning Creationist and their reaction.

Personally I could care less.

For all we know both are right, the scientists are just trying to explain how it happened in an analytic way. While the Creations are just taking it on faith. :P

[Cpl. Kalkwarf]

Oh and think about this. Is it evolution or intelligent design just updating or changing its mind?? :D

Why not?

lol

[Panther Al]

Not the truth? Don't be so sure...

http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/7883/memesodinkillsicegiants.jpg

*spits good German beer over his kb*

This.

Pure win.

[pmulcahy11b]

Oh and think about this. Is it evolution or intelligent design just updating or changing its mind?? :D

Why not?

lol

Or did MS pump the Matrix an update?

You know, this thread started out as a flamewar brewing, but now it's just fun.:D

[pmulcahy11b]

OMG! I can't believe I just suggested that the Matrix runs on Windows! The universe's gonna crash!

[ArmySGT.]

OMG! I can't believe I just suggested that the Matrix runs on Windows! The universe's gonna crash!

Why do you think you can see the glitches.

Say is that a cat?

Say is that a cat?

Whoa.... De ja Vu.

[Fusilier]

Evolution is just a theory. Speculation and hypothesis based upon assumptions, and some known facts (that are occasionally updated when new info is discovered). We have not been around long enough to really notice any major evolution.

Gravity is just a theory. As I mentioned earlier, a theory is not speculation or hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of facts. To put it in another way - in science a theory is the HIGHEST level of understanding we can have for something. Even if all of the knowledge about evolution was gained, it would still remain classified as a theory. Theories do not get promoted to the next level of understanding because there is none.

Wrong. We have seen several occasions of evolution occurring.

If man descended from apes why are apes still around? Do things evolve?

As I mentioned earlier, again, evolutionary paths are not linear. You don't outgrow your species. A population within a species diverges.

Second. Man IS an ape. Humans are homo sapiens. Homo Sapiens are a subset of great apes along with the chimpanzee and 3 others. Like it or not, you are an ape.

As far as the Big Bang theory well if you want me to believe that something came from nothing, that sounds like quite a leap of faith to me :P

Please stay on topic. If you want to discuss the big bang then start a new thread like we started one for evolution.

Evolution - biology
Big Bang - cosmology

They have nothing to do with each other at all.

Leap of faith? Check on the activity at CERN. Something from nothing does not need faith.

Is there a god or divine being or lots of them, don't hurt to pray and believe they might be right. And if they are wrong then just consider it a bit of oddly directed time that may or may not have been put to better use.

Pascal's Wager.

Evolution and Creationism are both Theories in that they require some belief in that not all the facts are known or proven.

Wrong. Evolution is a theory because it explains facts that are observed, predicted, and replicated. Creation has no facts so it doesn't get the honor of being a theory. Like I mentioned, even if 100% of evolution was proven, it would still be classified as theory.



SUMMARY: In science a theory is the highest level of understanding we have for a chosen topic.

[Fusilier]

Each person's belief is exactly that. That belief belongs to that person.

I have my own series of beliefs. They belong to me. Right or wrong as others may interpret them, they are mine. I am not going to get into my beliefs, because that would be adding fuel to the fire that is this thread.

So, please, no more. Let's get back to T2K. That is a universe we all have agreed to inhabit in one way or another.

Faith is belief. And by that everyone is entitled to believe what they want.

Science on the other hand is not a belief system anymore than math is.

Therefore this topic should be able to be discussed (civilly) without involving people's beliefs. As Raellus mentioned, one can accept the reality of science and still enjoy whatever divine beliefs you might have by separating the two. I invite you to stay and not feel that this is an attack on your beliefs.

[Fusilier]

No not serious, just stirring the pot. :D


Blah... after I just wrote a response too. I guess its my fault for not reading all of the posts first.

[Targan]

Man IS an ape. Humans are homo sapiens. Homo Sapiens are a subset of great apes along with the chimpanzee and 3 others. Like it or not, you are an ape.

Yes. A world of yes. Many people probably think I'm pedantic but it really, really irks me when ignorant people refer to various Great Apes as 'monkeys'. Do you see a tail anywhere? No? Then it's probably NOT A MONKEY (yes, I know not all monkeys have tails but it's a broadly useful rule of thumb).

Calling apes monkeys is insulting, both to the ape in question but also to US. Because WE ARE APES.

I have a fantastic head and shoulders photo on my harddrive of a male Bonobo. That little guy is quite clearly a thinking creature. He has a very alien outlook on life compared to me, sure, but IMO the great apes deserve far more recognition. If it was up to me I'd recognise them as (non-human) people and grant them land rights.

[Webstral]

It’s a shame that the collision of faith and science often becomes an either/or prospect. The Jesuits are a great example of the fusion of inquiry and faith. While Genesis is a story that has outlived its shelf life, there’s no compelling reason to put God and evolution in separate bins. Unfortunately, Marx’s observation about the way the masses use faith is too often true. Human beings are anxious creatures. Faiths offer fixed answers to those who crave them, whereas the scientific narrative is by its nature under constant challenge. The real conflict seems to be between people who want a fixed, immovable universe and those who see a mobile universe, not between people of faith and people of science. Heck, the two terms themselves are hardly mutually exclusive.

[Cpl. Kalkwarf]

Gravity is just a theory. As I mentioned earlier, a theory is not speculation or hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of facts. To put it in another way - in science a theory is the HIGHEST level of understanding we can have for something. Even if all of the knowledge about evolution was gained, it would still remain classified as a theory. Theories do not get promoted to the next level of understanding because there is none.

Wrong. We have seen several occasions of evolution occurring.



As I mentioned earlier, again, evolutionary paths are not linear. You don't outgrow your species. A population within a species diverges.

Second. Man IS an ape. Humans are homo sapiens. Homo Sapiens are a subset of great apes along with the chimpanzee and 3 others. Like it or not, you are an ape.



Please stay on topic. If you want to discuss the big bang then start a new thread like we started one for evolution.

Evolution - biology
Big Bang - cosmology

They have nothing to do with each other at all.

Leap of faith? Check on the activity at CERN. Something from nothing does not need faith.



Pascal's Wager.



Wrong. Evolution is a theory because it explains facts that are observed, predicted, and replicated. Creation has no facts so it doesn't get the honor of being a theory. Like I mentioned, even if 100% of evolution was proven, it would still be classified as theory.



SUMMARY: In science a theory is the highest level of understanding we have for a chosen topic.

At CERN they did something and had a reaction. They were not just standing around and doing nothing to create the reaction.

the·o·ry Noun/ˈTHēərē/
1. A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained: "Darwin's theory of evolution".
2. A set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based

I am on topic, the theory of evolution vs creation. The Big bang is a theory much like evolution is it not? So they do have allot to do with each other as far as both being theories and that is what is root of this discussion.

We see evolution on a very basic scale with simple forms and have not to my knowledge know of any advanced creature evolving. Then again I could be wrong.

But I am willing to believe that some times shit just happens. Could care less how or why it happens most of the time. Some times though its pretty interesting.


100% proven, wouldn't that be a theorem, law, or fact?

"God is, or He is not"

I am not an ape I am a man, besides I hate bananas. ;P

[Cpl. Kalkwarf]

It’s a shame that the collision of faith and science often becomes an either/or prospect. The Jesuits are a great example of the fusion of inquiry and faith. While Genesis is a story that has outlived its shelf life, there’s no compelling reason to put God and evolution in separate bins. Unfortunately, Marx’s observation about the way the masses use faith is too often true. Human beings are anxious creatures. Faiths offer fixed answers to those who crave them, whereas the scientific narrative is by its nature under constant challenge. The real conflict seems to be between people who want a fixed, immovable universe and those who see a mobile universe, not between people of faith and people of science. Heck, the two terms themselves are hardly mutually exclusive.

Hmm guess I am allot more on the same thought path as the Jesuits.

[Cpl. Kalkwarf]

Blah... after I just wrote a response too. I guess its my fault for not reading all of the posts first.

;D we all do that, :D

[Targan]

I am not an ape I am a man, besides I hate bananas. ;P

You don't have to like it but you are an ape. It is just part of taxonomy, not a personal judgement.

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

[Legbreaker]

The Big bang is a theory much like evolution is it not?

True, there isn't a lot of hard evidence for the big bang, but it is the most logical conclusion drawn based on that which is available.
Ignoring the evidence for a moment though, the difference between creation and the big bang (or evolution for that matter) is that nobody gets all uptight when the established "facts" of the big bang/evolution are challenged or altered. Try doing that with a religion and you'll see the start of a holy war....

[95th Rifleman]

Allot of the problem is narrowminded attitudes on both sides of the divide. Check out Richard dawkins for an example of a Atheistic fundie.

The whole refusing to admit Humans are apes for instance. Humanity has a pretty arrogant view of itself and in general we consider ourselves superior and outside of otherlife on the planet. It's hard for us to acknowledge the idea that we are superior because we got lucky a million years ago when we evolved opposable thumbs.

[Cpl. Kalkwarf]

You don't have to like it but you are an ape. It is just part of taxonomy, not a personal judgement.

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

"Sir Wilfrid Le Gros Clark was one of the primatologists who developed the idea that there were "trends" in primate evolution and that the living members of the order could be arranged in a series, leading through "monkeys" and "apes" to humans. Within this tradition, "ape" refers to all the members of the superfamily Hominoidea, except humans.[3] Thus "apes" are a paraphyletic group, meaning that although all the species of apes descend from a common ancestor, the group does not include all the descendants of that ancestor, because humans are excluded.[9] The diagram below shows the currently accepted evolutionary relationships of the Hominoidea,[2] with the apes marked by a bracket." (sorry the bracketed chart does not show up.)

But we are not Apes. We may have descended from a common ancestor. And some people in their opinion classified us as apes. They are the closest Animal on the Planet to us. Some lump us into the Greater Apes.

I like Sir Wilfrid's thoughts on this subject. I do not know for sure, but then again I could be wrong. Though I don't think I am.

Do the other "apes" think about this, or try to explain it too each other? Do they try to change their environment by building cities and roads? Do they establish scientific theories, or religions?

Some if not most Scientists seam to lump us in with the apes because its the closest critter left.

Why are we not monkeys, oh yeah no tail, but wait we have a vestigial tail that is at the end of our spine, but not grown out. ( The coccyx bone is the tailbone at the end of the spine)

Either way, I still hate nanners. (bananas) :D

[Legbreaker]

Humans are animals, plain and simple. Anyone who excludes even one small species is doing science and their own credibility a grave disservice.

[atiff]

Humans are animals, plain and simple.

True - we all do it like they do on the Discovery Channel (or something like that)
:)

[ShadoWarrior]

True, there isn't a lot of hard evidence for the big bang, but it is the most logical conclusion drawn based on that which is available.The cosmic microwave background is 'hard' evidence. It's the "proof" of the big bang. What is not well understood is the cause of the bang, not it's existence.

But that subject is cosmology, not evolution.

[pmulcahy11b]

Here's an interesting view on how arrogant humans have become as a species. I read it in Popular Science a few years back (I'll try to get you the exact issue; I probably scanned it and it's some where on one of my hard drives).

The current OPPLAN in the case of an open landing of extraterrestrials on US soil (i.e., they aren't trying to hide, land in a public place with no attempt to hide themselves -- I think the article gave the example of a landing on the Washington Mall), the plan is that the spacecraft would immediately be boarded by armed troops in Level 4 biological gear and we would take control of it. The actual ETs would be taken to one of several possible secure facilities around the country (the CDC and Fort Dietrick are a couple of the places mentioned) and placed in complete isolation until the government decides that they prove no threat.

Here's the one-foot kicker: Even an intelligent ET species is, by US law, considered to be an animal -- a complex biological creature, but not human -- and our government is under no obligation to afford the ETs any of the rights one might give to a human.

Here's the two-foot kicker: US law would also classify them as illegal aliens, which means that we would have the right to imprison them and put them through the immigration system. On top of that, if our wonderful government felt that they posed any harm, the full force of the PATRIOT Act could be brought against them. (Assuming that we don't just fall back to "animal" definition and kill them, then possibly even serve them up for dinner in a light wine sauce.)

What really got me about that article is that the US government thought that if an extraterrestrial species advanced enough to travel the stars were to land on the Washington Mall, we could manage to do ANY of that to them.

[ShadoWarrior]

What really got me about that article is that the US government thought that if an extraterrestrial species advanced enough to travel the stars were to land on the Washington Mall, we could manage to do ANY of that to them.
Sounds like whomever wrote that 'plan' watched the original early 50s version of The Day the Earth Stood Still, failed to learn any of the messages the story was trying to impart, and wants to make the exact same stupid, silly mistakes the US government makes in that movie.

We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the consequences of evading reality -- Ayn Rand
Which is a simple fact that, unfortunately, none of the major political parties in the U.S. comprehend, especially the far-right ones.

[ArmySGT.]

Do the other "apes" think about this, or try to explain it too each other? Do they try to change their environment by building cities and roads? Do they establish scientific theories, or religions?

A group of Chimpanzees was noted to have evolved a method of cooperation almost human. War. Somewhere in Central Africa just recently observedl

This group gets together something like 200 maybe more. They invade the territory of another group of chimps and drive them out. Seizing food sources and living space.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

A group of Chimpanzees was noted to have evolved a method of cooperation almost human. War. Somewhere in Central Africa just recently observedl

This group gets together something like 200 maybe more. They invade the territory of another group of chimps and drive them out. Seizing food sources and living space.

I don't know if you were aware of it but the study also found that the chimps would patrol their territory if tensions between them and an adjacent group were high. It was surmised that they were doing it to prevent the opposition from attacking.

[Legbreaker]

The cosmic microwave background is 'hard' evidence. It's the "proof" of the big bang. What is not well understood is the cause of the bang, not it's existence.

By "hard evidence" I was trying to say that the data is there, but the interpretation of it could be off. It's not my area of expertise though but as the data has only been known a realtively short time (a few decades) and fossils, etc have been known about for much much longer....

Anyway, the point is simple - not many scientific types go to war/declare jihad/crusade when their ideas and beliefs are challenged.

[Targan]

A group of Chimpanzees was noted to have evolved a method of cooperation almost human. War. Somewhere in Central Africa just recently observedl

This group gets together something like 200 maybe more. They invade the territory of another group of chimps and drive them out. Seizing food sources and living space.

I'm a supporter of the idea of great ape personhood (as in I think the non-human great apes should be recognised as being people of a sort and afforded at least some of what we consider to be "human rights"). I know a fair bit about the great apes, too. When I was a kid I wanted to be a paleoanthropologist when I grew up and I still have a deep interest in the biological sciences.

Chimps making war on other chimps is nothing new. It has long been known that rival chimp tribes make war on one another. They'll even take up arms (thrown rocks and lumps of wood). Chimps can be vicious little bastards, in captivity or in the wild. The other species of non-human great apes tend to be much nicer people, on average. Orangs and Bonobos are quite peaceful.

In many ways I think the non-human great apes are on much higher moral ground than humans. They exist in their environments without causing any serious long-term damage. If left alone they could keep living their simple lives, generation after generation, for millenia. The way humans are going we're likely to make much of our environment toxic, possibly even uninhabitable, within a century or 2. And as we drive ourselves into extinction we'll take most other species into the abyss with us.

Oh yeah, we're sooo smart. :(

[Raellus]

Religious fundamentalists have a problem with evolution because it contradicts the creation described in Genesis. They view the Bible as literally true and factual throughout. Any evidence that challenges any one of those assumed truths recorded in the Bible therefore threatens the entire foundation of their belief system.

I can't remember who said it, but I find this quote says it all: "It is easier to ignore an inconvenient fact than to adjust an entire belief system." (I'm paraphrasing here.)

Myself and many other more "liberal" Christians tend to view much of the Old Testament as being largely allegorical. There are inherent spiritual and moral truths in many of tales, even if they are not necessarily literally true in the sense that they happened exactly as described in the Bible (say, for example, the story of the Flood or Jonah and the Whale). This way of thinking, however, is anathema to Christian Fundamentalists. To them, it's an all or nothing proposition.