h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

There is nothing wrong with Islam, trying to understand & explain. This history of science is rich with Islamic ideas. (I think the problem here is that the Islam vs Science in reality is Islam vs Christianity.)

Indeed in Science it is clear that evolution created man rather than man appearing from nowhere there is explicit evidence to also support the evolution of animals.

No the argument against creation is evidence. And if creation is disproved (at the very least it is unproven, and in many aspects already disproven) then we are left with science.

Richard Dawkins was your "Eye Witness". Forgive the pun.

Sorry but why do you not at least try to disprove Creation.
Christianity is a religion. It also preaches creation over evolution. I am most certainly not Christian.

>[what] we have proved is that Evolution is a theory that will evolve as better evidence is provided. Creationism on the other hand is an idea that will slowly deteriorate as evidence is provided.

And that is the esance of it
scince seaks thruth
even philosophy(active) seeks truth
Religion seeks ignorance.
Religious therorys are rigid and inflexable
they do not fit the world and they are not
prepared to change.

If man evolved from apes there should be two things: a convincing mechanism; and evidence of transition.

No convincing mechanism has been found. Conjectures such as natural selection and mutation have been found wanting. According to the principles of natural selection -- survival of the fittest -- humans should not be bipedal. Elaine Morgan, the evolutionist paleontologist, said that two of the outstanding mysteries about humans are why they walk on two legs, and why they lost their fur.

You say that 'Science it is clear that evolution created man rather than man appearing from nowhere'. No, it's the popular theory, but no genuine link between apes and humans has ever been found.

'Explicit evidence to support the evolution of animals'? I'm game, throw some at me!

"Sorry but why do you not at least try to disprove Creation."

Frankly (admitting my great limitations here), I wouldn't know where to start. Indisputable evidence about the origins of the universe might do it, but many great intellects are already employed in that pursuit. I'm not even remotely on that level.

Man did NOT descend from apes.

Can you type with a leg? Sorry for the joke, but even apes have hands, so why shouldn't we have? Fit does not mean physicly fit, but how much you fit into your environment, that means, into some part of it which has enough resources to live in.

We lost our fur because it is better to use fur of animals. That, again, is a question of resources (you have to eat to grow a fur).

Er, let me get this straight: the ones who developed less hair had a natural advantage because they had to eat less, now that they were wearing fur coats! The ones with more fur couldn't compete? What, in the fashion stakes?

And the bipedal advantage?

Also with reference to fur see the Water Ape discussion somewhere near the beginning of this thread.

Man is an Ape. No Scientist will disagree with this purely by definition.

I noticed that ostriches are capable of running damn fast. As far as I remember they only have two legs. Baboons who came from the trees often sit on two legs to get a better view of predetors. If you spot predetors early enough then you don't have to run as fast. We just adapted that style a bit further.

And yes you are correct if you can eat less and still stay warm then this is a good thing and you will probably outlast your hairy cousins. However I doubt that this is the actual reason for loosing our hair. It has more to do with living in rivers and by the coastline. Having less hair probably made it easier to swim. (Also slightly irrelevant ... Fashion is everything in certain species. Checkout the bird of paradise for example.)

Hi PG,

I have information that man and ape have a common ascender. Sorry, but I don't know the name.

There are some animals living in water and still having fur.

Good work.

Valid point about the otters & seals, I didn't come up with the Water Ape idea but I do subscribe to it.

I believe these are Hominidae. (not to be confused with hominoid)
Scientists recon that the human and ape lines branched off about 6 million years ago.

Point taken lets say "Man is a Primate".

"And the bipedal advantage?"

Wonko already implied this - being bipedal frees up the hands and makes it more likely that tools will be used. Use of tools leads to the ability to reshape your environment more radically than would be possible without them.

I always thought moving on two legs was one of the more crucial advantages of man, as Jim said above, it frees up two vital tools for working: the hands. It also puts our sight-line slightly above that of other animals, an advantage when a lion is approaching I think.

My candidate for the missing link is Robin Williams. Hirsuite you.

Actually there is a monkey/ape somewhere in the world that one day found out that walking on two legs was rather neat. Then she could carry things around. Now her whole group is doing it. I bet they´re going to be more succesful than the other groups nearby.

The animals in water that still have fur, they live in the northen hemispehere right? They probably have hair because they need to stay warm, that is not a big problem in African waters I think. But I don´t know anything about it yet, so don´t quote me.

The cambrian explosion, which was when trilobites appeared, seems to have been caused by a global disaster as I mentioned could happen. At that time it seems the world was pretty much frozen over, and when the going gets though, the though starts to evolve. But if you look at the trilobotes you will find that they started out with simple patterns on their back. Then as time when by the patterns became more and more complex. That was evolution.

I´ll look up those three quotes, they go against what I´ve read about.

Don´t start talking about missing links untill a creationist has given a definition of what he will recognise as a missing link.

Okay, throwing a wrench in the works...among the lower primates, only one species I can think of, the bonobo, have intercourse without the female being in estrus. Higher primates? That would be us.
As for Hawkings theories, I read the book he put out what, 10 years ago? And while I applaud his attempt at a unified field theory, I think it falls short. Then again, it may just be because humans are finite beings that we cannot grasp the immensity of whatever it is that we live in.
And contrary to some of the comments I've read here, I don't see the conflict between belief in God and the belief in evolution. I happen to believe in both, although no doubt most orthodox types would find my definition of God to be pure and utter heresy.

Where I´m from nobody really has a problem with evolution. They just believe that Adam & Eve was an analogy. To me that seems stupid to start and pick and choose like that. Either everything in the Bible is facts, or it is facts and analogies where you have no chance of distinguishing and it is therefore useless.

When Darwin proposed man evolved from apes, it was not a theory based on fossil evidence, let alone genetic studies that were unavailable in his time. Having proposed a grand theory of evolution which he felt should include man at the evolutionary summit, he looked around the animal kingdom and saw no creatures more outwardly similar than apes.

Today we know of over 120 living species of apes, and fossil records of about 6,000 others, a rich resource for evolutionists. But Darwin was able to manage with much less, creating an evolutionary 'ladder' in which European races were the most advanced, and other races mingling further down with the apes. In 'The Descent of Man' he wrote:

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time, the anthropomorphos apes... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian [Aborigine] and the gorilla."

This Social Darwinism, as it is called, has left a permanent hallmark on evolutionary thinking. Thus if a skull is found to resemble an Aborigine more than a European, it is deemed more primitive. Long after they are forgotten, earlier finds that have proved to be hoaxes or otherwise not related to 'human evolution' leave a legacy of speculative drawings and ideas that live in the popular psyche.

The whole motivation of some evolutionists researching in this area has been to prove the continuous evolution of ape to man. As quickly as one theory is undermined by a new discovery, a new, more fanciful one is immediately put in place. Yet far from proving the theory, more and more discoveries are forcing scientists to rethink. Finds in the last decade have included the remains of 'modern man' from an age at least as old as their supposed ancestors. And people still visit the Natural History Museum and look at a reconstructed Lucy they presume to be their ancestor, unaware that this old exhibit has been shown to be no more than an extinct ape.

It seems to me that the evidence for my faith in God is much stronger and has better stood the test of time, compared to evidence for the faith in evolution demonstrated in this thread and beyond. In which case, I have at least to admire the strength of your faith given the weakness of its foundations.

So Darwin was a racist. Social Darwinism is rejected by modern society. It's no longer part of the paradigm of our time. Let it go.

I would like to see proof of Creationism. I would also like to see how Creationism explains everything Evolutionism explains, and then explains more. Actually, I would like to hear exactly what Creationism is. What does it claim, how far does it go?

Further: When a hypothesis is undermined by observations, the common reaction is to rewrite the hypothesis, or even reject it, if it is impossible to defend it any longer. That is what makes Science better than religion. Science is prepared to say "Whatever we said yesterday was wrong, this is the new take on Truth: [statement] That may be wrong as well."

Dictionary definition of Creationism:

" The Belief that the bibles account of creation is literally true"

Evolution:

BIOLOGY theory of development from earlier forms: the theoretical process by which all species develop from earlier forms of life. On this theory, natural variation in the genetic material of a population favours reproduction by some individuals more than others, so that over the generations all members of the population come to possess the favourable traits.

Darwin was pretty acurate in his description with which the basis of theory is still used today. Caucasian man most probably did evlove from african man, (albiet very very minor changes). Many black americans preach that "White man came from the Black man". This does not mean that "White man" is better. It means that he evoloved to suit his environment. The current theory of Man's evolution is that the (now extinct apes) from Africa evolved into homo sapiens then migrated across all continents and continued to evolve as they travelled. Darwin was highly controversial in his period. It is understandable that he appears racist it is quite possible that by todays standards he was racist but you also have to remember that had he been politically corrrect at the time nobody in his country would have even bothered to read his work.

Short tale of young Darwin (of unknown origin):
Since he was a boy he had an insatiable interest in wildlife. He was wandering around in the countryside when he saw a new type of spider that he had never seen before. He quickly grabbed it with his right hand so that he could identify it when he went home. Later he saw another spider and quickly grabbed that with his left hand. Once more he saw another spider and without even thinking he popped the other spider into his mouth and grabbed the new one.

Note:

"And people still visit the Natural History Museum and look at a reconstructed Lucy they presume to be their ancestor, unaware that this old exhibit has been shown to be no more than an extinct ape."

The genuine skeleton of Lucy is in the "National Museum" of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia where it was found (I have been there). I am quite aware that it is old (3.5 M years), quite clearly extinct and definately some kind of primate. (Is this not after all what we were looking for in the "missing link"?).

I am beginning to suspect that you are mearly playing the devils advocate because you have done nothing but out right contradict our messages and refuse to describe your own theory.

Thanks to Niz for the clarifications.

By those standards, I still find it hard to have any faith at all in Creationism over Evolutionsism.. In my case it might be due to my inherent lack of faith in God, but I guess if Niz's definition is correct (and I have little doubt it is) all one has to do is disprove the Bible on any point to make it worthless, and thus disprove Creationism.. Or am I far off now?