Replies

"Read this thread. "

Do I HAVE to? All 109 posts?

"The issue of whether Neanderthals did or did not contribute to the gene pool as it exists now is not exactly the same question as whether they should be considered a separate species. If the last Yanomami indian dies next year, they will have contributed nothing to future gene pools, but they're still the same species.

The question of whether the Neanderthals were a separate species is really a moot one. We define species by the (arbitrary) standard of whether members from two populations can produce viable offspring, but that's not something you can apply to extinct populations. The only answerable question is whether every individual can be unambiguously assigned to one population or the other, based upon morphology. But my understanding is that that's been the case for a long time."

The above post is from Physicist. I agree with it for the most part. Is that what you are referring to?

The part I question is the comment about arbitrariness in the use of the term "species". I don't think that is arbitrary at all. A species is a population of individuals which interbreed and produce viable offspring. The catch is in the "interbreed." Populations defined morphologically and genetically as separate species which never interbreed in nature, have been induced to interbreed in captivity and produce viable hybrid offspring. What does this do to the concept of species? I don't know.

"If I ask you about fossil dispersion, the response is entirely independent of what the bible says."

What do you mean by "fossil dispersion"? Strategraphic dispersion or geographical dispersion or temporal dispersion?

"Whether a set of bones did indeed come from one creature or species says a lot about the credibility of the researcher, and very little about the bible."

It says a lot about our understanding of the morphology of the species in question and the competency of the scientist involved. It says nothing about the basic concepts here.

As for the Bible, I said it before, its not a biology text. Its a theological text with historical overtones. Its function is to convey a moral and religious message, not digress into the evolution of species or Cosmology except in the very simplest of contexts, i.e God created the world, He made man in His image, etc. To extract the "from the dust of the earth he made him" and interpret this as meaning literally directly from a lump of clay is stretching things, at least in my mind.

"Scientific" dogma can be every bit as ruinous to science as religious dogma."

Tell me about it. True science requires an open and inquiring mind, but a critical one, and very frequently scientists are reluctant to abandon old concepts when new and better ones appear. That says more about human nature than science or the scientific method.

Again, I ask you what question can you possibly propound that seriously sheds doubt on evolution?

I think even the term "Creationist" is a poor one to describe people who try to interpret the Bible literally.
"Literalist" is probably better. Even people like me who believe in evolution, do not disbelieve in Divine Creation. We just think it was a lot more complicated than Genesis explains it. That is not to denigrate Genesis as it does a good job of explaining to a group of neolithic sheperds the most salient point - God made all of creation, He made man in His image and He created man out of something less than man is.

The above post is from Physicist. I agree with it for the most part. Is that what you are referring to?

Yes.

What do you mean by "fossil dispersion"? Strategraphic dispersion or geographical dispersion or temporal dispersion?

Yes -- the question of whether all the bones belong together.

It says a lot about our understanding of the morphology of the species in question and the competency of the scientist involved. It says nothing about the basic concepts here.

It does when the basic concepts are confirmed or denied by spurious fossil combinations.

Even people like me who believe in evolution, do not disbelieve in Divine Creation.

My point is seldom communicated effectively, but here goes: Creation is not a theory, it is faith. I disagree with those who want to come up with a scientific basis for creation, because the creation of the bible is a supernatural event. Science is a way of observing the natural, it cannot be used to observe the supernatural. You can't draw scientific conclusions about the supernatural.

Whether evolution is a sound, viable theory does not contradict the creation story of how man and the universe came into being. Evolution can be completely correct from the standpoint of how things work, and exactly wrong from the standpoint of what really happened.

And I simply cannot find evolution to be scientifically sound. Its adherents spend far too much time attacking creation and not nearly enough time addressing the shortcomings of evolution.