Comments on: Origins of Mankind: Canada vs the United States

By: Duane

Duane — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 20:22:13 +0000

@34 Justin, buy either one of these two books and read them: Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne, or Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins. Each of them explains, thoroughly, each question you posed above, AND PROVIDES THE EVIDENCE YOU ARE ASKING FOR.

Feel free to respond further to this, but please know that unless that response consists of “I will purchase one of the books and read it and tell you what I think,” then your questions, as posited above, are not motivated by scientific curiosity.

BTW, full disclosure: I am a Christian. Those two books, particularly the one by Coyne, helped me root my faith and my quest for scientific knowledge firmly in their separate realms. Where they each belong. Happy reading.

By: JMW

JMW — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 14:23:08 +0000

Speaking as a Canadian, it would be easy to do a fist-pump and gloat. However, my feeling is that it’s sad to see our friends and neighbours of their own volition driving themselves back to a third-world country.

By: Cmdr. Awesome

Cmdr. Awesome — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 12:38:06 +0000

@Norm:
Oh, I know you can. I guess (personally) I don’t really think people who believe in theistically guided evolution really accept evolution – just the bits and pieces that fit with their world view. In my own personal and highly anecdotal experience, they accept that changes can occur over time, which is fine – but they generally don’t accept the processes behind those changes as being correct. And in my layman’s study of evolution, it’s almost always those processes that are emphasized.

Really, if you look at the better news coverage of evolutionary papers, what tends to get emphasized is not that a new fossil of Hugeus Medius Specticalus was discovered, but how skeletal features show a change from one prior fossil to another. Or how new research in cell maintenance processes has shown that modern cells have mechanisms that prevent small genetic mutations from causing signficant causes by correcting the resultant malformed proteins.

It’s the process that matters, and unless you accept the process as correct, I don’t really think you’re accepting evolution.

By: Conshycrush

Conshycrush — Sun, 27 Mar 2011 19:30:22 +0000

@34

If “macroevolution” doesn’t exist… then would you please sir explain how homo sapiens are walking around today? Obviously we weren’t around 65 million years ago when the dinosaurs were… So did we just POOF into existence?

By: Georg

Georg — Sun, 27 Mar 2011 13:12:39 +0000

Viewing such questions from abroad and living in Europe at about 50th parallel,
I’d deduce, that heat is much more detrimental to brain than freeze.

By: Roger

Roger — Sun, 27 Mar 2011 04:08:32 +0000

Just imagine that instead of evolution we were talking about the shape of the Earth. The three choices being 1) The world is flat 2) The world is round because God rolled it into a ball 3) The world is round due to gravitational forces. If we got the same results for this question that we did for the evolution matter we would consider it a national emergency.

Then again maybe someone could claim he believes in gravity, but not in macrogravity which is unscientific and unsupported by evidence.

By: Jess

Jess — Sun, 27 Mar 2011 02:25:29 +0000

@33: The defense in the 2007 Dover trial tried to present irreducible complexity as evidence to support the idea (it’s not a scientific theory as its not testable) of intelligent design. A key thing to remember is that the parts need not to have originated with the same function that they have within the more highly developed tissue or organ.
As far as evidence for macroevolution, does the fossil record not count as evidence? More “transitional” fossils are found every year. And it speaks to the strength of modern geological and paleontological theory and methods that it can be predicted fairly easily what rock strata are likely to contain a particular type of fossil. Speciation has occurred in laboratory settings in which a population of organisms with a relatively short life cycle (such as Drosophila) was split for several generations, and then they could no longer interbreed. In a non-lab setting, apple maggot flies that previous fed only on native hawthorns split into two species when a population fed on introduced apples.
You have lots of questions, and that is good. If you are truly interested in answers, they already exist, and in great detail for the most part. There are plenty of websites that explain the theory of evolution in a very accessible way. The Cal-Berkeley site is a good place to start. If your seeking great detail, then you can search scientific literature on-line or at a university library.
I can honestly say that I am not an expert, and there are many things that I have not personally observed. But what I do understand works very well at forming explanations based on evidence and predictions. Overall, as more evidence is revealed, the theory is growing stronger all the time.

By: This week in science - Online Political Blog

This week in science - Online Political Blog — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 23:00:49 +0000

[...] Magazine blogger Sheril Kirshenbaum has the results of a poll comparing US and Canadian views on evolution. And yeah, it isn’t [...]

By: justin

justin — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 22:34:41 +0000

Anyone heard of irriducible complexity? Probably not. But interesting theory. I believe in evolution. Just not macroevolution. At least not until evidence, of which there is none, surfaces to show a species changing from one to another. Also how does one explain things such as the cambrian explosion? The same genetic code in even the simplest of creatures that has not evolved? How about all of the biological processes we don’t even begin to comprehend? Or are those just things to brush aside because they don’t fit with the current theory?

By: The Dude Abides

The Dude Abides — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 21:56:31 +0000

@23. “Amazing. For gawd sake… this one got settled when they discovered dinosaur bones.”

Haven’t you heard? Jesus rode a dinosaur, and the reason Noah was able to fit all of the dinosaurs on the Ark was because he took baby dinosaurs. Oh, you poor misguided non-believers who don’t believe in the United States of Jesus!

http://www.photobasement.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/jesusrodedinos.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Creation_museum_triceratops_saddle.jpg
http://www.zimbio.com/Criticism+Of+Darwinism/articles/14/Baby+Dinosaurs+in+Noah+s+Ark