Evolution

[Alric]

Thanks for your responses! Discussion appreciated.

Please vote N/A on the second part if responded "No" to the first.

[Proco]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Sep 21 2006, 11:46 AM) [snapback]322830[/snapback]</div>

Thanks for your responses! Discussion appreciated.
[/b]

Small problem with the poll. If you vote yes, you still have to choose one of the lower choices. Perhaps add "n/a" as an option in the second group.

[jared2]

See article about the 3.3 million year old skeleton of a 3 year old female A. Aferensis in today's NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/21/science/...6HjTerRBiXXB31Q

"The first relatively complete shoulder blades to be found in an australopithecine individual was one of the most puzzling aspects of the discovery, several scientists said. The lower body appeared to be adapted for upright walking by afarensis. But the shoulders and long arms were more apelike.

In the journal report, Dr. Alemseged and his team wrote that “the functional interpretation of these features is highly debated, with some arguing that the upper limb features are nonfunctional retentions from a common ancestor only, whereas others proposed that they were preserved because A. afarensis maintained, to some degree, an arboreal component in its locomotor repertoire.”


Where do you stand on this - was this australopithecine living on the ground or did she have an "arboreal component in her locomotor repertoire"? I would be interested in this evolutionary debate.

[Alric]

Ooh..Thanks for pointing that out!

I guess I can't edit a poll. I'll try to contact a moderator. Sorry forum!!

[jared2]

Personally, I doubt that the upper limb features are simply atavistic retentions from a common ancestor; it seems far more likely that this australopithicine did indeed maintain an aboreal component in her existence. But I could be wrong.

[mikepaul]

Look, drug-resistant bacteria prove that evolution is a working concept. Very rapid turnaround of survival-of-the-fittest.

Religious beliefs giving the whole Earth only 30,000 or so years of existance seems to be the major stumbling block in accepting it for higher-order species like humans.

If you take away evolution, you should also take away geology and anything else that involves long-long-term actions like plants turning into oil. "All oil was delivered by God at the time of Creation" isn't much of a science book anyway...

[jared2]

On a related note, isn't it interesting how children go through a stage where they love to climb trees, almost as if they were reinacting our ancestor's arboreal stage in evolution?

[skruse]

No rational, credible person believes in evolution. Evolution is a [b]nonbelief[b] system based on evidence. Science strives to disprove its findings. We only accept what we cannot disprove - and we keep testing. Science is never dogmatic.

The premise and structure of the questions do not work.

[Alric]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(skruse @ Sep 21 2006, 11:42 AM) [snapback]322871[/snapback]</div>

No rational, credible person believes in evolution. Evolution is a [b]nonbelief system based on evidence. Science strives to disprove its findings. We only accept what we cannot disprove - and we keep testing. Science is never dogmatic.

The premise and structure of the questions do not work.

I thought about that. Evolution is a certainty and a scientific concept independent of humans. But to discuss it we have to talk about our "belief" in it.

I am open to a better word of course, if I could edit polls...

[Alric]

Hey poll is fixed. Thank You Mods.

Please vote N/A on the second part if responded "No" to the first.

Thanks!