how about conscious evolution?
can we change for the better because we choose to do so?
not selective breeding...more like selective living...look at successful survival themes and just do it.
there should be some use for this knowledge/info other than looking backwards to see how we got here, eh?

Ha-ha!  I forgot the "survivalist" from your future of evolution artilce... but I did remember the Uni-person :)... a cross between all ethnic groups as more and more people travel, and more races intermix.  I'd imagine that if it did come down to a doomsday senario than the degree of evolution would be greater since groups of people would be isolated from one another again for long periods of time...  

I think many would agree that we've probably slowed evolution with our technology by curing health problems but if we do survive over many millions of years, I'm sure we will look at least a bit different and probably have combined with machines and computers at least in some minor way.  the idea that we may oneday be an alien race is kinda fun to play with, as if there is any other life in the universe, we already are aliens to them.  The mere fact that we've not stopped evolving completely and do have a chance of dying out, is probably why other "aliens" haven't decided to share their own knowledge with us.  If all of a sudden we were given such ultra-tech, it would essentially freeze evolution here on Earth as there'd be no way for us to die out.  Until we cement our own existance to the point that we have next to no chance of dieing out and essentially beocme "those who speak for earth" (say with the existance of off-world colonies, no warfare, and so on), than I don't think any real aliens will be in any hurry to contact us and disrupt the natural processes of life on this planet!  

Oh... and remember, much like species adapt to better cope with their environment, our technology mush be constantly refined to meet our changing needs.  In the day and age of such a mortgage meltdown, wouldn't better, high-performance homes enable us to meet more of our own needs?  Technology is our own turtle shell!

 Hmmm. Darwin again.  My two cents: There seems to be no doubt that life on this planet can make changes to itself to meet changes in its own environment.  There is lots of evidence to support this, like humans living in a higher ultra-violet section of the planet developing, over a long time period, darker skin pigmentation to ward off skin cancer.
  However, no one has proven how life began.  I believe we evolve to meet changes in our world. But to believe that life just happened by accident or by chance?  Nada!  Darwin got it right except for the ORIGIN part.  He should have named his book "ON THE EVOLUTION OF SPECIES." Leave the creating to the Creator.

Talk about beating a dead horse!  Keep shoving Darwin down our throats.....the more legitimate scientists look into the theories of evolution the more they find it's a load of crap!  The real agenda here is to turn impressionable young people from a belief in God.  Scientists with their PRECONCIEVIED ideas find a tiny piece of bone and say here is evidence for evolution!!  Please find the truth about how unreliable carbon dating is and ask these questions....

Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on the early Earth -- when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life still remains a mystery?

Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor -- thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?

Why are artists' drawings of ape-like humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident -- when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like? All we see are artists' drawings.  
A tiny bump on a whale's pelvis means it had legs and walked??  They why would it choose to go back into the ocean?
Are scientists so reliable that we can trust them to make findings based on what they really find or do they just stay with the MAINSTREAM THEORIES already forced upon us in schools, universities, and our national museums because it's better for them  financially?  Or are they just out to get that huge grant for providing more evolution propagnada to teach our children.  Don't let your teacher, professor, or journalist tell you we came from monkies and then tell you your stupid if you think otherwise.

Can you combine your upcoming series on Darwin's theories with a summary of the Westminster Dog Show (a place where his theories are constantly put into practice)?

"However, no one has proven how life began."

Which does not mean we never will. You'll have to forgive science for not having *all* the answers at once...

Jen, I do wish I knew more to debate this...  I like the question about why if whales were land animals, why would they go back into the water.  The example of the hippo comes to mind.  A mamal that spends the vast majority of it's time underwater where there are probably fewer preditors and less contention for the food avaialble in the typically arrid regions they live.  Sure, I'd love to know the exact reason why the whales went back to the sea, but there are definitely examples of such semi-crossovers today.  I think the Florida Manety still has legs in the front.  Depending on their habitat, legs would be good for getting around in shallow water and for going from one swamp to another.  In the ocean there would be next to no need for that so the adaptation of flippers seems like a good adaptation.  

I liken evolution to be much like the flowing waters of a stream.  It simply tests out and fills in all available options available to it in a very dynamic and shifting sort of way over time.  I don't think believeing in evolution is an affront to religion per say... most scientists from what I heard once do believe in a god....  Our history was just a bit more diverse that what was originally known.  It's a big leap I know...  the magic of mulit-cellular life is truly that... magic and I'd be almost certain there has been some sort of spiritual perhaps even devine path involved which I think exists in all of our lives whether scientists can currently quantify that or not.  They are not closed to these sorts of ideas, just at a point where all has not yet been revieled.  Anyway, just a thought.

chris, good point.  it seems the non-scientific religous don't realize one of the most facinating things about science, that the more you understand about the workings of the universe, the more it points to god.  most scientists are believers in god.  I myself never believed too much in god until i started studying human anatomy and medicine. God is the why, science is the how.

Jen,

I was once like you. I was skeptic of the dubious motives of evolutionary biologists. A bible study leader actually gave me one of the "Answers in Genesis" books when I was in high school. I had severe skepticism toward biology.

The problem was that I was a scientist. At a young age I loved to learn "how things worked." It was my love of science that began my journey to understanding evolution. It started with chemistry, worked its way through physics (including your misunderstanding of Carbon14 dating) and has since shifted to biology.

Let me draw light onto your challenges to evolution.

First Radiometric dating: Carbon 14 is not the only source of dating. It is used in conjunction with many other isotopes as well as understanding strata in the Earth's geology. It is no wonder that EVERY known radioactive isotope that has a half-life less than 100,000 years is absent unless there is a known scientific process for creating that isotope (such as Carbon 14 from Nitrogen). Will there be mistakes? Sure there will, but just because one item is misdated doesn't mean we throw out the whole measuring system. Some objects are crosscontaminated, some are just hard to date. However, the number of successful dating projects vastly outnumbers the failures.

The Miller-Urey experiment. This often gets a lot of flak because we have since learned more about the ancient atmosphere. However, the experiment itself still gives us valuable information. Amino acids CAN be created from inorganic materials. Did it happen exactly like Miller-Urey predicted? No, but we can show pathways for how it COULD have happened. With more research (including the 100s of similar experiments since Miller-Urey) we will learn more about amino acid synthesis.

Cambrian Explosion: The problem here is with your understanding of the Linnaeian classification system. The reason why all the different forms of life appeared in the Cambrian is because only a small change was required for each. There is actually a lot of similarities between the Cambrian fossils. But because of our interpretations of classification we put them in different catagories. Our major classifications only required small changes between the Cambrian fossils.

Whales: This one is probably the easiest to understand. In Pakistan and India there was a group of carnivorous mammals that lived near the sea shore. They liked to eat fish. So they hunted in shallow water. Over time the lineage that caught fish best, survived. Moving in shallow water was a benefit, so the ones who were most adept at moving in shallow water caught the most fish. This is how land mammals slowly returned to the sea. There are at least a dozen known species of mammals that show the timeline with which this happened. Each one becoming more and more "seaworthy." Ambulocetus Natans was probably the most well known.

Sticking to the Mainstream: This goes against everything that is science. Scientists hate the mainstream. The competition among scientists is to see who can come up with the next great discovery. You don't think another explanation for species would be that next great discovery. Scientists are in a battle to debunk everything we know. That's how they get remembered. No one knows who the scientist is that agrees with everything that has been said before. But everyone knows who came up with the next great discovery, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, Darwin and Einstein. So saying that scientists want to stick with the mainstream is the exact opposite of what scientists truly want. They want recognition. They want discovery. They want to be known forever as the one who changed the way we view the world. The problem is that some of these ancient scientists got it right. So, all we can do with their theories (like gravity, heliocentrism, evolution and photoelectric effect) is develop them further, understand them better.

So Jen, I can understand your nervousness with science. You've been told that science will destroy God. That science is evil and that scientists just want to make you evil too. But I can assure you that is not the case. I am a scientist, it says so on my college diploma and I show it in the way I look at discovery. But I'm also a Christian, it shows in my faith by my actions, in the way I help the poor, love my enemies and honor God. Maybe by being a scientist I just have a better understanding of how great God really is. I pray, I read my bible, I lead bible studies, I tithe (that puts me ahead of 80% of other Christians), I serve on mission trips to 3rd world countries, I've been leading worship at church for over 10 years and I think evolution is sound science. Do I believe in evolution? Well, thats a dumb question. That's like asking if I believe in gravity or germs or the parts of an atom. I've seen the evidence for all of these things, including evolution, and I think that our current explanation is the best we've got.

I say all this but I know that you won't understand. You still think that science and God are against eachother. You want a literal reading of Genesis, even thought that is not what historic Christian theologians like St. Augustine had. And when you see something that isn't what you THINK it should be, you toss it out. You refuse to change your mind no matter what evidence is presented. No fossil, no experiment, no explanation will ever change your mind. You can't see how God could do things differently that you think he did. And with that you give Christians a bad name.

I was watching a PBS show the other night that covered the 2005 court case in Dover Kansas that concerned allowing "Intelligent Design" (ID) in the
HS science curriculum. The backers of ID merely wanted a presentation of a second way of looking at why life on earth has come to be what it is. Well I say, why not?  Let the students make the comparisons for themselves. If correctly presented,
I would bet that almost all students would have to conclude that "ID" really is not science compared to Darwin's theory and that it
has no real value in reasonably describing life on earth. In this way, ID would eventually be extinguished and their backers would be victims
of their own intentions.

How ridiculous it is to believe in the theory of evolution.  And, these so called "evolutionists" have the audacity to scoff at Christians.  What makes sense about humans evolving from monkeys?  Nothing, and yet people cling on to this ideology as fact.  Nothing makes more sense in this world except for the truth...which is, God created this world (which is only approximately 8,000 years old,) and HE is the sole creator.  

Misha,
I too am a scintist who shares your beliefs, so thank you for exposing them so well.

Here is a way I attempt to reconcile the 2 ideas. First it is important to understand that this entire debate transcends science, and that there is nothing wrong with that. Science is a great tool for understanding the universe around us, but knowing its limitations is perhaps one of the most important parts of using it well. So I state the following views as a broader person and not just as a scientist.

If we believe in a God who created the universe, postulated the basic laws of nature, and made things such that the matter and energy in the universe would follow those laws, then what need does that God have for micro-intervention in how biological systems will follow those laws?

As an analogy, consider the production manager in charge of a large factory with many thousands of machines and employees to oversee. Is this manager going to roll up his sleeves and dig in his tool box whenever one of these machines breaks down, or will he have laid out rules and procedures so that at the end of the day his production goals are met? He certainly could try to fix every machine himself, but would that really be a good use of his time and demonstrate his intelligence in running the factory?
We should not take the analogy too literally, but it serves to make a point. God is all powerful and all intelligent, so he certainly could decide every single mutation according to his direct will, but wouldn't his greatness be even more evident if he did not have to do that? I would much rather think of a God whose will is met through the intelligence of his master plan as expressed in the basic laws of nature then a God who was not smart enough, and therefore needs to intervene in nature every time he wants to create a new species.

Serge,

I agree completely. That is why I told Jen that maybe I just had a better understanding of how great God really is.

There are things to still ponder, like, How is God's Will assured if natural selection works through random mutations? But i don't feel these are any more difficult than the question of "If God knows the future why do we pray?" If God knows why do we ask? Is an immutable God going to change His mind? And how can it be changing His mind if he already knows we are going to pray?

Most Christians would agree that the answer is beyond our comprehension because of our immersion into strict space and time. Well, I apply the same concept to the process of evolution. I am much more in awe of God because he didn't have to tinker around and make mistakes throughout time, "oops, this animal is close to being extinct. I'd better fix it." I am just glad I get to watch his amazing plan unfold. Even if it is only for a brief moment.

Faith C. LA:  "Ye have little faith"...

Serge, Atlanta:
If you read The God Delusion you can understand how the "faith" or "belief" of an all powerful creator that happens to "just be there" and what is required of such a creator to account for the universe and everything in it, is intellectual suicide.  

I once thought exactly as you did and just passed off the God explanation as some automatic truth until I realized how false that line of thinking really is. Delusional and wrong in it's whole essence often because I was usually going along with the status quo not realizing how family and society converge to form your mindset way back in childhood.

I am so glad we never forced any religious ideas on our kids (ie. by going to church or putting them into catholic or any other religious based school system) but let them go through life and choose for themselves.

Faith,

First, we did not evolve FROM current monkeys. Humans and monkeys evolved from a common ansestor. There is a difference. Its similar to the fact that I didn't evolve from you. But nonetheless, you and I have a common ancestor. I don't know how far back that is but we have one. Most of our genetic material is the same. But some of it is different and has changed through the generations since our common ancestor. God forbid something tragic happen on earth. But if it did, one of us would be more likely to survive and hence human population would become more like one of us.

There are probably a few factors that have slowed human evolution lately.
1. Travel: as interracial marriages become more accepted the constant mixing of DNA will even out the differences in the population.
2. Medicine: We've found a lot of ways to keep people alive and keep them reproducing. This eliminates some of the selection criteria needed for a shift in the genetic makeup of the population.

We're probably close to an equilibrium point. We've mixed well enough and continue to mix. We've also taken a lot of the outside stress off the system. And similar to Le Chatlier's principle in chemistry unless there is an outside stress on the system the equilibrium will not shift.

I don't hope for the next globally catastrophic event but I do wonder how it will change the makeup of the population.

"I don't hope for the next globally catastrophic event but I do wonder how it will change the makeup of the population."

Misha, thanks for the detailed feedback on this page.  I love science but am not often exposed to all the detials.  Did you ever here the joke "Why did the dinasaurs die out? Because they didn't have a space program! :)"  read a theory once that as our solar system bobs up and down through the plain of the galixy that when we are ourside the plain we are exposed to a higher dose of cosmic rays and that itself could cause a lot of mutations ever 65 million years or so.  Probably one of the biggest catastrophies that has a chance of happening in our lifetime is a massive Canary Island generated tusnami which would whipe out the entire eastern coast of the US with a 130' high wave that could travel 20 miles in land at least.  

Aside from a pandemic or asteroid, that one single event might be enough to send humanity back to the stone age as global economies fail from the loss of a dozen or so major cities.  

What would happen to us genetically?  I personally don't think very much.  Much like sharks, our form is very refined.  If anything, perhaps what would make survival in such times stronger, is if our newborns matured faster.  An infant takes a LONG time to mature compared to say the offspring of a dog or cat.  Not sure why we grow up so slow, but we certainly do.  

There seems to be a lot of confusion out there concerning the theory of evolution. Too many people are under the impression that Darwin believed that humans descended from apes. This is a common and deliberate attempt by the religious community to fuel the fire of contempt against the scientific community. By keeping people away from, and confusing them about the latest scienific findings in all fields of study, they do their followers a great diservice. First, Darwin never said, or even implied, that we descended from apes, but from a common ancestor. Second, there is alot of confusion that stems from the phrase, the " Theory of Evolution". Faith based people believe that the word theory somehow means and idea that is created out of thin air, or this is purely a guess or conjecture. Sorry to disappoint you, but this is not what scientists mean. When scientists say "theory" they mean a statement based on observations and experimentation that explains facets of the observable world so well that it becomes accepted as fact. Our education system is  partially to blame for our students lack of understanding and comprhension when it comes to the sciences, but religion also is to blame by trying to confuse and intimidate school boards into thinking that creationism, or intellegent design, should be taught alonside evolution. When I hear people say we should teach both and allow the students to decide, then I say why not let them choose whether they should even attend school at all. If your goal is to keep people ignorant, then I can only hope you don't succeed. We need well rounded and informed citizens that will be leading this country into the future. If we are to be competitive in the gloabal market, our students need to be informed and educated in the sciences and math. There is nothing wrong with faith, but lets be honest, Science is not faith. If you want your children to be taught faith based science then send them to a religous school that will follow your wishes.

There seems to be a lot of confusion out there concerning the theory of evolution. Too many people are under the impression that Darwin believed that humans descended from apes. This is a common and deliberate attempt by the religious community to fuel the fire of contempt against the scientific community. By keeping people away from, and confusing them about the latest scienific findings in all fields of study, they do their followers a great diservice. First, Darwin never said, or even implied, that we descended from apes, but from a common ancestor. Second, there is alot of confusion that stems from the phrase, the " Theory of Evolution". Faith based people believe that the word theory somehow means an idea that is created out of thin air, or that this somehow is purely a guess or conjecture. Sorry to disappoint you, but this is not what scientists mean. When scientists say "theory" they mean a statement based on observations and experimentation that explains facets of the observable world so well that it becomes accepted as fact. Our education system is  partially to blame for our students lack of understanding and comprhension when it comes to the sciences, but religion must also bear some of the blame by trying to confuse and intimidate school boards into thinking that creationism, or intellegent design, should be taught alongside evolution. When I hear people say we should teach both and allow the students to decide, then I say why not let them choose whether they should even attend school at all. If your goal is to keep people ignorant, then I can only hope you don't succeed. We need well rounded and informed citizens that will be leading this country into the future. If we are to be competitive in the gloabal market, our students need to be informed and educated in the most current information in the sciences and math. There is nothing wrong with faith, but lets be honest, Science is not faith. If you want your children to be taught faith based science then send them to a religous school that will follow your wishes.

 All of you!  Great discussion!  Just don't forget this:  God and science go hand in hand.  God is, after all, the Supreme Scientist.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):