If they’re Asians, they’re from SW Asia.
The writers of the Old Testament would have been from the southern Middle East, mostly in the west of it.
-FrL-
Though broccoli cauliflower and kale are all now still the same species, perhaps Mr. lekatt will take them as examples of how evolution can result to very different appearances of closely related things.
And you already knew that cheeseburgers were bad for you. 
Then why is there controversy about evolution, if it is only how each species change over the years. If science accepts the origin of the species as not fact why would religion care.
Just what is the controversy over in detail?
There are millions of religious people out there who are adamant against evolution, now if evolution does not include the origin of life, they sure don’t know that.
If you look through his posts throughout the years, you will find that everything you might want to tell him has already been said multiple times. Much output, but next to no input.
I’m not sure why you posted this or what your point is. I agree with what I think you’re saying, but what did I say that caused you to offer your comment?
This is true. What’s your point? 
-FrL-
Lekatt, the debate is supposed to be (I say “supposed to be” because as you’ve ably pointed out, people sometimes get confused about this) over whether or not speciation occurs, and if it occurs, whether the mechanism for it is evolution by natural selection.
Speciation is the phenomenon whereby two populations which (roughly speaking) can not interbreed are descendants, respectively, of populations which could interbreed. In layman’s terms (but glossing over some issues,) speciation is the phenomenon whereby the descendants of a single species can be of two or more species.
So for example, if the descendants of some ancient reptile-like species include both turtles and birds, speciation has occured.
Similarly, if the descendants of some monkey include both monkeys and humans, that’s speciation as well.
And if the descendants of lungfish include lungfish, frogs, monkeys and humans, then that, again, is speciation.
It is an established fact that speciation occurs, but some religions deny it.
And given that speciation occurs, we have a well entrenched and well supported theory as to how it occurs. It occurs through natural selection. Natural selection is the selection of populations by the following mechanism–those fit to survive and reproduce, survive and reproduce, and those that aren’t fit to survive and reproduce, don’t. As populations are naturally selected in this way, the traits they pass on to their offspring also tend to change, and over a great deal of time, these changes can be very large–large enough to result in speciation.
Some religions allow that speciation occurs, but deny its by natural selection, opting instead for a theory of divine selection.
So the debate, again, is about:
- Whether speciation occurs
- Whether speciation occurs by evolution through natural selection.
The debate about evolution is not about the origin of life, it’s about the origin of species.
Does that help?
-FrL-
Hmm … “Origin of species” … “origin of species” … that has a nice ring to it!
You know, someone should write a big book about evolution and mention “origin of species” right up front just so there’s no confusion about what’s being debated!
Just FYI, “origin of species,” and “origin of life” are two different things. It most assuredly is accepted as scientific fact that evolution explains the origin of species (that is, it explains how new species arise from prior species and how all species arose from a common ancestor).
You’re correct. An amazing percentage of them don’t know that. I think that popular misunderstandings over what evolution is and is not are largely responsible for the sociological conflict about it. A lot of people think evolution is a theory about not only the origin of life but the universe itself. They also think it’s necessarily atheistic or that it’s an attempt to disprove God.
Evolution does not attempt to explain how the universe began, or how life began and it does not address the existence of God. Evolution only explains what happened after life began on earth. I have found that once creationsists understand this (and it’s amazing how many don’t), it defangs the issue considerably. It’s not the threat to their faith that they’ve been led to believe by an industry (and Creationism/ID is a commercial industry) which thrives on encouraging the idea that evolution is hostile to religious faith.
Ever heard of Adam and Eve? Evolution isn’t about the origin of life, but it Is about the origin of Man. There still exist religions that have made alternative assertions on this matter that evolution is threatening to cut off at the knees. They don’t like bits of their doctorine being punctured; it weakens the whole. Hence the battle.
(How can this possibly be news to anyone?)
Nitpicking only. I’m saying that you can’t really distinguish theistic evolution from atheistic evolution, so I’m not sure theistic evolution would satisfy the OP. I’m not aware that those uncomfortable with evolution are more comfortable with it when someone like the devoutly Catholic evolutionary biologist (whose name escapes me) talks about it.
You have now displayed exactly the point that has been made, here, repeatedly.
A very large number of the millions of religious people who have a problem with the theory of evolution are actually ignorant about what it actually addresses. They are flailing around attacking things they do not understand. The fact that you appear to be making an argument from their perspective would indicate that you share their ignorance and should, therefore, probably avoid commenting until you actually learn the specifics of the discussion.
begbert is correct
The trend usually goes that the large amount of people who believe in evolution are also atheistic. The religious tend to refuse that man came from ape, and that shortly after that religion came from man. There are probably those who believe in evolution (for other species) and some God but not nearly as many as the other two combined.
They know it’s only a hop, skip, and a jump away from conflicting with their religious beliefs so that means it’s incorrect. Besides, when someone brings up the creationism versus evolution debate what they are trying to talk about is the God or gods versus abiogenesis debate.
To the OP: Nope, either life has always been and hopefully always will be and God or the gods are perpetuating the cycle, exercising wisdom to ensure the safety of the grand life equation or there is a natural tendency for the universe to create life under optimal conditions and that the universe has no beginning or end, that life is not necessary to create life. Only time and matter.
I actually disagree with both positive statements.
-
You can mix evolution and creationism, and get evolution created by an omnipotent god. "God said ‘Let there be light’ ", we had the Big Bang, and everything else resulted from the differential thermodynamic stability of molecules in different micro-environments, design by said omnipotent god. That’s the easy part.
-
For a lot of people, evolution is a theory supported by a few references to dinosaurs and to finches, a story that sounds like a couple of guys mucking about in a machine shop, and pictures that it would take a dyslexic to understand.
Hell, I was taught a theory of evolution based on a failed economic theory!
I had to explain to an incredibly intelligent, highly educated, rock-solid empiricist (and economist who had actually read Malthus) why evolution does not prove homosexuality can not be 'hard - wired". Furthermore, this person has left-handed people in the family!
So, people who do not ‘believe in’ evolution are, in my opinion, just victims of a piss-poor education in the sciences in early grades (pronounced that ‘American’).
Oh, I do agree with your negative statement.
Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying. I took the OP to merely be asking if there were explanations that were not all on or all the other. Not that I think the question is very clear any way.
I think that was the original point - they needed it to be written down i.e. they wetren’t washing before they were told to. I think.
If you want a fossil of one animal turning into another, try Archaeopteryx, the reptile becoming a bird, or a bird with teeth for short. Admittedly, you don’t have an individual creature transforming from a reptile to a bird, but you do have a species that very much combines characteristics of both reptiles and birds. Of course, this is mere physical evidence, and thus not subject to the higher calling of your heart, but I just thought I’d put it out there.
ETA: Archaeopteryx’s ancestor’s were reptiles (well, dinosaurs, anyway), while his descendants were birds.
OK, but how does science feel about the origin of life, is it just a theory or do most scientists consider it factual? I am trying to better understand the elements of the battle between religion and science. Like where does Dawkins and others like him fit into it.
I believe neither the science nor the religious version of the orgin of life and the universe. But at the same time I can’t tell you how it happened, I would talk to the devil if I thought he had something to teach me.
OK, science has found that given what is believed to be the conditions prevailing on earth circa 4.5 Billion years ago, amino acids spontaneous form fairly readily, within at most a few months. What no one yet knows yet is how it got from amino acids to actual live cell formation. They’re working on it.
Maybe someone else here is more up-to-date than I am.