I hope I don’t get kicked out for this, but it is not meant as religious. A couple of comments have been made as to why fundies insist on creationist rather than evolutionary explainations of why we are here. Some of the most rudimentary tenets of Christianity are built on the idea of “original sin”. If you don’t have Adam and Eve you don’t have “original sin”. Therefore, you don’t need a savior to die for you and to them then everything is lost. So they really are shadow boxing over evolution, because it isn’t what they really are fighting.
Good point. Poly, care to tackle this one?
However, I can’t let this pass. Have you gotten the impression that you can be thrown out of the SDMB for being religious or posting a possibly contraversial view? Have we developed that sort of reputation? It’s sad if we have.
Ben:
Precisely my point, with the minor exception that there is no ‘species’ in the middle. Stated otherwise, the fossil record is an incomplete and sometimes misleading record of the history of living things. It’s a useful tool for positing piecewise segments of the overall theory of evolution, but it has some very practical limits to it’s value.
Not at all. There are some obvious obstacles that make it unlikely that the two breeds would mate of their own volition, but there are no genetic barriers - no intermediaries required, except a determined human with a profound sense of humor and some knowledge of artificial insimination.
First, it was an observation - not an argument. As for it’s origins - it just came to me - a completely original thought… I occasionally have these…
I can create new species in my kitchen?!! Do I get to name them after myself?
A muslim friend of mine (physician & researcher) told me in all seriousness that humans used to be 30 feet (or yards, he couldn’t remember which) tall, several thousand years ago. He knows this because Mohammed said so, and because there is a grave of a prophet in Jordan that’s 30 feet long.
Anyone know of the grave. Seems like an easy thing to check, unless no one’s allowed to check it out (which seems likely).
PC
You won’t get kicked out, but this may get moved to the Great Debates forum. I’m hesitating because I think this has been debated to death over there already!
Everything over there has been debated to death. That’s why it’s called Grate Debates
Too true! But, have you noticed any improvement? 
Jois
Improvement in this forum?
Before or after the camel?
Something I’ve wondered: Do horses and asses mate in the wild? Are mules born in the wild? Or just on ranches at the bidding of the breeder? (Does this belong in GQ?)
I have read a lot of posts concerning evolution, but I have not yet seen anyone attempt to answer how life came from non-life. If anyone can enlighten me with a reference that does not violate any of the laws of thermodynamics, please do so. Thanks.
This has been asked and answered many times before.
Please have a look at this page. I was going to say just section 3.5 but I think the whole thing is worth a read.
There’s a cite, now, if you have any problems with it, go ahead rebut. I betcha 1000 eDrogna from my Temple ov thee Lemur Vcash account you can’t.
Thank you, atarian.
**john_14_six **, anyone who claims that evolution or abiogenesis violates the laws of thermodynamics is guilty of Attributing False Attributes to Thermodynamics. I suggest you do some research, and a good place to start is with this article, The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability.
IANAS (and I didn’t follow the links, I’m speaking off the top of my head, so I’m probably repeating something, sorry if I am) but it seems to me that viruses would be a good “missing link” between non-life and life.
Are they alive? They don’t eat or respirate, I’m not even sure if they move under their own power or if you have to sneeze or bleed them around.
Are they dead? They reproduce like crazy.
They’re just a strand of DNA doing what every other single and multi-celled organism tries to do: spread that DNA. But are they alive? And are they “aware” that this is their mission? Do they have an instinctual “drive” to spread their DNA or do they just do it?
In junior high biology (I believe I passed that), we learned about “protists,” ie, organisms that don’t appear to be plants or animals. For example, mushrooms don’t have chlorophyll so they can’t make their own food like plants, but they can’t move around like animals, plus their reproduction, unlike either plants or animals, is asexual, so they’re “protists.” Is that term still used today? Anyway, viruses and bacteria were catagorized as protists too. But with viruses, the question doesn’t seem to be so much “is it a plant or an animal?” but “is it life or non-life?”
I’m in way over my head here, but I thought I’d throw in my 2¢ (and get back 1½¢ change).
Thanks for showing me the talk.origins links. Is there one that addresses either Fred Hoyle’s (1982?) or Lee Spetner’s (1997) works of statistical probability of evolution? Thanks again.
john_14_six, try reading these articles:
[ul]
[li]The Probability of Abiogenesis[/li][li]Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations[/li][li]Evolution and Chance[/li][li]Chance from a Theistic Perspective[/ul][/li]There’s probably more, but this is all I could remember off the top of my head. Read them thoroughly! There will be a pop quiz later. 
Oh, yeah… there’s another article that directly addresses Spetner called The Evolution of Improved Fitness.
gr8kat:
Viruses come in both DNA and RNA flavors. More probably, the first sparks of life originated from an RNA structure.
Clearly NOT.
It’s just chemistry… is the oxygen aware of it’s role in the process of oxidation? Nope. Living cells are simply catalysts for a chemical process involving these complex molecules known as viruses.
The interesting question is which came first? (chicken - egg). Did life spring forth from interactions involving viruses or are viruses simply defective fragments of DNA and RNA from living cells. Trying to keep this on topic, I don’t think the fossil record can answer this question.