If that's the best you can do, you are one sick puppy.

The Bible is by and large worthless as a source of information, although it tells some nice stories.

As it's in that romantic poem, mind has thousand eyes. Which one should I open? Those who really read Bible with open eyes, see there things like metallic flying aircrafts, and other advanced technology, like radio. My friend has a boss at her job, who's Christian and he openly acknowledges that these space crafts really are described in Bible.
So much for Old Testament - which is largely composed of much older Sumerian legends, like of the great flood. Bible isn't about Christianity influenced by paganism, Bible is paganism, influenced by Christianity. Even the idea of a Christ - born to a virgin, doing miracles, dead for 3 days, rising from the dead and ascending to Heaven, that is the most paganic idea of them all. Perhaps it's almost as old as civilization itself. Have you ever heard of Quetzalcoatl?

The illusion of Christianity's uniqueness was created by editing effort of Roman emperors who overtook the Church. 

Evolution is a scientific fact? What exactly does scientific fact mean? Speculation? Here is what I do know about evolution. I used to love to watch National Geographic nature documentaries. I would but vidio tapes back in the day, and a scientist would look down at a fish and assume that it had evolved because it had a boney knot on it. The pepper moth is taught to have evolved. Do you really think it did?

I was talking about the Bible and science, here is what I know about that. The clash between science and religion began in the sixth century B.C.E. with the Greek mathematician and philosopher Pythagoras, who's geocentric view of the universe influenced ancient Greeks like Aristotle and Ptolemy. Aristotle's geocentric concept endured for 2,000 years, primarily as a philosophy, even as late as the 16th century when Jean Bodin isisted upon it.

It was adopted by the church due to the scientist Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) who had great respect for Aristotle. In the book Galileo's Mistake, Wade Rowland wrote: "the hybridized Aristotle in the theology of Aquinas had become bedrock dogma of the Church of Rome."

Galileo's heliocentric concept flew in the face of Aquinas' geocentric philosophy, and Galileo had the nerve to suggest that his heliocentric concept was in harmony with Scripture. Thus the Inquisition in 1633. It was Galileo's figurative, and might I add, accurate, interpretation of Scripture against Aquinas' and the Catholic Church's literal and inaccurate interpretation. For being right Galileo stood condemned until 1992 when the Catholic Church officially admited to their error in their judgement of Galileo.

So the static between religion and science was caused by science, philosophy and religion wrongly opposed to science and the Bible. When some science minded atheist says that the Bible says the earth is flat because the Bible uses terms like "four corners of the earth" or "the rising of the sun" I point out to them that Isaiah said it was spherical (Hebrew chug) 1,000 years before science did.
 

Now . . . mutations and the pepper moth . . . I start at Mutations because from my understanding, which is minimal, mutations are the basis of evolution, but at the same time, it seems to me, the least likely to have substance. Steven Stanley called mutations "the raw materials" for evolution. Geneticist Peo Koller said they "are necessary for evolutionary progress." Robert Jastrow stressed the importance of "a slow accumulation of favorable mutations." Carl Sagan said: "Mutations - sudden changes in heredity - breed true. They provide the raw material of evolution. The environment selects those few mutations that enhance survival, resulting in a series of slow transformations of one lifeform into another, the origin of new species."

In Science Digest - and you have to realize that my understanding of Evolution is not only minimal but outdated as hell - John Gliedman stated: "Evolutionary revisionists believe mutations in key regulatory genes may be just the genetic jackhammers their quantum-leap theory requires." But British zoologist Colin Patterson observed: "Speculation is free. We know nothing about these regulatory master genes."

Outdated.

Mutations are thought to occur in the normal process of cell reproduction, if I am not mistaken, but experiments have shown that they also can be caused by external agents such as radiation and chemicals. And how often do they happen? The reproduction of genetic material in the cell is remarkably consistent. Relatively speaking, considering the number of cells that divide in a living thing, mutations do not occur very often. As the Encyclopedia Americana commented, the reproducing "of the DNA chains composing a gene is remarkably accurate. Misprints or miscopying are infrequent accidents."

From the perspective of my minimal outdated knowledge, it is generally ... well actually overwhelmingly thought that, as Sagan said: "Most of them are harmful or lethal and Koller: "The greatest proportion of mutations are deleterious to the individual who carries the mutated gene. It was found in experiments that, for every successful or useful mutation, there are many thousands which are harmful."

From my perspective this would be an indication that evolution could work itself into something better or something worse from the perspective of the human machine.

Contemplating it further I would have to admit that it could possibly be a filtering which would result in the right thing at the right time. Simply speaking.

I think it is possible that both of those statements could be true. One of the things that has always troubled me about such speculation is it's uncertainty.

With the Bible, for me and my studies, it has always been etched in stone, if you like. A problem in my understanding could be investigated, usually a simple excercise.

What I recall from my understanding is that most mutations are damaging to the organism which seems hard to reconcile with the view that mutation is the source of raw materials for evolution. Indeed, mutants illustrated in biology textbooks are a collection of freaks and monstrosities and mutation seems to be a destructive rather than a constructive process.

That is pretty much word for word from the Encyclopedia Americana. Though not scientific, it is where I am leaning at this point. As G. Ledyard Stebbins observed: "After a greater or lesser number of generations the mutants are eliminated."

This could indicate to me that mutations are useless - harmful. Or that they are as was what I learned in 'school,' the basis for evolution. In that they are eliminated.

The problem I have with that is that if they are eliminated why would they have evolved through mutations in the first place? I could think along the lines that they need to be eliminated. Survival of the fittest is even more minimal and outdated than my thinking, but these accidents would not have occurred in the first place under that premise.

Key word, accident.

An accident is marked, noted ... logged. Studied. It is what is going on. What we see. No conclusion needs be formulated before its time and nothing need be added.

In his book The Wellsprings of Life, science writer Isaac Asimov wrote: "Most mutations are for the worse . . . . In the long run, to be sure, mutations make the course of evolution move onward and upward."

From the Creationist perspective, which is from my own Biblical studies, sadly inaccurate, the conclusion could be drawn that 999 times out of 1,000 mutations are harmful.

If, however, I had to play a game 1,000 times before I got it right only once I would have gained something.

Geneticist Dobzhansky once said: "An accident, a random change, in any delicate mechanism can hardly be expected to improve it. Poking a stick into the machinery of one's watch or one's radio set will seldom make it work better."

That seems to me a logical excursion, though not a very well thought out one. As a child I liked to take electronics apart to see how they worked. Often this would result in their premature demise. But when they were broken it would sometimes result in a temporary fix. A piece of bubble gum placed here resulted in a connection ... a toothpick placed there provided the simple means of contact for a worn out ...

If, sometimes, a swift kick to an old TV jarred the wires enough to set it straight, then even a monkey could have come to such a necessary conclusion. Just by beating hell out of it.

The trouble, in the end that I have with mutations is this. If evolution is change and mutations are the basis of it then why is it that mutations can not produce anything new?

The World Book Encyclopedia: "A plant in a dry area might have a mutant gene that causes it to grow larger and stronger roots. The plant would have a better chance of survival than others of its species because its roots could absorb more water."

But ... it couldn't produce anything new ... it changed but that was it's demise.

Here I see the flaw of the basis of evolution. It provides a brief window of speculation and study but beyond that it is a stagnant pool. Evolution could only wind itself out in a series of mishaps. Mishapen accidents leading nowhere.

Dobzhansky: "The clear-cut mutants of Drosophila, with which so much of the classical research in genetics was done, are almost without exception inferior to wild-type flies in viability, fertility, longevity."

DNA has a remarkable ability to repair genetic damage to itself. The organism it is coded for thus is preserved. Scientific American relates how "the life of every organism and its continuity from generation to generation" are preserved "by enzymes that continually repair . . . . In particular, significant damage to DNA molecules can induce an emergency response in which increased quantities of the repair enzymes are synthesized."

Again ... mutations are increasingly science fiction ... of speculations which lead to nowhere.

In the Book Darwin Retried the author relates the following about the respected geneticist, the late Richard Goldschmidt: "After observing mutations in fruit flies for many years, Goldschmidt fell into despair. The changes, he lamented, were so hopelessly micro [small] that if a thousand mutations were combined in one specimen, there would still be no new species."

The International Wildlife Encyclopedia: "This is the most striking evolutionary change ever to have been witnessed by man. After observing that Darwin was plagued by his inability to demonstrate the evolution of even one species, Jastrow, in his book Red Giants and White Dwarfs, added: "Had he known it, an example was at hand which would have provided him with the proof he needed. The case was an exceedingly rare one." The peppered moth.

There were two forms of the peppered moth. A light and a dark. The lighter type blended into the lighter colored trunks of the trees which it hung to. It thrived while the darker didn't. Then, when industrial pollution caused the trunks of those trees to darken the role of survival switched, naturally to the darker.

Consequently the darker variety of peppered moth, which is said to be a mutant, survived better because it was difficult for birds to see them against the soot-darkened trees. The darker variety rapidly became the dominant type. The question was, of course, was the peppered moth evolving into something new? No. The English medical journal On Call referred to using this example to try to prove evolution as "notorious . . . . This is an excellent demonstration of the function of camouflage, but, since it begins and ends with moths and no new species is formed, it is quite irrelevant as evidence for evolution."

The same could be said of some germs which have proved resistant to antibiotics. The hardier germs are still the same, not evolving at all into anything else. Even this is not likely evolution through mutations, but simply a case where some germs were immune to begin with. Some germs having been killed off by drugs and the immune ones multiplied and became dominant. Evolution From Space said: "We doubt, however, that anything more is involved in these cases than the selection of already existing genes."

Insects being immune to poisons - is a case of some poisons being effective and others not, that is being effective on some insects and other insects it is ineffective. The ones having been killed could not develop a resistance since they were dead. Those living were immune from the start, a genetic factor which is selective but not demonstrating change or evolution of the insect itself or in effect any evolution other than some insects were dead and others were not. It doesn't change anything on a minimal scale as evolution would suppose.

Molecules to Living Cells said: "The cells from a carrot or from the liver of a mouse consistently retain their respective tissue and organism identities after countless cycles of reproduction." Symbiosis in Cell Evolution said: "All life . . . reproduces with incredible fidelity." Scientific American said: "Living things are enormously diverse in form, but form is remarkably constant within any given line of descent: pigs remain pigs and oak trees remain oak trees generation after generation."

Rose bushes always blossom into roses, never into camellias. And goats give birth to kids, never to lambs, mutations cannot account for overall evolution - why there are fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals.

Darwin's observations of the finch on the Galapagos Islands operated upon the premise that they were the same type as those which had apparently migrated from South America, but there were curious differences in those which Darwin observed - the shape of their beaks, for example. This, he interpreted as evolution.

Here is where science and the Bible come, with very little notice in my opinion, to the same conclusion. That is to say, that the Genesis account speaks of kinds. And science of old says that there is an evolution.

The reason that I side with the Bible over evolution, then, as far as mutations go, is a matter of a flawed observation based upon speculation. The finch that Darwin observed is a finch. It will never be anything else. A black person, a red person, a yellow person, a white person, a brown person, a person with a big nose and a person with a small nose or any variation of person or finch never evolves beyond what a finch or a person is.

A moth becomes a butterfly, a child becomes an adult. This is, in effect an evolution ... a change ... but not a change which evolves beyond what the Bible speaks of in the Genesis account.

My questions for you, having been formed upon my understanding ... and a sort of grappling with what I see from you are as follows.

1.) What examples of mutations would you cite as a matter of concern for the case of evolution and what examples against? In other words where has mutations produced helpful results.

2.) To what degree would you grant the possibility of these examples being based upon a growing speculation? In other words is this speculation fallible, and to what degree is this relevant?

3.) To what degree would you, with what I assume with little knowledge of your personal devotion to Biblical studies is substantial, would you have found a disagreement with the Bible and the theory of evolution? In other words, put simply, do you see a disagreement between the two and if so what is it. If not would you admit there is some disagreement which is unsubstantiated?
 

And the multiplicity of wild claims you dish up makes it hard for my hungover brain to know where to start, David. Mutants. Are you proposing a sort of Dawn of the Dead scenario with manky creatures with extra legs running about as being the key to evolution?

Evolution is a product of a creature's interaction with its environment over tens of millions of years through subtle advantageous genetic mutations in a genome that is always in a state of change. Success is driven by an accumulation of tiny changes over vast periods of time and the key to it all is survival and reproduction. It's a linear process too, though there are indications that evolution can go sideways in viruses. In the higher orders things evolve in lines. Chimps didn't evolve into us, but all primates evolved from the same concestor and are still evolving. Look at humans. There's changes to skin colour that suit the environment, people are getting taller, women are getting better looking (this is true).

All the creatures between humans and our concestor and all that came before that concestor are extinct. The same for chimps. We and our primate cousins are simply those islands of species that survived long enough for us to wonder at. 

According to Bible chronology the flood took place in 2370 B.C.E. The Akkadian Epic of Gilgamesh, as we know it from the library of Ashurbanipal (who reigned from 668 - 627 B.C.E.) didn't begin to circulate, fragmentarily, until 1900 B.C.E. so how atheists came to the conclusion the former was inspired by the later is beyond my comprehension as well as, I would like to think, the comprehension of science.
 

The paganism of Christianity is really poor scholarship, Luminon, ask any scholar of paganism. Have I heard of Quetzalcoatl? Yes. Have you ever heard of Prometheus And Bob?

When something is said to evolve that doesn't necessarily imply the theory of evolution. That was the point I was making.  

You are correct, but that doesn't support your point.

The problem here is that you are using the term "evolve" in two different contexts. 

I can claim that, as a human, I have evolved my thinking, but that doesn't really have anything to do with the Theory of Evolution. 

If you want to discuss the Theory of Evolution, then the terms must be consistent with the Theory.

I think the bible is the product of human morality from times past, not the source of it. Picking and choosing parts in support of your spiritual or moral position, is taking control of a text while insisting it controls you.

Of course, I entirely agree. I only chose not to repeat the point you made earlier, as you put it at least as well as I could have. I only took a step farther by pointing out specific cases, namely rape slavery and incest. If there were to be ten commandments for modern times, I'm confident at least slavery and rape make the list. I'm extremely confident that in years to come, homosexual and abortion rights will be included, though there is hardly a consensus at the moment.

I sure hope it didn't come across that I think the Bible is an acceptable guide for ethics or morals. While it can be used as such, it would now create a danger to society. Luckily, even literalist Christians don't follow it literally. For example, procedures a menstruating woman must take, or who can attend church according to Leviticus.

Jonathan - I appreciate your willingness to repost this here. I found so many objections, I wanted to take them all on in order. What I'm going to say could be taken as a personal attack, though I don't mean it as one. I'm only taking the time to make this post and subsequent replies because I think you may be willing to listen and think rationally.

David - Absolutely. That is mutual. Full speed ahead, stiff upper lip, give no quarter and pull no punches, by all means!

David - To me, the interesting thing about "proving" the supernatural would be the effects of that perhaps being that it would no longer be supernatural.

Jonathan - Correct so far.

David - I don't have to put up with that! Moderator!

Only joking. Carry on . . .

David - The implication, of course, being that if we can't understand it we must deny it.

Jonathan - Your understanding of science is shockingly lacking. No atheist, agnostic, scientist, or sane person in general has ever claimed such nonsense. Science thrives on not understanding things, to investigate, observe, and test them for the purpose of better understanding.

David - Well I haven't said anything about science! None of the people you mentioned would agree with that generalization on human nature? You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out. I was talking about "proving" the supernatural.

David - At one time whales and squid were thought of as "supernatural," not that that means much.

Jonathan - It means nothing. Absolutely nothing. But it goes to show that you cluelessly use natural and supernatural where they don't belong. Supernatural means "that is above nature." A different realm. People who labeled whales and squid as supernatural were ignorant of science. Science has a very good understanding of what is natural, and what is not. The definition is clear.

David - If you were looking for an intellectual discourse you really picked the wrong thread to do that. The people who thought that whales and squid were supernatural were not keenly aware of what you would call science and I would think that you would be hard pressed to find any scientific data from that period trying to set them straight on the subject. I mean, you could try; I could be wrong, but the absence of any evidence provided by you up to this point speaks volumes.

David - From a strictly atheistic point of view I don't see how it could matter because most atheists  I have talked with believe in the possibility of there being other intelligent life forms in the universe.

Jonathan - This quote begins incoherently and only goes down hill from there. First you make a variation of argumentum ad populum by saying atheists you know believe x therefore atheists believe x. It's non sequitur, and if I did the same thing about Christians or theists, you would cry foul.

David - You want to test me on that, 'cause, damn, I don't have a great deal of good to say about the vast majority of "Christians" and "theists" if you haven't noticed. You probably won't get much of an argument from me there.

Jonathan - I'm crying foul. If you want me to respect your beliefs as your own, I expect the same courtesy for all atheists.

David - Uh . . . okay?

Jonathan - Next point. The possibility of life outside Earth is very high. Intelligent, or conscious life, is for another debate. Preferably with someone with a better grasp of biology and physics. I don't think you're capable of holding that conversation given your previous misunderstandings of science.

David - You've done it again! I have said very little about science, and I can't think of any thing in the Bible that rules out life outside of Earth, can you, in fact my next quote says . . .

David - Angels? Oh, no! That isn't possible because the Bible says so.

Jonathan - I truly hope this is satire done poorly, as that would be the least sinister possibility.

David - Well, sorry, that's what I was doing, actually. Satire poorly. My observations lead me to believe there is some truth underneath it.

David -On the other hand at Galatians 5:20 Paul uses the Greek word pharmakia, from which comes our English word Pharmacy. It is most often translated as "spiritism" because drugs were, and still are in primitive societies, used as a means to access the spirit world. Of course - the sort of "proof" of which you speak is, under the influence, difficult to to document and confirm.

Jonathan - How is etymology relevant to anything you're saying? You've admitted elsewhere you're not trained in ancient Greek, but okay, you can Google. Hey, me too! We should get together some time and Google.

David - I wouldn't Google my ass from a hole in the ground. Please! Do you think there are scholars in ancient Greek and Hebrew going around chatting in Greek and Hebrew as a parlor trick? Do you think that I have to be trained in Greek by some scholar who believes in the Christian trinity with all of the data supporting the obvious absence of any such implication in the text? You and that guy can sit around and Google Platonic then get back to me and see if we can clear it up for you.  I've talked to scholars like that and I am not impressed, not that I am so stupid not to educate myself with some help from them, obviously. Why is it that science minded atheists, so called free thinkers subscribe to the school of thought that you have to pay for knowledge and you can't do it on your own for free?  

Jonathan - In all seriousness, there is no spirit world. We understand very clearly how hallucinogenics work, their chemical structure, what receptors they attach to or inhibit in the brain. Everything happens in the brain. The brain is within the natural realm, we can apply the scientific method to it.

David - There is no spirit world? If we are talking about the inability of science to test and observe the supernatural could you explain the logic underlieng that conclusion, please?

David - Then again, can you "prove" that we evolved or can you assume that based upon our obviously poor observation that we did because other than the Bible there is no explanation?

Jonathan - Evolution is a fact. The only thing you've said correctly without quoting old science books, is that your understanding of evolution is minimal. I've read your other post in which you clearly don't understand the process of evolution, and I will get to it. But what I will not do, is let your recent nonsense cover up your previous nonsense. I will call you out on it and hold you responsible before moving on. The last theist said I was backpedaling. I just won't let you sweep things under the rug that have yet to be answered. I invite you to hold me to the same standard.

David - [sigh] Great. Just what I've always wanted.

Jonathan - The Bible is hardly the only other creation story and it is absurd to suggest such. Evolution is the overwhelming most accepted explanation by biologists and related experts who are actually qualified to give an authoritative statement on the subject.

David - [Looks at watch] This is really starting to sound like dogma. You all keep defending evolution as if I deny all science as if that were blasphemy. Me thinks thee does protest too much. Especially since my limited application of old science books is more substantive than your vain protests thus far. If were were carving this in stone 2,000 years from now you would be perceived as a holy man of little consequence and those distant evolved orbs would have a great deal more to work with from my lame assed exploration so you better get busy but don't expect to indoctrinate me.

David - The best you can do is study the Bible with eyes open and go from there. 

Jonathan - Considering the Bible condones rape, incest, and slavery, the Bible is a terrible first step. Go ahead and tell me that you don't support rape. It proves the Bible is irrelevant. If you pick and choose parts to follow, you could have reached the same conclusion without it.

David - Prove it.

No, I don't wish to discuss Creationalism.  Creationalism is based on a book that I do not consider relevant, anymore than you would consider the creation theory of any Islamic faith.

Until we can even establish that god does indeed exist, the bible is not a book of authority on which we can both agree.

I hesitate to also argue in detail about the Theory of Evolution, as that is not my area of expertise.  Now, if you wanted to discuss how non-managed switches can be damaging to an extensive layer 2 network that uses per VLAN spanning tree, or if you want to discuss the merits of a hardware firewall as more than just a router, I can speak on that.  But the Theory of Evolution is something that I know enough about that I can take the repeatable, verifiable, falsifiable, peer-reviewed evidence and accept it as fact.  Creationalism offers no such thing.  In fact, Creationalism is the opposite of science.  In the scientific method, you come up with a hypothesis, develop controlled tests, and take the results of the test to come up with a conclusion.  As more independent tests are done that support the conclusion, the more "validity" there is to the claim; in other words, the more reasonable it is to believe.  If, however, evidence to the contrary is found and is repeatable (falsifiability), then the conclusion must be altered or considered false.  Creationalism starts with the conclusion (god did it) and then only accepts evidence that supports the conclusion and discards evidence to the contrary.  This is NOT science, and it holds no interest to me.

However, if you are going to compare/contrast Creationalism with the Theroy of Evolution, you should at least have a well-read understanding of the Theory of Evolution first.  As I pointed out, you are using a conflated version of "evolve" that shows you do not carry this understanding.  I am not trying to be mean or insulting; there are many subjects that I do not have a base understanding, and I am fine with that.  But I am not going to dismiss or make contrarian statements about a subject that I do not understand.

You could have quoted me to that effect you know, the repitition of that is becoming like a mantra. Excellent refutation as well. Have you noticed that when I disagree with anyone on the Bible I give good reason for it? Try that.

Could you give me an example of that? It is time you transcend the stating of opinion.

Creationalism? I didn't say discuss Creationism I said discuss evolution. If you say the Bible isn't relevant then you must have some reason for that, if you can't define the difference between the Bible "kind" and the science "species" then how do you know that the evidence doesn't point to the Bible as being correct and evolution as being wrong, because that happens to be the case, but you don't know that because you don't know the Bible. The fossil record shows everything appearing in a relatively sudden event and not changing. You can line up a row of skulls of apes and of men and conclude, incorrectly, that one evolved from the other and call that science but I call it stupid. Don't tell me that isn't science or evolution because I have seen it, it the text books of school as well as from science minded atheists. You have apes and you have man skulls and any leap of faith connecting the two is blind and irresponsible.

The Hebrew El, God, means anything or anyone who is considered by anyone to be mighty or worthy of veneration. This means that anything I see as a god, whether it exists or not, is a god. If you are on an archaeological excavation and you discover the remains of a primitive people you are not going to stop the dig because you become aware of the fact that they believed in a god. I'm not suggesting that you consider Creationism as scientific I'm suggesting that you have a more scientific approach to your criticism of the Bible and that you avoid being dogmatic about your science.

It's not a refutation, it's an observation and a recommendation. Refutations are only needed when some sort of relevant argument has been presented. Your vast ignorance of evolution prevents you from presenting such arguments. That's why I recommend education.

The problem is you walked in here and said, "I don't know anything about science or evolution, but I have lots of opinions that I admit are unfounded, and I refuse to learn on my own because I think science is boring."  Have a little respect for the opinions you hold and go do some reading on wikipedia or something instead of swallowing whatever religious drivel gets spoon fed to you.

This wouldn't be a problem, but you don't seem to have attracted the posters who have the patience to, yet again, go through a 101 course on science and evolution.  Honestly, I don't know how anyone has the patience to do the groundwork more than once or twice.

Or I could suck it up and start doing the 101 course myself. 

That is a great point.  Usually when theists accuse atheists of being dogmatic about science, what they really mean is, "dogmatic about actually wanting evidence", which to a theist is often a capital offense.  It also shows a clear lack of understanding about what science is, of course.

Maybe part of it is because they often understand dogmatism, since they live it...but the concept of rational decision making is not terribly familiar.  They are proudly dogmatic about their dogmatism.

An example of... what, exactly?

Oh wait a minute... try this one:

That science is religion? Science is stuff that can be proven by repeatable experiment. There's nothing more to it than that. Claiming science is religion is a projection that I can't help calling a cop-out on your part. I'm not convinced you were a considered atheist before your conversion. I mean this as no offence but clearly you did not understand why you did not believe in god, you simply didn't believe at the time.

Now, evolution is a tricky area but even if I was a theist I'd believe god used evolution to drive creation and that this evolution is an ongoing process. Quite simply, genomes are self organising microbial information systems, dynamic ecosystems that resemble the world of the archeobacteria from which they sprang. You believe the nature of all creatures is locked into placed but good science proves this to be utterly false and your refusal to accept it does you no credit here. When understanding the basics of the genome you need to understand that every bacteria can trade genes with every other bacteria it encounters. This is a fact. This genetic information trading system, a system which allows bacteria to alter themselves to suit new environments, is what underscores all genomic function.

It has been variously suggested that humans are a taxi to allow bacteria to move around safely, and a conference centre to allow bacteria to exchange information. We have bacteria, plasmids and viruses in our guts, blood streams, and mouths.  They cover our skin and we breath them through the air. The mitochondria that powers a living cell is made of stripped down bacteria RNA and our DNA is the DNA of bacteria. Our sperm cells have an ancient form shared by all protists covering 40 phyla including fungi, algae, plants and animals.

Just to put things into further perspective, the first nucleated cells were born when bacteria merged and this development is the largest differentiator between all living creatures. This is important. The biggest difference in all species living today is not a division of plants and animals, but a division between non-nucleated and nucleated cells.   

You may draw whatever conclusions from this you chose, David, but the profound implications of our current and future knowledge are out there waiting for you. We truly are an integral part of the earth but not in the way you suppose us to be.

I'm not sure what you mean by "produce anything new." A mutation (deletions, insertions, point mutations, etc.) produces a change in genes. Many genes correspond to phenotypes, so some mutations correspond to changes in phenotypes.

Heh, I knew someone with patience would show up.

Lol, yeah, I had quite a bit of free time today. I still don't feel like it was thorough enough though. Sometimes, I regret not being a dick and just pasting huge arguments that I don't even understand from other websites (without citing the source, of course).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLLFSUaQsp4

(can a moderator make this appear on screen still havent got that one down)

How is it blind and irresponsible for one to believe apes and man have common ancestry?  An intelligent person needs only to watch this video whilst thinking to conlude these 2 animals are most likely closely related and have a common ancestry.  Not to mind our vertually identical DNA, bone structure, how we look and act, the fossils, other biological similarities etc. etc...   Are caracals and cougars related, coyotes and dingos, ofcourse they are, and so are bonobos and man.  Without all the actual evidence, I think it's pretty obvious just by sight and obsertvation alone we are closely related to apes. 

Here is another interesting video on self-recognition in the great apes

Hot.