Do you think the theory of evolution is supported?

Well I did some research on some of the names I've gotten from the list. Phil Skell was always a person to shoot down evolution. He said he never believed in it. And one student at PSU said he will goto lectures about evolution, but never speaks a word. He is a Chemist, never really studied further into anthrology from what I understand.

I also found out from another site that was talking about the Discovery Institute's filing a amicus curiae ("friend of the court"), which 85 members off the other list signed were mostly from Evangelical Universities. And here's a quote from the man who did the research,

Two of the signers, for instance, are professors at Biola University <http://www.biola.edu/about/>, which describes itself as "a private Christian university ... based on evangelical Christianity". Two others are on the faculty of Huntington University <http://www.huntington.edu/>, whose website says it is "an evangelical Christian college." Then there's Dordt College <http://www.dordt.edu/>, a "private, Reformed, Christian college" which offers a "biblical, Christ-centered education;" Northwestern College <http://nwc.nwc.edu/> (not to be confused with Northwestern University), which "takes a Biblically Christian ethical and moral position and is theologically conservative in doctrine;" Grove City College <http://www.gcc.edu/>, a "top-ranked affordable Christian College;" Malone College <http://www.malone.edu/>, whose mission is "to provide students with an education based on biblical faith;" and Union College <http://www.ucollege.edu/ucscripts/public/template/main.a sp> which believes it "develops an eternal perspective with assurance in Christ" in its students, who should "operate from a Christ-centered perspective."

So you have 154 biologist, 76 chemist, and 63 physicists.

Phil Skell was a chemist who didn't work at a christian college or university from what I found in my own research. He is one who will not debate against a anthrapologist, he turned one down after he was asked to do so infront of people. He is also a self proclaimed creationist and seems like he always has been from what I gathered. So, there were only nine signitures out of 85 that signed this amicus curiae from the Discovery Istitute(where the other signitures are from) that worked a non-Christian school. 38 of them were not even currently employed at any institution. These are people that signed your Dissent from Darwinism list!

Also one of them didn't realize what he was signing and doesn't agree with the discovery institue, here's what it says,

Finally: One more thing before I close out this post. In my continung colloquy with the folks at Dispatches from the Culture Wars <http://www.stcynic.com/blog/archives/2005/10/more_dissem bling_from_the_di_o.php>, I learned that at least one person who signed the Discovery Institute's "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism <http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100Scientists Ad.pdf>" did so without understanding what the organization is about, that its purpose is to displace Darwinian evolutionary theory. He's Bob Davidson of Bellevue, Washington, and he now says his inclusion on the list is a mistake <http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/20024503 29_danny24.html>: "It's laughable: There have been millions of experiments over more than a century that support evolution," he says. "There's always questions being asked about parts of the theory, as there are with any theory, but there's no real scientific controversy about it." Davidson began to believe the institute is an "elaborate, clever marketing program" to tear down evolution for religious reasons. He read its writings on intelligent design � the notion that some of life is so complex it must have been designed � and found them lacking in scientific merit. It's worthwhile keeping in mind that it's certainly possible that people can sign such statements without being entirely aware of what they mean and to what purpose they will be put. If they later determine that they disagree with what they've signed, or the way it's being used, it's incumbent on them to publicly disagree and disavow their signature, just as Davidison has done.

here's a link to the guy who did research on them, http://unfutz.blogspot.com/2005/10/kitzmiller-reading-signer s.html

Your crediability has fallen. Most of these proclaimed scientist, 293, which some were always creationist, some don't even have jobs, and the other 207 we don't even know what field they are from honestly don't prove a thing now. You pulled a quick...

Search, then give the evidence for Macro Evolution. Why have you not given evidence?

Because you say DNA studies are to early and you throw away 600 million years of fossil records and don't take into account the bacterial traces also. You want living proof, but you dismiss even the changes of colors or suddenly gaining wings found in insects as proof. If thats not change, I don't know what is.

He cited for example a study in another thread, the Genesis thread. He gave an example of a study on "salmon," and thought it supported Macro Evolution, however due to the fact that speciation was occuring in 60-70 years, the "Media" "overreacted," because that did not agree with Darwinain Macro Evolutionists who contend that it takes "hundreds of thousands" of years for speciation!

Not exactly. It's really hard for me to talk to you because you twisted my words around numerous times. Life spans are not always the reason for evolution, lets get that straight, a species can keep going without ever evolving, it does not have to constantly change. They just found a Rodent 15 million years old from the Laotian Islands that I believe the squierrel evolved from. Yet it's the same exact species, it just never died out. Though it may have given birth to other species.

The salmon in this case had to change, in other words natural selection. They were put in this area in 1937, then they split. What happened is one evolved to fit the river, the other the lake. They do not prefer to breed with each other, which means they know a difference themselves.

here is a quote,

The male river fish evolved shallower bodies that are better for swimming through strong currents. The female river fish were bigger than the lake ones and able to dig deeper nests. The new evidence suggests that animals can adapt to new environments about 10 times faster than once thought.

This is what happens in science, you study and you find new information.

By the way, there is a study on fruit flies on this link also, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/979950.stm

Now these are huge chnages, but like edgewater said, your looking for a onion bulb to turn into a whale. It took us millions of years for our skulls to evolve from a flat forhead, to a large forhead and big cranium to allow our large brain. It takes millions of years to see a large change completly different from the ancestor.

Everyone note, Search is saying Macro Evolution takes "time" and I am happy for this admission!

Everyone note, he does not read my sentences completely and still has yet to answer or acknowledge my past questions and answers.

It seems you don't understand the point that I made in regards to the insect world. Macro evolution should be happening all over the place because insects have short life spands. I am sure you know how long a "fruit fly lives."

Life span is only but one factor for the last time. You won't see any major changes that you are looking for. You say smaller or larger wings aren't evolution,but just microevolution, but that is a major change! That is changing what they are and gives them different abilities. Your looking for biblical proportions to happen which isn't always the case!

Though in london, it took one hundred years for a mosquito to evolve. Some mosquitos, which only would feed on birds at the time, went down in a newly built subway in 1900. In 1998, it was found those that went down in the subway don't feed on birds anymore, and their DNA evolved and changed so much that they can't even breed with the prvious species.

Search, do you realize what you just said? The mechanisms for Darwinian Macro Evolution are "HYPOTHESIS" only.

No, I didn't say anything, your just twisting my words. You do understand that in science, scientist explore how things work right? It's accepted that evolution is fact otherwise it wouldn't be called a Theory. Different scientist make hypothesis to explore how things work in a theory. Don't twist my words, if you don't understand what I'm saying you shouldn't even be having this discussion. Or atleast assuming something entirly different without asking what I mean.

Remember the quote from the Macro Evolutionist in my earlier posts to you who admitted the "fossil record" does not support Macro Evolution but Intelligent Design

No I don't, and because one person says it doesn't mean it's true. I'll believe the studies of thousands of scientist before I believe one person who isn't in the field.

Search, EVERYONE can read our posts! I have never referred to the Lamarkian theory of Evolution!

Once again, you misunderstood... I'm honestly serious on this question, not trying to put anything against you in anyway or form, but I have to ask, is English your first language? Again, I'm not trying to insult you or your intelligence, I'm asking with all serousness. I don't know if you don't understand what I'm saying or are honestly twisting my words, so I have to ask.

Lamarckism says that by a parent doing strenuous work, like I gave the example of the Giraffe, that it will immediatly begin to gain traits quickly. That the evolution you keep trying to ask about it seems goes along with this idea.You keep asking me to explain why there isn't any large changes in in the Fruit Fly experiment. One reason is they are in a very controled enviroment(atleast from the lack of info you gave me), so the ones that can only survive a certain enviroment where the others would die out doesn't happen. You have to remember that one fly has about 100 offspring, maybe more, I'm not exactly sure how many eggs one fly lays. Only a few will have mutations that would fit a enviroment that isn't the norm for them, but they won't go on to change the entire population when the original DNA is still the dominant. The original DNA would have to be completely killed off in this experiment before you could "SEE" large enough changes to make it not a fly anymore, but the DNA may still change to create news species of fly.

Essentially, the Fruit Fly expieriment would be like what we did with dogs if we could exaggerate their traits quickly. We forced evolved them making them take on different traits. Huskies can live in -26 below celcius weather while a Chihuahua couldn't last at all in that sort of temperature. Huskies have two different coats of fur and different personality traits then a Chihuahua also.

Just like I never said 6000 years for the earth age.

No, but alot of Christians do. They also believe Noah's Ark and the biblical flood happened about 5000 years ago from what I gathered. And they say they got this by fitting timelines in the bible together.

Now your saying I am critizing Lamark!

No I didn't, the arguements you used and the answers you seem to be looking for seem to go with Lamarckism. You wanted immediate answers for the reason the fruit flies didn't evolve. Without natural selection that would drastically prove the old traits obselete, then you won't get the huge changes you look for. And even if that was the case, it'd still take quite a few generation for them to make a huge noticable change. Insects wear their skeleton on the outside(so to speak), that might be enough for them to not be able to make a change on the outside to weather freezing temperatures. Though some bugs have a inside change that allows them to freeze and live due to chemicals, and thats a DNA trait.

By saying I am not addressing Darwin's theory indicates some desparation on your part in another area.

No it doesn't, I made a observation that your looking for huge changes without huge outside influences such as the fruit fly expierment where it seems your looking for the fly to turn into a bee. That'd be Lamarckism and not Darwin's Theory where a number of factors need to take place.

Search, do you not realize what your are saying? You believe in "LAMARKIAN" evolution?

Again, that is what you assume or your twisting my words. It was a example of Lamarckism, and nothing else.

This is truly amazing my friend Search. Lamarkian evolution is not accepted by anyone today!

No, whats truely amazing is how quickly you jump to conclusions. And your right, it isn't widly accepted, I only brought it up because it seems thats the evolution your attacking. Your looking for quick changes due to the parents actions, atleast thats the only way it could happen with that expierment or what kind of answers your looking to get from me. Darwin's theory says natural selection as one way, without having any idea on how the study was done, and you continuously asking why they didn't change into a different insect, you sound as though you are talking about Lamarckism, you've gave me no real information on the study, just like I'm still waiting on the names of those horses from National Geographic.

Search, Darwin's theory takes "MILLIONS" of years? Search your in a corner, you've put yourself in a corner my friend, maybe you can't perceive it but others reading our thread can. Time is the answer you say and that is why Darwinian Macro Evolution is not seen as it takes millions of years.

I didn't put myself in a corner. You want a example of right now a fish turning into a frog within a couple of years. Natural Selection can't make extreme actions like that. But can create a Fish with different traits within a few thousand years.

One fish, the cichlid fish found it's way to a lake in Africa 12,400 years ago. Over time the food in the lake started to become scarce, and the species evolved into over a hundred different species. Some evolved wide mouths, others large lips, and one species evolved teeth like spears. They started out as carbon copies, and in 12 thousand years, a geological blink, created different species. They evolved because those who didn't have the means to survive to pass on traits died off. Over 12 thousand years, their features became more and more exaggerated. It took time, and it took a reason. A number of factors contributed to why they evolved. With the fruit flies, there weren't any strong reasons from what I gather, and the only way they could have evolved the way you want them is Lamarckism.

Understand now?

The fruit fly was chosen for these experiments because they only live "10" days. These studies on fruit flies had been done since the 1906! The result of these fruit fly studies? Micro change! How many life times is that Search since 1906?

I don't even know what the scientist did for the expierment. It sounds as though he only caged them in one area. Do to the amount of offspring one fly has, the original DNA would remain dominant.

From what I understand, Humans haven't been evolving much either since we create our own enviroments to fit us. Maybe in a couple million years there will be a difference, but we won't notice anything drastically different now or for a thousand years.

Search, oh my, is this science? Your an example of Micro Evolution from your parents? Not! Your an example of "inheritance."

Your right, inheritance, exactly how evolution works. Look at dogs, they started from wolves, and now we have all kind of breeds, some even have webbed toes to swim, others better hearing, different coats to survive different elements. All inheritance, yet huge changes.

What adaptation did you undergo for micro evolution to occur? Search, please.

Gene's continue to change, I've got a mix from my father and mother. Me and you have extremely different DNA. If there were no changes, then we would all be inbreds. But small mutations do happen over time in DNA also.

The point stands Search, just think about it. You do not accept the Multi-regional theory, it does not make sense to you, as you said earlier.

I believe that modern man came from a isolated population of Homo Sapiens, atleast thats from the studies I read. After we evolved in Africa, some moved out and sub-species of Homo Sapien evolved like Cro-Magnon and Homo Sapian Idaltu and numerous others. We may have gained traits from the, like Europeans may have Cro-Magnon genes, but multiregional evolution is not the reason modern man came about.

Both are based on fossils and artists renditions!

The only thing the artist could mess up is skin color. By comparing bones we can see they are our ancestors, we can even tell what age they died in. There isn't much we can't tll by studying bones anymore.

Its pure speculation,

and inteligent design isn't? Evolution has far more facts for it then the idea a supreme being ever existed.

So I'll ask a few questions I've been waiting for.

1. Can I have the names of the horse fossils.

2. A link so that I can understand better the expierment with the fruit flies.

3.Do you now understand how the human DNA works involving when we are talking about Y Chromosome Adam and Mitochondrial Eve? In my last post I further described how it works and how it changes over time. I even gave you a example to see it better, and yet I have no answer to it.

4. Out of curiosity, I asked if other Homo Sapien sub-species had their own Adam and Eve's? Does the bible even mention other human species that were around not to long ago?

Edited by SearchAndDestroy

Cuauhtemoc, please, could you make your posts a little bit shorter! Just your own ideas and expressed short and straight, without quoting the Bible or something else. It's far to difficult to read a whole of your post, you make them so long and filled with quotes that I sometimes can't get a grasp on what you want to say. And try not to repeat yourself, please, just post a link to your previous post.

Evolution is largely driven by mutations. When talking about microrganisms this is much, much more readily apperent.

As apposed to general knowledge, some bacteria actually have anti-drug tendencies before being treated with the drug. That is to say, they dont become resistant when they encounter the drug, but they have been before they encountered it. And this is not due to "intelligence" but to mutations. Mutations are random and very rare. However in comparison to humans, mutations in bacteria take place at a much greater rate, and by accident the bacteria become resistant, not because they were destined to be...

whether you like it or not, you get new mutations every day, even while sleeping, this is why with age, cancers become so much more prevalent (among with many, many other reasons).

Luckly most mutations are recessive, so if you have a single good copy you will be fine. And mutation is also the reason why genetic diseases plagued European noble families, through intermarriages, the chance of a person being born from the same genetic family is high, and the chance of getting a recessive mutations is also much higher


Edited by mamikon

Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc Well edgewater since you can't be specific, I can. Since you want to talk about the Microrganic world, lets use an example "all" are readily aware of. What about the "flu?" Every year we have to be concerned about the flu? Does the flu become an entirely different and new organism? Not! Flu like the example of dogs has Micro changes or evolution. Yes changes in viruses and bacteria is a problem for humanity, however those changes that do occur are changes within a specific organism or kind.

Not correct. Although something like the flu does mutate into different "strains" without any speciation occurring, we know from laboratory observation that speciation can occur in microorganisms in a relatively short time and we also know that this does happen in the real world, with entirely new diseases appearing all the time, like clockwork. Are you at all aware of how many bacteriological or virus diseases which have no precedent at all that have cropped up in the last, say, half-century, or even just in the last couple of decades?

Point 2, the changes you say happened under laboratory conditions? Sounds like Intelligence is involved.

There's not much intelligence involved in observation. A lab simply implies controlled conditions that minimize external influences, which, if anything, should reduce the chance of something like speciation occurring, not enhance it.

Moreover, intelligence alone doesn't magically produce results by some sort of telekinetic superpower or other gobbledygook hocus-pocus. Specific actions produce results. When these actions mimic circumstances in the natural world, they will produce the same results, regardless of whether intelligence or nature is behind them. If I use my intelligence to drop a 5lb stone 3 feet onto your hand in a laboratory, its still going to hurt just as much as if a 5lb stone falls from 3 feet onto your hand because it was knocked down off a ledge by an elephant fart out in the jungle. Of course, it's difficult to argue with the superstitious mind, which is likely to attribute the elephant fart to gods, spirits, mischievous elves, a witch's curse, etc.

Its still "bacteria," its still an "ameoba."

Oh God. That's like saying monkeys and cows are the same thing because they're both mammals. Or that a tree and a carrot are the same species: plant. Lol.

We have been through this one. Mice are still mice, would that be a Micro evolution or change?

Nope. See above. The test for speciation is not whether they are still "small and furry looking" its far more precise. Can they interbreed with their former reproductive community? Yes? Then they are just a breed. No? Then they are, by most definitions, a new species. This isn't even necessary in many instances; few people would agree with the assessment that a St. Bernard and a timber wolf are members of the same species, but they can interbreed.

 

You seem to be very, very confused about the hierarchy of taxonomy, it seems like you don't recognize any difference between family, genus, and species. I have this sense that you wouldn't be satisfied until you saw something switch kingdoms, like a fungus turning into a polar bear. (Most) mice are all of the same genus, namely Mus, not the same species. Within Mus are four different subgenera and up to 40 different species. Not all mice even belong to the same genus or even the same family; most old world mice don't even belong in the Rodentia family but in the Muridae family. Other mice within the Rodentia family are not of the Mus genera, but belong to other genera (in the US, the deer mouse and white footed mouse are of the Peromyscus genera). All this, before even getting to the level of species among mice.

So, presented with speciation changes, all you've done is assert that speciation is "micro" and you want a change of genera, family, or possibly even order before it qualifies as "macro" which seems to be some weird folk classification you've invented on the spot.

If you're thinking that evolution means that you can watch a onion bulb turn into a whale, then you're clearly at a disadvantage in comprehending the concept.

Edited by edgewaters

Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc As you point out humanity has used that principle to get variety in domestic animals, however as you know changes are within types or kinds and no new organisms have ever been developed on the "Macro Evolution" level!

 

Very, very much incorrect. The most rapidly evolving organisms - eg bacteria, amoeba and even small microorganisms - have had numerous speciation (not just the minor changes you're talking about, but actual production of new species) events observed in the laboratory, and the rapidity with which new species can be generated via mutation at the micro-organic level is very, very well understood (and a great problem for us today).

 

In the natural world, speciation events have been observed in larger organisms, where separated groups have evolved new features and further, have been physically incapable of rejoining the reproductive community of their former relatives (which is the test for speciation - dogs beget dogs, they do not beget bears or cats). Examples include the Faroe Island mice or the introduced goatsbeard plants in the US. 

Like most of IDs assertions, this one falls flat on its face and has to be shouted loudly, to drown out the sound of the elephant in the room stomping about.

Edited by edgewaters

Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc Originally posted by Halevi Originally posted by HereForNow Genetic research says we evolved more from dolphins than apes, apes just branched off from dolphins. The behaviors of humans and dolphins are nearly alike: -both have difficult births and are helped by females -apes hate water, we don't -apes will give birth alone and in the middle of the night with no problem, not so with us and dolphins -both show extreme emotion -notice how we both eat fish ^_^ there is a lot more but I can't think of them off the top of my head. Thats called convergent evolution. Gr 11 Bio. Herefornow and Halevi, this theory is as good as the Darwinian Macro Evolution due to misinterpretation of the data in nature.

No, im pretty sure scientists have established that our genomes are more closely related to apes than dolphins. Its a matter of degree, of course, since were also quite similar genetically to bananas, in terms of number and kind of genes =)

Moreover, there is evidence suggesting the theoretical evolutionary projection of dolphins branched off from the theoretical evolutionary projection of hominids long long ago.  Its all theory, of course.

Originally posted by Maju Macro-evolution? Micro-evolution?  That's like long-term and short-term, isn't it? I don't see what's the problem those "scientists" see with Darwinian theories (it's more like a general paradigm, not a single theory as such

Hi Maju, the qoutations of European dillusioned darwinian macro evolutionist in my last post to you(that anyone can read), clearly show how darwin's theory is collapsing even as some today continue to have blind faith in that theory. Here is another "disillusioned darwinian macro evolutionist" who says believing in Darwinian evolution is no better then believing in "fairies." By the way he is a "nobel prize" winner and a biochemist. He knows more obviously about "macro evolution" then you and I.

Dr. Ernst Chain - Nobel Prize winning biochemist. Ernst Chain, who helped develop penicillin, in 1972, has called the theory of evolution, "a very feeble attempt to understand the development of life." He is also on record as saying "I would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation [as Darwinian evolution]". Ernst Chain. Quoted in Ronald W. Clark, "The Life of Ernst Chain: Penicillin and Beyond", Weidenfeld & Nicholson: London, 1985 p:147-148

Originally posted by edgewaters I've said this before to other people, and I'll say it again: it is very difficult to argue against evolution when you can manipulate the principles behind it to breed dogs or tomatoes or anything else you like. Evolution's been understood for thousands of years in its basic essence, looong before it was ever formulated as a scientific theory and its full implications were thought about.

Hi edgewaters, yes the principles of "Micro Evolution" are very well understood. As I am sure you know Micro Evolution is changes within kinds and in nature is called "adaptation." As you point out humanity has used that principle to get variety in domestic animals, however as you know changes are within types or kinds and no new organisms have ever been developed on the "Macro Evolution" level! For example, a great dane dog can mate with a chihuahua! This may be impossible physically, however because it is "micro evolution," we know it is possible. You correctly point out, "tomatoes are tomatoes" though maybe larger and juicier! But they are still tomatoes. 

Originally posted by edgewaters The ID folks are being really silly, worse in some ways than their intellectual ancestors in the Flat Earth society. As soon as you agree that selection can alter the characteristics of an animals descendants, you have confirmed evolution, which is hard not to do with a poodle or pit bull or red rose or yellow corn in your home.

It sounds edgewater that you are the one being silly as Intelligent Design has made inroads even on university campus'. Here is a quote for you Quote:

Over 500 Scientists Proclaim Their Doubts About Darwin�s Theory

By: Staff Discovery Institute February 20, 2006

The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism list is now located at a new webpage, www.dissentfromdarwin.org. SEATTLE � Over 500 doctoral scientists have now signed a statement publicly expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution. The statement reads: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." The list of 514 signatories includes member scientists from the prestigious US and Russian National Academy of Sciences. Signers include 154 biologists, the largest single scientific discipline represented on the list, as well as 76 chemists and 63 physicists. Signers hold doctorates in biological sciences, physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, computer science, and related disciplines. Many are professors or researchers at major universities and research institutions such as MIT, The Smithsonian, Cambridge University, UCLA, UC Berkeley, Princeton, the University of Pennsylvania, the Ohio State University, the University of Georgia, and the University of Washington..

Edgewaters, please do not miss this point! What is so significant about this quotation? The fact a few years ago, "ONE" would be "hard pressed" to find even "one" professor to take this position "openly." Don't miss my point here, for I am merely pointing out "Intelligent Design" is making inroads. If the "proof" for Darwinian Macro Evolution was so "strong" why are some university professors rejecting the theory?

Originally posted by edgewaters Most IDers really need to get familiar with what evolution is, and what evolution isn't. Evolution isn't about the origin of life on earth; that's abiogenesis, and there is no widely accepted theory of abiogenesis among scientists. To attack evolution because it doesn't include one is silly, and only displays a massive inability to understand how science works or what evolutionary is about. Evolution is about the origin of species, not life. The ID crowd desperately needs to grasp this simple concept.

Apparently your uninformed about Intelligent Design. Here is the definition of Evolution, The definition is from http//education.yahoo.com

Quote: ev�o�lu�tion  A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development. The process of developing. Gradual development. Biology Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.

Edgewaters, the definition is known, however "macro evolution" has not been observed, no "new organisms" or species have arisen. However we have many countless of "micro evolutionary" changes both among domestic and wild animals. For example that is why we have so many types of domestic dogs and micro changes in iguanas in the Galopogos Islands, which was observed by Darwin.  He made a leap of "faith" from micro change to macro change. Change "within" kinds is what we observe! Edgewaters, as you yourself pointed out, by domestic breeding of dogs, "change" is limited to changes within kinds.

Edited by Cuauhtemoc

Originally posted by Halevi Originally posted by HereForNow Genetic research says we evolved more from dolphins than apes, apes just branched off from dolphins. The behaviors of humans and dolphins are nearly alike: -both have difficult births and are helped by females -apes hate water, we don't -apes will give birth alone and in the middle of the night with no problem, not so with us and dolphins -both show extreme emotion -notice how we both eat fish ^_^ there is a lot more but I can't think of them off the top of my head. Thats called convergent evolution. Gr 11 Bio.

Herefornow and Halevi, this theory is as good as the Darwinian Macro Evolution due to misinterpretation of the data in nature.

Cuauhtemoc is happy about ignorance and fundamentalism gaining ground. I am not.