Re: New falsifiable proposal/prediction of design

floyd wrote:

> Wall of Sleep wrote:
>
>>floyd wrote:
>
>
> [snipping for bandwidth]
>
>
>
>
>>>I can see your point. (I disagree, obviously, but I understand what
>>>you're asking for a bit better now.) The problem here, as others have
>>>pointed out, and as you clearly understand (from your writing below,
>>>WRT flying squirrels) is that in those cases where there is a clear and
>>>unambigouous connection (e.g. between bacteria without flagella and
>>>bacteria with them), it is easy enough for you to say "you haven't
>>>reached point B."
>>>
>>
>>Yes, what you're saying is essentially true. My proposal is broad and
>>therefore hard to falsify because, as you say, if no barrier is found
>>between point A and point B, I would concede that an evolutionary link
>>is established and move the goalposts (point B) a bit farther and say
>>"Now try it.". So yes your point is valid. I do think however, that the
>>goalposts can *always* be moved far enough to reach an impenetrable
>>barrier - and not by requiring great leaps either.
>>
>
>
>
> Yes, of course. But the possibility of "moving the goalposts" is why
> there is a problem with the structure of your argument that makes it
> ultimately unfalsifiable. If the desired outcome, or rather, the
> expected _failure_ of outcome can always be moved one step further,
> then you're really building a "God of the gaps" argument that is
> structurally akin to Zeno's paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise. If
> you can always move the goalposts "one step further" then your
> hypothesis is immune to disproof, even if it is false, just by its very
> nature. That's one reason that I think it would be to your benefit to
> phrase the hypothesis in exclusively empirical terms, rather than more
> abstract theoretical ones. If you say "species in general can never
> evolve beyond a certain but unspecified limit", then you've made a
> general statement of theory. That's fine, but to make it testable, you
> need to draw a hypothesis from that theory that can be tested in the
> "real world". For example, "chimps can never drive a car" or "an
> orangutan could never run a library" or something like that.
>
>
>
>>>But here, at least, you have at least mentioned where "point B" is
>>>located. If point A is human and point B is chimps, then we have
>>>something empirical to go on, and since yours is an empirical test,
>>>that at least puts it in the realm of potential falsification, which is
>>>necessary if you want it to be scientific.
>>>
>>>I admit I am still not comfortable with the lack of definition of the
>>>proposed "barriers"; I still think that term needs more explicit
>>>definition if you're going to make any headway. But I can at least
>>>understand what you're expecting.
>>>
>>
>>Well "barrier" is probably a misleading term. "Gulf" might be more
>>descriptive of what I mean - as in a gulf that cannot be bridged by
>>evolution.
>
>
> Ok. But I think I understand the general concept, regarless of the
> term we use to describe it. So it's not the term "barrier" that is
> causing my hesitation; I would have the same problem with "gulf",
> "chasm", "interstice" or any other name. It's working definition seems
> to be "that which evolution can not cross". But that makes it an
> infinitely movable goalpost, which makes the notion impossible to
> falsify, even in principle. If the "finish line" can always be moved
> one step farther than I have run, then there is no possible end to the
> race. That infinite movability of the goalposts doesn't, by itself,
> make the idea false, but it does take the idea outside of the realm of
> science. As another metaphor, imagine trying to solve a jigsaw puzzle
> with no edges when someone keeps manufacturing more pieces. No matter
> how many pieces you put in their correct place, the other person can
> still say "you haven't solved it". Or a (US) football match in which
> the end zone is defined as "the line ten yards farther than the ball
> has traveled". No one would ever make a touchdown, by definition. In
> short, it's not really a "fair" test until there is a fixed finish
> line.
>
>
>
>>
>
>>>Gotcha. 5X5. So, what kind of physically measurable stuff should I
>>>look for? John Harshman has a ready made list of DNA base sequences
>>>for humans, chimps, gorillas and Orangutans that he's posted several
>>>times. I could give you a bunch of morphological stuff (I'm not really
>>>up on the genetics; I should be, I know, but I'm not). In both cases
>>>(morphology and genes), there seems to be differences of degree (how
>>>_much_ of character X) rather than differences of _kind_
>>>(presence/absence variables).
>>>
>>>To be frank, both my interests and my expertise are weighted towards
>>>the primates, humans and "apes", and I'm much better informed about the
>>>phenotypes or physical bodies than I am about genes, so it would help
>>>me a lot in my attempts to understand you if we could focus just on
>>>that.
>>>
>>>If you're ok with that level of focus (and I promise not to try to
>>>"wow" you or overwhelm you with obscure Latin names or anything like
>>>that), then we can move this discussion to a more empirical level,
>>>which is where your proposal really has to go in order to be useful for
>>>science. Sound cool?
>>>
>>
>>OK, but I've got to warn you, you're going to probably be over my head
>>most of the time and I'll have to have you explain things to me in
>>layman's terms - since that's what I am.
>
>
>
> That's fine. To give you context, and I hope allay your fears, I teach
> introductory courses, so part of my job is to be able to rephrase
> concepts into "layman's terms". But *please* don't hesitate to stop me
> if I use a term that isn't familiar and I fail to define it. Even if
> you just dash off a one-sentence post like "what do you mean by
> homoplastic similarity?" or something like that, that's fine. I won't
> think less of you for not knowing the arcane jargon of *my* discipline.
> I'm sure if we were talking about the subject _you_ work with, you'd
> know a lot of terms that would not be familiar to me either. (In my
> experience in academia, people who rely on disciplinary jargon but can
> not translate it into common English are often using the "buzzwords" as
> a crutch for clear expression. That's usually a sign that they don't
> understand the topic well enough to communicate it clearly.) I'll try
> to avoid it, but if I slip, call me on it. It will keep me on my toes
> if nothing else. :-)
>
>
>
>>>If so, which characteristics, exactly, do you use to distinguish humans
>>>from the non-human primates? I'm not trying to "trick" you. I realise
>>>that this is a contentious issue. I just want to understand. What
>>>_empirically measurable_ characteristics do humans have that
>>>chimpanzees and bonobos lack, or vice versa? Answering that question
>>>will go a _very_ long way towards making your proposal a viable,
>>>scientific statement, and would be an important contribution to the
>>>discussion.
>>>
>>
>>How about language?
>
>
> Ok, but language itself is a complex, multi-component phenomenon.
> Chimps *can* learn sign language (and some have learned to recognise
> abstract symbols, a simple form of reading, while not all humans can
> read). They can not speak, but that is largely a function of the
> structure of their larynxes, tongues and lips; they are anatomically
> prevented from doing things with their faces that we can do with ours
> (and vice versa, of course, they can do things with their faces that we
> can not). But in that respect, they are no different from many humans
> who are born with birth defects or suffer injury or disease.
>
> One difference between human communication and the language abilities
> of chimps is that human languages rely on grammar as a way to convey
> meaning. Whether in the form of a prefix/suffix type of grammar like
> the Australian Warlpiri language or (to a lesser extent) Latin, or a
> (mostly) word order-oriented grammar like English, all human languages
> rely on structure as well as content (the way the pieces are put
> together, as well as the meanings of the pieces themselves) to convey
> meaning. Chimpanzee communication doesn't seem to be structured in the
> same way.
>
> But again, just as we would not deny humanity to someone who could not
> read, we also would not deny humanity to a person suffering from a
> mental disorder or brain injury, such as a stroke, that prevented
> him/her from understanding gramatical rules. My nephew, about 18
> months old, can not apply gramatical rules, but he is surely human.
> And if that criterion is not enough to exclude people, we should apply
> it consistently and not use that to exclude chimps either.
>
> (Note, I'm not suggesting that chimps *can* use grammar. Their brains
> don't seem to be "wired" for that ability. Rather, I'm saying that if
> an inability to use grammar does not preclude my nephew or a stroke
> victim from membership in "humanity", then we should not use it to rule
> chimps out. They're obviously *not* humans, but it's not an absence of
> grammar that defines their exclusion because some humans can't use
> grammar either.)
>
>
>
>>Another possibility (and a fitting one perhaps) is the ability to design.
>
>
>
> Koko the gorilla has a series of paintings available for sale, and her
> first CD came out just in time for Christmas last year (the perfect
> gift for the guy who has everything! ;-) I think if we had a good,
> practical, working definition of the verb "to design", this whole
> debate would disappear. What does it mean to design something? How do
> we know a designed object from an undesigned one?
>
> I'm not being facetious by asking; this is a very serious question in
> archaeology and (I assume) in attempts to develop artificial
> intelligence. If we can come up with a good "field definition" of
> "design", we will go a *very* long way to resolving this debate.
>
>
>
>>I don't know. I really wasn't thinking in terms of specific differences.
>>I was thinking more of the finished product. You know, a human who can
>>fit into society and function unnoticed amongst the rest of us. I
>>realize that might be moving the goalposts a bit far though.
>
>
>
> Particularly since even many individuals who are unquestionably human
> have a hard time functioning in society. Every day on my way to work,
> I pass people who are suffering from mental illnesses and are reduced
> to living on the streets because they can't hold a job or control their
> behaviour. Some of them might be helped by appropriate medication, but
> many of them are not even capable of sticking to their meds. And those
> are the ones who are considered "safe" enough to be on the streets!
> Many others are permanently institutionalised.
>
> But we nevertheless recognise those poor souls as "human", so our
> criteria must be something other than "ability to function". I don't
> know what those criteria actually are, but they must be something more
> basic than this.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>
>>>Hmmm... _Nature_ *is* available online, but it's a subscription
>>>service; only the abstracts are available for free. Do you live near a
>>>university? Most of the US Uni's have subscriptions (community and
>>>junior colleges are a bit more sporadic, some do, some don't.) So you
>>>can just walk into the Uni library and use their computers. (Waltz in
>>>like you own the darned place, don't say a word to anyone and just sit
>>>down at a terminal without asking. Everybody will assume you're a grad
>>>student. Or, if you can't figure out how to get past the Uni's login
>>>and password stuff, ask one of the librarians and they'll assume you're
>>>tenured faculty! Ha ha)
>>>
>>>If not, probably the best access to the articles is to visit your local
>>>public library (I'm assuming you live in the US, correct me if I'm
>>>wrong) and if they don't have the relevant issues, there's a good
>>>chance they could do Inter-Library Loan. If not, send me an email (not
>>>to the group) and I'll try to work something out.
>>>
>>
>>Well, I live near a big city so that's not an issue. My problem is one
>>of time. I barely have time to answer this post as it is, and I've got
>>several threads that I started when I was out of work which are now
>>going unanswered as well.
>
>
>
> Tell me about it!
> Don't worry though, take your time. You don't need to get back to me
> immediately. If it takes you a week or two, then take a week or two
> and post when you're ready. I won't give up and stop visiting the
> site. And I won't cry or feel abandoned if you're not back right away.
> I promise. :-)
>
> Seriously though; I would much rather read a well-thought out and
> well-constructed reply every two weeks than read something that was
> just bashed together on the fly. Take as much time as you need.
> People have been debating this issue for a century and a half; if it
> takes you an extra couple of days to get back to me, no big deal.
>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>>>Ok, so again, we're confronted with the "where is the barrier" problem.
>>> If they *can* group up, what prevents them from staying that way?
>>>
>>
>>Apparently the defectors prevent it.
>>
>>
>>>And to get back to analogies, sabateurs that overthrow a collective
>>>aren't really evidence that the collective didn't exist, obviously!
>>
>>Yes, but a collective is not necessarily a new lifeform either is it?
>
>
>
>
> I have a few rather esoteric ideas about that topic as well (none of
> which are original to me). It seems to me that an "individual" is a
> collection of interdependent, specialised parts, all of which have to
> work together in concert in order to make a copy of the whole. (For
> example, your liver can't go out and make a new liver all by itself, it
> needs your heart and lungs and kidneys and toenails and earlobes etc.
> to work with it. Only the complete collection can be considered an
> individual that is capable of self-replication.)
>
> It seems to me that if a collection of cells can survive in an
> environment where a single cell can not (for example, in the presence
> of potential predators, where the collection is too big to be eaten
> while a single cell is not) then being involved in a collection is
> necessary for survival, which is in turn a prerequisite for
> reproduction. The line between an obligate colony of single cells and
> a unique multicelular organism is a very blury one, in my opinion.
>
>
>
>>As another analogy, take human collectives. The fact that humans can
>>group and share resources (and suffer a loss of individual freedoms)
>>does not mean this human *collective* is a new "multi-body" species.
>
>
> I have some even more esoteric ideas about that (mainly derived from R.
> C. Dunnell and R. J. Wenke's 1980 paper "An Evolutionary Model of the
> Development of Complex Societies") but they're rather dependent on you
> accepting the basic premise, so I won't bore you with those...
> yet. ;-)
>
>
>>Bacterial grouping and sharing of resources at the expense of individual
>>comfort might be nothing more than a "circling of the wagons" which ends
>>when conditions improve with the individual bacteria going back to their
>>own "lives".
>
>
>
> Yes, *if* "conditions improve", that is a likely scenario. In cases
> where the conditions that required grouping are constant or permanent,
> then "unhitching the wagons" might never be an option. For example, in
> the presence of predators, as mentioned above, as long as the predators
> persist, the colony has to persist in order for any of its members to
> succeed. Or in the presence of environmental toxins, it could be to
> the advantage of each member to retain a protected, central,
> uncontaminated region internal to the group clustered together so that
> each of the "wagons" has only one side exposed to the toxin.
> Conditions like that, if sustained, can potentially have exactly the
> effect I suspect; they'll guarantee that any cell will do better in the
> group than it would do on its own, thus preventing defectors from
> successfully invading.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>> So
>>>if the absence of lactase is enough to prove "limited genetic
>>>potential", then the possibility of the absence of defectors can't be
>>>discounted either, right?
>>>
>>
>>Correct. But it has to observed, not assumed - correct?
>
>
>
> That's arguable (largely because of the problem of definition of
> "single individual" mentioned above) but Roy Cullimore and his
> colleagues are doing some fascinating analysis of "rusticles" from the
> Titanic that seem to be composite organisms composed of a mixture of
> Bacteria and Archaea. It's well outside my area of expertise, but it
> does seem to be along the lines you're thinking. Those rusticles are
> not just combinations of two cells from the same species, but of cells
> from entirely seperate kingdoms, at least as distant from each other as
> we are from cabbage!
>
> So I don't know. Has it been observed? Maybe.
>
>
>
>>>But again, we've drifted into more theoretical concerns and if our aim
>>>is to keep this empirical (which I think is a good idea for your
>>>"side"), then this probably gets us away from where we need to go. I
>>>do have some more "theoretical" disagreements with this interpretation,
>>>and I'll provide them if you're really interested, but in the interests
>>>of getting your proposal "publication-ready", they seem like rather
>>>side points.
>>>
>>
>>Agreed. I'd like to stick with the observable.
>>
>>
>>>
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>I can see that. Like I said, *I* think it's been done. The fact that
>>>"_in the short term_, defectors sabotaged the viability of the group"
>>>is not at all in question. Whether the emphasis in that sentence
>>>should be on "short term" or "sabotaged the viability" is what we
>>>really need to address, I suppose.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Yes, if by "short term" they mean that eventually the cells came back
>>together, overcoming the defectors, and merged into a new
>>multi-cellular, reproducing lifeform, then the whole "short term
>>defector" problem is negated.
>>On the other hand, if it's just a guess, it certainly would not falsify
>>the existence of my "gulf".
>>
>
>
>
> I agree. If consolidation is always temporary, then multicelularity
> would seem to be an unbridgable gap. If it's not, then not.
>
>
>
>
>
>>>
>>>Ok, but to be fair, the barrier could not be crossed _in the time
>>>allotted for the experiment_. That's not _necessarily_ the same as
>>>"could not be crossed ever under any circumstances." It might be, but
>>>that's not demonstrated. Back to our earlier analogy, "you can't run
>>>from A to B _in the next five minutes_" is not equivalent to "you can't
>>>run from A to B".
>>>
>>>And noting that the organisms would die *if* they were in a
>>>lactose-only environment is perfectly in accord with natural selection,
>>>of course. So you and Darwin agree on that one. ;-)
>>>
>>
>>I have no argument whatsoever with natural selection. My argument is
>>with the ability of mutations to get us from point A to point B.
>
>
>
> That's mostly fair, although be sure you don't restrict yourself to
> mutations. Selection and gene flow can also be "creative" forces, and
> drift can be very important in species diversification.
>
>
>
>>And
>>there is, of course, a time frame involved - since all life is supposed
>>to have evolved from a single lifeform (simple enough to have arisen
>>from non-life) within the proposed age of the earth.
>>
>>If it can't be shown that evolution from point A to B would
>>realistically fit into a reasonable slice of this timeframe, then it
>>might also be considered unreasonable. For example if it could be shown
>>beyond a doubt that humans could evolve from chimps
>
>
>
> Ack... that should read "...that humans and chimps could both have
> descended from a single shared ancestor..."
>
> That may sound like I'm being unnecessarily pedantic, but I'm not.
> It's a vitally important distinction, and one that often leads these
> discussions far astray. It's just as important as noting that someone
> demonstrating that my cousin is not my grandfather does not refute my
> family tree. I don't want you to waste your energy (and your valuable
> time) refuting a straw man.
>
>
>
>>in six billion
>>years, that wouldn't be a falsification of my gulf - since it couldn't
>>occur in the allotted amount of time. It would be a start though.
>>
>
>
>
> That's entirely fair. But there, you're approaching my area of
> expertise. It's pretty clear that the genetic distance between humans
> and chimps is less than 2%, and Nachman and Crowell ("Estimate of the
> mutation rate per nucleotide in humans" Genetics. 2000
> Sep;156(1):297-304) estimated the average mutation rate was
> approximately 2.5 x 10^(-8) mutations per nucleotide site or 175
> mutations per diploid genome per generation. If we simply divide the
> distance by the rate, we come out with a figure several orders of
> magnitude smaller than 6Gyears. So we're not in danger there. It's a
> good theoretical point, the empirical evidence shows that it's not a
> problem in this particular case, at least.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>
>>>Well, if you say "there is no way for anything to be half-way between a
>>>rat and a bat", then it's simply pointing to something that is, in many
>>>respects, "half-way" between those two. It's obvious that a living
>>>flying squirrel is *not* an ancestor of a living bat, nor is it an
>>>ancestor of a living rat.
>>>
>>
>>I never said "there is no way for anything to be half-way between a rat
>>and a bat". I said there is a gulf between rat and bat that evolution
>>can't cross.
>
>
>
> Ok, I phrased that poorly and retract it. It was meant as a form of
> "shorthand", so I picked the phrase "half-way" as a sort of arbitrary
> standard. My point, I suppose, is that it doesn't matter if the
> uncrossable gulf is located at what we might think of as a
> morphological "half-way" point, or 3/4 of the way, or 118,256/120,000th
> or whatever. If there is a gulf, it must exist between the two points
> somewhere. Precisely where may be an empirical issue, sure, and will
> need to be sought on a case-by-case basis.
>
> But I'm curious, again just brainstorming, trying to work out the
> details of your approach. If you're of the opinion (and correct me if
> I'm misunderstanding you again) that humans and chimps have seperate
> origins and do not share any common ancestors, is there reason to
> suspect that the gulf between chimps and humans should be any larger or
> any smaller than the gulf between ...oh I don't know... slamon and
> humans, for instance, or canteloupes and antilopes? That is, should
> there be different *sizes* of gulfs between different pairs of species?
>
>
> What I mean is this: if we accept, for the sake of argument, that there
> is a gulf between humans and chimps that can not be bridged, we can
> still accept that the chasm can be "seen across", to extend the
> metaphor (because my colleagues and I can picture the route the bridge
> would have to take, if it existed). It seems to me that even if we
> accept the presence of a gulf between species, some gulfs are bigger
> than others (it's not as far from here to chimp as it is from here to
> grapefruit, for example). Is that consistent with the way you're
> thinking about these gulfs as well?
>
>
>>If a different "relative" is proposed, my argument still applies.
>>
>>
>>
>>> *BUT* if something like a flying squirrell *can* exist, which it is,
>>>then we can at _least_ build testable hypotheses about what a
>>>hypothetical proto-bat ancestor might have looked like. *Then*, once
>>>we've done that, we can determine the genetic distance between rodents,
>>>divide that by estimated mutation rates to determine when the proposed
>>>rat/bat split might have occurred, and then know where (in which
>>>strata) any surviving proto-bat ancestor fossils _might_ be found, if
>>>we are lucky enough and persistent enough.
>>>
>>
>>Theoretically yes.
>>
>>
>>>In other words, the suggestion is a goad to future research, inspiring
>>>us to direct any investigations in what are potentially (although not
>>>certainly) fruitfull paths. By contrast, saying that no such creature
>>>could possibly exist is, in my opinion, a council of despair that would
>>>only inspire us to stop looking.
>>>
>>
>>Again, I never said that.
>>
>>
>>>I may be naive; we might never find what we are looking for, but I
>>>would rather be a naive optimist than a naive pessimist. Maybe that's
>>>just my personal temperment.
>>>
>
>
>
>
>>>
>>>Fair enough, and right back at'cha. And thank you, again, for keeping
>>>this exchange on the level of polite discussion. I think if we can
>>>demonstrate (at least to each other) how to conduct a reasoned
>>>discussion, we will do more for this "debate" by example than either of
>>>us could do through pure research. Best.
>>>
>>
>>Thank you for not starting out by belittling me. Many have. I appreciate
>>your kindness and hope that we can continue this discussion in a civil
>>manner as well. BTW, I like my beer weak and my coffee strong!
>
>
>
> You seem like a very kind, intelligent and sincere person and you
> appear to be genuinely interested in hashing out these ideas. I
> respect that a lot. In fact, I respect you, on the basis of your
> behaviour in this thread, a lot more than I respect any of the folks on
> "my" team who have been rude to you. You have contributed a rare
> breath of fresh air to this often repetitive, sterile and useless
> discussion, and by doing so, you've earned my highest praise; "Wall of
> Sleep is a good guy." If you ever make it out to the Seattle area, the
> beer and coffee are on me.
>

Hey, I'm just south of you - down in Portland, OR.
Hmm...
Thanks for the kind words - yours and all the others who have me
blushing a bit. It's interesting that this is the first thread where
I've really been treated with pretty much only respect. Maybe I've
finally learned how to post in a non-argumentative manner?

Anyway, I'll try to answer your various points here as succinctly as
possible:

We seem to have settled on two distinct areas of possible
experimentation: chimps/human and single/multicellular. My gut feeling
is that the easiest pathway, for experimentation as well as
falsification, would be the single/multicellular.

Of course your area of expertise is the primates, so we can purse that
also if you wish. To answer your question above: I would think that the
gulf between humans and chimps would be smaller than the gulf between
humans and salmon since we share so many more traits with chimps than we
do with salmon. You see this as evidence of a common ancestor, I see it
as similar designs. It's this evolutionary "link" however, that must be
established. The impression I get though - based on your
characterization of what is and isn't "human" - is that there might be a
bit of the "moving goalposts" involved there too. So the "point B" might
be hard to define.

So I guess my preference would be to keep it simple and propose that:

A. A gulf exists between single and multicellular life that evolution
cannot cross.

B. This gulf can be considered "bridged" (and my proposal falsified) if
single celled life can be induced to group into a new organism that
meets the currently accepted definition of "multicellular life".
---------

Now, we've already seen that single celled life can group and share
resources, so that's part of the way there. Unfortunately, this grouping
seems to be a temporary phenomenom - which reinforces my proposal as well.

I would think the definition of "multicellular life" would include the
process of growth with differentiation of cells and the ability to
reproduce sexually. Just reading up a bit on how single celled and
multicellular life reproduces has me thinking that there's quite a bit
of "grey area" there as well, so I hope we don't get muddled down in
definitions!

Does this seem reasonable? Or is the goalpost too far away to be practical?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: New falsifiable proposal/prediction of design
    ... >> bacteria with them), it is easy enough for you to say "you haven't ... > is established and move the goalposts a bit farther and say ... to be "that which evolution can not cross". ... >> If so, which characteristics, exactly, do you use to distinguish humans ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Texas: Creation college seeks states OK to train teachers
    ... bacteria is still a simpler life form. ... bacteria but that bacteria and other life forms share a common ancestor. ... than modern humans, then they were higher life forms. ... biological origins - as only the theory of evolution, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Texas: Creation college seeks states OK to train teachers
    ... bacteria is still a simpler life form. ... bacteria but that bacteria and other life forms share a common ancestor. ... than modern humans, then they were higher life forms. ... biological origins - as only the theory of evolution, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Human behaviour: Killer instincts
    ... What can evolution say about why humans kill -- and about why we do so ... tendency to make war from our animal ancestors ... ... These are the ringing words of the 'Seville Statement on Violence', ...
    (soc.culture.romanian)
  • Re: Couple questions for evolution experts
    ... >> process of evolution was occuring, did the human female birth canal ... If it were beneficial for the survival of the species, ... Why is it such a guessing game with humans? ... many atheists agree with those religious persons that evolution and religion are not alternatives. ...
    (talk.origins)