I think evolution simply because how could everyone in the world come from only two people originally. This would mean that to an extent we are all related and the same family. So where did race, langue, traditions, origins all come from.
I also think evolution because even though scientists have proven to some extent we have the capability to evolve from primates but there is some evidence that we all have the same dna or something which they have proven through carbon dating or something.
But honestly i know that nothing is impossible to some extent so really both answers are up for argument. but my personal view is ecolution.
The theory of evolution vs creation is really just a big pong-debate. Uber christians will not be swayed, and those of the scientific mind will not be swayed. It's a matter of faith vs facts. Evolution is science. Creation is a fairy tale, along with ID.
Begin debate of the infinite.
__________________
You don't need good rear vision because you're always in front!
Gender: Male Location: Southern Oregon,
Looking at you.
Often fundamentalist Christians try to confuse the issue by claiming that science is based on faith just like religion is. This is based on the idea that all reality is relative and we only know something because of a set of assumptions. They do this while at the same time claiming that their beliefs are absolute.
Gender: Male Location: Following the Source of Light.
And Darwinian Fundamentalists claim that science contains no elements of faith, despite the fact that observational science cannot prove how the universe came about.
There is a fundamental difference in ideology, hence the endless debates.
Gender: Male Location: Southern Oregon,
Looking at you.
I have no idea what a Darwinian Fundamentalists is.
You are making an assumption: you are assuming that the universe had a beginning. The big band theory only says that at some point in the past the universe was very small. Science is based on observations of nature. Observations of nature are not based on faith.
Gender: Male Location: Following the Source of Light.
One must also make an assumption to say that the universe did not have a beginning.
One cannot observe how the universe came into being, therefore it is not strictly scientific to say, "It was created by an eternal series of contractions and expansions," or "It was created by a god," or, "It was created by cows." These are all faith statements that cannot be observed nor proven. Hence, the irreconcilably of ideologies.
all life on this planet (so far documented) is the offspring of ONE single cell
at one point, the population of reproducing human females was reduced to a handful, meaning this is probably true anyways, if the fact that we all come from the same single cellular organism does not mean we are all from the same family.
geographically and family isolated groups of pre-humans
pre linguistic pointing and gesturing combined with the advantage of more complex grunts as communication devices
memes passed to offspring and through transaction, geographically or culturally isolated
origins of which?
evolution isn't an ability, it is a process. We hypothetically have the ability to evolve into anything that genetic variation allows for in our environment, with the long-term changes being based on which of those varieties were best suited for the environment.
yes, all lifeforms on the planet share some portion of their DNA, Depending on how closely related the species are. You and I likely have almost identical genes, whereas a chimp would have 90%+ of the same dna. A dog some smaller percentage, followed by bananas and bacteria.
probably more through genetic sequencing, though I'll admit I don't know for sure
human imagination is not subject to limits, however, reality is. There are many things which are impossible.
absolutly not. Creationism or intelligent design are unsubstantiable and errorous. They do not conform to anything approaching science. Rationally, only evolution is "up for argument"
Gender: Male Location: Following the Source of Light.
And if you read my post, you will note that I said nothing about observation of nature being the equivalent of faith. Only that the method of the origin of the universe cannot be proven by observational science. Therefore, the Fundamentalist makes a leap of faith when they say, "It existed eternally."
When it comes to origins, one must make an assumption one way or the other.
Also, you will find the best definition of Darwinian Fundamentalism in Carl Sagan's book, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark:
actually, science doesn't have to explain things it can't possibly...
"I don't know, lets keep looking" is an acceptable answer, thus, science makes no assumptions about anything. It either has the data or does not.
It would however be valid to say "any belief one has about the absolute nature of the origins of the universe is a belief based on faith" then yes. However, all scientific facts could have that said about them, as one of the most important parts to science is the knowledge that its answers are always incomplete. Thus, there are no absolutes in science.
in the same book, Sagan describes an alien species who use vehicular interstellar transport as not being able to determine if it is the cars on earth that are alive or if they are vehicles.
so, ya, Sagan was the man, but again, nothing in science is absolute and people can disagree on many things.
For instance, I believe science should be open to anything supernatural provided it can be empirically tested. Give me an experiment that will provide conclusive evidence for the existance of God and my thoughts are that it should be run. Scientists have their own personal philosophies which will absolutly effect the way they perform science, but the scientific method does not require any philosophical commitment, simply empirical evidence upon which predictions can be made and tested.