Scientist: Evolution debate will soon be history

[wa3zrm]

Richard Leakey predicts skepticism over evolution will soon be history.
Not that the avowed atheist has any doubts himself.
Sometime in the next 15 to 30 years, the Kenyan-born paleoanthropologist expects scientific discoveries will have accelerated to the point that "even the skeptics can accept it."
"If you get to the stage where you can persuade people on the evidence, that it's solid, that we are all African, that color is superficial, that stages of development of culture are all interactive," Leakey says, "then I think we have a chance of a world that will respond better to global challenges."

(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...

[sgreger1]

Sometime in the next 15 to 30 years scientific discoveries will have accelerated to the point that "even the skeptics can accept it."

The funny part is that this already happened 15 to 30 years AGO, and anyone who actually spends 10 minutes looking at the evidence will understand it. We don't have to wait 30 years for any major discoveries, most of them have already been made and any evidence we gather in the next 30 years won't make the case any more solid than it is now. There is literally no competing theory. Lots of people still believe someone snapped it all into existence, but that theory having no actual evidence and all, we are left with evolution.

[Darwin]

And a great miracle has occured. I have nothing to say.

[Snusdog]

Question: in a universe of random eventuality......what constitues a fact......and how can the verification of any fact be repeated

In a universe of ultimate chance.....what do laws of science, statistics, or mathmatics tell us about existance

Prof. Leaky is wrong.....science has moved to the fictive view (Google Fictive View of Science).....or to a realism that must begin with a noncontingent basis......you can't have both......time to grow up......time to get your science from other places than People magazine

[lxskllr]

Question: in a universe of random eventuality......what constitues a fact......and how can the verification of any fact be repeated

In a universe of ultimate chance.....what do laws of science, statistics, or mathmatics tell us about existance

Prof. Leaky is wrong.....science has moved to the fictive view (Google Fictive View of Science).....or to a realism that must begin with a noncontingent basis......you can't have both......time to grow up......time to get your science from other places than People magazine

Facts are relative, and conditional. I always figured that was assumed when people talk of "indisputable" facts. "Indisputable" means it fits neatly within our understanding of things, and isn't contradicted by relevant evidence. That doesn't mean that further evidence won't overthrow that fact, but it's exceedingly unlikely.

Maybe that's what you said. You're using big words again :^D

[thegameisover2k2]

if we all came from monkeys...then why are there still monkeys? They would all be humans

[precious007]

if we all came from monkeys...then why are there still monkeys? They would all be humans

from some species that are no longer living now -

the monkeys today aren't the ones that lived 1 million years ago

[thegameisover2k2]

yes...i see it now...people evolved from monkeys and the monkeys today evolved from humans...

[Thunder_Snus]

if we all came from monkeys...then why are there still monkeys? They would all be humans

I'm sorry but this argument always makes me laugh. Even though I'm going to explain you will just refute it anyways because of some stupid question. I must say everyone that says this has never read anything regarding fact on evolution.

Evolution is due in part to natural selection. Two monkeys boned and had an offspring that was a little different, maybe it walked more upright/had less hair/different teeth etc. This difference actually benefited it rather than hurt it so it survived (the opposite would be say a monkey being born without a leg, that would obviously not better suite it). Since that monkey survived it also had offspring that kept some of those traits. It all went along until that one monkeys offspring had offspring of their own and continued to change. Those monkeys were better than the previous monkeys and got more food etc until it either evolved to the point of competing for different food or completely made the other species dissapear. If you are more interested you can read about Darwin introducing two different species on an island that competed for a common food source. One was more suited to find it than the other and so eventually the other adapted to eat other things which make their beaks change shape to better adapt. Evolution is not animals morphing into something else like power rangers, its a long term slow change. Humans may be evolving as we speak, perhaps we will eventually be accustomed to an extra toe or longer fingernails or larger brains/penises.

The idiotic question of "Then why are there still monkeys?" is easily refuted if you would take the time to read anything for five minutes explaining what evolution is. As i said evolution is not me and everyone else on this planet sprouting wings and being able to fly. If humans had wings it would be because of a slow change starting from one offspring that happened to be better fit for living with those circumstances and surviving to make more offspring that shared those traits until eventually a new species was formed that either found a different way to live/eat or until they gobbled everything up leaving us regular humans with nothing but the eventual fate of dying off.

[sgreger1]

"Indisputable" means it fits neatly within our understanding of things, and isn't contradicted by relevant evidence. That doesn't mean that further evidence won't overthrow that fact, but it's exceedingly unlikely.

Exactly. One one side we have a mountain of evidence that would take a breakthrough of human understanding to overturn, and on the other side we have no evidence. Right now we call it a fact, even though that may someday change, at which point science will revise it's theories. That is the beauty of science, if conflicting evidence presents itself, than they take it as such and revise their models, instead of arguing that the old way is correct (at least in theory).

[sgreger1]

if we all came from monkeys...then why are there still monkeys? They would all be humans

It is false that we "came from monkeys", and only Christians would believe such a thing. We merely evolved from a common ancestor with modern apes. The monkeys today are their own species, just like humans are. That is like saying "If lizards came from dinosaurs, then why are there no dinosaurs today!". It's just a misrepresentation of how it works. One species doesn't turn directly into another, there is usually a branch, and they go off on two separate paths of evolution until one dies out.

[sgreger1]

yes...i see it now...people evolved from monkeys and the monkeys today evolved from humans...

What? That makes no sense. It's real simple, at one point there was a certain species, it branched off into two separate species, those species branched into more etc. Many of those species died off, i.e. many monkeys died off, and many homonids like neanderthals, homo flourensis etc died off. Now here we are in modern day and we have humans and monkeys, which share similarities, but can be identified as separate species. We did not "come from monkeys" and monkeys did not "evolve from humans". We only share a common ancestor.

[sgreger1]

I'm sorry but this argument always makes me laugh. Even though I'm going to explain you will just refute it anyways because of some stupid question. I must say everyone that says this has never read anything regarding fact on evolution.

Evolution is due in part to natural selection. Two monkeys boned and had an offspring that was a little different, maybe it walked more upright/had less hair/different teeth etc. This difference actually benefited it rather than hurt it so it survived (the opposite would be say a monkey being born without a leg, that would obviously not better suite it). Since that monkey survived it also had offspring that kept some of those traits. It all went along until that one monkeys offspring had offspring of their own and continued to change. Those monkeys were better than the previous monkeys and got more food etc until it either evolved to the point of competing for different food or completely made the other species dissapear. If you are more interested you can read about Darwin introducing two different species on an island that competed for a common food source. One was more suited to find it than the other and so eventually the other adapted to eat other things which make their beaks change shape to better adapt. Evolution is not animals morphing into something else like power rangers, its a long term slow change. Humans may be evolving as we speak, perhaps we will eventually be accustomed to an extra toe or longer fingernails or larger brains/penises.

The idiotic question of "Then why are there still monkeys?" is easily refuted if you would take the time to read anything for five minutes explaining what evolution is. As i said evolution is not me and everyone else on this planet sprouting wings and being able to fly. If humans had wings it would be because of a slow change starting from one offspring that happened to be better fit for living with those circumstances and surviving to make more offspring that shared those traits until eventually a new species was formed that either found a different way to live/eat or until they gobbled everything up leaving us regular humans with nothing but the eventual fate of dying off.

Exactly. Evolution relies on the fact that organic life is a series of replicators. All life is in the business of making copies of itself, then copies of it's children, etc etc. In such a large pool of replicators, random copy errors occur, and if these errors lead to traits which benefit the organism (i.e. allow it to survive and have offspring), than their genes will persist as they will pass on children. It's a very simple concept and I don't understand why we even debate things like this or why the earth is round or why the earth revolves around the sun etc.

[resnor]

There should be tons of intermediate fossils, though, if that slight transition is true. You can't really partially change most of the animals (lizard to bird or whatever), and have an animal with a competitive advantage over it's peers. that could be an oversimplification of it, though. However, if you go back far enough, even with evolution, you end up with an unanswerable question: where did the original stuff come from? So, despite all the so-called "evidence," even evolutionists have to rely on faith.

[Kaplan]

There should be tons of intermediate fossils, though, if that slight transition is true. You can't really partially change most of the animals (lizard to bird or whatever), and have an animal with a competitive advantage over it's peers. that could be an oversimplification of it, though. However, if you go back far enough, even with evolution, you end up with an unanswerable question: where did the original stuff come from? So, despite all the so-called "evidence," even evolutionists have to rely on faith.

Are you suggesting there aren't "tons of intermediate fossils?" Because if you are, then I can assure you there are tons and tons of what could be labeled transitional fossils. That is beyond dispute. In Darwin's time, it's true the fossil record was pretty meager, but that's changed since then, despite what IDers and hacks like Ann Coulter think. And no, "evolutionists" don't rely on faith in any sort of fashion that you mean it.