Thanatos

I don't understand how everyone on this site can be so sure about things all the time, when new studies bring about new information that changes so many so-called facts:

<a href="http://www.fmnh.org/museum_info/press/press_martin.htm" target="_blank">Interesting article</a>

Peez

Which particular "facts" have changed? How can you be sure that the earth is round?

Peez

MrDarwin

Welcome back, Thanatos. I hope you will explain where in this article, or where in the research it describes, it casts doubt on evolution? It casts doubt on some details, certainly--nobody has ever suggested we know each and every detail of evolution--but does it ever suggest, for example, that all primates did not have a common ancestor, or that humans did not evolve from other primates?

And while you're back, I believe you left a lot of us hanging in <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000627&p=3" target="_blank">this discussion.</a>

[ April 24, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]</p>

Godless Dave

One reason I didn't see the movie "Dinosaurs" is it had primates in it. Looks like I judged it too harshly.

Indifference

You're right. It's a good thing Christianity doesn't rely on facts...

Godless Dave

Thanatos, here's the serious answer to your question. Science doesn't have any problem at all with new facts. Scientists modify existing theories to account for them, if possible. In this case, the article you cite is not at all detrimental to the theory of evolution. It just means biologists will have to reexamine when primates appeared and when different species of primates evolved. Sometimes theories have to be scrapped altogether. Again, no problem, as long as the new theory more accurately accounts for the data. We can't expect to know all the facts ahead of time. We are always learning more and discovering new things, and our understanding of nature grows and changes accordingly.

Contrast this with religion. Most religions hold that all the facts we need to know were known thousands of years ago, and there is no need to learn and discover.

Now, which looks like a more accurate worldview?

Gooch's dad

Any bets on how long it will take for creationists to take this quote:

completely out of context and attempt to use it to 'prove evilutoin wrong'?

RufusAtticus

Quick question:

Which detective has a higher chance of catching the real criminal: one who is willing to change his suspect when new evidence is uncovered, or one who is not?

The police have two suspects. One is a black, male teenager; the other is a white businessman. Detectives Hovind and Darwin first focus on the teenager because he is a known troublemaker. But, just as they are about to arrest him, a woman comes forward to corroborate the teenager's alibi. Det. Darwin then begins to look into the other suspect, the businessman. However, Det. Hovind refuses to change his mind because, after all, the teenager is black and women can’t be trusted. After further consideration, Det. Darwin discovers that the businessman had means and motive to commit the crime. In addition, he uncovers hard evidence that the businessman was responsible for the crime.

Now Detectives Hovind and Darwin approach their boss, Det. Miller, with their findings. Det. Darwin relates that he has evidence implicating the businessman, who had means and motive. Det. Hovind disagrees saying that the teenager must have done it. When questioned whether he has any evidence, Det. Hovind relates how black teenagers commit all crimes, as any cop with his much experience would know, and that Det. Darwin’s opinion is wrong because he didn’t go to church last week. Det. Miller isn’t impressed with Det. Hovind’s work and decides that Det. Darwin makes a better case. He informs the detectives that he will contact the district attorney’s office about indicting the businessman. Det. Hovind is upset and protests, because he is never wrong. Det. Miller reminds Det. Hovind that his work is routinely shoddy, and he is only a detective because his uncle is Deputy Mayor. (Not to mention that he got his badge from a cereal box.)

Det. Hovind is not happy about not getting his way and decides to take his “findings” strait to Assistant District Attorney Santorum before Det. Miller can file a formal report. Not knowing any better, the district attorney announces to the press that he will indict the teenager and that Det. Hovind should be commended for his excellent work. Of course, this all blows up in his face once the public learns that there is a better suspect. The African-American community is extremely outraged that Hovind’s only evidence is that the teenager is black, blacks commit all crimes, and thus the teenager is guilty. District Attorney Scott, having received the actually report, apologizes to the teenager and his family and announces that the businessman will be indicted.

After the successful conviction of the businessman, District Attorney Scott wins reelection, Det. Miller successfully runs for Sheriff, and Det. Darwin is promoted to replace him. For acting rashly, the Assistant DA Santorum, is placed on administrative leave to receive sensitivity training. For usurping his superiors, Det. Hovind is bumped down to the K9 unit where he cares for the city’s beagles.

So, which method of investgation produced better results?

-RvFvS

[ April 24, 2002: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]</p>

Mageth

Hey, rufus, I saw that episode of Law & Order too...

sensate

I think this is a good example of why science and evolution are not religions as some creationists try to claim. Science can and does accomodate change, in fact flourishes with change. Evolution is not founded on the idea that primates are 65 or 85 million years old, but rather the truth seeking methods used to explore our origins and the universe around us. Unlike some religions science does not crumble like a house of cards when better facts are inserted and old ones discarded.