host

Isn't it possible that the difference between teaching in public schools compared
to schools sponsered or affiliated with other organizations, is that in truly
public schools, a competition of ideas, not unlike in an evolutionary process,
will lead to the promotion of the best ideas at the expense of the ones that
are most difficult to examine, using scientific methods ?

Darwin's theory of natural selection grew to be dominate because it makes
the most sense. It simply observes that life forms, living in a given environment,
have the most success reproducing when they are influenced by their
environment to change physical characteristics and behavior, changes that
are then passed on via heredity. The validity of this idea can be confirmed
using scientific methods. These same methods can be used to evaluate any
competing idea, or theory, including intelligent design. If intelligent design
can better explain how things work in the physical world than Darwin's
theory does, it will follow that the study of ID will receive more time and
focus in school curriculum, than other ideas.

If ID is not competitive when studied using scientific methods, but holds
a place in public school curriculum disproportionate to it's value as a
scientific explanation for how things work, then it intrudes on the competition
of ideas, and weakens and confuses the school's mission to pass along
the best ideas of the sciences to students.

Pacifier

The moon currently moves away from the Earth at a hefty 3.82±0.07 cm/year. The current Earth-Moon distance is 38,440,000,000 cm (384400 km). If we boldly assume that this rate of recession has held constant for 4,500,000,000 years, the moon would have moved 17,190,000,000 cm, about 44.7% of the overall distance. This does not seem at all consistent with the creationist claim, which would have the moon sitting on Miami.

The sun is neither shrinking nor expanding at any observable rate. The false claim is carelessly based on the premise of a paper that was once read as a meeting abstract, but was withdrawn by the authors before publication, when they discovered that they were in error. It's bad enough that the creationist argument is wrong, but it shows a sloppy and careless approach, that the entire argument is based on a paper that was withdrawn for good reasons. The webpage linked below will provide a more detailed refutation.
http://www.tim-thompson.com/resp8.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moon-dust.html
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_159a.html

please do, and perhaps add some evidence for creationism, none of your "arguments" above has anything to do with creationism.l

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

host

Another indication that the competition of ideas does not favor a creationist
model is this, in the marketplace:

Rekna

Perhaps because I wasn't trying to throw out facts that directly supported creation but mearly threw doubts on the timeline for evolution to stick with what my suggestion was. I have requested the powerpoint I saw recently that has the facts that a heard recently hopefully have it soon and i'll present you with the evidence.

Now here is some more. There are huge amounts of evidence stating there was huge flood that covered the whole world. This comes from sealife fossils being on mountains, the look of mountain ranges from above (looks like a tributary). The grand canyoun. How could a river so small create a gash so big? It would be one very deep but narrow gash, not a huge one. There was at one time much more water running through there. Over 300 ancheint unrelated cultures have stories of a massive flood. The oldest known tree is around 4300 years old. Guess how long ago the bible says the flood was, 4500 years ago. The oldest known language is around 6000 years old, guess how long ago the bible says the earth was created, 6800 years ago.

I still don't accept your assement on the sun shrinking, space dust, and moon receeding. I need to look into the evidence more and see where the numbers I saw were found.

The earths magnetic feild is decreasing. That means as we go backwards in time it was increasing. It would have been way to strong 2 billion years ago for any life to exist, we would have been living in a catscan machine.

Oil pressure underground is huge, scientists have said that that kind of pressure in the earth can only last for around 10,000 years before it would have created wholes and released the pressure.

The earths rotation is slowing down, ever heard of the leap second? If we go backwards 2 billion years ago we would have been spinning so fast that nothing would have stayed on the earth. Everything would have just flown off.

Population studies done on the world population is consistent with the flood model. That is the population today could have easily been created from 8 people 4500 years ago.

The oldest coral reef is 4200 years old.

There are lots of things that point to the earth being old and their are lots of things that point to the earth being young. We cannot simply ignore one side or the other if we call it science. Science is about standing up under the scruitiny of all evidence. Not just that which agrees with our findings.

Lebell

I get a kick hearing new "facts" as to why the current models describing the creation of the earth must be wrong and why a Biblical (read Genesis) view is more likely.

Yet with very little effort, I can find sites such as this

http://www.griffithobs.org/IPS%20Pla...eationism.html

That demolish such nonsense as "moon dust" and the "magnetic field".

As to seashells on mountain tops, I know more than a little bit about geology, that being my first major oh so many years ago. And when one understands just a little bit about tectonic uplift and subsidence, then these mysteries too are solved.

Of course, the flood crowd can't answer how a civilization like the Chinese, which was around when the flood supposedly occured, didn't get wiped out. (The real evidence is that there very well might have been some cataclismic event that caused major coastal flooding in the Mediteranian a few thousand years ago...but not a global flood, that being an impossibility.)

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Pacifier

just a quick response...

You know Continental Drift, do you?
What is on top of a mountain today was not necessarily alway on top.


yep, floods happen, see tsunami...

oldest known wrintings date 3200 BC many without wrinting system.

Although this question is still being debated, most linguists assume that the full language capacity had evolved by 100,000 BC.
http://www.linguistlist.org/ask-ling/oldest.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_language

come to the german eifel, you will find some fossil (stone) reefs there. this takes more than 4200 years.

The world’s oldest coral reef is the Chazy Reef in Isle La Motte, Vermont. It dates back to the Iapetus Ocean time period approximately 500 mio years old
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache...+reef%22&hl=de

what about all that old stones around if the world is just ~6000 years old?

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

Rekna

Stones like stalagtites that take millions of years to form yet have formed under US monuments? Let's face it man's ability to date things back is credulous at best. When I get the power point i'll post it and you guys can have a hay day. But conversations like this are pointless, this is why I didn't say teach creationism in schools. I said if you teach evolution make sure you provide both the evidence for and against it. Scientists keep revising their theories on the age of the earth. Now it is something like 4.5 billion years old. Yet many scientists are saying it would take much more than 4.5 billion years for evolution to do what it has. If we teach evolution we should present both sides it is only fair. (and by both sides i don't mean creationism, just present the flaws in evolution also)

Lebell

The problem is, Rekna, that there is little credible evidence to present.

For example, all of what you have posted to date has been easy to refute and more importantly, none of it has presented a serious challenge to the current theory.

(Oh, and I see we have some how mixed up the theory of Evolution with the theory of how the earth was created...they are somewhat related, but they are NOT the same.)

The only alternative theory that is being offered is one of Creationism, which has too many problems to list and is also immediately suspect from the standpoint that those who propose it are creating a theory based on an assumption (the Bible), which is beyond bad science.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Rekna

And that is why religion is not a science. Religion isn't about proof it is about faith. But when we are teaching a science let's teach it like a science.

Pacifier

Ok, but please some more than the usual "Carbon-dating doesn't work. It's been shown to be inaccurate for objects older than 30,000 years." claim

sure, as soon as you find an evidence against it.

Yes, that the fantastic tihng about science:
when you get new information you can adapt and rework your theories.
reliogion on the other hand tries to irgnore or, if that fails, distort evidence.

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

alansmithee

But what if the truth isn't known? For the record, I believe in evolution. But in another thread there WAS a debate over the scientific validity of ID, and many scholoars admited the possibility to be the same as that of evolution theory, so I don't see how it has no facts. There is no conclusive evidence for evolution-it doesn't stand up to the same tests as other well-known theorems.

Honestly, it doesn't seem that they even deal with the same thing: one gives a process (evolution) and one gives the reason for the start of the process (ID).

alansmithee

The Constitution is a series of laws that codifies the powers of the government. The Bill of Rights is something put into place to protect the public from the government. Neither has relevance to what I said.

alansmithee

Obviously we have a political scholar in our midst . Most people refer to a country with popular elections as democratic in regular discussion. I didn't say our political system was a democracy. If you failed to understand my usage of the word, that is a personal problem and not a reflection on MY education.

In a republic, those elected are put in place to represent the will of the people, not to rule indiscriminatly. If people have a problem with how some public affair is being handled, there are often direct referendums on to what should be done. They are usually labelled as "proposals" on a ballot. Suprisingly enough, these suggestions often become law :gasp:. So if a group of parents are not satisfied with how their publicly-funded school is being run they can make their opinions known to the democratically elected representitives to do something, or make a proposal.

raveneye

The first amendment prevents creationism from being taught as science. Even though a majority of people want it thus. So the Constitution is allowing what you call a "tyranny of the minority". Hence the Constitution amounts to tyranny, in your view.

fckm

It doesn't matter what "scholars" say, the only thing that matters is what works. Electromagnetic theory is an excellent scientific theory. Why? Because every time I turn on my tv, microwave, computer, etc. I am revalidating Maxwell's works. Similarly, everytime I take an antibiotic, an anti-viral, a vaccine, a vitamin, etc. I am revalidating the work of countless biologists and their contributions to Evolutionary Theory.

(the following is not directed at anyone in particular, especially not the poster I quoted above. Just a little rant)

Give me one, just one, example of the use of Creationism or ID in industry. You know what? You can't. Creationsim and ID in their current forms are absolutely useless, and provide no scientific insight into anything. Every single piece of evidence that supposidly "prove" Creationism or ID do nothing of the kind. Evidence such as "irreducible complexity" is used to attack Evolution, but add nothing in support of the "theory" of Creationism/ID.
It's a hoax. It's crap, pure and simple. Conservative Christian groups who feel that the literal interperatation of the Bible is of utmost importance are threaten by real Science. They are exploiting your sence of fair play. "It's all just theories anyway," they say, "There are plenty of scientists who support ID." Bullshit. When the Biology department at Harvard University starts teaching ID in freshman Biology, that's when you can start teaching ID in grade school. Until then, STFU or go take a class in a Real Science.

__________________
And if you say to me tomorrow, oh what fun it all would be.
Then what's to stop us, pretty baby. But What Is And What Should Never Be.

alansmithee

Where does the constitution mention creationism? Or ID? It states that the state cannot establish a religion. Teaching ID is not establishing a religion.

raveneye

The evidence in favor of evolution is overwhelming. Evolution is easily observable and has been documented in many species. Read Darwin's Origin of Species for starters.

There is no doubt that evolution is a fact.

raveneye

Nowhere. Is this a serious question?

Are you aware of these recent federal court decision?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/13/ev...tbooks.ruling/

So you see that it is possible to find that the teaching of evolution as a "theory" violates the Constitution, even though evolution is not mentioned in the Constitution.

Is that clearer now?

fckm

I appologize, I was a little agitated when I wrote my post, and shouldn't have worded it the way I did. My point is that around the founding of our country, our forefathers didn't think that the population at large was intelligent enough to make many decisions regarding government. That's why we have elections, and politicians. Supposedly, knowledgeble, intelligent people are elected into office to run our country. In practice, there are many flaws with this system, but as is pointed out by many, the system still works pretty well.

I would venture to say that the population at large has no grasp of Science at all. That the so called "average Joe" barely remembers the last Science class they have taken, if they've taken one at all. Why can't the population learn to trust Scientists who have a proven track record of results to determine what should and shouldn't be taught in grade school?

Every time the Creationism topic is brought, there are invariably two or three Scientists from the National Academy of Sciences or some other prestigous organization who try to act as the voice of reason, and try to explain why Evolution is a superiour theory to all that have come before it, and why Creationsim and ID in particular are so lacking as scientific theories. Just as invariably, the Young Earth Creationism Conservative Christians (let's face it, these people are not exactly a diverse group) trot out some crazy from whatever cellar they keep them locked in, who's never published in any respected peer reviewed Journal in their lives, and calls that person an example of the Many-Scientists-Who-Support-Our-Theory.

I can appreciate that this country historically distrusts government and Overriding Authorities, but seriously, this is starting to become a huge problem. In the past, Creationists have been relegated to the shadows, marginalized and ignored. With the rise of power of the Christian Coalition in Washington and their brand of Christian Ultraconservatives, I'm really afraid that this is going to be very bad for the US in general. I think that they are trying to make up for their past marginalization by forcing themselves into the classrooms, and in the process, damage what little educational sanity is left in this country.

Seriously, how is a country who's economy is so dependant on technology supposed to support itself if it's children are graduating high school without understanding the fundamental differences between Science and Psuedoscience? If certain voting blocks in this country keep trying to confuse children by inserting nonsensical and useless garbage into the Science curriculum?

EDIT: inserted some linebreaks for readability

__________________
And if you say to me tomorrow, oh what fun it all would be.
Then what's to stop us, pretty baby. But What Is And What Should Never Be.

raveneye

Does it? Well, anything that takes time must exist.

You do realize that you just acknowledged the existence of evolution with that statement.

Rekna

I never said evolution doesn't exist. I believe in micro-evoltion as there is lots of evidence for it. But macro-evolution I haven't seen any evidence for yet.

fckm

^regarding macroevolution, see www.talkorigins.org

__________________
And if you say to me tomorrow, oh what fun it all would be.
Then what's to stop us, pretty baby. But What Is And What Should Never Be.

Sean O

Well, then this country is doomed, isn't it?

Creationism has absolutely no connection with science, only some bastardized pseudoscience.

alansmithee

I personally agree with the countries originators in the regard of people's ability to rule themselves directly (i posted as much in another thread). The republic system is an elaborate buffer.

And the country doesn't rely upon the masses to lead, only the upper crust. I did a report on this very problem, comparing the differences between American and other industrialized countries school systems. American schools are designed to work well for those who are planning on attending college, and divide their classes likewise. Those are the students who recieve the primary positive attention. The rest are not really worried about, which could be a big problem; this is also different how most countries handle the "masses" for lack of a better term. IMO, America's strength hasn't ever come from the masses, but from the outliers. As long as there are people who don't think the earth is 6000 years old (or whatever it's supposed to be) who create the innovations, things should be fine. Someone doesn't have to understand the intricacies of the internal combustion engine to work an assembly line, the same reasoning should apply for other technologies.

And personally, I was suprised when I first heard that there were people who still thought the earth was only a few thousand years old. Sure, the bible says the earth was created in 7 days, but what's a day to GOD? A day could be millions of years. But if people want their children to be ignorant, it's their problem. I don't see it as a problem of what's the proper view, but what rights people have over their children's education.

Pacifier

the principles are the same, "macro evolution" just takes more time (thus making it more difficult to observe). what kind of evidence you want to see?

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

Lebell

edit:

You know what, I just spent several minutes reading over a "refutation" of the famous Scientific American article dealing with creationists and I am embarassed to say that I had to be so forceably reminded that there are people for whom no evidence will ever be enough and that there are people for whom their faith rests in the absolute innerrency of the Bible in matters historical.

I have less and less tolerance for such conversations as I get older, much in the same way I would tire arguing with someone who believed the earth was flat and demanded equal school time to say so, so I think I'll bow out of this one.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

jaypc2

Evolution doens't really have much going against it that isn't based ON FAITH, or at least not that i can thing of.everything i can think of is based on "the bible says this, so what evolution is saying can't be true because it doesn't comply with that statement from the bible" and the bible is far from a scientific book. Schools are supposed to teach scientific "truth" as and creationism doesn't really have that going for it. if creationism is to be tought it sould be in SUNDAY SCHOOL and not in public schools. Public schools are way to diverse and it would only start problems for the students. But if it is to be tought it should be tought along with evolution not as a substitution for evolution. and really i dont see what the big deal is about this. I find it way more amazing that God could create something as amazing as evolution...


...but thats just my two cents

__________________
Zero Cool
stay sexy

jonjon42

The thing is evolution thus far has stood the test of countless peer reviews. Countless articles have been put forward as evidence for evolution, and many survived peer review. I have yet to see a single article in a reputable journal get published that supports ID or creationism. If they want it to be taught in the sciences they need to prove themselves to the scientists.

__________________
A damn dirty hippie without the dirty part....

Rekna

Here is my problem with not stressing that it is a theory when taught. When I grew up I was taught that the big bang was practically a scientific fact. Now these same scientists that said it was a fact are coming out and saying no we were wrong it wasn't the big bang.

tecoyah

.Actually "They" still back the big bang for the most part....theoretical research is investigating the Cause of it now. I would recommend you research the world of science before commenting further, as this seems to be a somewhat weak area for you. The vast majority of information you put forth is seriously flawed by even the most liberal standards, as you seem to repeat headlines, and avoid details.

If indeed you were taught that the Big Bang was "practically" a scientific fact....would that not mean you were taught it was a theory. Evolution carries far more weight in the community you have decided to go up against (science) than creation for one simple reason...............There is varifiable data to back up much of its conclusions. Creationism has only the faith of people who generally fail to research the science in the first place. Most scientists have read at least one version of the Bible. Few theologians bother to study the world of science. And that is indeed a pity.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Rekna

Considering i'm a PHD student in a scientific field...I find you commenting on my scientific background a bit insulting. I base my thoughts on what I have learned through life from others but more importantly what I personally have observed. I have observed a lot throughout my life based in God. God was something I struggled with for most of my life until I started seeing his miracles in action. Now I have learned to just trust him. And he has rewarded me in my life for my faith. He has rewarded my friends for their faith. But call me stupid, call me unintelligent, call me whatever you want.

raveneye

Have you looked for any evidence? It's all around you.

Rekna

Where are all the missing links? We see similar species but where is the half-man half-ape?

host

What kind of rewards are you talking about ? Are the rewards that you and your friends attribute to faith in God, similar ? A belated "happy birthday" to you,
BTY.

The_Dunedan

Rekna:
For a good example of "missing links" look at the evolution of Cetaeans ( Whales, Dolphins, and Porposes. ) You can see the movement of the nostril from the front of the skull to the top, for example, as several intermediate species exist in which the "proto-blowhole" is halfway up the bridge of the nose, moving toward its' current position on the crown of the skull. You can also see the gradual vestigiation of the hind limbs and elongation of the forelimbs in Whales as their ancestors became totally Marine ( whales were originally an otter-like terrestrial mammal ). National Geographic did a very good article on this awhile back.

Another good example of evolution-in-action is the Influenza and AIDS viruses. AIDS can actually be seen evolving inside the body of its' host: drug-resistant strains evolve, survive, and reproduce within the body until the patient no longer responds to drugs. If the medication is withdrawn for a few months, the drug-resistant strains are supplanted by HIV-1 or other non-resistant strains. Flu is much the same; it keeps changing every year or so because it is evolving to be resistant to antibiotics. Tuberculosis, Polio, and Malaria are all doing the same thing.

A further intermediate species are the several species of dinosaurs which we now know to have been covered in feathers.

hannukah harry

if you don't mind, i'm curious as to what field you're studying. i'm not calling you unintelligent or stupid, but for someone who is a 'PhD student in a scientific field" you seem rather ignorant of science. faith is great, but blind faith in opposition to logic, reason and that which is right in front of your face is not so good.


there's really no such thing as a 'missing link.' every living thing from the first cell to modern life (including us humans) are 'missing links.' one day, humanity will evolve and we will be their transitional form. everything is a transitional form between the form species that evolved into it and the species it evolves into (with the exception of species that die out and end their branch).

also, there no half-man half-apes. but if you look back in the evolutionary tree, you will find a creature that splits off in two directions, one path leading to modern man, the other to apes/monkeys/chimps/etc. i think you really should do some research into evolution (from credible non-creation/ID sources). if you are really studying a scientific field, you should have no problem finding information on evolution that isn't suspect (ie. from a peer-reviewed journal).

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

Pacifier

Evolution theory does not predict half-man, half-ape creatures. It predicts a gradual succession of creatures that look like men but are progressively more hairy, less intelligent, and less upright as we move back through time (along with other sundry reshaping issues such as foreheads sloping back etc).

Look at a australopithecus fossil thats not just "a hunched-over, small-brained, hairy man".
That is the "missing link" you're looking for.!

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

Superbelt

I'm still looking for a reason (see. evidence in support of) for us to give ID even passing consideration next to Evolution.

Through 2 pages, which include direct challenges, there has not been one whit of evidence given that supports ID.

Rekna, if you are indeed going for your doctorate in the sciences (I would also like to know what your undergraduate, Grad and current field were) you know that there is a process for scientific consideration. ID does not and has never met these requirements.

If they did the scientific community WOULD happily includ it, but there isn't. ID is not falsible, it relies UTTERLY on faith. There is no evidence to support it, never has been. It relies completely on badmouthing the evolutionary process. It doesn't say (The eye is too complicated to evolve, here is why...) No, it just says the eye is impossible to evolve so God had to do it.

It's utter bunk and until ID even TRIES to be intellectual about this, it belongs in the gutter. I don't want the upcoming generation to have it's head filled with armchair theology when these arguments had been decided over 60 years ago.

http://ydr.com/story/opinion/58516/
This is the school I attended for my undergrad and that I am at now at for graduate. My field for both, Geoenvironmental Studies.

These people know what they are talking about, they devoted their lives to studying it. People who advocate ID have made no such commitment.

raveneye

1. Humans are apes. We belong to the family Hominidae which we share with gorillas, chimps, and orangs. Hominidae is one of two families in the ape superfamily, the other one being the Hylobatidae containing the gibbons or "lesser apes."

Consider: there is no bone in your body that you don't share with a chimp. Every single chemical known to be produced in the human brain has also been found in the chimp brain. The immune systems, digestive systems, lymph systems, nervous systems of humans and chimps are virtually indistinguishable from each other in fine detail.

Humans and chimps are practically identical in their DNA. The only obvious visible difference is human chromosome 2 evolved by fusion of two chimp chromosomes. Other than that human and chimp chromosomes are indistinguishable. Overall, if you look at any random DNA sequence in humans and chimps, the difference is only about 2%.

Now that the human genome has been sequenced it won't be long before we'll know exactly what genes are different between the two and what their sequence differences are. In the next decades researchers will be converting chimp genes to human genes in embryo by gene therapy, and we'll have chimps that are increasingly similar to humans.

2. There are intermediate fossils galore. New ones are being found all the time. You might start with Ardipithecus.

3. If you're really serious about learning about macroevolution, you should find a book about evolution and take the time to read it and think about it. You will get some wonderful insights into how animals and plants came to be the way they are.

iamnormal

"It is an alternative which we do not seek but as a free people we will not submit to having our rights taken from us by that greatest of all tyrants a numerical majority." ~J.H. Cochran