[Central Scrutiniser]

If a scientist disproves another scientist, its a good thing, and accepted in a professional way and it improves our view of the universe.

But, if someone questions dogmatic beliefs which have no basis in reality, you get excommunicated, or stoned, or have a fatwa against you, etc.

I'll take the scientific approach.

[null and void]

[mysterio]

Evolution and the Bible are not at odds. That's what makes these crevo threads so sad. It's all in the opening pages of the Bible. It's a parable. The order that the plants, fish, and animals were created in the Bible is pretty close to the way they evolved. Adam and Eve didn't literally eat an apple, they represent the first humans who had real intellect and the ability to distinguish between right and wrong. A lizard cannot sin. A human can. That is the downside among many upsides to having intellect and awareness of one's own mortality. Your cat still lives in the Garden of Eden, an innocent place, free of sin, due to the inability of an animal to make a conscious choice to do evil. Humans have not lived there since the brain became advanced and complex enough to enable us to recognize right and wrong. It's pretty cool when you think about it. Ancient man inspired by God beat Darwin to the punch by thousands of years.

The main proof of macroevolution is conserved sequences of DNA coding for essential proteins. I spent a couple years as a tech years back studying a few of these. Basically, the stretches coding for these proteins have changed little since our earliest ancestors and are virtually identical among distantly related organisms. You can find out a little more with google. Here's a paper from 1991 comparing conserved regions between humans and gulls : link

Humans and apes : link

[ChessExpert]

The Piltdown Man had a long run, 1912-1953. He may have been one of the most persuasive proofs for evolution in those years. I wonder how many people doubted the story, only to be ridiculed as being anti-science.

[eleni121]

Scientists get caught up in ruts like other people do.

In the case of the Darwinoids, they have really boxed themselves in...turned theory into ideology and turn despotic when anyone questions their asumptions.

Sad really.

[metmom]

Yes sir, upon this fairytale, the New York Times put the headline "DARWIN THEORY PROVED TRUE",

Endorsement from the NY Slimes would make me rethink my position on any issue.

[bvw]

Yes nice catch, a true marker of idiocy.

... but suckers are born every minute. Think on that. We're not talking babes from the mother's womb, either.

[VOA]

As much as I hate to recommend something from PBS, their "Nova"
series had a good episode on the Piltdown phenonmenon.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/hoax/

[bevets]

I am firmly convinced that no theory of human evolution can be regarded as satisfactory unless the revelations of Piltdown are taken into account. ~ Arthur Keith

[Elsie]

Thought to be a woman's

Could not talk

Well, if ANYTHING shows that it's wrong; THESE two statements in the same article PROVE it!!

[Tribune7]

LOL.

Guess the NYT hasn't really changed that much. Still can't get things right.

Great find.

[hosepipe]

DARWIN THEORY IS PROVED TRUE... compared to WHAT?...