Evolution

I think we either evolve or dissolve. We either progress or regress. To remain in one state, is to stagnate. Nothing remains the same. Change is part of our daily lives and existence.
To deny evolution is illogical.

I don't know if the bicentenary is being celebrated elsewhere, but it is on the BBC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/darwin/

In the Natural History Museum in London is a wonderful quote about change being necessary and important, that we cannot stay the same no matter how comfortable we may be. Maybe we are evolving from coming together through places like this.

Carol

Abe,

I agree with the change that goes on. I do not agree that a monkey turned into me.

There's still time for you to turn into a monkey.

Shelagh wrote:

There's still time for you to turn into a monkey.

I am working on it.

Evolution simply means change over time. Weather such change is good or bad are value judgements that are relative to the prospective of the entity making the judgement. Humans did not descend from monkies, we're related to monkies, distant cousions so to speak. In fact, we're more closely related to chimpanzees than monkies. We share 98% of our DNA in common with chimpanzees and we even share 90% of our DNA in common with mice. The evidence that all living organisms are interrelated is overwhelming. Humans are a member of the animal kingdom just like millions of other creatures, we may not like it but it's fact. If species could not evolve over time, they could not adapt to the changing world and complex life would be all but impossible.

Gordon,
From what I read, it started with fish.

Actually, if you go back before fish, it started with single cell organisms. In fact, for most of earth's history bacteria ruled the world.

A lot of people I have known still qualified as germs.

You're right Gordon. I was thinking in terms of animals/mammals that were farther along the chain of evolution.

Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body by Neil Shubin is a great book at a reasonable price:

http://www.amazon.com/Your-Inner-Fish-Journey-3-5-Billion-Year/dp/0307277453/

Evolution itself is a fact. I think where the disparity of opinion lies is "what's driving it?"

God (religion) or random environmental factors (Darwin)?

I believe that god and the totality of existance (our universe and any and all possible parallel universes) are one and the same. To me, this view eliminates the conflict between science and religion.

If Darwin is right, then everything happened randomly by chance. The Earth, the Sun, the Moon, the monkies and us humans.

There is another school of thought that argues to the contrary, based on the weight of broader evidence. For example:

"Mars is still undergoing wild variations, which could explain its apparent history of extreme climate swings. Earth may be spared a similar fate because of the stabilizing influence of the Moon, the only large satellite in the inner solar system."

From:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE4DD163CF931A35750C0A965958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all


The creationist interpretation of this is that the Moon has been "created" and placed in this position (quite deliberately) so that it can stabilize the Earth and allow life to flourish on its surface...without which there would be extremely harmful swings in its seasons, that would be lethal to life on Earth.

P. Gordon Kennedy wrote:

I believe that god and the totality of existance (our universe and any and all possible parallel universes) are one and the same. To me, this view eliminates the conflict between science and religion.

Exactly. This view eliminates the conflict between science and religion and is much better than either extreme.

Carol

As for the creation of the moon, it most likely (according to science) was formed from material ejected from the earth as a result of a collision with a Mars size body within the first few hundred million years of the earth's existance. If it seems the earth was deliberately designed to support life (and us) that should come as no suprise because if it wasn't we would not exist to preceive it as such.

And without the moon Earth would not be habitable according to some research.

What you said about its creation, Gordon, is reflected in the
Babylonian creation story, the Enuma Elish. It says that the "Planet of
Crossing" (Planet X, Nibiru, the 12th Planet, etc.) with its seven
"Winds" or moons collided with Earth (they called it Tiamat). Half of
it was destroyed and became the "Hammered Bracelet" or the asteroid
belt, and the other half became today's Earth.

The wound where Earth was struck is probably beneath the Pacific Ocean.

Just thought I would throw that in here...

And here I thought the moon was just some lonely little homeless comet that the earth took in out to the goodness of it's heart.

By the way, other than Ahad, does anybody know where the center of the earth/moon construct is? The moon doesn't just "revolve around the earth": the two revolve around each other, or rather a center, like a man swinging a child around...the "center of gravity" is not the center of the man, but of the two of them.

So, the Dr. Science question... where is the center of the earth/moon gravity?

Actually, the earth-moon system could be more properly termed a binary planet system. The moon is large in proportion to the earth, being about 1/4 the size of earth. Other planet's moons are much smaller relative to their host planet (except for the Pluto-Charon system which could also be classified as a binary planet system if you still consider Pluto a planet).