he is not a scirntist but a theologian

The pope, being theologian but not a scientist, can say "God set up the natural laws, let them run and we're the result. Ask the biologists and natural historians what actually happened. God's a genius or what?" He remains a theologian without encouraging wrongheaded thinking.

When asked about the evidence against the biblical creation, he can say "It's a simplistic story for the audience at the time, which we now know to be inaccurate. The story served it's purpose and is now obsolete. I would have thought that was obvious. What, you thought god should have dictated a scientically accurate explanation to Bronze Age man using modern physics and biology? No, don't answer that." Theology easily accomodating new truths.

Better yet, he can continue with "Speciation is relevant to Jesus Christ's message of love and forgiveness, how? The Catholic Church cares about people bettering themselves and society, not monkey ancestors. If a scientist shows our understanding to be incorrect, we'll just correct it. Scientists do the natural laws, we do the manmade laws." The pope, a theologian, can be concerned about theology and see unrelated fields as incidental.

For a theologian, the pope seems determined to attack an idea that has little relevance to theology.

The greater number of genetic changes in chimapanzees is relevant to the pope's soft attack on evolution? An oddity without a rock solid explanation shows evolution to be a worse explanation, despite over a century of gathered evidence, than an ancient myth contradicted by evidence? Even if this did show fundamental problems with evolution, the existing evidence shows the model has some worth and is still better than a story. It would still be better than the can't-prove-it's-wrong-therefore-it's-right of Intelligent Design. After all, claiming that I can fly because no one's recorded me 24/7 is rubbish.

This oddity is irrelevant anyway as the pope is refusing to state that evolution is a flawed model. He is implying it is unsupported, making it equal to other ideas. He would have a point except that it's wrong. Unless you're claiming an unknown is "not a complete, scientifically proven theory". If so, that's nonsense as science can only ever provide best-guess, working models, not absolute, unbendable certainty. Medical science hasn't the faintest idea how the Placebo Effect is possible but physiological models are retained as scientific anyway.

The sad thing is the pope could casually throw out the biblical creation as 'retired', dismiss accusations of being archaic and expound on the implications of new science and technology, such as genetic engineering. That'd shut up the critics.

The answer to your question is that it's unknown but probably the result of a low, human population at some time, which lost genes as the gene pool shrank.

That the question is asked implies a misunderstanding of mutations and evolution. Though change is driven by genetic mutation, a mutation does not always create a change that creates evolutionary superiority. Some mutations have no meaningful effect, such as eye colour. Indeed the benefits of a useful mutation is relative to an environment, relative to the existence of other genes and is, thus, random. A mutation for more sophisticated vocal chords works well with good hearing but doesn't combine with a stomach that can digest a greater variety of insects. Longer arms are good in a jungle but pointlessly costly in tundra. With random changes, comparisons are only vaguely useful.

Post #282,167 by boxley 4/17/07 2:00:15 PM Reply	he is not a scirntist but a theologian you are being illogical thanx, bill Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #282,222 by warmachine 4/17/07 8:30:37 PM Reply	They're not mutually exclusive The pope, being theologian but not a scientist, can say "God set up the natural laws, let them run and we're the result. Ask the biologists and natural historians what actually happened. God's a genius or what?" He remains a theologian without encouraging wrongheaded thinking. When asked about the evidence against the biblical creation, he can say "It's a simplistic story for the audience at the time, which we now know to be inaccurate. The story served it's purpose and is now obsolete. I would have thought that was obvious. What, you thought god should have dictated a scientically accurate explanation to Bronze Age man using modern physics and biology? No, don't answer that." Theology easily accomodating new truths. Better yet, he can continue with "Speciation is relevant to Jesus Christ's message of love and forgiveness, how? The Catholic Church cares about people bettering themselves and society, not monkey ancestors. If a scientist shows our understanding to be incorrect, we'll just correct it. Scientists do the natural laws, we do the manmade laws." The pope, a theologian, can be concerned about theology and see unrelated fields as incidental. For a theologian, the pope seems determined to attack an idea that has little relevance to theology. Matthew Greet Choose Life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television, choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers. Choose good health, low cholesterol, and dental insurance. Choose fixed interest mortgage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose your friends. Choose leisurewear and matching luggage. Choose DIY and wondering who the fuck you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit-crushing game shows, stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pishing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked up brats you spawned to replace yourself. Choose your future. Choose life... But why would I want to do a thing like that? I chose not to choose life. I chose somethin' else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you've got heroin? - Mark Renton, Trainspotting.
Post #282,236 by boxley 4/17/07 10:07:23 PM Reply	please explain the following, only using evolutionary dogma [link\|http://abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2007/1899517.htm\|http://abc.net.au/sc.../2007/1899517.htm] A comparison of human and chimpanzee genes has revealed chimps may have evolved more than humans in the six or seven million years since both diverged from a common ancestor. perhaps an alien intervention? Apparently for some reason we have jumped passed them. thanx, bill Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #282,241 by Silverlock 4/17/07 10:19:35 PM Reply	Dogma? ----------------------------------------- You can fire an at will employee for good cause or no cause, but not bad cause.
Post #282,349 by warmachine 4/19/07 9:21:20 AM Reply	This is relevant? The greater number of genetic changes in chimapanzees is relevant to the pope's soft attack on evolution? An oddity without a rock solid explanation shows evolution to be a worse explanation, despite over a century of gathered evidence, than an ancient myth contradicted by evidence? Even if this did show fundamental problems with evolution, the existing evidence shows the model has some worth and is still better than a story. It would still be better than the can't-prove-it's-wrong-therefore-it's-right of Intelligent Design. After all, claiming that I can fly because no one's recorded me 24/7 is rubbish. This oddity is irrelevant anyway as the pope is refusing to state that evolution is a flawed model. He is implying it is unsupported, making it equal to other ideas. He would have a point except that it's wrong. Unless you're claiming an unknown is "not a complete, scientifically proven theory". If so, that's nonsense as science can only ever provide best-guess, working models, not absolute, unbendable certainty. Medical science hasn't the faintest idea how the Placebo Effect is possible but physiological models are retained as scientific anyway. The sad thing is the pope could casually throw out the biblical creation as 'retired', dismiss accusations of being archaic and expound on the implications of new science and technology, such as genetic engineering. That'd shut up the critics. The answer to your question is that it's unknown but probably the result of a low, human population at some time, which lost genes as the gene pool shrank. That the question is asked implies a misunderstanding of mutations and evolution. Though change is driven by genetic mutation, a mutation does not always create a change that creates evolutionary superiority. Some mutations have no meaningful effect, such as eye colour. Indeed the benefits of a useful mutation is relative to an environment, relative to the existence of other genes and is, thus, random. A mutation for more sophisticated vocal chords works well with good hearing but doesn't combine with a stomach that can digest a greater variety of insects. Longer arms are good in a jungle but pointlessly costly in tundra. With random changes, comparisons are only vaguely useful. Matthew Greet Choose Life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television, choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers. Choose good health, low cholesterol, and dental insurance. Choose fixed interest mortgage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose your friends. Choose leisurewear and matching luggage. Choose DIY and wondering who the fuck you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit-crushing game shows, stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pishing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked up brats you spawned to replace yourself. Choose your future. Choose life... But why would I want to do a thing like that? I chose not to choose life. I chose somethin' else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you've got heroin? - Mark Renton, Trainspotting.
Post #282,351 by boxley 4/19/07 9:30:11 AM Reply	how droll "some mutations have no meaningful effect, such as eye colour."bzzt wrong Just looking for the answer "I dont know" would have sufficed, but you had to prove you dont understand the science any more than I do. Your banging on the pope because he wont give up his core beliefs in exhange for yours shows that your dogma is a ossified as his. thanx, bill Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #282,353 by warmachine 4/19/07 9:33:30 AM Reply	Did I not say "that it's unknown"? Matthew Greet Choose Life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television, choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers. Choose good health, low cholesterol, and dental insurance. Choose fixed interest mortgage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose your friends. Choose leisurewear and matching luggage. Choose DIY and wondering who the fuck you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit-crushing game shows, stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pishing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked up brats you spawned to replace yourself. Choose your future. Choose life... But why would I want to do a thing like that? I chose not to choose life. I chose somethin' else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you've got heroin? - Mark Renton, Trainspotting.

Welcome to IWETHEY!