Al Gore: politicians should pay a price for [ climate ] denial: Agree?

[Orbitus]

As a matter of fact, a lot of my views are rejected by strictly fundamentalist religious people as well as the "men of science". Both sides are equally closed minded. The two sides are capable of being reconciled.

- - - Updated - - -

And theory should? It's only your closed minded opinion that it's fiction. Evolution should only be taught as what it is, theory, and clearly labeled as such.

Micro evolution and macro evolution are in no way the same thing. One is fact and the other is theory.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/microevolution
noun, Biology
1.
evolutionary change involving the gradual accumulation of mutations leading to new varieties within a species.
2.
minor evolutionary change observed over a short period of time.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/macroevolution
noun, Biology
1.
major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_48

You really should stop using a work of fiction as your basis for your education. There is MOUNTAINS of DATA for Evolution and NOTHING for your creationist MYTH. And you just saying that "its just a theory" means you know NOTHING about science. Gravity is just a theory. Germ Theory is just a theory. You should learn what a fucking scientific theory is before you make yourself look stupid. http://study.com/academy/lesson/what...s-example.html

- - - Updated - - -

Gravity is a reality. The only theories are about what causes it which still we don't really know. Comparing the two things is like apples and oranges.

Gravity is reality, yes, BUT IT IS STILL A FUCKING THEORY.

- - - Updated - - -

There is absolutely no proof that any species or genus ever became sometime entirely different through a process of random "evolution". There is no unbroken chain of evidence for any form of life on the planet let alone for us. The theory is full of holes. It's like a block of Swiss cheese that has been blasted with a shotgun.

Humans? Yeah, we are an evolution of a previous primate that we have found fossils for. If it has so many holes, where is the evidence to say otherwise? Because there is NOTHING to the contrary.

[Endus]

Humans? Yeah, we are an evolution of a previous primate that we have found fossils for. If it has so many holes, where is the evidence to say otherwise? Because there is NOTHING to the contrary.

I really think people's perceptions of humanity are overwhelmingly anthropocentric. Maybe that's not surprising. But seriously, we're not that special. The biggest differences between us and most great apes are;

- Very slightly larger brain size
- Better fine-muscle control, due to a mutation that lets us selectively engage muscle fibers, where for most animals it's an all-or-nothing kind of thing

And that's about it. In theory, if a branch of chimpanzee were to develop with the same fine-control mutation that occurred in hominids, they could come pretty close to matching us in many ways.

People lose sight of exactly how much of what they think of as "humanity" is cultural, not biological. Homo Sapiens has been on the planet pretty much as they are today, for about 200,000 years. So to compare us to the apes, you shouldn't be comparing us, today, you should be comparing the cavemen of 200,000 years ago.

[Orbitus]

I really think people's perceptions of humanity are overwhelmingly anthropocentric. Maybe that's not surprising. But seriously, we're not that special. The biggest differences between us and most great apes are;

- Very slightly larger brain size
- Better fine-muscle control, due to a mutation that lets us selectively engage muscle fibers, where for most animals it's an all-or-nothing kind of thing

And that's about it. In theory, if a branch of chimpanzee were to develop with the same fine-control mutation that occurred in hominids, they could come pretty close to matching us in many ways.

People lose sight of exactly how much of what they think of as "humanity" is cultural, not biological. Homo Sapiens has been on the planet pretty much as they are today, for about 200,000 years. So to compare us to the apes, you shouldn't be comparing us, today, you should be comparing the cavemen of 200,000 years ago.

Yeah some people don't realize how close our DNA is to theirs. Isn't it something like 98%? Somewhere in there. That 2% makes a huge difference.

[MerinPally]

I believe it's 95% the same as a halibut.

[Adam Jensen]

Yeah some people don't realize how close our DNA is to theirs. Isn't it something like 98%? Somewhere in there. That 2% makes a huge difference.

We are ~45% genetically similar to mice. We also share a few genes with trees, particularly ones concerning sugar metabolism.

[Pterodactylus]

So to compare us to the apes, you shouldn't be comparing us, today, you should be comparing the cavemen of 200,000 years ago.

We are taller, our jaws are smaller, and some of us have blue eyes.

Edit to add, misread that statement above. Humans today, compared to humans of 200,000 years ago have the above listed characteristics.

[Emageht Tsoluoy]

I like the part where people who have no idea what the scientific method is, or what scientific terminology means, uses those things as a basis for their arguments.

[Orbitus]

We are ~45% genetically similar to mice. We also share a few genes with trees, particularly ones concerning sugar metabolism.

Yep, basically everyone evolved from the same thing, a single celled organism.