Major component of evolution theory proven wrong

[Immortal4life]

The claim is that plants and Humans share a common ancestor. This is completely un-provable and pure theory. It's the same thing basically as saying humans at one time were more like plants, because I'm pretty sure humans didn't devolve into plants and bacteria. It's just a red herring or strawman, it's like when they say "we didn't evolve from monkeys we have a common ancestor with them". But really, it's the same thing. That common ancestor is certainly going to have to be more monkey-like than human-like.

 

So whether you want to claim humans evolved out of bacteria over millions of years, or they evolved from plants, it's pretty much the same thing to me, and it's not really the point. To me it's just the X, in mathematics. It's unknown, and in the case of the theory of evolution, un-observable, and un-proven.

 

Evidence for this, is claimed to be that plants and humans both have Eukaryote cells. I think we can safely say now, in light of the information in this thread, that this is not evidence or proof of common ancestry between plants and humans, nor for common ancestry between humans and bacteria.

 

Simply put, I don't accept the theory of Endosymbiosis as evidence or proof of the theory of evolution.

Edited March 30, 2011 by Immortal4life

[Immortal4life]

 

All of this is irrelevant and obviously so to anyone paying attention to the thread; if you're going to make a point, no matter how contentious, you bare the burden of proof.

 

Sorry, but you are incorrect about the burden of proof.

 

In this case, I am not the one making a claim. I am the skeptic, the doubter. The burden of proof therefore, is not on me, even if I do have proof and evidence backing my point.... it's on the evolutionists.

 

You can't prove a negative. I can't prove evolution is false, not because it is true, but because it is unprovable either way. All we can do is falsify little bits and peices, one at a time.

 

To understand better, take this example.......I can claim I saw a Unicorn in the Forest. You can't prove me wrong. See?

 

The Burden of proof is not on the skeptic, but on the one trying to prove the theory. It is never on the one debunking the theory, it is always on the one who is supporting it or proposing it.

[Encephalon]

Thanks for the encouragement. I had one year of college too, well, more like part of a year before personal issues were interfering too much with school work.

 

But the point was pointing out to Blasto how he was creating an abrasive atmosphere and cutting off potential dialogue, for whatever that's worth, seeing as I like him.

 

Of course, it's not just Blasto. I think this thread has degenerated into too much of a joke for me to spend my energy trying to post something serious here.

 

I wonder about this place...

 

well now you've given me reason to feel guilty for being a meanie! But please read my post; this whole thread came about because people with insufficient intellectual integrity to support their own arguments persist in making one unsupportable claim after another. We're not talking about regular vanilla or french vanilla. The precedent we are setting is one in which people can come in here, lie about their credentials, disseminate falsehoods, and then scream "Victim!" when others challenge their BS. Cat could have chimed in whenever she wanted to and told Immortal to get his scientific shit straight, but she saw fit to slap me on the wrist for being insensitive. Is there any clearer evidence of where our priorities are?

 

I was in the military when Reagan came in and stupefied the nation, dumbed us down and destroyed the public school system even more than it already was, and believe me, we were a lot happier, and a much more courteous before all this happened. it's really chilling.

[Immortal4life]

I was in the military when Reagan came in and stupefied the nation, dumbed us down and destroyed the public school system even more than it already was, and believe me, we were a lot happier, and a much more courteous before all this happened. it's really chilling.

 

 

Before the dark times, before the "Empire"-

[Marblehead]

The claim is that plants and Humans share a common ancestor.

 

Honestly, I had never heard of such a claim from any creditable scientific investigation. In fact, the first time I heard about such a thought was in the opening post of this thread. The entire thought is just unreasonable to me. In fact, I will even suggest that it defies good logic.

 

To take such a thought and use it to suggest that evolution is false and creationism is the only truth is nothing less that BS.

 

BTW BS = Bullshit

[Marblehead]

 

You can't prove a negative. I can't prove evolution is false, not because it is true, but because it is unprovable either way. All we can do is falsify little bits and peices, one at a time.

 

 

Evolution no longer needs be proven. It is already a fact. The opening post was misleading because it was referrencing Bullshit.

[aridus]

Actually I do have plant DNA in me. I just ate.

 

It was pretty good, too.

[Immortal4life]

Honestly, I had never heard of such a claim from any creditable scientific investigation. In fact, the first time I heard about such a thought was in the opening post of this thread. The entire thought is just unreasonable to me. In fact, I will even suggest that it defies good logic.

 

Yes Marblehead, Evolution theory claims that all life on earth, every single lifeform that ever existed, has a common ancestor. No, they don't claim that different lifeforms evolved from several different common ancestors, but one common ancestor. That means that evolution theory states that humans and plants share a common ancestor.

 

But they go further. Evolution theory claims that organisms more primitive than bacteria have evolved over many millions of years, into Man.

 

I am glad you are seeing that it in your own words "defies good logic".

Edited March 29, 2011 by Immortal4life

[Marblehead]

well now you've given me reason to feel guilty for being a meanie!

 

You just keep on keeping on. (Just try to not get too personal, Okay?)

 

I fully support your core arguement.

[Encephalon]

You just keep on keeping on. (Just try to not get too personal, Okay?)

 

I fully support your core arguement.

 

Fuck you!

[aridus]

Yes Marblehead, Evolution theory claims that all life on earth, every single lifeform that ever existed, has a common ancestor. No, they don't claim that different lifeforms evolved from several different common ancestors, but one common ancestor. That means that evolution theory states that humans and plants share a common ancestor.

 

But they go further. Evolution theory claims that organisms more primitive than bacteria have evolved over many millions of years, into Man.

 

Several different ancestors evolved from one ancestor, and, geometrically, several ancestors evolved from those several ancestors. Ancestors go alllll the way back - so actually, you have both happening.

 

Or so I hear. I don't actually know.

[Encephalon]

Evolution no longer needs be proven. It is already a fact. The opening post was misleading because it was referrencing Bullshit.

 

Thank you.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

 

When an idea or theory is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, it no longer bares the burden. My god, Immortal, you could make money driving professors insane! Universities could hire you to make unpopular professors blow a gasket, and then they could deny them tenure!

[Immortal4life]

everal different ancestors evolved from one ancestor, and, geometrically, several ancestors evolved from those several ancestors. Ancestors go alllll the way back - so actually, you have both happening.

 

Or so I hear. I don't actually know.

 

How could they possibly know? How could anyone?

 

Why can't there have been 2 lifeforms created when life first began? Evolutionists btw can't explain how life began, so they shouldn't even be studying how it evolves at their current level of knowledge.

 

How can they be so sure that some lifeforms didn't have a totally different source than other life froms? Why can't there be 2 sources for all lifeforms? some came from one, some from the other? See, it's all just theory.

Edited March 29, 2011 by Immortal4life

[Immortal4life]

 

When an idea or theory is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, it no longer bares the burden.

 

This isn't a court case.

 

You were talking about Burdenof Proof in a logical context. Burden of proof is always on the claiment, not the doubter. Burden of proof is on the one making a positive claim, not on the one making a negative claim.

 

You are simply trying to shift the burden of proof here. That in itself is a fallacy. But don't worry, I will meet your demands.

[aridus]

Not knowing how something began to do what it is doing does not mean that you don't know what it does.

[Marblehead]

Yes Marblehead, Evolution theory claims that all life on earth, every single lifeform that ever existed, has a common ancestor. No, they don't claim that different lifeforms evolved from several different common ancestors, but one common ancestor. That means that evolution theory states that humans and plants share a common ancestor.

 

But they go further. Evolution theory claims that organisms more primitive than bacteria have evolved over many millions of years, into Man.

 

I will formally challenge this post. I feel it is a false statement and would like to see at least one piece of proof of this theory, a scientific investigation by creditable scientists, published and peer reviewed.

 

Plants and animals evolved separately but co-dependant (fancy me using a Buddhist term).

 

Stramatolites are the fossils of the oldest life form so far discovered. They date back 3.5 billion years. The structures are composed of both plant and animal life forms as well as sedimentary grains of the oceans' sands. These plants and animals evolved co-dependantly, not one from the other.

 

And man was NOT created in the perfect image of God. What a contradiction that is!!!!!

 

Yes, there needs be one common ancestor of plants and one common ancestor of animals. That's the way evolution has worked on this planet. It may work differently on other planets.

Edited March 30, 2011 by Marblehead

[Marblehead]

Fuck you!

 

I can asssure you that you would not enjoy trying it. Hehehe.

[Immortal4life]

I will formally challenge this post. I feel it is a false statement and would like to see at least one piece of proof of this theory, a scientific investigation by creditable scientists, published and peer reviewed.

 

The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin? Beyond that, why would I show information that isn't in line with the point I'm making? You can look it up for yourself I am sure.

 

Actually here you go, here is one I found that addresses most of the issues brought up here, and talks about why the "Tree of Life" is falling apart-

http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v282/n2/pdf/scientificamerican0200-90.pdf

 

Plants and animals evolved separately but co-dependant (fancy me using a Buddhist term).

 

It is true that evolutionists believe this. However, this does not change the fact that evolutionists also believe in common ancestry of all living creatures.

 

Stramatolites are the fossils of the oldest life form so far discovered. They date back 3.5 billion years. The structures are conposed of both plant and animal life forms as well as sedimentary grains of the oceans' sands. These plants and animals evolved co-dependantly, not one from the other.

 

And man was NOT created in the perfect image of God. What a contradiction that is!!!!!

 

Yes, there needs be one common ancestor of plants and one common ancestor of animals. That's the way evolution has worked on this planet. It may work differently on other planets.

 

You may be right about there needing to be 2 ancestors. It's not my place to say. Many scientists have believed up until only very recent times that only 1 was necessary.

Edited March 30, 2011 by Immortal4life

[Marblehead]

The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin? Beyond that, why would I show information that isn't in line with the point I'm making? You can look it up for yourself I am sure.

 

Actually here you go, here is one I found that addresses most of the issues brought up here, and talks about why the "Tree of Life" is falling apart-

http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v282/n2/pdf/scientificamerican0200-90.pdf

 

Please note this quote from the article:

 

"In principle, then, the relationships among all living and extinct organisms could be represented as a single genealogical

tree."

 

Do you see the word "could"? I could fly if I had wings.

 

It is true that evolutionists believe this. However, this does not change the fact that evolutionists also believe in common ancestry of all living creatures.

 

Only a few believe this. I will not question their sanity.

 

You may be right about there needing to be 2 ancestors. It's not my place to say. Many scientists have believed up until only very recent times that only 1 was necessary.

 

I will agrue the point until I see conclusive evidence based on fact and logic that suggests otherwise.

 

There is a good theory as to how animal life first began but it has not yet been applied successfully in order to even claim it to be fact.

 

I don't recall any claims as to how plant life started on Earth. But there surely is a cause, whatever that might be.

 

Perhaps this is a question that will never have an acceptable answer.

 

It will be neat when man finally gets to Mars to see if any life forms actually existed there when there was surface water. And it would be really extra neat if it is found that there still is life in the subsurface water that exists there.

[Creation]

Hi guys.

 

OK. What I wanted to say from the beginning is that you guys need to start making distinctions and being clear what you are actually talking about.

 

This is what I understand to be the essence of the Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution.

 

1. In an ecological system, natural selection occurs and this leads to speciation.

2. All life on Earth descended from a common ancestor.

2a. In particular, all life can trace it's ancestry back to single celled organisms. From single celled organisms came multicelled organism, then plants, sea animals, reptiles, birds, mammals, etc. (some steps might be missing or out of order there)

2b. In particular, men evolved from monkey-like primates.

3. The mechanism of this evolution was random mutation and natural selection. In particular, random mutation, environmental effects, natural selection, and billions of years are sufficient to account for all the diversity of life on Earth.

4. The original single celled organisms from which everything evolved developed out of non living matter.

5. This evolution of life from non life came about through purely physical processes (chemical reactions, etc.)

 

OK.

These assertions can be classified in various ways. Assertion 1 is purely a statement about what happens here and now. As such it is scientifically as sound as Newton's laws, etc.

Assertions 2-5 are about things that happened a long time ago. Note that such assertions are fundamentally of a different character than statements like Newton's laws or Assertion 1. They are not repeatable and they do not make predictions that can be tested like Newton's laws do. Instead, there is a natural record of things that occurred in the past that people can try to make sense of. But this is of a fundamentally different character than studying things that are here and now. Sciences like paleontology and cosmology are of this nature, and this must be acknowledged. Disagreeing with statements 2-5 is not intellectually on the same level as disagreeing with Newton's laws, and moreover someone can agree with statement 1 and completely disagree with statements 2-5.

To make a further distinction (which Jetsun already addressed), statements 2 and 4 are about what happened, and statements 3 and 5 are about how it happened. Once again, I must stress the fundamentally different character of these types of assertions. One can look for evidence of 2 and 4 in the natural record, but even if 2 and 4 are found to be true, 3 and 5 do not necessarily follow! They are ultimately, in my opinion, not scientifically provable statements. Really think about how you would prove 3 or 5 scientifically. Strictly speaking, you can't. What you can do is try to establish plausibility. E.g. the question is does natural selection etc. provide a sufficient causal explanation of the mechanism of evolution. That is the big question by which the whole Neo-Darwinian theory stands or falls. BUT even if 3 and 5 (the core of the Neo-Darwinian theory) are false, 2 and 4 might still be true, but the causal explanation is missing. (If you want my candid observation here, a lot of scientists know this but won't admit it publicly because they are afraid that it will give Creationists a foothold in the political arena, a sad case of politics interfering in free scientific discourse). And even if you can establish plausibility of 3 and 5, that wouldn't necessarily mean that it actually happened that way, do you see?

 

So there are a great many levels of potential meaning and potential for truth and falsehood in the whole debate about evolution. I think it is unfortunate that this is not acknowledged. People have this impression that either you believe that evolution (as a single monolithic thing) is a scientific fact (not acknowledging that there are different kinds of sciences with different methodologies for proof), or you are a Bible thumping Neanderthal. To summarize the various possibilities inherent in the truth or falsehood of "evolution":

-1 is true, no question.

-2 could be true or false. This cannot be proven scientifically in the same was as 1. But it can be shown to be consistent or inconsistent with and then suggested or not suggested by the natural history. But even if the natural history suggests 2 is true (the consensus being that it does) I must add the caveat that just as with any science, as our ability to look deeper into the natural history increases, we must not take 2 for granted, but be willing to revise our views. Now, also notice that 2 can be partially true and partially false. E.g. people could have evolved from monkeys without birds evolving from dinosaurs, or dinosaurs descending from single cells in a primordial goo. So the various proposed evolutionary chains should be evaluated separately. I think scientists themselves understand this, but this point can be glossed over in debates, instead taking evolution as one big monolithic thing, once again becasue of the fear of giving Creationists a foothold.

-4 could be true or false, but I can't imagine delving deeply enough into the natural history to ever be able conclusively make any kind of conclusion.

-3 (respectively 5) is relevant insofar as 2 (respectively 4) is true. It cannot be proven, the best you can hope for is to give an argument for plausibility. But even if it is agreed to be plausible (the consensus among biologist is that it is, the textbooks tell me), it could still be false.

 

So Marblehead, Blasto, ralis, Ken, everyone defending Evolution please be clear about just what aspects you are defending. Apparently Marblehead is only defending a small part of what the actual Neo-Darwinian theory encompasses. If he could make clear precisely which part I think that would be helpful.

 

And I want to point again to an underlying force in such discussions this that makes otherwise rational people like scientists bulldoze over these subtleties: There is an underlying fear of being completely honest about the situation because of the politics of it.

 

OK, so now Blasto can tell me if indeed by his standards of discourse this 21 year old college dropout should have abstained from posting.

Edited March 30, 2011 by Creation

[Marblehead]

Okay. First I will mention that this post is a very good post and I admire the effort you put into it.

 

Secondly, the only problem I have with your five points is with 2 and 2a. I have not seen any evidence (facts) to support this theory. (There may be evidence but I am not yet aware of it.)

 

Apparently Marblehead is only defending a small part of what the actual Neo-Darwinian theory encompasses. If he could make clear precisely which part I think that would be helpful.

 

I engage in these types of discussions for one purpose only.

 

Every time new knowledge or new theories concerning evolution is found there are always those people who jump up and claim "Darwin was wrong - evolution is false."

 

Darwin was not wrong. Evolution is fact. True, Darwin did not know everything. He did not have the tools that today's scientists have. But nearly all of what he understood from his investigations still stands to this day.

 

My arguement is simple. Pro evolution and con creationism. (Remember, I am an Atheist.) Nothing more than that. It really doesn't matter to me in the least if life evolved from one single source and then separated into plants and animals. Such a finding would not negate the fact of evolution.

 

I have no problem with anything else you said in that post. You did good, IMO.

Edited March 30, 2011 by Marblehead

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Hi guys.

 

OK. What I wanted to say from the beginning is that you guys need to start making distinctions and being clear what you are actually talking about.

 

This is what I understand to be the essence of the Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution.

 

1. In an ecological system, natural selection occurs and this leads to speciation.

2. All life on Earth descended from a common ancestor.

2a. In particular, all life can trace it's ancestry back to single celled organisms. From single celled organisms came multicelled organism, then plants, sea animals, reptiles, birds, mammals, etc. (some steps might be missing or out of order there)

2b. In particular, men evolved from monkey-like primates.

3. The mechanism of this evolution was random mutation and natural selection. In particular, random mutation, environmental effects, natural selection, and billions of years are sufficient to account for all the diversity of life on Earth.

4. The original single celled organisms from which everything evolved developed out of non living matter.

5. This evolution of life from non life came about through purely physical processes (chemical reactions, etc.)

 

OK.

These assertions can be classified in various ways. Assertion 1 is purely a statement about what happens here and now. As such it is scientifically as sound as Newton's laws, etc.

Assertions 2-5 are about things that happened a long time ago. Note that such assertions are fundamentally of a different character than statements like Newton's laws or Assertion 1. They are not repeatable and they do not make predictions that can be tested like Newton's laws do. Instead, there is a natural record of things that occurred in the past that people can try to make sense of. But this is of a fundamentally different character than studying things that are here and now. Sciences like paleontology and cosmology are of this nature, and this must be acknowledged. Disagreeing with statements 2-5 is not intellectually on the same level as disagreeing with Newton's laws, and moreover someone can agree with statement 1 and completely disagree with statements 2-5.

To make a further distinction (which Jetsun already addressed), statements 2 and 4 are about what happened, and statements 3 and 5 are about how it happened. Once again, I must stress the fundamentally different character of these types of assertions. One can look for evidence of 2 and 4 in the natural record, but even if 2 and 4 are found to be true, 3 and 5 do not necessarily follow! They are ultimately, in my opinion, not scientifically provable statements. Really think about how you would prove 3 or 5 scientifically. Strictly speaking, you can't. What you can do is try to establish plausibility. E.g. the question is does natural selection etc. provide a sufficient causal explanation of the mechanism of evolution. That is the big question by which the whole Neo-Darwinian theory stands or falls. BUT even if 3 and 5 (the core of the Neo-Darwinian theory) are false, 2 and 4 might still be true, but the causal explanation is missing. (If you want my candid observation here, a lot of scientists know this but won't admit it publicly because they are afraid that it will give Creationists a foothold in the political arena, a sad case of politics interfering in free scientific discourse). And even if you can establish plausibility of 3 and 5, that wouldn't necessarily mean that it actually happened that way, do you see?

 

So there are a great many levels of potential meaning and potential for truth and falsehood in the whole debate about evolution. I think it is unfortunate that this is not acknowledged. People have this impression that either you believe that evolution (as a single monolithic thing) is a scientific fact (not acknowledging that there are different kinds of sciences with different methodologies for proof), or you are a Bible thumping Neanderthal. To summarize the various possibilities inherent in the truth or falsehood of "evolution":

-1 is true, no question.

-2 could be true or false. This cannot be proven scientifically in the same was as 1. But it can be shown to be consistent or inconsistent with and then suggested or not suggested by the natural history. But even if the natural history suggests 2 is true (the consensus being that it does) I must add the caveat that just as with any science, as our ability to look deeper into the natural history increases, we must not take 2 for granted, but be willing to revise our views. Now, also notice that 2 can be partially true and partially false. E.g. people could have evolved from monkeys without birds evolving from dinosaurs, or dinosaurs descending from single cells in a primordial goo. So the various proposed evolutionary chains should be evaluated separately. I think scientists themselves understand this, but this point can be glossed over in debates, instead taking evolution as one big monolithic thing, once again becasue of the fear of giving Creationists a foothold.

-4 could be true or false, but I can't imagine delving deeply enough into the natural history to ever be able conclusively make any kind of conclusion.

-3 (respectively 5) is relevant insofar as 2 (respectively 4) is true. It cannot be proven, the best you can hope for is to give an argument for plausibility. But even if it is agreed to be plausible (the consensus among biologist is that it is, the textbooks tell me), it could still be false.

 

So Marblehead, Blasto, ralis, Ken, everyone defending Evolution please be clear about just what aspects you are defending. Apparently Marblehead is only defending a small part of what the actual Neo-Darwinian theory encompasses. If he could make clear precisely which part I think that would be helpful.

 

And I want to point again to an underlying force in such discussions this that makes otherwise rational people like scientists bulldoze over these subtleties: There is an underlying fear of being completely honest about the situation because of the politics of it.

 

OK, so now Blasto can tell me if indeed by his standards of discourse this 21 year old college dropout should have abstained from posting.

 

 

Ssssssmmokin'!!!!!!!!

[Marblehead]

BTW Have Y'all noticed that I have not made a post in the "Unlocking the Mysteries of Life" thread?

 

There is a reason for that as well.

[Creation]

Cat could have chimed in whenever she wanted to and told Immortal to get his scientific shit straight, but she saw fit to slap me on the wrist for being insensitive. Is there any clearer evidence of where our priorities are?

Hi Blasto.

 

I think you are not really getting what cat was saying. Did you notice that she did not mention anything about science but only mentioned abrasiveness in the context of discussing cultivation?

 

I think we're dealing with an entirely new level of collective delusion, where aggressive ignorance and intellectual irresponsibility have become normalized in the service of "kindness," not just in TTB but throughout culture. This brand of kindness I'll pass on.

OK great! This merits some discussion. I personally think that your view of what the problems, causes and solutions are is limited.

 

Here is a nice quote about education from Aristotle for you: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." I sure as hell didn't learn that quote in school, nor did learn that ability in school. Actually, I saw no evidence that I was going to receive anything out of college than a education in regurgitating information and "playing the game", That was one of the reasons for my leaving (along with major depression, etc.). Even if they didn't like to admit it, almost everyone I talked to about it agreed that there wasn't a whole lot of genuine learning going on, just a bunch of hoops to be jumped through. And I went to a very prestigious research university. So every time you bring up "college" I cringe. Like college is this wonderful place you go to learn to think so well. Bullshit! In my experience, the mantra of education today is "Play the game". Was this not the case with you? "Critical thinking" is only emphasized insofar as they might try to force you into a cookie cutter mold of critical thinking, the consequences of which are students simply learn churn out assignments in a way that give an appearance of critical thinking, and worse yet, actually believe that what they are doing is critical thinking. It seems to me that your idea of "how it should be" would only result in more of this. This is on example of how I think your perspective is limited and would not necessarily solve the problem you want to solve, but perhaps even exacerbate it.

 

OK, here is another. Much of my family are Christian fundamentalists. This is why I love that Aristotle quote: I lived it. I blend with fundamentalists and learn about them from the inside, and then went and did the same with people with other viewpoints. So as you know, there is a "Culture War" going on, and I have hung out with people from both sides, read books from both sides, etc. with a genuine interest in how both groups think. And one thing I found was that the same kinds of emotional forces were in play on both sides, though the thoughts were opposing. So you get a lot of "talking past each other". Also you get a lot of one group trying to force their views on another. (Supreme Court, anyone?) Each group will give an intellectual argument for why that is not what they are doing and that they are being eminently fair and reasonable, but on an emotional level there is the same underlying fear, bitterness and consequent will to oppress. And this always produces an averse reaction in the other party that further entrenches them in their view. The interesting thing is when you find the people who do not have this underlying emotional agenda. And they exist on both sides. But it seems that the majority do. If I may say so, it seems to me that you have this underlying emotional agenda, and that informs your views, posts, treatment of those who disagree with you.

 

The only way that this bitter Culture War, which is a serious blight on our society, will not keep raging on and on, is to really deal with all the collective emotional baggage involved. In other words, contrary to what everyone seems to think, it is not about the intellectual issues at all!

 

I have thought a great deal about this, and this is the conclusion I have come to.

 

One interesting tidbit is that in India the same war is going on between Hindu fundamentalists and secularists. So this is not unique to Abrahamic traditions.

[torus693]

.

Edited April 9, 2011 by torus693