What is your opinion on evolution?

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

How do scientists "account" for the fact that the schwartze ... loves watermelon and KFC?

How does that fit into the "Great Scheme of Evolution?"

A subset within a particular species having a preference for a certain type of food, a unique preference from the other subsets of the species, is actually a proof for evolution.    But not always will the disparate environmental pressures and adaptive radiation be to such a degree as to cause speciation.  Thus different types of homo sapiens are the same species even if unique particularities developed between populations within the species separated by geography, language, culture, etc.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Maybe your ancestors were monkeys, but I am not descended from monkeys. I am a human who ultimately descended from Adam.

But you can postulate all you like about missing links, it will keep you busy.

Why couldn't Adam have descended from "monkeys" or some other animal creature?

Based on the commentaries of the Seforno and Ramban on the Chumash, that is certainly a possibility and not a notion they would have been bothered by.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

I disagree!

I think that space aliens dumped them off here to get rid of the garbage!

Their entire front temporal lobe is missing! 

Let's try to keep some degree of seriousness in this very important thread.

That their temporal lobe is missing is completely untrue.  I know you are joking and you think it's funny, but people who don't know any better might actually believe this to be true.

It's proven that when undergoing brain surgery, the doctors lift off a shvoog's skull to reveal a "blue gums" looking squirrel size brain without any convolutions on it! 

Give it a rest.

Neuroscience reveals that unlike normal humans' brains which have a brain stem and spinal cord, the schwartze's chipmunk brain instead has a "hambone nerve" running down the back of his neck and directly connected to his penis for aiding in raping white women. 

Is there a point to these types of comments?

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Science, evolutions and scientific evolutions all were kindly and duly permitted by the G_d as a part and process of his grand design. So that they also should be scientifically studied, understood and appreciated by the mankind. The days of G_d are eons of mankind.

Indeed a very wise comment.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

I don't understand some of your answer choices.

"I disagree completely, Humans came from apes"

Wouldn't humans coming from apes be agreeing with evolution?

no,human and apes share the smae ancestors.but this ancestors weren't apes.

That's not what I was saying, I've already been through this with Rubystars.    "came from apes" means "came from ape-like creature" which is what most people mean when they say that.   Generally speaking it's true.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Massuh, I agree that not all races are equal in ability, but I don't think that's a claim of evolution but more a claim of cultural anthropologists who follow the Boas school of thought. Also how exactly does the platypus go against evolution? It's sort of a living fossil really, monotremes are a very old form of mammal, and still retain some reptilian characteristics such as a single cloaca and the ability to lay eggs.

evolution palyed a major part in theevolution of the races.blacks for example are still adapt for a life in the jungles or in the savvanas.that explains thei impusivness,agrresivness,and their supremacy in running and swimming.

Oh please, save us your eugenics theories.

Not all blacks are skilled at running.   This is limited to Kenyans and certain west africans.   You have no idea what you're talking about.

[Ben m]

Massuh, I agree that not all races are equal in ability, but I don't think that's a claim of evolution but more a claim of cultural anthropologists who follow the Boas school of thought. Also how exactly does the platypus go against evolution? It's sort of a living fossil really, monotremes are a very old form of mammal, and still retain some reptilian characteristics such as a single cloaca and the ability to lay eggs.

evolution palyed a major part in theevolution of the races.blacks for example are still adapt for a life in the jungles or in the savvanas.that explains thei impusivness,agrresivness,and their supremacy in running and swimming.

Oh please, save us your eugenics theories.

Not all blacks are skilled at running.   This is limited to Kenyans and certain west africans.   You have no idea what you're talking about.

you know.there is a reason why the negroes are the garabage of humanity.

[Ari Ben-Canaan]

From speaking with a friend of mine I shall quote him.  [He mentions, "Lucy", and "Ardi", and I am suspicious of these specific "finds"]  Some of what is here is interesting to me, but not enough to make me a believer one way or another.

What is "suspicious" about Lucy?  This is a well-publicized finding that developed into major disputes within archaeology and ancient history.

I seem to remember that Lucy's hips needed to be smashed, broken apart, cut, chiseled, sanded, buffed, and totally reconstructed unlike they were found in order to be assembled in a way for her to walk like modern humans do, as opposed to how chimps and apes do [which is how her hip was actually found].  I think I watched this on PBS by a man named Dr. Lovejoy.  If I remember correctly, also this skeleton only had 1/2 a hip to begin with, so mashing up the one half hip which was actually found into pieces and then putting it back together in a different way to suit the desires of the theorist really left me taken back, and puzzled why people would see value in what this man postulated; could not any skeleton be smashed apart and reworked into "the missing link"?

[MassuhDGoodName]

Re:  "New information does not undermine anything because the system itself was never built on the premise that there can be no outside information or no data that we have not yet determined or arrived at. "

One should never end a sentence with a preposition -- especially a compound sentence with four different subjects, and five separate "double negative" verb structures.

Improper syntax and grammar notwithstanding, such an impassioned defense of Evolutionary Theory is but a verbatim repetition of all the eloquent oratory with which the contemporary candidate for a degree is expected to  "regurgitate on demand" as a prerequisite to proving one's "worthiness" for advancement in such dubious fields of academia as "Middle Eastern Studies", "Womens' Studies", "Gender Studies", "Black Studies", "Latino Studies", "Peace Studies", "Conflict Resolution", "International Affairs", "Gay/Bi-Sexual/Lesbian/and Trans-Gendered Studies", etc... .

I take no personal issue with those choosing to march in lockstep agreement with scientists whose dogma teaches that Israelites evolved from Negroes in the African Motherland.

I fully realize that to earn a grade point level of "B" grade or above demands joining in consensus with other university faculty who find  Torah to be the stuff of primitive superstition and ridicule.

Admission to both Graduate Study and Post-Graduate Study is routinely denied to anyone daring to express even minimal skepticism in Evolutionary Theory, and Ph.D.'s who eagerly compete for "research grants" understand well that the money to support one's family and self are offered with the caveat that objectivity and morality all take a back seat to academic subservience in support of the Globalist Agenda, Big Pharma, and proponents of Obamacare.

For centuries, the credo "Publish, or perish!" was long the guideline for life in the Academy.

Sadly, this guideline has been today replaced with "Publish that which supports the corporatist/fascist status quo and its obscene obsession with profits, and be willing to alter data and misuse statistics in support of that end, or The Department Chair will gladly outsource the grant money provided to the university by private corporatist industry and the military to your "peers" in India and Communist China, who "know what is expected from them" and will do it for far less money.

[Ari Ben-Canaan]

Something that jumps out at me, from Torah, G-d created man on both the 6th and 7th day.  I have heard some explanations which make sense, but G-d creating a man before Adam of a lower stature, such as Cromagnon or Neanderthal man, who is not a "real" man is an entertaining idea to explain this.  I know there are some pre-Adamite theories which go off of this 6th day/7th day creation, some of them are entertaining, others less logical.

One of the Rabbis I speak says this, "If there seems to be a conflict between Torah, and science, the issue is with our limited finite human understanding".

Now we're talking.   Firstly, I'm not sure what you mean about 6th and 7th day, by all accounts on the 7th day G-d "rested" from creating, and so man was created on the 6th day.  G-d did not create anything on the 7th day and that is why we celebrate the Shabbath, and we see G-d as not only being "the Creator" but also existing as separate from the act of creation.  You might refer to two accounts of creation, chapter 1 and chapter 2, but man is created the 6th day in both.   But as Rav Soloveitchik explains, the 2 accounts describe different metaphysical aspects of man and the dichotomy of man's role in the world.  In one sense man is the centerpiece of creation, and the creation of man is the ultimate purpose of everything else, to serve and be subjugated by man who is bequeathed dominion over the world by G-d.  But on the other hand man is still subservient to G-d and merely one aspect of a variegated creation in which man has much in common with the disparate elements (including common origin - man "built from the dust of the earth" etc) such as the inorganic elements, the plant life, the animal life etc.  And so man's role is also defined by his cooperation/participation in the preservation of the whole as one mere part in the symphony of creation that is truly owned by G-d.    These two roles of man are described as a dichotomy in the respective chapters 1 and 2 and form man's challenge to integrate and balance, and in Rav Soloveitchik's works, constitute the existential struggle of man in the world.   We can elaborate on this more as I had a series of shiurim on this subject from my rabbi in yeshiva.  There are a lot of examples and proofs within the text behind this basic idea.  Actually I don't know if I can commit the time to do it, but I think it may be a good idea for me to put up a series of summaries in the Torah section from my notes on this class that may be of interest to the members here.

One clear notion we must accept which has a strong basis throughout the sources to the point of being plainly self-evident is that the "6 days of creation" are not literal and do not come to explain the scientific process of G-d's creation.   On the contrary, Chazal, the sages of blessed memory, are quite non-literal in their explanations and leave much room for allegorical interpretation of the "Maaseh Bereshith" the acts of creation section of the Torah since the acts of creation are beyond man's comprehension.   On this topic in particular there is much more room for interpretation, and we see in the rishonim, the early medieval commentators, that in fact they took much liberty in their explanations of the metaphysical and ethical conceptions contained in these chapters, to explain very deep concepts about G-d's creation, while notably not adopting a "literalist" approach, which may have become popularized much later not only due to the influence of the notions of other religions, but as reactionary response to the very superficial notion of conflict between "science and religion" in modern times as seen or assumed by most people.   Even if a reactionary formulation without much backing in the sources gains primacy and popularity due to circumstances of the day, that does not make it a true formulation.   

There is absolutely NO support within the Jewish sources for the idea that the world was created 6000 (ie 5770) years ago.  None.  The dating of 5770 years refers to the creation of man, NOT the universe, and the Torah's definition of man is not a scientific genetic classification or limited to a physical phenotype.  There certainly could have been creatures that resembled what is today known as "human" roaming around before the inbuing of Tzelem Elokim (The image of G-d) into the framework of man-like-animal ... this act constituting the creation of man.

There is much more to talk about here, and G-d willing we will discuss more.

 
Of course God took Shabbat off.  You are right, I meant chapters one and two.

[Ari Ben-Canaan]

Something that jumps out at me, from Torah, G-d created man on both the 6th and 7th day.  I have heard some explanations which make sense, but G-d creating a man before Adam of a lower stature, such as Cromagnon or Neanderthal man, who is not a "real" man is an entertaining idea to explain this.  I know there are some pre-Adamite theories which go off of this 6th day/7th day creation, some of them are entertaining, others less logical.

One of the Rabbis I speak says this, "If there seems to be a conflict between Torah, and science, the issue is with our limited finite human understanding".

Now we're talking.   Firstly, I'm not sure what you mean about 6th and 7th day, by all accounts on the 7th day G-d "rested" from creating, and so man was created on the 6th day.  G-d did not create anything on the 7th day and that is why we celebrate the Shabbath, and we see G-d as not only being "the Creator" but also existing as separate from the act of creation.  You might refer to two accounts of creation, chapter 1 and chapter 2, but man is created the 6th day in both.   But as Rav Soloveitchik explains, the 2 accounts describe different metaphysical aspects of man and the dichotomy of man's role in the world.  In one sense man is the centerpiece of creation, and the creation of man is the ultimate purpose of everything else, to serve and be subjugated by man who is bequeathed dominion over the world by G-d.  But on the other hand man is still subservient to G-d and merely one aspect of a variegated creation in which man has much in common with the disparate elements (including common origin - man "built from the dust of the earth" etc) such as the inorganic elements, the plant life, the animal life etc.  And so man's role is also defined by his cooperation/participation in the preservation of the whole as one mere part in the symphony of creation that is truly owned by G-d.    These two roles of man are described as a dichotomy in the respective chapters 1 and 2 and form man's challenge to integrate and balance, and in Rav Soloveitchik's works, constitute the existential struggle of man in the world.   We can elaborate on this more as I had a series of shiurim on this subject from my rabbi in yeshiva.  There are a lot of examples and proofs within the text behind this basic idea.  Actually I don't know if I can commit the time to do it, but I think it may be a good idea for me to put up a series of summaries in the Torah section from my notes on this class that may be of interest to the members here.

One clear notion we must accept which has a strong basis throughout the sources to the point of being plainly self-evident is that the "6 days of creation" are not literal and do not come to explain the scientific process of G-d's creation.   On the contrary, Chazal, the sages of blessed memory, are quite non-literal in their explanations and leave much room for allegorical interpretation of the "Maaseh Bereshith" the acts of creation section of the Torah since the acts of creation are beyond man's comprehension.   On this topic in particular there is much more room for interpretation, and we see in the rishonim, the early medieval commentators, that in fact they took much liberty in their explanations of the metaphysical and ethical conceptions contained in these chapters, to explain very deep concepts about G-d's creation, while notably not adopting a "literalist" approach, which may have become popularized much later not only due to the influence of the notions of other religions, but as reactionary response to the very superficial notion of conflict between "science and religion" in modern times as seen or assumed by most people.   Even if a reactionary formulation without much backing in the sources gains primacy and popularity due to circumstances of the day, that does not make it a true formulation.   

There is absolutely NO support within the Jewish sources for the idea that the world was created 6000 (ie 5770) years ago.  None.  The dating of 5770 years refers to the creation of man, NOT the universe, and the Torah's definition of man is not a scientific genetic classification or limited to a physical phenotype.  There certainly could have been creatures that resembled what is today known as "human" roaming around before the inbuing of Tzelem Elokim (The image of G-d) into the framework of man-like-animal ... this act constituting the creation of man.

There is much more to talk about here, and G-d willing we will discuss more.

 
Of course G-d took Shabbat off.  You are right, I meant chapters one and two.

While researching if there were people before Adam today I came across this information [more than once, but this exert sums it up quickly and cites the appropriate Talmud I kept seeing];

http://www.torah.org/qanda/seequanda.php?id=605

Were there people before Adam?

The Talmud (Chagigah 14a; Avos de-Rabbi Noson 31:3) speaks about "974 generations" before the world was created, but it explains that the people who would have lived in those "generations" were in fact not physically created, or were quickly destroyed. The 974 generations are based on Psalms 105:8, which can be interpreted as meaning that the Torah was given after 1000 generations; since Moses was the 26th generation after Adam, there must have been 974 generations before Adam.

I do not study Talmud so I am at a disadvantage to process or verify this information.  But it does peak my interest.

[Rubystars]

Ariel Shayn, I saw Lucy's skeleton myself in person and nothing seemed suspicious about it. Also, there has been more than one australopithecine found, and the Laetoli footprints also indicate upright walking by Lucy's species.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Re:  "New information does not undermine anything because the system itself was never built on the premise that there can be no outside information or no data that we have not yet determined or arrived at. "

One should never end a sentence with a preposition -- especially a compound sentence with four different subjects, and five separate "double negative" verb structures.   

Wow my grammar wasn't perfect there, want a cookie?

Improper syntax and grammar notwithstanding, such an impassioned defense of Evolutionary Theory is but a verbatim repetition of all the eloquent oratory with which the contemporary candidate for a degree is expected to  "regurgitate on demand" as a prerequisite to proving one's "worthiness" for advancement in such dubious fields of academia as "Middle Eastern Studies", "Womens' Studies", "Gender Studies", "Black Studies", "Latino Studies", "Peace Studies", "Conflict Resolution", "International Affairs", "Gay/Bi-Sexual/Lesbian/and Trans-Gendered Studies", etc... .

Preposterous.   You are relating unrelated disciplines.   I was never asked to "regurgitate" anything like this because no clown ever walked into a college class rejecting the science being taught.  All of modern life assumes and depends upon these scientific notions.   That is how the medical field operates, that is how technological advances operate, that is even how you live your daily life whether you want to admit the science is true or not.   And I have a degree in science yet never had to explain to someone why evolution is "true."   I also never had to explain to a person why Newtonian physics is "true" or why 2 plus 2 equals 4 is true.

I take no personal issue with those choosing to march in lockstep agreement with scientists whose dogma teaches that Israelites evolved from Negroes in the African Motherland. 

Does it matter if we came from "negroes" or from an "ape" or from a common ancestry of modern day humans and apes?   NO.   What matters is that at some point in history G-d gave man a tzelem elokim, the image of G-d, and that is where we stand today - that principle is unassailable.  And a scientist (yes, they have opinions outside of proven fact as well) cannot disprove it.  What also matters is that originally G-d created the world from nothing.  This also cannot be disproven, whether many people disbelieve it or many people believe it.   That there have been scientific processes and physical development since the initial creation takes nothing away from that.

BTW, "negroes" also have tzelem Elokim according to Judaism.  Does that bother you?

I fully realize that to earn a grade point level of "B" grade or above demands joining in consensus with other university faculty who find  Torah to be the stuff of primitive superstition and ridicule.

Once again you are conflating the issues.  I never once had to ridicule Torah or call it superstition in college nor was I asked to do anything like that.   In fact, I first learned about real Judaism while in college and that is where I started to be a practicing, observant Jew.   To get a good grade, a student needs to understand the material taught in class and be able to apply it and answer questions about it and solve problems with the concepts being taught.  Science teachers do not teach Torah.   They do not teach religion.  They do not teach ethics.  They simply teach the science and what facts have been uncovered by the scientific method in that particular subject.   One of my biology teachers in college was a Catholic priest!  Needless to say he did not attack religion, nor did he disbelieve it himself.

Btw, he also applauded and respected my decision to skip class to attend Yom Kippur services.

I am no longer receiving grades from anyone currently, and I have no reason to "accept" the truth of evolution except for the objective facts and overwhelming evidence that support it, which leave me no choice.   To deny the truth would be a desecration of the Torah and would certainly be sacrificing my intellect which in my opinion is a type of idol worship.   To what, I'm not sure, but it would be sacrificing it.   I'm not sure why you are so convinced that your own dogmas are the only way.

Admission to both Graduate Study and Post-Graduate Study is routinely denied to anyone daring to express even minimal skepticism in Evolutionary Theory, and Ph.D.'s who eagerly compete for "research grants" understand well that the money to support one's family and self are offered with the caveat that objectivity and morality all take a back seat to academic subservience in support of the Globalist Agenda, Big Pharma, and proponents of Obamacare. 

Nonsense.

For centuries, the credo "Publish, or perish!" was long the guideline for life in the Academy.

Sadly, this guideline has been today replaced with "Publish that which supports the corporatist/fascist status quo and its obscene obsession with profits, and be willing to alter data and misuse statistics in support of that end, or The Department Chair will gladly outsource the grant money provided to the university by private corporatist industry and the military to your "peers" in India and Communist China, who "know what is expected from them" and will do it for far less money.

Now that you've slandered all scientists as the evil boogeyman, you should know that some people do have principles, and some people do not sell their souls for profit and prestige.  I have met such people in my own scientific work.  And I certainly hold myself as a religious Jew to a higher standard of morality.   Never in my career in science has anyone tried to deny me my personal ethical convictions.    So you obviously speak from an outsider's perspective and from complete ignorance.   That's a shame.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Admission to both Graduate Study and Post-Graduate Study is routinely denied to anyone daring to express even minimal skepticism in Evolutionary Theory, and Ph.D.'s who eagerly compete for "research grants" understand well that the money to support one's family and self are offered with the caveat that objectivity and morality all take a back seat to academic subservience in support of the Globalist Agenda, Big Pharma, and proponents of Obamacare.

For centuries, the credo "Publish, or perish!" was long the guideline for life in the Academy.

Sadly, this guideline has been today replaced with "Publish that which supports the corporatist/fascist status quo and its obscene obsession with profits, and be willing to alter data and misuse statistics in support of that end, or The Department Chair will gladly outsource the grant money provided to the university by private corporatist industry and the military to your "peers" in India and Communist China, who "know what is expected from them" and will do it for far less money.

Honestly, are you really accusing me of all this?  That is lower than low.   Do not turn this discussion personal because you can't answer the questions.

If you have any other reason (ie you're not actually accusing me personally of these things), then these statements are completely irrelevant because I am here defending evolution on its merits, not on the fact that 'a department chair' said so or any of these other unrelated things.

First you tried (unsuccessfully) to dispute evolution based on certain scientific data that were uncovered.  Now that that failed, you resort to questioning the validity of all scientific data as if it all cannot be trusted.    Funny how when it was convenient to your position, you accepted the validity of scientific data, such as the platypus and its anatomy, but now suddenly you don't and it's all just one big moneymaking conspiracy.   

[Rubystars]

There's a good reason why admission to upper level studies might be denied to self-professed creationists. It's because if you believe in a young earth, where species appeared at the same time (within the span of a week), then it means you didn't understand the material in the lower level studies. This is not some kind of exclusionist thing, but a scientist is supposed to look at the evidence, not at how the evidence makes them feel.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

From speaking with a friend of mine I shall quote him.  [He mentions, "Lucy", and "Ardi", and I am suspicious of these specific "finds"]  Some of what is here is interesting to me, but not enough to make me a believer one way or another.

What is "suspicious" about Lucy?  This is a well-publicized finding that developed into major disputes within archaeology and ancient history.

I seem to remember that Lucy's hips needed to be smashed, broken apart, cut, chiseled, sanded, buffed, and totally reconstructed unlike they were found in order to be assembled in a way for her to walk like modern humans do, as opposed to how chimps and apes do [which is how her hip was actually found].  I think I watched this on PBS by a man named Dr. Lovejoy.  If I remember correctly, also this skeleton only had 1/2 a hip to begin with, so mashing up the one half hip which was actually found into pieces and then putting it back together in a different way to suit the desires of the theorist really left me taken back, and puzzled why people would see value in what this man postulated; could not any skeleton be smashed apart and reworked into "the missing link"?

Perhaps this is a major part of the reason why the interpretation of this finding is in dispute among the archaeologists.  I don't remember the details of the case that were argued, but what you're saying would fit with that.   I think it's not readily accepted that Lucy is the "missing link."

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

There's a good reason why admission to upper level studies might be denied to self-professed creationists. It's because if you believe in a young earth, where species appeared at the same time (within the span of a week), then it means you didn't understand the material in the lower level studies. This is not some kind of exclusionist thing, but a scientist is supposed to look at the evidence, not at how the evidence makes them feel.

That would make sense.

Then again, they usually go by grades and other factors and don't do a survey of personal opinions before admitting you.   But what you say is definitely true.

[muman613]

I do not believe that these theories can be proven. I have seen several of these theories proven false over time. Putting all your faith in man and his understanding of science is a foolish thing to do. I have all the respect for scientists, if they truly are seeking the truth. But many, ben m included, wants to be able to control the world with their knowledge. You may think 'mad scientists' are rare but I think that many, many scientists have a 'mad scientist' deep inside... Science is a tool like a hammer or a microscope, allowing us to accomplish a goal. If we intend to use science to become like G-d himself, then we too are guilty of the same sin that Adam and Chava made when they ate from the Tree of Knowledge.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

I do not believe that these theories can be proven. I have seen several of these theories proven false over time. 

Perhaps whatever theories you refer to did not have anywhere near the mountains of evidence that evolution has supporting it.   The idea that evolution will somehow be "rejected" is almost nonsensical at this point.

Putting all your faith in man and his understanding of science is a foolish thing to do. 

No one here is doing that or recommending that.

I have all the respect for scientists, if they truly are seeking the truth. But many, ben m included, wants to be able to control the world with their knowledge. You may think 'mad scientists' are rare but I think that many, many scientists have a 'mad scientist' deep inside...

Rambam says it's a mitzvah to do science.  So if you suggest "mad scientist" is an aspect of the evil inclination/yetzer hara, then that is equally applicable in all fields.  Obviously no one is recommending to succomb to the evil inclination and commit evil deeds.   And science itself gives no license for that.  (nor does any other field).

Science is a tool like a hammer or a microscope, allowing us to accomplish a goal. If we intend to use science to become like G-d himself, then we too are guilty of the same sin that Adam and Chava made when they ate from the Tree of Knowledge.

But that's not the goal of science, and Rambam explains that to do science is a mitzvah because it brings one to appreciate G-d's oneness and to greater love of G-d.

[Dr. Dan]

I was trying to give the two extremes:  Magic wand or humans directly from apes...or something in between...

Boy Dr. Dan, you need to work on making your options a little less biased; especially the magic wand comment; that might come across as a bit offensive to some here.

I don't see why Evolution can't be compatible with creationism.  I don't agree with those who say its either one or the other, and thats that.

This can expand to so many other things in life.  most of what happens in history follows the laws of nature, physics, genetics, etc, but that does mean that there can't be divine intervention as well.

[Ben m]

But many, ben m included, wants to be able to control the world with their knowledge.

sorry about this but wtf? i don't want to control the worl with my knowledge.i want to improve the world with my knowledge.

[Dr. Dan]

The reality about evolution or how humans and other animals and plants came to be is that no one will ever really actually know unless they go through time to witness it.  

And as far as the way the Torah describes the way the Universe was created, most Rabbis will agree that a lot of it is symbolic.

The bottom line is that Hashem created the Universe and however He did it, He did it perfectly.


As far as science goes...if it is done right and ethically and thoughtfully and truthfully, science might make a way of describing a part of HOW Gd does or did things.  Of course, we puny human beings will only be able to understand bare an aspect of that science since Gd is so infinity.  

The theory of evolution is just  theory..it doesn't make it truth.  As time goes on, more answers will be found.

I do believe that all living things started out as a single cell and that over time branched out from a common ancestor into different things.  And how did this happen over these millions of years?  Well, KWRBT mentioned something called "punctuated equillibrium" which, for now, makes the most sense.  Of course it's not the only answer but can be part of an answer.  Who knows, maybe it's something else.

[Rubystars]

The reality about evolution or how humans and other animals and plants came to be is that no one will ever really actually know unless they go through time to witness it.  

That's like saying if you find a dead body with a butcher knife sticking out of it that you can't really tell if it was stabbed unless you go back in time.

The bottom line is that Hashem created the Universe and however He did it, He did it perfectly.

Ok true.

The theory of evolution is just  theory..it doesn't make it truth.  As time goes on, more answers will be found.

The other answers will add to our understanding of evolution, but it will not replace it.

I do believe that all living things started out as a single cell and that over time branched out from a common ancestor into different things.  

You don't have to believe it, you have evidence that only needs acceptance, not belief.

[Dr. Dan]

Well, we know that butcher knives just don't fall from the sky...so there...

The reality about evolution or how humans and other animals and plants came to be is that no one will ever really actually know unless they go through time to witness it.  

That's like saying if you find a dead body with a butcher knife sticking out of it that you can't really tell if it was stabbed unless you go back in time.

The bottom line is that Hashem created the Universe and however He did it, He did it perfectly.

Ok true.

The theory of evolution is just  theory..it doesn't make it truth.  As time goes on, more answers will be found.

The other answers will add to our understanding of evolution, but it will not replace it.

I do believe that all living things started out as a single cell and that over time branched out from a common ancestor into different things.  

You don't have to believe it, you have evidence that only needs acceptance, not belief.

[Ari Ben-Canaan]

But many, ben m included, wants to be able to control the world with their knowledge.

sorry about this but wtf? i don't want to control the worl with my knowledge.i want to improve the world with my knowledge.

dnmt litmit yourslf.  thnk scientifical.. or the ballcks wil gaeight you.