Thanks for the tip. I don't understand what the fail comment means , but I will try to find the time to read Dawkins.

Thanks KCLiberty for your thoughtful response. This type of discourse is very educational.
I realize that there is much to learn, and I was not aware that Survival of the fittest was not part of Darwins theory this the first time I have read that. I appreciate you sharing your insight . Also the "strawman argument" reference.
When I said "downhill" it was in reference to our physical capabilities not our mental aptness.
I think that something not understood yet caused our cognitive ability and brains to triple in size.
I find it difficult to discern weather something is science or not when I am reading headlines like scientists say that global warming is causing this and will result in that. Since I am not of that profession it results in my thinking that science is wrong in that specific topic, my error ,and I often think that a group gangs up on dissenters to maintain the status quo. I also think one must be suspicious of a theory's invalidity to prove it wrong and not finding what is right doesn't mean the suspicion is wrong just that it the theory might be the best explaination so far. I appreciate your patience with my ignorance in this "discussion".

I would never deny another person input and comment, no worry there. Sorry for the delay in response.

"that as we were evolving from that physical condition (strong ,fast Did not need fire) we went downhill." --- I would not agree that we went "downhill" at all. Going with that idea, every continent should be filled with great apes and chimpanzees. There is a reason we have dominated the planet. We don't "need" fire, but it gives us an advantage, enabling us to easier digest meat in particular, helping us to be active sooner. Ever eat way too much on Thanksgiving? You don't feel like walking, or really doing anything? That is how you would feel for hours every time you ate raw red meat. We are not as strong as our ape cousins, but maintaining that takes more food energy. We can survive with less resources because our brain development enabled us to construct weapons and shelter. I could go on and on, but you get the point. And, even if I agreed with you, there is nothing in evolution that demonstrates that a change in genetics is always "better". Smaller, weaker mammals evolved from larger ones, but survived mass extinctions where the "superior" large mammals could not.

"I don't believe in survival of the fittest" --- Neither did Darwin. That misnomer was put out as propaganda by creationists so they could show it is false. That's a common tactic when a person doesn't understand something, making a strawman argument. As I eluded to with the small mammals, animals with the most beneficial traits for the environment survive, others don't. You are correct in that environment plays a huge part, and probably causes genetic mutations in many cases. That is why alligators are still here and a triceratops isn't.

Also, there is a reason we cooperate, that is a trait that evolved in us. But, you are trying to use a trait of modern humans (and a couple close relatives, neanderthals, etc...) to compare to what? We haven't evolved much since we started cooperating. You would have to find evidence of a group of creatures closer to an ape or chimp hunting in cooperation to associate that trait with evolving, instead of the other way around. Which, I'm 99.999% sure doesn't exist.

Lastly, there is no such thing as science being "wrong". Scientists can be wrong. A theory can be wrong. But, the only way to know a theory is wrong is to develop a 'right' one to contradict it. Some of Newtons gravitational theory is spot on, some of it was not accurate and replaced by Einstein's Relativity. That is how science works. (as for "global warming", I personally don't think that is scientific at all. It is false evidence being present by politically and monetarily funded think tanks.)

More food for thoughts. Thanks for the chat.

I wholeheartedly agree. I was merely pointing out that there are many who (somehow) maintain a god belief and acknowledge the fact of evolution. Although, as with the Catholics I grew up with, they acknowledge evolution in the animal world, but not when it comes to humans.

Thank you for your reply.
My point was the evidence that was discovered by Geologist J Harlan Bretz was denied for over 50 years because it did not fit with the widely accepted "gradualism".
In the natural sciences, gradualism is the theory which holds that profound change is the cumulative product of slow but continuous processes, often contrasted with catastrophism.

fail.

hear, hear

The Amazon societies were technologically sophisticated in their agricultural practices, with evidence of an ingenious network of irrigation systems and large scale composting that had to be the work of many in cooperation. There is no evidence as to their societal structure, so judgements on that score are without basis.

You referred to allegedly sophisticated tribal societies engaged in agriculture in the Amazon.

They are still wrong. A god doing things in accordance with evolution contradicts Darwinian evolution, which rejects any kind of teleology or purpose in the mechanism. Trying to push it back even further by declaring creationism created evolution is just as mystical.

If you want to understand evolution you should read a modern account of it, such as by Dawkins.

Assessment of scientific hypotheses is based on the evidence and consistency with what is known to be true. It doesn't make any difference if some historical event happened to be referred to in some form by ancient mythology.

Darwin's opinions on ethics are not part of his science. Ayn Rand's philosophy supports science, it does not conflict with evolution. The Declaration of Independence was not a Christian document.

This country was based on the Enlightenment, not religious mysticism. The Enlightenment did not have Ayn Rand's ethics of egoism, but did base its concept of rights on individualism and reason. "Nature and nature's god" meant the nature of reality, regardless of how much of it was known at the time. The common understanding was a deist predecessor of a natural order of the universe, and that the "laws" of the natural order, i.e., the principles describing it, are discovered by human reason, not a mystical decree of what we should believe, which explains and validates nothing.

As Ayn Rand wrote in "Man's Rights":

"In accordance with the two theories of ethics, the mystical or the social, some men assert that rights are a gift of God—others, that rights are a gift of society. But, in fact, the source of rights is man's nature.

"The Declaration of Independence stated that men 'are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.' Whether one believes that man is the product of a Creator or of nature, the issue of man's origin does not alter the fact that he is an entity of a specific kind—a rational being—that he cannot function successfully under coercion, and that rights are a necessary condition of his particular mode of survival."

If you are interested in Atlas Shrugged you should pursue understanding the philosophy that makes it possible. A lack of formal education does not preclude that.

Plus 1 for you , a poor choice of words on my part.
Not the essence of my comment though. I would say instead that some scientific doctrines have been wrong in the recent past and likely are wrong today.
In AS , Reardon steel was proclaimed unsafe by the state science institute .
Real life 20th century example Geologist J Harlan Bretz discovered evidence that a catastrophic flood caused the erosion in Washington known as the scablands he was ridiculed and ostracized for half of the twentieth century because his discovery went against the mainstream doctrine of gradualism. One reason was that a great flood was to biblical and they wanted to distance belief from that.
By the way I'm not suggesting. This had anything to do with Noah's ark .

Has science "been wrong before"?

Is "science" discredited?

Thanks KCLiberty for Your comments and advice!
I also think you probably have better advice for me
Than you expressed in less than 100 words.
With regard to the Pope declaring his support
That is meaningless to me and I doubt it would be scientific evidence as you had mentioned your profession to understanding how science works.
I make no claim to be an expert .I am for the most part self (or un) educated having worked since I was 15.
Darwins theory of evolution I am sure has volumes of books making it's case ,
probably millions of sentences and much of it I know is valid.
The thing I don't believe
is that man evolved from apes, that as we were evolving from that physical condition (strong ,fast
Did not need fire) we went downhill. I don't believe that mutations caused us to be as we are.
I don't believe in survival of the fittest . I think environment , being in the right spot on the planet
Cooperation with others to hunt the large animals and of course the sharing of knowledge to help in surviving. The other way I think of that is or the fear --looting mentality that prevails with that thought. In AS , Galt's Gulch residents lived in a society that cooperated , that respected people's rights and would compete to improve quality of goods and services .They are people that strive to get better.
I also continue to learn to improve . I could be wrong but science has been wrong before too and many think " global warming" is wrong.
As I asked another Gulcher would you rescind my invitation to comment with in this forum because of my beliefs and opinions?
The favor of your reply is requested.

I understand you not needing support, but I hope you can take some advice. You don't seem to know how science works. There is no such thing as a "conclusion" from a theory. A theory is the highest achievement possible in science. And, if there were "holes", someone would have found them by now submitted a better theory to explain evolution.

And, I was raised Catholic, you apparently missed the fact that Pope John Paul declared that evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that Catholics shouldn't deny it's existence, just make God the prime mover.

"Ayn Rand's philosophy does not "fit" with deism" Maybe it doesn't. but maybe it doesn't fit with Darwin either.
The Ayn Rand Letter, Vol. II, No. 2 – October 23, 1972
“It is in this context—from the perspective of the bloody millennia of mankind's history—that I want you to look at the birth of a miracle: the United States of America. If it is ever proper for men to kneel, we should kneel when we read the Declaration of Independence."

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

When something is created it --there must be a creator maybe a monkey , man or original Creator

here is a passage from Darwin 1874
The descent of man and selection in relation to sex pages 178-179
"It must not be forgotten that although a high standard of Morality gives but a slight or no advantage to each individual man and his children over other men of the same tribe , yet that an increase in the numbers of well endowed men and an advancement in the standard of morality will certainly give an immense advantage to one tribe over another. A tribe including many members who from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism , fidelity ,
obedience , courage and sympathy, were always ready to aid one another , and to sacrifice themselves for the common good ,would be victorious over most other tribes;
and this would be natural selection."

"Sacrifice themselves for the common good"

really not something Ayn Rand would concur with I don't think.

Darwin again same book page 192

"and in current circumstances: With highly advanced civilized nations , continued progress depends on a subordinated degree on natural selection...
The more efficient cause of progress seem to consist of a good education during youth while the brain is impressionable and of a high standard of excellence , uncalculated by the ablest and best men , embodied in the laws customs , and traditions of the nation enforced by public opinion"

also not something Ayn Rand would concur with I don't think.

If my belief doesn't fit your criteria ewv am I uninvited to Galt's Gulch online?

I don't remember anyone stating the "sophistication" of tribalism. We're seeing how destructive that sociological dead end can be in the Middle East today.

Ayn Rand's philosophy does not "fit" with deism. It rejects all forms of the supernatural, not just organized religion for being "manipulative". Your creationism is a lingering effect of Catholic indoctrination -- rejection of church manipulation is not enough. There are fundamental philosophical principles at stake. A claimed need for a creator of existence is not logical. No research rationally leads to believing in creationism or justifies it as a 'natural' belief or starting point. It is a self-contradictory religious position.

The evidence for Darwinian evolution today is overwhelming and far more than what Darwin himself had. There is always more to learn and discover, but your siding with creationism over Darwinian evolution in the name of reasoning indicates that you are prejudicial in favor of a religious metaphysics and do not understand the basic principles of evolution. They do not require defense against a religious mind set.

I am not looking for support from this forum for my ideas .
I am trying to educate myself on what to me are complex discussions on relevant topics. I am anxious to learn and understand .
I find your judgement of my Catholic indoctrination a little prejudicial .
My reaserch has led me to this conclusion although I could be wrong (it wouldn't be the first or last time ) I might very well be correct and I used my own reasoning faculty to come to this conclusion.
There are holes in Darwin's theory of evolution
That lead me to be wary his conclusion.

You just upset my stomach. Not really your fault. I guess I'll go to bed now.

There you go...using common sense.

No, when given the opportunity, they run away. I was just being a smart-ass. A species of Elk is the Wapiti. Once again, from Ogden Nash's menagerie:
"There goes the wapiti,
Hippity-hoppity."