Yes. In fact, it's not uncommon for people to still be born from fish eggs. That's why a lot of people find caviar disgusting.

@SSReichsguy, Modern fish and all tetrapods (amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds and mammals) all descended from ancient fish, yes... the evidence is pretty clear on that. Closest living representatives of that transitional form may be the coelacanths and lungfishes. ...though undoubtedly they've also evolved since their relatives split off and became tetrapods. If you want to see even better transitional forms, check out the panderichthys, tiktaalik, acanthostega, and ichthyostega. Don't look to tuna, salmon and guppies and think that I'm saying we came from those... those have also evolved in those 400 million years... and, like us, didn't exist in their current forms back then.

@abgemacht, lol.

I'd really no more consider myself an evolutionist that I would consider myself a germ theorist. It's a theory representing the best guess we have at present on a particular issue. As to the idea that we all came from fish, I'd say that present evidence seems to indicate that we have some common ancestors. The genome project seems to back that assertion up.

By the same token, no amount of observation of the material world can lead us to any kind of statement as to the validity of religion. I do not see the Holy Bible as being in anyway diminished by accepting that the theory of evolution is probably the best guess we have right now for how humans got to our present state. Plainly, as one Christian to another, if God uses evolution to affect changes in his creatures then that's no problem for me.

@ SS Reichsguy

Here's a quote from Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (he was the head of the Inquisition and the guy who first interviewed Galileo) that you might find interesting:

"While experience tells us plainly that the earth is standing still" [remember geocentric theory was a strongly held by many scientists of the time, Tycho Brahe being one of the most preeminent] (D'Souza, "What's So Great About Christianity" pg. 108)"

"If there were a real proof that the sun is the center of the universe...and that the sun does not go round the earth, but the earth goes round the sun, then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of Scripture that appear to teach the contrary, and rather admit that we did not understand them than declare an opinion to be false which has been proven to be true. But this is not a thing to be done in haste, and as for myself, I shall not believe that there are such proofs until they are shown to me" (D'Souza pg. 109)

Now remember at this point Galileo did not have enough evidence to convince other scientists. There was no consensus among the scientific community and there was certainly no reason to go reinterpreting Scripture until the scientists had made up their minds. Cardinal Bellarmine, the head of the Inquisition, was clearly saying if there is proof we'll change our opinion and take a look at Church teachings that appear to be contrary. That doesn't exactly fit into the model of an authoritarian institution that dogmatically held onto untruths.

Anyway, I'm sure neither of us consider ourselves less of a Christian becasue we don't hold to the notion of geocentric theory. Evolution is pretty much the same. It doesn't really do anything more than have us say "Okay we can see that the Creation story is a parable" (not a big shock as there were two of them that made it into the canon) it doesn't refute God's hand in actually creating the world, nor does it set forth any opinion as to God's existence.

....and we don't consider ourselves heliocentric theorists.

evolutionists? no, i'm not one of those, i am an educated modern man.

I don't categorise myself as an evolutionist, maybe a bit of a hippie at times, a bit of a socialists in my politics, but when it comes to evolution i just accept it like everyone else, i don't need to support the idea, it mostly does that for itself, so much science backing it up - the science i studied had nothing to do with evolution - I guess i'm with Crazy A on this one, most people don't think of themselves as evolutionists, just as you don't need to define yourself as Catholic in Ierland because 90% of the population are - they will all assume you are catholic unless you correct them - they will similarily assume you know about evolution and the twin towers attack (9/11) aswell, unless you tell them you believe that Aliens came down and created life on earth, or the CIA planned the whole thing...

Though when it comes to heliocentricity i'd have to say i'm against it. Have you ever looked at the sun? It doesn't look stationary to me!

Crazy what are you talking about. The Sun revolves around the Earth, watch what you're saying or the church will put you under house arrest!

blasphemy!!! burn the witches!

The sun revolves around the witches and due to the second law of thermodynamics will, eventually, crash into them thus resulting in their incineration. Which will serve them right.

and The Christian God and God are two different things Crazy, two completely different things, though it may be that they're both a load of crap, we may never know. One makes an assumption on character the other is just a loose idea. I hate assumptions without solid data (of course that's subjective), but I love science, when it is properly supported with research and observation. evolution is a nice theory and for now it seems the most logical, in all seriousness. crazy, what you're missing is that science actually eats away slowly at the false superstitions that prop up your religion, and that millions of people take the bible verbatim, you are unique in the sense that you do not.

llopiped - brilliant!

If the Christian God exists then He and God are one and the same. Your statement that they are two different things therefore assumes the non-existence of the Christian God. I assume, given your last post, that you have solid data (subjective or not) to back up your assumption.
P.S. Thank you *bow*

@ otto

You haven't been following the conversation very well. The science that you claim to be corrosive to religion actually grew out of the tradition of rationality within Christendom. More and more it is becoming apparent that the Middle Ages were a time in which science was promoted by Christianity (indeed there has hardly been a time in which it has not been). The idea that science is corrosive to religion (much less that there has been a war between the two) is basically a nineteenth century fabrication born out of a couple of books that have been discredited through the misleading premises and outright lies comtained within them. The idea that there has been some kind of war between science and religon has been shown to be false, but once again it's dredged back up as yet another abortive attempt to attack religion. This is another of the "new atheists" rallying cries, but once again it's a lie. The trouble is that it's one that you and others seem to accept without question. Can you name a scientist who was burned as a heretic? Giordano Bruno? THat wasn't because he was saying the Universe was infinite (which he didn't have any empirical evidence to support), but that he was promoting a heretical theory of the Holy Trinity. It doesn't count if he actually was a heretic.

The Cardinal Bellarmine quote shows that I am anything but unique in my willingness to accept science and religion. Kaptian Kool seems to be okay with it. Francis COllins is as well. The thing is that I understand what science is, and I'm willing to accept it's findings. It does not in any way contradict the essentials of Christianity, much less the central message of the Gospels.

I, like many others, view the Holy Bible as a collection of divinely inspired books written by many people for many reasons. It contains poetry (Psalms, The Song of Solomon), history (Judges, Chronicles), etc. To view a poem as a poem is not to devalue it, but to appreciate it with greater understanding.

The only lie is the Bible. I didn't say there was a war, I mentioned house arrest, though, which is not the same as burning, you failed to distinguish my serious post from my satirical post, shame shame, I thought you had a better sense of humor than that. I thought "in all seriousness" was enough to distinguish the two, but apparently I need to spell it out for you, you're wrong about my argument though I do so love to see you acting this way, I can chuckle at your arrogance. I am not a new atheist, I am secular humanist, there is a difference. Adam and Eve, give me a break! Science grew out of reason and alongside religion but in the long run its progress was slowed by the societal norms created in Christian Europe, look at the Dark Ages and the comparative growth in science and mathematics in Islamic countries and you will see a startling contrast. I see what you are arguing, but your argument is not directed at my point. Nice try, try again though please. The central message of the Gospels should be accepted without the superstition of the Bible as a whole. I'm glad that you are reasonable when it comes to accepting science, if not I'd have to think you were crazy.

@Crazy Anglican, very nice points about "evolutionists" and about the church being open to new information (though I think they are notoriously slow/conservative in accepting new science... but strangely quick in accepting tales of miracles based on only testimony and no evidence).

As to the stab at "new atheists" (which, by the way, like "evolutionists" or "darwinists" is a term promoted by their opponents and is intended to separate them as fringe and militant) - anyway, as to new atheists, you blame them for lying about a war between science and religion that doesn't exist... well, who is it that is trying to insert religion into science classes and trying to devalue evolutionary biology as "only a theory" that somehow is of no greater scientific value than a creation myth taken from the bible? The push to teach creationism in science classes and to vilify scientists who promote the theory of evolution has been long standing (Scopes Monkey Trial, anyone?)... to blame this conflict (and there is one) on one side is not fair. And besides, what new atheist promotes inserting evolutionary biology into church services? I would venture to say, no one.

Oo. Me, me. I think that's a brilliant idea. Unfortunately I'm not a new atheist but can it still count?

Breaking: New creation theory explaining why the dinosaurs are extinct:

http://tinyurl.com/ydax58x

@dexter: That is how I always thought it happened!!!!! Noah and his war ships....

"To view a poem as a poem is not to devalue it, but to appreciate it with greater understanding." -good analagy

"analogy" i agree, but the Bible isn't just a poem, millions of people use it as a practical guide and believe in most if not all of it. symbolism is nice i agree and it can be interesting to study and observe but there has to be context and application as well, poems are thoughts, but they are more than thoughts. thoughts predetermine actions. and actions on false assumptions or loose assumptions i should say for if not i should then be making a grievous assumption and you should call me a hypocrit, are dangerous.

@ Dreadnought
Who are we: We're the human race.

That makes us intelligent animals. I assume the "intelligent" part is what you're most interested in because that's what has brought us to this forum.

To understand what we are better, I recommend two different types of references:
1. Biology textbooks to learn about our physical form.
2. Psychology textbooks to learn about our informational form.

Personally, I see humans as robots, except without an external operator. Then in our lives we carry out our programming and we modify it. We can also program other people via cultural transmission, although that depends on how they react to the information they receive from us.

Where did we come from:
Earth. Genealogically, I would say we come from the oceans originally, via evolution, though I don't know that. One of these days I will read some of that "strong body of evidence" I've heard about.

@otto
Evangelist Atheists don't want there to be church services, so why would they tell people to modify them?

I don't know, why would they? Why are you asking this irrelevant question? Does this reveal something startling about your childhood? Robots? Really? I think Freud would have a field day with your id...

You said "And besides, what new atheist promotes inserting evolutionary biology into church services?"

The new atheist movement is a new wave of atheists who are trying to convince more people to be atheists - evangelist atheists.

You know what, never mind. It's not that important.

The rest of what I said was just an attempt to answer the original poster's question, not this tangent that grew from SSReichsFuhrer's post.

As a Christian I do not appreciate Atheists handing out brochures in University, in the same way they wouldn't appreciate Christians promoting Christianity. But we have freedom of speech and people should be allowed to say or do what they like (so long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's freedom). So who really cares about "new atheists"?

@ otto

I'm shocked, I'd never call you names. You should know that. As for missing your point, I'm afraid that in rereading it I still can't quite dissect one thought from the other. I took what you said from "But seriously" on. Perhaps it was what you said before that statement that you meant me to take seriously?

and um wait a minute you're making the argument that science is corrosive to religion by saying that another religion supported it more for a time? That's an interesting argument. The Muslims certainly had a time in which science and mathematics were fowering, but it was in Europe that the Scientific revolution really took off as a sustained endeavor. As such tons of the great scientists througout history have been Christians.

A quick point. I did not say that the new atheists were lying, at least intentionally. The theme of consisitent conflict between religion and science is a fabrication. The authors of the books to which I was referring it seems were quite aware of what they were doing. The new authors just seem to be capitalizing on an errant notion. The theme itself is a lie.

@ dexter

The Scopes Monkey Trial and the Evolution vs. Creationism issue over what to teach in public schools is not the whole of the relationship between science and religion. This is one issue that involves some Christians and some atheists. The issue itself isn't anti-Christian. The rhetoric that surrounds it can certainly become so as otto will demonstrate at any given opportunity. Certainly no atheist is telling anyone to teach this or that in any church. Churches are private institutions. That's really not comparing apples to apples. Atheists are certainly arguing that people shouldn't be Christian (through ridicule and argument) and Christians are certainly returning the same.

The problem comes when science is held in the middle between two factions that want to use its findings to further their own ends. That's damaging to science. Are there Christians who object to evolution being the sole theory taught in public school?. Sure there are. Are they in the majority? I don't know. There are people who believe that merely because they are in the majority, their voice and beliefs should be reflected in their public institutions. As a public educator, I'm not in favor of using any school as any platform for any special interest group. Whenever someone brings a lawyer to a school meeting, you can bet that's exactly what they intend. That's not an endorsement of atheism as the protector of the public education systems though. Atheists are just as apt to bring lawsuits against schools to impose thier agendas as Christians are. On this particular issue I agree that a science classroom should study science. As I've said all along, I don't dispute evolution as it stands in it's present form. I'm a little bemused at the thought that I'm somehow different or take the Scriptures less seriously. I've even been accused of being a closet atheist before which was extremely funny.

@Crazy Anglican, re: a consistent conflict between religion and science... perhaps that particular construct is a fabrication (and a bit of a strawman for you)... but are you denying that there is a conflict? Are you denying that for the biblical literalists this is a existential struggle? That they must beat down evolutionary biology to give life support to their literalist interpretation of Genesis... for them evolution and atheism are equated... and both are considered tools of the devil and in direct opposition to the bible (and thus God). For the politically active supporters of science education this is a culture war as well... with them on the defensive mostly (in School Boards and courthouses)... and only a handful like Dawkins on the offensive. Do you deny that this conflict exists? (It exists here in the U.S. at least). In this sense, however, I certainly give you that for folks like the Catholics and the mainline Protestants there is no conflict. Most religious folk are disturbed that science is being threatened in classrooms. Unfortunately the Creationists are numerous here in the U.S. and are active in their pursuit of their ideal of redefining what science is into a comparative religion course... and their pursuit of "returning" the U.S. to its "Christian roots"... i.e. inserting religion in overt ways into government.

There is a second issue that is more subtle... the idea that science and religion (no matter what the religion) are ultimately corrosive to each other. This exists on a more psychological level and is anything but proven... though it is proposed by some. I give you that religion and science often tolerate each other - even support each other - in individuals and in cultures... but as much as God is the god of the gaps, then there is a conflict... where scientific advances are simultaneously religious retreats (flat earth, geocentrism and now creationism, for example). Where it is the case that religion adapts (as the rest of society) to new information (you use the Catholic Church as an example) then there is no conflict... or at least less conflict (by the rear guard). After all, a retreat is not necessarily a battle... and any belief system that is genuinely willing to adjust to reality is OK in my book. I hope (and think) that I am that flexible. But, ultimately are Catholicism and other mainline religions that are willing to adjust to new knowledge in a steady (and peaceful) retreat toward Deism? (some would say toward atheism) I say let the data take us where it may. I currently have no reason to believe in a god or an afterlife... but if there was actual evidence I would be willing to consider it and if it stood up to scrutiny, I would be ready to accept a new view of reality that included that evidence.