Look at this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8660940.stm

The evidence is that we split off from a common ancestor and that some inter-breeding must have occured giving us a small remnant of Neanderthal DNA.  Seems fair enough.  Most species, where biology and proximity allow will have some interbreeding so I see no reason why, if our ancestors were around at the same, it wouldn't occur.

I think he was saying that it's impossible that we're so distantly related to them, and that we supposedly share more in common with pigs. Is that true? I thought we were extremely close to Neanderthals and your link makes me think i'm correct..?

Anyways, when someone gets the chance, I'd love a reply to what I said a little while ago. Thanks for all the discussion guys!

Why can't people understand theories and what will and won't change?

Look, it's simple.  2 2=4 isn't going to change even if you wait a million years.  The value of PI isn't going to change.

You're making the mistake of thinking all theories are equal and all are equally likely to change.

We thought the world was flat because at the time there was no way to understand anything else.  Now we've been in space, measured the Earth accurately, etc.  That's not going to change.  Scientists aren't going to say in 1000 years the world is flat again.

Science is not belief.  Period.  You're flat out wrong and I'm sorry you struggle with it but I'm afraid you are.

But let me try and help.

Imagine an archery target.  The centre rings are the theories were now know are facts.  They're not going to change.  The evidence is in, it all adds up and the theories relating to it will never change.  Now, the middle set of rings is where we're almost sure but not quite.  Let's say we know the theory is basically right but it may be tweaked a bit to get to 100%.  This is where Evolution sits.  We know it's right.  The evidence really is huge.  But, we don't understand every aspect of evolution.  For example we know how it works but maybe not exactly all the factors involved.  So that theory will continue to be tweaked until the middle rings are locked down as fact.  But evolution as a principle isn't going to change.  I assure you it won't because all the core theories are rock solid.

Now, the outer rings, well, that's where we're not sure yet.  But scientific theory isn't guessing.  Over time the evidence will allow us to be certain.  That ring will become like the former middle rings, and eventually will be locked in.  This area is the frontier of our current knowledge.

Again, you need to stop seeing scientific theories as some constantly changing mass of plastecine.  That's just wrong.  Many, many theories will never change because we know they are exact.  But we don't know everything, and that's where the changes take place.

OFF TOPIC: I have to say, reading some other replies in this thread, I understand why people like Richard Dawkins get so exasperated with people's lack of understanding.

Human thoughts are quite tricky though.

We know for a fact that animals can recreate sensory images within their brains, as they do dream and also learn by memory. Our senses (our sensors really) capture images from the outside and translate them into electrical charges which are then processed at the brain. This exact same process happens in electronic sensors which then send the info to a microprocessor to get processed (or translated). We know for a fact then, that our senses do generate information that's not tangible to ourselves, because we can't see or touch electrons, but magnetic resonances do show electrical activity in our brains whenever there's a thought process or sensing process occurring.

The thing is though, that only we humans, out of all animals, have the ability to abstract the concept from the object. Which means that there's an inner source of information in humans. Everyone can conceptualize an object in their own manner, those are not universal, unlike the image of the object which will be the same regardless of the observer (unless their senses are not functioning properly or has brain damage).

My gripe with this all is that this inner source of information cannot be other than our souls, and by soul I mean the rational (intelligence and free will) aspect of ourselves. This aspect of ourselves is not physical, we can't locate intelligence in our bodies for instance. The brain only acts as a connecting pathway for all our thoughts, they do not generate from it. The brain is simply an organ capable of translating electrical and chemical messages from all of our body and sending an adequate response.

The thoughts that involve our rational aspect, I believe we will never be able to understand them fully, as they are not translated information from the outside, but rather generated from our own unique capacities. Yes, they exist as electrical charges traveling throughout the brain, but their origin trascends this physical universe. We cannot put concepts into images, therefore they are not physical.

Perhaps I shouldn't have quoted you, cause it really isn't disagreeing with your post, but it was related :P

Haven't you ever asked yourself what the purpose of your life is? I doubt you live your life like a vegetal and when you die you die. It's much more deep than that and you know it.

Since when atheism = science? I'm not atheist but I might become a scientist one day. 'Just theories'? Those theories exist so that we may find the truth, not that we may feel content and safe. Science is not a religion, it's essentially seeking the truth. Religion is more like seeking salvation at the cost of truth.

Again, atheism and science aren't the same thing. Don't even think about answering me in a way that might make me think you think I'm atheist because I'm not. Also do not ever again mix up atheism and science, it's just wrong.

no it's not. Nothing happens. All of that heaven and spirtual junk is just something man made up to feel good about themselves. You might as well believe in santa clause and the easter bunny. If you believe in all of that stuff,then more power to you,but that's just not me.

Why are you living then? I mean there has to be a purpose for you to live, you are not a plant or an animal that lives just for the sake of living without noticing that it is alive and that he's one day going to die. Why keep on living?

I'm living because I was born. In my opinion humans are really no different than animals and plants,were just on top of the food chain. In my view life is like this,your born,you go to school,you go to work,you might have kids and get married,you die. Nothing more. Call me cynical and simple-minded if you want,but that's how I see the world. I know you'll probably disagree with me,but that's fine. You believe what you believe and I'll believe what I believe. lol

That would be a sad way of seeing life. Luckily I'm not seeing it that way.

BTW I don't follow any religion if that's what you are calling "spiritual junk". I do believe in a being that trascends all physical definitions, but I'm not following any strict rules like the Church imposes.