I completely understand a scientists aversion to ID and creationism.  Science as a whole was set back centuries in the middle ages due to the pope and his minions.  Galileo was sent to rot in prison till his death for simply stating that the Earth was not the center of the universe.

Vigorously defending scientific principals against ID (which is simply creationism disguised as science) is simply a response to centuries of repression.  A time I hope we never revisit.

Scientific discovery is responsible for most of the conveniences we now have.  This includes video games BTW.  So if you love video games, creationism is not for you. 

"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. Never lose a holy curiosity."

- Albert Einstein

@rocketpig,  

"I suppose it could happen in a larger population but from what I learned, it almost always happens in a smaller population. The problem I see with a larger population is that it would be impossible to split into separate species with such a large gene pool crossing over."

==> if u need group then u have to separate spacially the individual whatever ur group is big or not..  

 "Apply it to dogs... Purebreds often have degenerate conditions, skin problems, etc. because the gene pool is so small that recessive traits become widespread with inbreeding. "

==> so little group are bad because of consanguinity OK

"Compare that to a mutt, where almost all recessive genes are neutralized by mating with another breed that has dominant genes to maintain the survivability of the animal."

==> OK

"Reverse that and I think you'll see what I'm talking about. "

==> so little group increase the probability to have "homozygote fully expressing" individu compared to large group that may hide the mutation because of the heterozygot state as I said in my last post.
Then we agree. 

"BTW, what I have been saying mostly applies to the creation of a new species, not a single trait that helps a species better adapt to its environment (longer teeth, more functional appendages, etc.). That can happen over time in a larger population, though even then a smaller population is better suited to allow it to spread quickly and become dominant."

 ==> OK, thx for the help.

Chimpanzees can beat humans in certain mental chalenges... they did a study using uni students, and chimps. They showed them a heap of jumbled numbers for about 1 second, then asked them to remember the sequence. The chimps beat the students easily if i remember....

Chimps also have that whole theory of mind thingy, where they know they exist and everything.

It may be controversial (im not sure), but i know a few people who think the main thing that seperated us from chimps 100,000 years ago or so, is that humans developed the ability to talk, which allowed ideas to be communicated, and to grow. Without language, we'd still be primitive animals like chimps. Its the biggest difference, even more so than our 'increased' mental capcity.

==> I knew some experiments were done on Dolphin/Monkey and that they stated some individuals (the importants word is "some") were able to self-awareness (mirror expeiment). But even if we believe in this, it doesnt change the expected quantitative gap between these species and us.

==> monkey, and most of the living being, are able to communicate too using their own language. I even believe in a VERY complex for some (dolphin/monkey/elephant)

I'll just tackle the bolded part... The point I'm making is not that small gene pools are bad, it's that change more easily happens in smaller gene pools. After all, that's all evolution is... Change. Sometimes it can be good, most of the time it is bad. The bad dies off over time, the good flourishes. Expand the gene pool and the traits from inbreeding will disappear or diminish as dominant genes control recessive traits.

Realize that most of the time, evolution fails miserably. It is in the rare occasion that it actually works, which is why actually seeing it happen is like catching lightning in a bottle. 

@ libellule

umm...yeah but they cant convey complex ideas. the majority of languages in other species only convey emotions.

we can convey everything including abstract ideas, ideas about time and the future.

no matter how complex a chimpanzees language is, it cannot explain to another chimp the idea of electricity (well they can if you teach them sign language, but not naturally in the wild)

 I don't fear god or the lack of a god.  The possibility of a god that would let this happen doesn't even compute in my brain.  If there was a god, it was either drunk or schizophrenic, or lost a bet, and had to make a pretty shitty world.  Not to say that I'm not enjoying every second of my perfect life, but I'm aware that not everybody's as insanely eternally happy as I am, the poor saps.

I also haven't seen you get your feathers all ruffeled over this subject so i'm inclined to believe you.