[MP-Ryan]

Yes, we are classified as animals under current our current taxonomy model, yet I think you'd agree we are quite a bit set apart from the rest of the animal kingdom, even our closest genetic cousins, the great apes.  They've demonstrated a capability to develop and use tools, they have demonstrated a capability to adopt a language, yet they are so incredibly different from us, so... I'd almost use the term unwilling to develop the way we have, into cultures and societies.  I (as would any Christian) would argue that we are indeed very different, as the Bible tells us, we have a piece of God's own soul within us that so defines us.  Our very humanity, if you will, is from God.  Except for pride.  That comes from ourselves at the instigation of Satan (the Serpent).

Good grief.

The great apes aren't our closest genetic cousins, for starters.

Second, our development comes from a long lineage of primates and arguably the reason Homo sapiens sapiens has "developed" today is the advent of science and medicine and control of physical death which coincided with and enhanced the population boom.  That boom allowed rapid advancement of human societies from paleolithic and neolithic cultures a mere 7000 years ago to our current state of affairs today.  Humans are capable of complex spatial analysis and problem solving.  There are many species that are actually better at these things than we are too.

Humans are an evolutionary oddity because we do not adapt to the environment, but rather adapt the environment to us.  That doesn't dismiss us as distinct from other species, though.  Evolutionarily, there are species that are much "fitter" and better adapted to their ecological niches than we are.  We merely think we're fantastic because our evolutionary lineage has brought us to a level of sentience which few other species have met.  But as I said already, we're not terribly different from our ancestors of 100,000 years ago.  The key difference is we no longer struggle for survival, and thus have time to devote to our own self-importance.

Pride is derived from increased confidence in our own decision-making, which is productive in a communal society.  That's called behavioural evolution.

Oh, and that Serpent of yours?  Its derived from an ancient fear of snakes conditioned and biologically programmed into primates.  Really, religion's use of a serpent to signify evil comes from our own evolutionary past and biological anxieties.  But if you'd rather believe a snake spoke to a woman who mothered the entire human race in God's image (a ludicrous proposition in literal terms, but a great metaphor), go for it.

Also, you should know that I am not catholic.

Never said you were - I was pointing out a particular doctrine's origin.

SO Karajorma, to answer your original question about Abiogenesis:  So it creates some of the processes necessary for life.  1. that's still a very long way from life, and 2. There's still the VERY present issue of sentience, consciousness and intelligence.

1.  No it's not.  Life is self-propagation.  Nothing more.
2.  Sentience, consciousness, and intelligence are abstract psychological terms that apply only to very few species, if at all.

To summarize:  Neither of those two statements mean a thing for validity of abiogenesis.

[G0atmaster]

Pride, that is the idea of "I'm as good as you,"  the desire to have things not simply for the sake of having them, but rather having more than the next person, is not at all based on our confidence in our own decision-making.  It is in fact a degree of immaturity, and a failure to realize that, in the end, we are indeed all human.

Genesis talks of that programming taking place.  So I guess it's the Chicken or the Egg argument.  Did that characterization of the Deciever as a serpent happen because primates have a pre-programmed fear of serpents, or do primates have a pre-programmed fear of serpents because the embodiment of evil took the form as one to deceive us into thinking we were better than we were?

You say a level of sentience which few other species have met.  What other species have been sentient on the same level we are?

[MP-Ryan]

Pride, that is the idea of "I'm as good as you,"  the desire to have things not simply for the sake of having them, but rather having more than the next person, is not at all based on our confidence in our own decision-making.  It is in fact a degree of immaturity, and a failure to realize that, in the end, we are indeed all human.

OR... its based on a natural competition for resources in which the more aggressive/assertive and confident individual will secure greater resources and have a great chance of passing on his/her genes through reproduction.  Pride is a very functional emotion for propagation in a species, despite what religion may say about it.

Genesis talks of that programming taking place.  So I guess it's the Chicken or the Egg argument.  Did that characterization of the Deciever as a serpent happen because primates have a pre-programmed fear of serpents, or do primates have a pre-programmed fear of serpents because the embodiment of evil took the form as one to deceive us into thinking we were better than we were?

I really hope you aren't interpreting Genesis as literal.  How old do you think the Earth is?  ALL primates species have a natural inborn fear of most reptiles, especially snakes.  They have it from basically the instant they're born - it isn't learned from their parents.  My evolutionary phylogeny is a tad rusty, but we can safely say the original primate ancestor lived well over a million years ago (radiocarbon dating; genetic polymorphism and mitochondrial DNA mutation rates; I say a million not as a reasonable figure but simply to show that it dates back before even the earlist estimates of Genesis, in reality it is probably closer to 100 million).  Genesis, it seems to me, is plotted anywhere between 3500 and 130,000 years ago, depending on the religious institution and individual.  Even operating on a metaphorical intepretation of Genesis, fear of snakes came from biological imperatives of survival, not a conception of evil.  If you're operating on a strictly literal interpretation of Genesis then I'm wasting my time.

You say a level of sentience which few other species have met.  What other species have been sentient on the same level we are?

What do you consider sentience?  Chimps and gorillas are both entirely self-aware, form communities, are capable of complex problem solving and spatial analysis, and exhibit rational approaches to behaviour.  SSome species of porpoise have even more complex social groups than do humans, are capable of group communication and coordination over huge distances, can solve problems, and spatially orient.

There's no question, we are very well adapted to use our brains but to say that we're smarter because other species are unwilling to show complexity in behaviour is entirely erroneous.

[Mefustae]

You say a level of sentience which few other species have met.  What other species have been sentient on the same level we are?

Remember, sentience isn't some amazing thing. When you get right down to it we're nothing more than squishy machines. Incredibly complex and with a good couple billion years of development under our belts, but machines nonetheless. Sentience is just a coalescence of different traits that have arisen in our species, there's nothing mystical or extraordinary about it.

radiocarbon dating;

Actually, Carbon-14 is usually only used in archeology due to the relatively short half-life, which restricts accurate readings to about 50,000 years or so IIRC. You're probably thinking of Uranium or Potassium-Argon dating techniques. Just FYI.

[MP-Ryan]

Actually, radiocarbon is only used in archaeology due to the relatively short half-life of around 6000 years. You're probably thinking of Uranium or Potassium-Argon dating. Just FYI.

No, I'm thinking radiocarbon dating shows that humans and primates diverged much more than 6000 years ago, or the time YECs believe Genesis occurred =)

Best estimates for phylogenetic trees come from the molecular clock (known rate at which random mutations in DNA occur), not fossil dating, as it turns out.

No worries though, I'm not screwing up my dating techniques =)

[Mefustae]

Best estimates for phylogenetic trees come from the molecular clock (known rate at which random mutations in DNA occur), not fossil dating, as it turns out.

Damn, now that's interesting. I really oughta do an evolutionary biology course next year. This ecology crap is waaay overrated.

[karajorma]

Interesting you should say that, because you give no discription of what you mean by "abiogenesis," then.  I gather it means life from no life.  The most common theory by which that happened is evolution from single-celled organisms.  You call me dishonest, but I was asking you.  I wasn't making statements as if I knew them.

You just did! You claimed what the most common theory for life from no life is and then completely arsed it up. If you don't know what abiogenesis is then ask but don't try to tell people who know better what it is.

To make it clear evolution covers everything from the appearance of the first life form onwards. Abiogenesis covers how that first life came about. What counts as that first life is something of a grey area. Abiogenesis is also based on the principle of natural selection. It wasn't chance that led to the first self replicating life form.

The reason I brought up abiogenesis is because there is absolutely no good reason why anyone who isn't a young earth creationist should dispute evolution. Especially in the case of Catholics since the pope has stated that evolution is correct.

However the pope and many Christians who do believe in evolution draw the line at abiogenesis claiming that God created the first single celled organisms and then let evolution get on with it. This is of course little more than a redrawing of the religion/science battlelines. The proof for evolution has grown strong enough that the church was making itself look foolish by trying to claim it wasn't true. So the church has pulled back from it's "Man was created fully formed" position to "God created the first life" instead of retreating to a more sensible line of "You explain the physical and we'll explain the philosophical"

Why don't you detail modern evolutionary theory for me, so I have a better understanding of what you think it is?  I simply was under the impression that it was heavily based on Darwin's works, particularly "The Origin of Species," and wished to point out that the writer of this theory which modern theory is more or less based on had some things to say about his own ideas.

Richard Dawkins explains it far better than I ever could in The Selfish Gene. He has a very strongly atheist style of writing but that shouldn't stop you from understanding the theory in much greater detail.

Trying to understand evolution based on Darwin is like trying to understand subatomic physics based on Newton. Yes a lot of what he said still applies and the basics of his theory aren't completely wrong but the theory has been improved so much in the intervening time that you're going to come across lots of occasions where the theory seems to be flawed because you are using modern data but old theories.

I never said in one generation.  I do believe in microevolution, that is, adaptation.  I do not believe, regardless of time, that one species could ultimately change enough to become classified as a completely different species, ESPECIALLY beginning from single-celled organisms, double-especially since such organisms exist today, mainly because change happens due to need, and if the changes NEEDED to happen, the old versions would have died out.

That's a really poor understanding of evolution there.

1. I can show you cases of one species becoming a different one under laboratory conditions in years or months. If a small change of species can happen on that time scale then it's pretty obvious that lots of similar changes over millions of years would lead to a completely different species. If I start with a fruit fly and breed one million different species from it then the ones I end up with is going to be very different from my starting point simply because there are only so many ways of having different flies before I have to start saying "This isn't a fruit fly any more, it looks and acts nothing like a fruit fly."

Not a book, but lots of books?  That's your argument?  There are four (that's 4, not 1) books in the Bible that are first-hand (or would it be second-hand? Which is more correct in this context?) accounts of the life of Christ. 

Second hand.  Biblical scholars pretty much universally agree that at least one of the gospels wasn't written by any of the apostles.

That's multiple books.

They share common authorship though. Have you not noticed that parts of the gospel are repeated verbatim in other books. That means that we're already dealing with known plagiarists. Hardly the basis for undivided trust.  Certainly a reason to be suspicious as to the authenticity of the gospels.  Especially as the writings all are by people who have a certain bias. They all believe in Christ. I pointed out that there is evidence of Galileo's existence from people who have every reason to hush up his existence because they believed him to be a heretic.

Where are the roman records of Jesus' existence? Or the Hebrew ones from people who didn't become Christians?
 

So now you're saying it's indeed based on the amount of proof and not the kind of proof?

No. It's based on both quantity and quality of proof. You have little of either.

  What do you believe now?  What extraordinary proof have you been given that leads you to believe that is true?  Because I tell you, God's given me quite a bit of extraordinary proof, except it only applies to my own life, really.  I've already given you a piece of my life story, though, and you didn't like it very much.

In other words you have no external proof. Hindus and Muslims could give similar proof that they are correct yet you'd have me believe that they are wrong and you are right. Why? Why should I trust your gut instinct while decrying theirs?

So basically you're saying there are absolutely no laws of the Universe which science has proven and are taken as fact?  The law of gravity?  The law of conservation of momentum?  The laws of aerodynamics?  None of this is taken as fact?

Absolutely none of it if fact. There is no such thing in science. Science simply states "This is the best explanation we have so far. It could be wrong but every other explanation we have so far seems to be more wrong"

Many theories, even, are taught as fact today.

Simply because there are no competing theories which explain the evidence as well and it gets incredibly tiresome to explain that everything is a theory. Not to mention that it's best to maintain a good teacher image of actually knowing the truth when teaching something.

When there are several competing possibilities all of which explain the facts you'll find that none of them are taught as fact. If someone came up with a credible theory of gravity different from our current understanding then you'd soon find scientists stopped treating gravity as a fact.

To answer your question about other religions:  A god too proud, too high and mighty, too unloving to take me in is hardly worth my time.  Yet that's what my God did.  He made me, I screwed up, and he reached down to lift me up to Him.  My God is mighty, yet humble.  My God graceful and loving.  My God is perfect.  Instead of me trying to climb some ladder of good works to get to God (as in other religions), God comes down and lifts me up.  I don't believe that God will love me because I'm a good boy.  I believe God has and will continue to make me good because He loves me.  To use Lewis's metaphor, the greenhouse does not attract sunlight because it is bright, but is bright because the sun shines on it.

I didn't ask for your personal philosophy. I asked you to explain why you claim that there is better evidence for your religion than others. You've done nothing to prove that your religion does have better evidence. You've simply ducked the question and said "my God is the bestest!!!!1111"

[MP-Ryan]

Best estimates for phylogenetic trees come from the molecular clock (known rate at which random mutations in DNA occur), not fossil dating, as it turns out.

Damn, now that's interesting. I really oughta do an evolutionary biology course next year. This ecology crap is waaay overrated.

Skip evo-bio and take developmental biology.  My developmental genetics class was the best class of my entire undergraduate degree (it was actually a graduate-level class).  Wrapping your head around that stuff will make your head spin.

Random mind-boggling question of the day (bonus points to anyone who figures it out without looking anything up):   Using humans, flies, fish, and chickens as examples, why is it that...
1.  Early in development, gene expression in all four species is basically identical but they physically look entirely different.
2.  At mid-stages of development, gene expression in all four species is entirely different, yet the embryos all look virtually identical.
3.  At late stages of development, gene expression in all four species varies widely for particular genes (some identical, some different) and the embryos all look entirely different.

If you have a dev-gen class offered at your school, take it =)

[MP-Ryan]

Trying to understand evolution based on Darwin is like trying to understand subatomic physics based on Newton. Yes a lot of what he said still applies and the basics of his theory aren't completely wrong but the theory has been improved so much in the intervening time that you're going to come across lots of occasions where the theory seems to be flawed because you are using modern data but old theories. 

Ain't that the truth.  Darwin believed in a cellular democracy of inheritance - genetics was unknown in mainstream circles at the time (hilariously enough, Darwin actually had a copy of Mendel's findings in his desk that he never looked at) so Darwin proposed that each cell split off "gemmules" which went to the gonads and then combined to form gametes.  Thus, each cell in the body "voted" on what traits the offspring would have.  That was one of his kookier ideas.

Genetic recombination makes much more sense, but the gemmule theory is always good cocktail party conversation in academic circles =)

[karajorma]

Yeah, I'd heard the story about Mendel before. The real irony being that Darwin knew that there was something wrong with his original theory and not realising that the answer was sitting around on his desk waiting to be read.

That said gemmules might be an interesting idea for an alien race. It's one of those "Our DNA doesn't work that way but whatever they use might do"

[Edward Bradshaw]

On Evolution:

Interesting you should say that, because you give no discription of what you mean by "abiogenesis," then.  I gather it means life from no life. 

In 4 words yes abiogenesis is to put it simply, life from non life. But it isnt one species giving birth to another completely different species. Thats Evolution and a total misrepresentation of that as well.   

Why dont you read some information about what it is you dont agree with. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/ 



How could you be so misinformed yet so sure of yourself that you're right? How can you so adamentally disagree with something you know nothing about?

The most common theory by which that happened is evolution from single-celled organisms.

Thats not abiogenesis, and if your starting points are "single celled organisms" then thats evolution. But its still not one species giving birth to abother completely different species. Oh and FYI theres a lot of complex chemical steps before you get to the first replicating organism.

You call me dishonest, but I was asking you.

I said either you are being dishonest for misrepresenting these subjects or you are painfully ignorent, to put it more harshly.

Oh and I notice you said "I never said in one generation." to someone else. Well, this is whats called dishonesty because you said exactly that. A species giving birth to another completely different species would be one generation and I find it hard to believe you wouldnt know that.

I wasn't making statements as if I knew them.  Abiogenesis is a relatively new term for me.  Until a few days ago it wasn't even a part of my vocabulary except via the Greek roots, so forgive me.

Theres nothing wrong with that, but you still felt you could talk with complete assurance that you knew it was false despite not knowing anything about it. Why?



On Homosexuality:

Ed, did you even read the rest of my post?  It's quite relevant to the topic.  Basically it says that people were insistent to go against God's will, so, being the free-will-loving God He is, He let them dive headfirst into their perversions and depravity as part of His wrath.  When someone accepts the gift of Christ, God's wrath is no longer on them, thus they are no longer victims of depraved minds.

Thats what I said, isnt it? That we are Gods special creations and had been given free will to choose to either sin or not sin, right?

The point being that if its unnatural and humans are choosing be be homosexual then animals must also have free will and are also choosing to be homosexual as well.

In a sense, I guess that means my beliefs on homosexuality are more of, rather than a genetic thing (which has not been proven, btw), it's a spiritual sickness of sorts, only cured by the grace of God.  Just because it's exhibited by many people doesn't make it right.  Just because it's done by animals, doesn't make it right.  Are we to be like animals, then?  No!

No no, Im not going to let you move the goal posts. If its "done by animals" then homosexuality IS natural.  If you accept that and then argue that its natural but not moral then we can talk about it, but until you do that and still insist homosexuality is unnatural then Im going to continue to show how damaging it is to your position.

You want more than the Bible to say "boys kissing boys is icky?"  I can't do that without my post losing all taste by describing human sexual anatomy and how it's supposed to work.  If that's what you want, I'll go there.  But I think you're a little old for a sex talk. 

"Boys kissing boys" was refering to anal sex actually, but even here your argument fails since hetrosexual couples also engage in the same sex acts. So once again I have to ask, how does homosexuality hurt people? You dont like the idea of two men having sex. I dont either, but its none of my business. I dont like the idea of people drinking blood or pissing on each other. If they want to do that kind of thing in their own time thats their business  so long as its not hurting anyone. Homosexuals arent hurting little kids, they arent hurting each other. How specifically do homosexuals hurt people?

sHow is a genetic predisposition to violence any different from a genetic predisposition to homosexual tendencies? 

If it can be shown that you are genetically predisposed to hurting people then you need to be stopped form hurting people. But homosexuals arent hurting people. Its a natural phenomena as evidenced throughout the animal kingdom. Some people are attracted exclusively to members of their own sex. Some are attracted to both. You keep comparing that to all these horrible crimes, yet I keep challenging you to show how its in anyway the same and you keep ignoring me.

The person who gets hurt by this sin is the same who is chiefly hurt by all sin: God Himself.  How is God hurt?  God is perfect.  God cannot stand imperfection to be in His presence.  When we sin, no matter what it is, we are no longer able to stand in God's presence and yet draw breath. It just doesn't work.  Now, when God, being perfect, says that something is imperfect, we can usually take His word as right, because arguing with Him is like cutting off the tree limb on which you sit.  You think this is absurd?  How then could Christ claim to forgive sins if He were not the chiefly injured party?  That'd be like Joe Schmoe coming up and forgiving me for stealing YOUR car.  It'd be asinine if not true! 

So your idea that you hate homosexuals is entirely religous in nature and has no objective verifiable reasons whatsoever.

We all knew that anyway, but I finially seem to have got it out of you.

One more thing:  When species evolve, they evolve through either cladogenesis or anagenesis:  in cladogenesis, we get two (or more) distinct species emerging from one.  In anagenesis, the single species merely changes such that it can no longer be classified as the same species that it was.  IN ALL FORMS, WHEN A SPECIES EVOLVES THE ORIGINAL ANCESTRAL SPECIES NO LONGER EXISTS.  You seem to think that the ancestor sticks around - it doesn't.

Wait, what do you mean the ancestral species no longer exists? They might more likely die out, but this is obviously not true completely. Its why you get ring species, for example. Then again you do seem to understand this though when you go on to talk about the  lizards example, so what did you mean above? 

[jr2]

And no, people are not "born" homosexual; it is a result of their decisions, which are often influenced heavily by their environment... I wish they were "born" that way... we might have a cure.  (Consider: homosexuals cannot have children!)  Although, I'm sure you feel the same way about Christians. 

It's this kind of thinking that makes me genuinely hate somebody.  Here's a reality check for you, pal.  You have NO RIGHT to insist upon ANYTHING!  Why?  Because you don't know!  You being a christian gives you even less of that right, as that breaks the first commandment.  I don't know whether your lack of knowledge, or your lack of abstract thinking offends me more.  You base your entire train of thought on 'because someone or something said so'...  Yet even when proven wrong, you still blindly follow the blind man, who himself follows another blind man.

I do so love it when people who don't believe in absolutes try to prove their point.  By your logic, there can be no one who can insist on anything, because no one knows everything... so please... stop insisting.

You fail on so many levels that I'm not even going to bother explaining it.

EDIT:  G0atmaster, do you know what Word of God means?  Because by the way you wrote your post, it doesn't look like you do.
It means literally "Message of God" IIRC

I do have some stuff to show you guys... might be a few weeks before I can get it all spooled up though.

[karajorma]

It's a real pity Godwin's law doesn't cover people who can't quote properly.

[MP-Ryan]

Wait, what do you mean the ancestral species no longer exists? They might more likely die out, but this is obviously not true completely. Its why you get ring species, for example. Then again you do seem to understand this though when you go on to talk about the  lizards example, so what did you mean above?

By definition, an evolved species cannot exist at the same point in time as its ancestor.  If something that looks like the ancestor still exists, it's a new species (e.g. cladogenesis has occurred).

That's one of, if not THE, most common error even educated people make when talking about evolution - when a species evolves it becomes a new species.  Creationist types say all the time they don't believe we are descendent from monkeys.  That's an incorrect statement because we both came from a common primate ancestor which died off when the lineage split.

Even if we look at bacterial evolution; when one species gives rise to a new one, the precursor has died out - it is no longer the same species because genetically it is different from the original species by virtue of the loss of part of its gene pool.

It's a misconception because human minds have extreme difficulty comprehending the time distances involved in most evolutionary branchings, but typically populations become genetically isolated first (either by virtue of geography or behaviour) and then speciation occurs.

Reversions DO occur to produce close-to-ancestral forms, and convergent evolution can also bring about mixing of populations, but evolution is a progression of adaptation characterized by the emergence of new species.  Ancestral lineages die off when new species diverge from it by virtue of the actual definition of speciation.  This is also why the subspecies classification system has come into more predominant use because we can see isolated populations which have no gene flow between them, YET the populations are not distinct species because they can still interbreed and produce viable offspring.

[Edward Bradshaw]

Wait, what do you mean the ancestral species no longer exists? They might more likely die out, but this is obviously not true completely. Its why you get ring species, for example. Then again you do seem to understand this though when you go on to talk about the  lizards example, so what did you mean above?

By definition, an evolved species cannot exist at the same point in time as its ancestor.  If something that looks like the ancestor still exists, it's a new species (e.g. cladogenesis has occurred).

But what reason would it automatically die out necessarily? What if a new species evolves and gets seperated from the original species, but the original species environment doesnt change and so they dont evolve any signifcant changes. Arent you saying then that the original species MUST die out?

[karajorma]

Or more simply. There are a number of cases of speciation being observed under laboratory conditions. Are you saying that as soon as the scientist can prove that speciation has occurred he instantly has to rename the original species used in the experiment and that everyone now has to use that new name?

[Edward Bradshaw]

Or more simply. There are a number of cases of speciation being observed under laboratory conditions. Are you saying that as soon as the scientist can prove that speciation has occurred he instantly has to rename the original species used in the experiment and that everyone now has to use that new name?

And even if that was the case the original species didnt die out you just renamed it.

[Ghostavo]

I think MP-Ryan meant population rather than species.

As in once a particular population of the species evolves, that particular population doesn't have members of the ancestral species.

[Edward Bradshaw]

I think MP-Ryan meant population rather than species.

As in once a particular population of the species evolves, that particular population doesn't have members of the ancestral species.

If thats what he meant what does he mean about the ancestral "population" always dying out? I dont see any reason why that has to be necessaily true in all cases of evolution. I keep thinking I must be misunderstanding because it doesnt make sence to me.

[G0atmaster]

Pride, that is the idea of "I'm as good as you,"  the desire to have things not simply for the sake of having them, but rather having more than the next person, is not at all based on our confidence in our own decision-making.  It is in fact a degree of immaturity, and a failure to realize that, in the end, we are indeed all human.

OR... its based on a natural competition for resources in which the more aggressive/assertive and confident individual will secure greater resources and have a great chance of passing on his/her genes through reproduction.  Pride is a very functional emotion for propagation in a species, despite what religion may say about it.

That WOULD be true if it were a matter of obtaining the resources required to survive.  But it's not at all.  It's about getting more than the next person.  Wanting, rather than to be simply good, to be better. As Lewis puts it:

The sexual impulse may drive two men into competition if they both want the same girl.  But that is only by accident; they might just as likely have wanted two different girls.  But a proud man will take your girl from you, not because he wants her, but just to prove to himself that he is a better man than you.  Greed may drive men into competition if there is not enough to go round; but the proud man, even when he has got more than he can possibly want, will try to get still more just to assert his power.  Nearly all those evils in the world which people put down to greed or selfishness are really far more the result of Pride.

Genesis talks of that programming taking place.  So I guess it's the Chicken or the Egg argument.  Did that characterization of the Deciever as a serpent happen because primates have a pre-programmed fear of serpents, or do primates have a pre-programmed fear of serpents because the embodiment of evil took the form as one to deceive us into thinking we were better than we were?

I really hope you aren't interpreting Genesis as literal.  How old do you think the Earth is?  ALL primates species have a natural inborn fear of most reptiles, especially snakes.  They have it from basically the instant they're born - it isn't learned from their parents.  My evolutionary phylogeny is a tad rusty, but we can safely say the original primate ancestor lived well over a million years ago (radiocarbon dating; genetic polymorphism and mitochondrial DNA mutation rates; I say a million not as a reasonable figure but simply to show that it dates back before even the earlist estimates of Genesis, in reality it is probably closer to 100 million).  Genesis, it seems to me, is plotted anywhere between 3500 and 130,000 years ago, depending on the religious institution and individual.  Even operating on a metaphorical intepretation of Genesis, fear of snakes came from biological imperatives of survival, not a conception of evil.  If you're operating on a strictly literal interpretation of Genesis then I'm wasting my time.

  Whether or not Genesis is taken to be literal is insignificant next to a risen Christ.  So is the whole question of how we came to be, for that matter.  I believe the primary intent of Genesis is to illustrate how we (humanity) came to be in our present state of dispair.

And that's all the time I have for now.  My ride's waiting for me.  I'll respond to the rest tonight when I get home.