# who honestly doesn't believe in evolution?



## blu (Aug 28, 2010)

So who doesn't believe in evolution? Not abiogenesis, but evolution. 

I find it really hard to grasp that some people don't believe in evolution, which is proven, and I think many of those who question "evolution" are actually questioning abiogenesis:

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Big Black Dog (Aug 28, 2010)

I am grounded in the belief that I was created in the image of God, by God, and nobody else created me except for him.  However, I am pretty sure my wife evolved from monkeys.


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 28, 2010)

I think the jury is still out on that one for me....We've had written history for thousands of years and no noted evolution of people.  They used to think we've gotten taller, but then they found out that idea came from the left over armor, which it turns out were usually the "samples" which is why they survived...

I know girls are "maturing" faster physically, but I'm not sure that counts as evolution since I think it's related to hormones that are put in our food,  making it more of a mutation than evolution.

I do not understand how we could have all started out black and then some of us became white, and some of us got slanted eyes....how did that evolve and why?  Seems to me the white people are the ones who should have the slanted eyes, as the sun bugs us more....

Maybe we didn't "evolve", maybe we "mutated"?


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 28, 2010)

ever been in old houses and bumped your head on the doorways?
People have gotten taller.

And we are evolving in a negative direction lately it seems.
The survival of the fittest has has been removed from the equation and now those with bad genetics are passing them on at an increasing rate due to medical improvements.

Just look at the Beck movement as an example


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 28, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> ever been in old houses and bumped your head on the doorways?
> People have gotten taller.
> 
> And we are evolving in a negative direction lately it seems.
> ...



Yes, I've been in old houses, and the doorways are actually larger, in many cases.  In some cases mostly in basements, they are smaller, but that's due to other factors besides people's height.


----------



## eots (Aug 28, 2010)

Againsheila said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > ever been in old houses and bumped your head on the doorways?
> ...



peoples height is not evolution  it is just improved nutrition, medical care ..go to Europe and indeed doorways in  buildings built hundreds of years ago are shorter most of the suits of armor are just over 5 ft but its hardly proof of evolution...btw believing is not knowing


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 28, 2010)

eots said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



Well, that's true..

I've not been in old buildings in Europe, as I've not been to Europe.  And yes, height is directly linked to nutrition, so again, not evolution.  Evolution is a theory, I guess I need proof.....I'm not saying I don't believe in evolution, just saying I don't know...


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 28, 2010)

blu said:


> So who doesn't believe in evolution? Not abiogenesis, but evolution.
> 
> I find it really hard to grasp that some people don't believe in evolution, which is proven, and I think many of those who question "evolution" are actually questioning abiogenesis:
> 
> Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Evolution has only been proven to exist INSIDE a species. There is no evidence that humans or animals have evolved from a totally different species.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Aug 29, 2010)

Againsheila said:


> Maybe we didn't "evolve", maybe we "mutated"?



what's the difference?


----------



## Tom Clancy (Aug 29, 2010)

Yes.


----------



## Kalam (Aug 29, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Evolution has only been proven to exist INSIDE a species.



...And when enough of those changes occur, a new species is designated.


----------



## LuckyDan (Aug 29, 2010)

Darwinists are fuckheads. Pretty much.


----------



## rdean (Aug 29, 2010)

Even if it came down to simply, "Who is more believable?"  Those that push the supernatural or those that offer scientific evidence.   I would still believe scientists, simply because they present so much evidence.  Way beyond, "Gawd did it".

What is the evidence for evolution?

This is why Republicans don't get scientists:


----------



## Tom Clancy (Aug 29, 2010)

rdean said:


> Even if it came down to simply, "Who is more believable?"  Those that push the supernatural or those that offer scientific evidence.   I would still believe sciences, simply because they present so much evidence.  Way beyond, "Gawd did it".
> 
> What is the evidence for evolution?
> 
> This is why Republicans don't get scientists:



Holy shit, you're like a broken record.. 

Again, polling a few thousand scientist in the country doesn't speak for the rest. 

Simple. Polls mean nothing.


----------



## rdean (Aug 29, 2010)

Tom Clancy said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Even if it came down to simply, "Who is more believable?"  Those that push the supernatural or those that offer scientific evidence.   I would still believe sciences, simply because they present so much evidence.  Way beyond, "Gawd did it".
> ...



How many scientists need to be polled to bring the number of Republican scientists up to 30% or 40% or 50%?

It's not going to happen.  These are some smart people.  Most wouldn't belong to such a whacked out and radical political party.

Besides, why would Republicans want them anyway?  The vast majority of scientists believe in evolution.


----------



## LuckyDan (Aug 29, 2010)

I should have added, when they're not fuckheads, they're dipshits.


----------



## Tom Clancy (Aug 29, 2010)

Right.. 

Once you get that Polls mean nothing you might realize something. 

Oh yeah, reminds me a lot about political polls, meaningless.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 29, 2010)

Kalam said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Evolution has only been proven to exist INSIDE a species.
> ...



Provide evidence that a single species of ANIMAL has ever evolved into 2 or more DIFFERENT species. That is what is claimed by evolution.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 29, 2010)

Tom Clancy said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Even if it came down to simply, "Who is more believable?"  Those that push the supernatural or those that offer scientific evidence.   I would still believe sciences, simply because they present so much evidence.  Way beyond, "Gawd did it".
> ...



The poll is actually from a subset of scientists and not all scientists to begin with. But Rdean won't post that information.


----------



## Luissa (Aug 29, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Not always! Evolution isn't always about a species changing into another species.

The ground squirrel is immune to rattle snake venom, and experts on rattle snake say that each animal is always evolving. The Rattle Snake so it can kill the squirrel and the Squirrel so it can survive a bite. Look at humans, we are much different from humans a couple thousand years ago.


----------



## Luissa (Aug 29, 2010)

Why is it hard to believe God could have planned for evolution?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 29, 2010)

Luissa said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Kalam said:
> ...



Already said evolution WITHIN a species is proven. What is not even remotely proven is the claim that one species has ever evolved into 2 or more OTHER species. Do you not read?


----------



## Luissa (Aug 29, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Sorry, I didn't read that. I was really not trying to be an ass.

You are LDS, right?( not trying to be an ass)


----------



## Kalam (Aug 29, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Someone beat me to it.


----------



## Douger (Aug 29, 2010)

Count Dracula said:


> I am grounded in the belief that I was created in the image of God, by God, and nobody else created me except for him.  However, I am pretty sure my wife evolved from monkeys.


Is she the one that called Dr. Laura ?


----------



## LuckyDan (Aug 29, 2010)

Sit a gazillion monkeys down at a gazillion typewriters and eventually you'll get asdjsdknsdklnjsdsdkvnsk;lnv;skldnvnpiwnjviwnsdvkl/snvlscnvk/'SVN jkl/snckl/'v nsck/lvn skl/vn dwklDNVKLNKwndvjkl/nln klsdklnlk/snSFvnwdlFVNwkldnvklSdnvSKLzcn kl/ASNklcvnsdklvnsdklvnklsdnvklsdnvklsdnvklsdn


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 29, 2010)

Luissa said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



I am. Or rather I believe Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, Finding out some things that even the LDS do not teach though.


----------



## hipeter924 (Aug 29, 2010)

The simple answer is that it doesn't matter. If scientists need to use evolutionary theory then let them, if scientists want to follow intelligent design and get nowhere that's up to them too. At the end of the day though for the average person it doesn't matter, just leave it to the scientists to debate, attack and bitch with each other. 

But I don't understand why people are trying to force public schools to teach intelligent design alongside evolution when intelligent design has no technological application (if private schools want they can though), its like teaching the bible alongside IT.


----------



## CurveLight (Aug 29, 2010)

The concept of evolution regarding humans is a contradiction on many levels.  We know life on earth was formed by trillions of iced meteors hitting our rock (planet) thus engendering life through myriad processes.  Humans do not belong on earth.  If all humans died tomorrow life on earth would continue to flourish and the planet would eventually become healthier.  If all but humans on earth died then all humans would shortly follow.  Our existent is an alien presence to earth which is why we constantly are scouring and scraping the earth to try and change it to make it adaptable to us at the cost of the earth itself.  At the rate of reproduction, the earth will be so overpopulated in 5,000 years that people will need a license to legally have children.  

Evolution has helped theorize on the mutations and migrations of thousands of species on earth but it has never come close to explaining humans.  We are born completely vulnerable with no natural defenses and we scurry around the earth in an insane circle of trying to understand life while everything else on earth simply lives life.  We do not adapt.  We destroy the earth while ironically trying to mimic much of what we have falsely labeled as "natural."


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Aug 29, 2010)

Tom Clancy said:


> Simple. Polls mean nothing.


Except if they are a representative sample of the greater population, in which case they are representative.  This is the difference between political polls which catch the first 100 people on a single street and claim representation for an entire nation, and a scientific method which specifically eliminates such biases.

Every survey on this topic has been consistent, and correlates lower education to greater religious ideology.  Put another way: all the smart people in the room disagree with you, and yet you still think you may be right.



RetiredGySgt said:


> Provide evidence that a single species of ANIMAL has ever evolved into 2 or more DIFFERENT species. That is what is claimed by evolution.


I'd be happy to go into this with you, if you actually want to discuss it.  Start here, then we can discuss:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk]YouTube - Ken Miller on Human Evolution[/ame]


----------



## rdean (Aug 30, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



I don't understand why you guys think there is this "hidden" group of Republican scientists.

The Republican party does not welcome "scientists".  You guys prove it just from the things you say.

You can go on the Internet find links to groups of "Gay scientists" and "Women scientists" and "Black scientists", but I have yet to find one such group made up of "Conservatives" or "Republicans".  They just don't seem to exist.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 30, 2010)

rdean said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Tom Clancy said:
> ...



You are ignorant. You know as well as I do your POLL is not all scientists and is in fact a small subset of Scientists.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 30, 2010)

Belief is for religions. I accept the absolutely overwhelming evidence that evolution has occurred, is presently continueing, and will continue as long as life exists. This evidence is present in the rocks beneath our feet, in every cell in our bodies.

At present, we have enough knowledge concerning the processes of evolution to actually engineer living organisms. Of all the scientific theories present today, evolution is the most robust.


----------



## konradv (Aug 30, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



It's all over the fossil record.  The fact that you don't want to recognize it as such, is irrelevant, IMHO.


----------



## konradv (Aug 30, 2010)

LuckyDan said:


> Sit a gazillion monkeys down at a gazillion typewriters and eventually you'll get *asdjsdknsdklnjsdsdkvnsk;lnv;skldnvnpiwnjviwnsdvkl/snvlscnvk/'SVN jkl/snckl/'v nsck/lvn skl/vn dwklDNVKLNKwndvjkl/nln klsdklnlk/snSFvnwdlFVNwkldnvklSdnvSKLzcn kl/ASNklcvnsdklvnsdklvnklsdnvklsdnvklsdnvklsdn*



Finally, an intelligent post from Dan!  Well, at least the part in *BOLD! *


----------



## Mr Natural (Aug 30, 2010)

Suggesting that we were created in God's image is nothng more that human arrogance at work.


----------



## rdean (Aug 30, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Nobody pols ALL scientists.  That's why the call it a "sample".

They purposely left out "professors" and "teachers" because they voted for Obama 12 to 1.

They left out foreigners and only used those working in government and industry.

They polled thousands of scientists and just happened to get all Democrat and Independent scientists?  Even you can't believe that.

Just curious.  Why do you think there are all these "Republican" scientists.  You don't really expect scientists to believe in "mysticism" and "magical creation" do you? Those are the opposite of science.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 30, 2010)

I was going to start a thread like this one, so instead let me contribute here.

First, why is evolution an article of faith?  Why do you ask if I "Believe" in it?  Is it like time and gravity?

Second, I want someone to explain to me how evolution works, how is it propagated, what is the mechanism driving it forward? I'm especially interested in a coherent explanation of "Random mutation"

Third, have human beings stopped evolving? What's next, genetic prosthetics, clairvoyance, wings?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 30, 2010)

LuckyDan said:


> Sit a gazillion monkeys down at a gazillion typewriters and eventually you'll get asdjsdknsdklnjsdsdkvnsk;lnv;skldnvnpiwnjviwnsdvkl/snvlscnvk/'SVN jkl/snckl/'v nsck/lvn skl/vn dwklDNVKLNKwndvjkl/nln klsdklnlk/snSFvnwdlFVNwkldnvklSdnvSKLzcn kl/ASNklcvnsdklvnsdklvnklsdnvklsdnvklsdnvklsdn



asdjsCO2dknsdklnCAUSESjsdsdkvnsk;lnv;sklGLOBALdnvnpiWARMINGwnjviwnsdvkl/snvlscnvk/'SVN jkl/snckl/'v nsck/lvnskl/vndwklDNVKLNKwndvjknlnklsdklnlsnSFvnwdlFVNwkldnvklSdnvSKLzcn kl/ASNklcvnsdklvnsdklvnklsdnvklsdnvklsdnvklsdn


----------



## xotoxi (Aug 30, 2010)

Count Dracula said:


> I am grounded in the belief that I was created in the image of God, by God, and nobody else created me except for him.  However, I am pretty sure my wife evolved from monkeys.



I am grounded in the belief that I created God in the image of me.

Which makes you my grandson.


----------



## kwc57 (Aug 30, 2010)

blu said:


> So who doesn't believe in evolution? Not abiogenesis, but evolution.
> 
> I find it really hard to grasp that some people don't believe in evolution, which is proven, and I think many of those who question "evolution" are actually questioning abiogenesis:
> 
> Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Proven?  Keep in mind that it is called the THEORY of evolution for a reason.  As a theory, it is the most plausable explanation available thru the scientific method.


----------



## konradv (Aug 30, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I was going to start a thread like this one, so instead let me contribute here.
> 
> First, why is evolution an article of faith?  Why do you ask if I "Believe" in it?  Is it like time and gravity?
> 
> ...



1) It isn't, it's a matter of scientific investigation.

2) There are all sorts of textbooks on evolution.  You should review them BEFORE posting, to make sure you have a basic grasp of the subject.

3) No we haven't stopped evolving, but if I could answer part two, I guess we'd have already developed clairvoyance.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 30, 2010)

konradv said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > I was going to start a thread like this one, so instead let me contribute here.
> ...



I didn't think you'd be too helpful.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Aug 30, 2010)

kwc57 said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > So who doesn't believe in evolution? Not abiogenesis, but evolution.
> ...



This is true.  In science "theory" means that it provides predictions that can be verified through experimentation and observation.

I think at this point denying the mechanism of evolution has the credibility of claiming the Earth is flat.  We can actively observe evolution of single cell organisms, and evolution of bird, fish, and other species brought on by various environmental changes are well documented.

The two big issues are speed and species differentiation.

It is turning out that the speed changes can occur is actually much faster than expected.  I was listening to a "Stuff You Should Know" podcast the other day on Epigeneteics which went over studies that had noticed considerable genetic changes happening in humans in as few as two generations.  The podcast title is "Can your grandfather's diet shorten your life?" if you want to look it up in iTunes.

Speed has always been an issue as natural selection is a slow process, meaning evolution would require a VERY long time span in which to work.

Species differentiation is a matter of perspective.  On a macro scale there's not a lot of different types of life on Earth.  We designate a new organism a new species once it has enough different characteristics from exsisting life.


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 30, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Belief is for religions. I accept the absolutely overwhelming evidence that evolution has occurred, is presently continueing, and will continue as long as life exists. This evidence is present in the rocks beneath our feet, in every cell in our bodies.
> 
> At present, we have enough knowledge concerning the processes of evolution to actually engineer living organisms. Of all the scientific theories present today, evolution is the most robust.



How are we "evolving" today?  What has changed in the human body over the last 100 years?

Not that I don't necessarily believe in evolution, just that I don't necessarily believe in evolution.....yeah, I meant to say that.  

They say dinosaurs evolved into birds.....what evolved into us?  It wasn't the apes, they now say they are on a whole different line....

Did we come from humas erectus?  How come some of us are white, some are black?  Was that evolution, or just a fluke?

Why do the orientals have slanted eyes?  Why do we have big noses?  <yes, the orientals call us big noses>

What caused that particular "evolution".  If it was the sun, wouldn't you think it's be the Norwegians that had the slanted eyes?

Sorry, I have a lot of question, none of which are answered by the simple word "evolution".

Oh, and to the one that doesn't believe in the supernatural......I've experienced that for myself...I haven't experienced evolution...does that mean I should believe in the supernatural but not evolution?

I'm not saying I believe in ghosts, but when my sister was pregnant with her first child, I was two blocks away and could hear her talk.  I heard her say "Lemonade?  Lemonade will be fine."  This was at 2:30 in the morning, I decided that was God telling me not to worry about her and to go to sleep.  Next morning, 8am, I walked to the hospital, she still hadn't had the baby and there was an empty pitcher by her bed.  I kept looking at it while she was talking to me and finally she said, "Is something wrong?"  I asked her if she had lemonade around 2:30 in the morning and she said, "How did you know?"  Apparently her water pills made her so dehydrated, they wanted her to drink a lot of liquids so they gave her an entire pitcher of lemonade and made her drink it all.

How did I know?  IMO, it was supernatural, meaning other than the 5 senses we all have.


----------



## Mr Natural (Aug 30, 2010)

Againsheila said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Belief is for religions. I accept the absolutely overwhelming evidence that evolution has occurred, is presently continueing, and will continue as long as life exists. This evidence is present in the rocks beneath our feet, in every cell in our bodies.
> ...




Evolutionary changes in 100 years?

You can't be serious.


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 30, 2010)

Mr Clean said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Did you read the post before mine?

 is presently continueing

If it's continuing, wouldn't you think there would be some changes in 100 years?  If not, how many years?  We can go back thousands and still not find changes in humans.


----------



## Kalam (Aug 30, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Second, I want someone to explain to me how evolution works, how is it propagated, what is the mechanism driving it forward? I'm especially interested in a coherent explanation of "Random mutation"



"Random mutation"? 

Are you familiar with natural selection and adaptation?


----------



## Kalam (Aug 30, 2010)

Againsheila said:


> Did you read the post before mine?
> 
> is presently continueing
> 
> *If it's continuing, wouldn't you think there would be some changes in 100 years?*  If not, how many years?  We can go back thousands and still not find changes in humans.



Not really. If I recall correctly, each of our predecessors in the _Homo_ genus was predominant for at least several hundred thousand years.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Aug 30, 2010)

Againsheila said:


> Sorry, I have a lot of question, none of which are answered by the simple word "evolution".



So do scientists.  That's why its an ongoing area of research.

We can document changes, and quick ones at that, in various animals.  General rule of thumb is the simplier the organism, the faster it adapts.  Single cell organisms go through multiple generations in the space of hours and can adapt fairly quickly.  You should look up the Great Influenza, which turned deadly very quickly by evolving to make the jump to humans.  Then it just evolved a different way and went after other animals.

Questions about evolution in people are particularly sticky as the whole topic is politically charged.  It isn't just fundamentalist Christians who oppose the research.  Take your post, replace all references to people with birds, and most folks would consider you to be talking about 4-5 different species.  For political purposes, we treat all human beings as a single species where for any other animal, we would not.  

For the record:  There's a good reason we do that.

My personal view on the topic is that evolutionary mechanism itself is highly biblical.  Evolution helps the Noah's Ark story make sense, as it no longer requires Noah to have saved 2 to 7 of every animal currently on Earth.  A healthy sample of the ecology of his day could have produced what we have now.  On top of that, Jesus himself teaches us God cares about even the Sparrows.  Wouldn't he have given them the ability to adapt to a changing world?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 30, 2010)

If we evolved from the oceans how come we can only drink fresh water?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 30, 2010)

Kalam said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Second, I want someone to explain to me how evolution works, how is it propagated, what is the mechanism driving it forward? I'm especially interested in a coherent explanation of "Random mutation"
> ...



I'm familiar with the fairy tale I learned about how a species magically obtains a useful genetic deformity.  I was hoping someone would walk me through an example of how this happened


----------



## zzzz (Aug 30, 2010)

Dr.Traveler said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, I have a lot of question, none of which are answered by the simple word "evolution".
> ...



For factual purposes a species is generally defined as a group of living organisms that are capable of interbreeding and producing a fertile offspring. Homo sapiens (the human race) fit both of these criteria therefore we are all the same species.


----------



## zzzz (Aug 30, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Do you know anything about cancer and how cancer cells are created?


----------



## Kalam (Aug 30, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Organisms A and B both belong to the same species but have slight differences (as all individual organisms do.) Organism A's structure gives it slightly better access to food than Organism B. Organism A is more likely to live, reproduce, and pass on its useful genetic traits. The same scenario plays out with the next generation of organisms, and the next, and the next ad infinitum. No magic involved. Nature favors those organisms whose "mutations" allow them to adapt to their habitats more successfully than their peers.


----------



## Pappadave (Aug 30, 2010)

Is there anything in our universe that is immutable, irrevocable, and eternal? I know only one. Change will happen. That is the only hard fact, the only Permanent "Law". Everything else is theory, hypothesis. Some are better than others, some are foolish, none are proven fact. All require "faith" to be accepted. Pappadave.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 30, 2010)

zzzz said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Kalam said:
> ...



They're mostly caused by viruses.

So a gamma ray shoot out from a supernova and when it lands here it's either cancer or it changes a penguin from wings to fins?


----------



## HUGGY (Aug 30, 2010)

It is mind numbing to read some of the posts on this thread.

Access to food is only one important factor to the survival of a certain strain of species.  There is also the ability to avoid being food as well as the ability to breath.  The earths atmosphere composition has changed several times over the last several billion years.  Access to oxygen has driven life in and out of the ocean as the level of breathable air has changed.  Much of the pressure to survive has been purely geological as massive volcanoes, plate tectonics, floods, ice ages and impacts from extraterrestrial visitors such as asteroids and comets.


----------



## Liberty (Aug 30, 2010)

evolution is real, and God created evolution. problem solved.


----------



## The Rabbi (Aug 30, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > So who doesn't believe in evolution? Not abiogenesis, but evolution.
> ...



This.
There is no evidence for one species becoming another.  Biologists do not buy classic Darwinian theory.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Aug 30, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Second, I want someone to explain to me how evolution works, how is it propagated, what is the mechanism driving it forward? I'm especially interested in a coherent explanation of "Random mutation"
> 
> Third, have human beings stopped evolving? What's next, genetic prosthetics, clairvoyance, wings?



Evolution works through a process called natural selection, which is a fancy way of saying that natural pressures weed out less viable organisms and/or allow better adapted organisms to survive.  The mechanism is the environment of the organism, which is why evolution tends to appear faster when environments drastically change.

Let's take the example of a bacteria.  When exposed to penicillin, our model bacteria dies.  Game over.  But let's say our bacteria friend reproduces one million times, something it can accomplish in 20 divisions, which some bacteria can get through in 7 hours.  Say it gets a random fluke mutation in its genes one in every 1000 reproductions.   Now most of those mutations will be absolutely useless.  Most will actually result in death.  But some will appear harmless, and of no benefit to our friendly bacteria.  Until.  We expose it to penicillin again.  This time, that seemingly useless mutation allows the bacteria to barely survive a small dose of antibiotic, whereas all of its brothers and sisters get completely wiped out.  

How sad.  One little bacteria all alone.  With the mutation that just happens to save it from low doses of antibiotic.  7 hours later, it has a million offspring, and the cycle repeats itself.  Perhaps a high dose of penicillin will kill the original saving mutation, but at that point, a new mutation has arisen that protects the offspring from even high doses, making it invincible to penicillin.  Even if all its siblings get eradicated, it remains to repopulate with the strong genes.  

This is evolution in a nutshell: random mutations creating non-random selection.

As you can tell from the example, mutations do not happen IN RESPONSE to events.  They happen BEFORE the environmental pressure, but are strengthened and selected for by the pressure.  So we don't get cool traits such as wings or clairvoyance just because we want it.  There must be an environmental influence that selects for traits over generations.

Let me know if you have questions.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 30, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Second, I want someone to explain to me how evolution works, how is it propagated, what is the mechanism driving it forward? I'm especially interested in a coherent explanation of "Random mutation"
> ...



There's where it gets a little messy for me.

Are you saying that at the *exact* moment when the bacteria is being subjected to an overwhelming onslaught of deadly chemicals, *at that very moment*, a gamma ray that was ejected from the core of a supernova at the galactic center 25,000 years ago hits the DNA of a replicating bacteria *AT THE PRECISE MOMENT OF REPLICATION* and causes that DNA strand to um what, not disassemble, but spontaneously reassemble itself in a new order that proves beneficial to the bacterium.  

Of all the millions of combination in all of the millions of strands of DNA that a single gamma ray could hit it knock a single electron in an atom of a GTCA strand and causes that electron to carom off other amino acids?

Is that how it works?  What causes this random mutation?

Unless you're saying that the mutated gene is already there and the sole bacterium watches 999,999 of its friends dies and it alone survives and replicates?  Yeah that has to be it because what you proposes as random mutation defies all odds, there's virtually no chance at all that it works the way you first proposed.

So the bacterium must hold a vast array of mutation waiting for their chance to spring forth!  Maybe one is resistant to all mycins and is can survive as a MRSA in a hospital.  Imagine the odds of that!! Maybe one has a mutated gene for tap dancing? 

This is why I reject "Evolution" as I do "Intelligent Design"  You are what you mock.  

You suggest a process that has no chance at all of operating in this world, the odds of it working as you propose have to be out in numbers that cannot be computed like 10 * 80,000,000 ^ 280,000,000.


----------



## HUGGY (Aug 30, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > blu said:
> ...



You are painfully stupid.  It is clear by your statements that evolution has a long bumpy road ahead for homo sapiens.


----------



## eots (Aug 31, 2010)

DEVO-Jocko Homo lyrics


THEY TELL US THAT 
WE LOST OUR TAILS 
EVOLVING UP 
FROM LITTLE SNAILS 
I SAY IT'S ALL 
JUST WIND IN SAILS 
ARE WE NOT MEN? 
WE ARE DEVO! 
WE'RE PINHEADS NOW 
WE ARE NOT WHOLE 
WE'RE PINHEADS ALL 
JOCKO HOMO 
ARE WE NOT MEN? 
D-E-V-O 
MONKEY MEN ALL 
IN BUSINESS SUIT 
TEACHERS AND CRITICS 
ALL DANCE THE POOT 
ARE WE NOT MEN? 
WE ARE DEVO! 
ARE WE NOT MEN? 
D-E-V-O 
GOD MADE MAN 
BUT HE USED THE MONKEY TO DO IT 
APES IN THE PLAN 
WE'RE ALL HERE TO PROVE IT 
I CAN WALK LIKE AN APE 
TALK LIKE AN APE 
I CAN DO WHAT A MONKEY CAN DO 
GOD MADE MAN 
BUT A MONKEY SUPPLIED THE GLUE 
WE MUST REPEAT 
O.K. LET'S GO!


----------



## Mad Scientist (Aug 31, 2010)

blu said:


> So who doesn't believe in evolution? Not abiogenesis, but evolution. I find it really hard to grasp that some people don't believe in evolution, which is proven, and I think many of those who question "evolution" are actually questioning abiogenesis.


You can't separate the two. People and animals have obviously evolved. What science never tells us is *how* it all *started*. Just funny stories about how it *may* have begun like the "Big Bang" or abiogenesis. Those are all just theories.

How or Who initiated the "Big Bang". No one can say for sure.


----------



## HUGGY (Aug 31, 2010)

Mad Scientist said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > So who doesn't believe in evolution? Not abiogenesis, but evolution. I find it really hard to grasp that some people don't believe in evolution, which is proven, and I think many of those who question "evolution" are actually questioning abiogenesis.
> ...



No Bad Scientist.  You are wrong.  There is plenty of information on the subject.  One needs to be honest with themself and curious to absorb the truth.


----------



## konradv (Aug 31, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



The BOLD part is where you seem to be getting it wrong.  The "bacterium"(singular) need not hold a vast array of mutations, bacteria in general would.  Also, random mutations are only one way of developing immunity.  There's also the sharing and recombination of DNA with other bacteria and transfection from viruses, for example.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 1, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> There's where it gets a little messy for me.
> 
> Are you saying that at the *exact* moment when the bacteria is being subjected to an overwhelming onslaught of deadly chemicals, *at that very moment*, a gamma ray that was ejected from the core of a supernova at the galactic center 25,000 years ago hits the DNA of a replicating bacteria *AT THE PRECISE MOMENT OF REPLICATION* and causes that DNA strand to um what, not disassemble, but spontaneously reassemble itself in a new order that proves beneficial to the bacterium.
> 
> Of all the millions of combination in all of the millions of strands of DNA that a single gamma ray could hit it knock a single electron in an atom of a GTCA strand and causes that electron to carom off other amino acids?



No, I didn't say that at all.  In fact, I explicitly stated that the mutation comes before the environmental pressure, NOT "at the *exact* moment when the bacteria is being subjected to an overwhelming onslaught of deadly chemicals".



> What causes this random mutation?


Mutations are most frequently a result of errors in replication: the cell meant to put one bit of DNA into it's new self, but accidentally put in another.  They can also come about from radiation, but this happens less frequently.  Similarly, you get tons of mutations in your skin every time you step into sunlight, but our genome has built in proofreading to correct genetic mistakes.



> Unless you're saying that the mutated gene is already there and the sole bacterium watches 999,999 of its friends dies and it alone survives and replicates?  Yeah that has to be it because what you proposes as random mutation defies all odds, there's virtually no chance at all that it works the way you first proposed.
> 
> So the bacterium must hold a vast array of mutation waiting for their chance to spring forth!  Maybe one is resistant to all mycins and is can survive as a MRSA in a hospital.  Imagine the odds of that!! Maybe one has a mutated gene for tap dancing?



Well no.  As the previous person said, each bacterium can hold one mutation, and whichever mutation allows for survival is what gets passed on to rebuild the colony.  Furthermore, bacteria can share genes in a few ways, which means they can pass around the protective mutations as well, after mutation establishes them.  

But let's go back to your silly math and ideas of defying all odds.  Ecoli have about 4 million different places for a mutation.  A single E.coli can create 4 million progeny in about 8 hours.  Even IF mutations only occur every 1 in a thousand replications, that means statistically every place can be mutated in less than half a day.  There is further complexity to the math when you factor in HOW things are getting changes, or deletions, or additions, but the idea that it is impossible just because you can't count past 100 is silly.


----------



## Father Time (Sep 1, 2010)

Luissa said:


> Why is it hard to believe God could have planned for evolution?



I don't know.

If I were God I'd just lay back on a cloud and fire up my Evolution Engine to make species instead of personally designing all the countless millions that have existed on this planet.


----------



## Father Time (Sep 1, 2010)

Mad Scientist said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > So who doesn't believe in evolution? Not abiogenesis, but evolution. I find it really hard to grasp that some people don't believe in evolution, which is proven, and I think many of those who question "evolution" are actually questioning abiogenesis.
> ...



Just theories?

Sigh.

In a scientific sense theory doesn't mean guess.


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 1, 2010)

Kalam said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Evolution has only been proven to exist INSIDE a species.
> ...



Careful.  You'll confuse the nutters who apparently believe in a nickle, but not a dime or a quarter.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 1, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > There's where it gets a little messy for me.
> ...



You happen to be correct about how bacterium share information, I guess if you type enough sentences aided by Google you're likely to get one correct.

You completely missed and/or glossed over my point about these random useful mutations. Not surprising. The ODDS of some "random mutation" creating the EXACT mutation necessary to defeat the latest mycin are...well, let's take a step back first.

Once bacterium develop a resistance to a drug, they NEVER mutate that resistance away. They are resistant to penicillin, they will be resistant to penicillin in another million generations. There is a mechanism in the bacterium that make these resistances additive and permanent.

The reason your colony of mutants collapses is that's not how bacterium work. If they were all mutated, they would not survive, because the vast, overwhelming majority of mutations are harmful (that's why they're called mutations). Moreover, by constant exposure to antibiotics, we are actually breeding the super bugs we fear.  MRSA do not exists out in the wilderness, they only exist where we created them. (I have personal reasons for discussing these particular bacterium because I had two personal experiences with staff A, but thankfully was not MRSA)

The bacterium transmit their useful mutations so if they already had the mutation, they would have transmitted it and that's not what happens. They develop the resistance, then transmit the new resistance to the others.

Also, I'm glad to see even you have finally realized how completely ridiculous is the notion of radiation causing these "random mutations"


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 1, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Hey Francis;

Before you lecture another person about having to "use google" to boost their scientific literacy, you should be aware that the SA in MRSA stands for_ Staphylococcus aureus_ not "staff A" (whatever the hell that is).  

Also, you (like most other people) most likely are colonized with MRSA in addition to the typical MSSA, Strept, and a host of other bacterium.  

I am not begging for a nasty MRSA abscess, but I don't really get why people are so petrified by it considering that multiple other antibiotics (i.e. clindamycin and bactrim) do a sufficient job of covering it.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 1, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanHick said:
> ...



"Staff A" was the phrase used by the head of infectious diseases at Long Island Jewish Hospital. Take it up with him.


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 1, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Yeah.  "Staph A" as in Staphylococcus aureus and not "Staff A".  

I take it you've never had any sort of formal training in microbiology?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 1, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



Yes, I see how that makes a big difference.

Thank you.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 1, 2010)

I need a degree in microbiology to read and understand and discuss what almost croaked me?

LOL


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 1, 2010)

Excuse me for coming in so late to this discussion, and let me just add my own two cents.

I don't believe in evolution.  Despite the OP's assertion to the contrary, it has NOT been proven.  I tend toward disbelief at the moment, although I am not particularly married to that position.  I just see no point in believing in something with so little hard evidence and so many frauds presented in place of evidence.

And when I say "evolution", I don't mean "change over time", or "change and mutation within a species", or "abiogenesis" (but thanks so much to the OP for that projection onto others.  I always love a good Wikipedia scientist  ).  I am specifically referring to Darwinism, aka Darwin's theory of evolution.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 1, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



That's it?

That's your contribution?


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 1, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Yes, I see how that makes a big difference.
> 
> Thank you.



Just keeping it all straight.  I normally don't like people who nitpick, but when it comes to medical science, God is in the details.  



> I need a degree in microbiology to read and understand and discuss what almost croaked me?
> 
> LOL



Of course not, but you do look somewhat silly when you castigate the knowledge base of others and aren't fully aware of what bug you even had.  Of the gram positive cocci, you basically have the Staph family and the Strept family (with Enterococcus thrown in).  

I mean, this could get waaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyy down in the weeds in regards to prokaryotic morphology, physiology, and genetics.  So you might as well have the very basics down.


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 1, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> That's it?
> 
> That's your contribution?



Lighten up, Francis.  I had to run to the post office to mail my little brother all my USMLE Step 1 stuff now that I thankfully don't need them anymore.  

As for my participation in this thread beyond this snarky contribution; I am currently weighing whether I want to waste more time on yet another evolution thread dealing with more anti-evolutionists whose scientific illiteracy is so great that they can't formulate a coherent and sound scientific argument and often times have to resort to falsehoods to back up their positions (and in addition, haven't even bothered to really study what evolutionary theory is and is not).  

That last wasn't necessarily directed at you in regards to the "Staff A" thing.


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 1, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Excuse me for coming in so late to this discussion, and let me just add my own two cents.
> 
> I don't believe in evolution.  Despite the OP's assertion to the contrary, it has NOT been proven.  I tend toward disbelief at the moment, although I am not particularly married to that position.  I just see no point in believing in something with so little hard evidence and so many frauds presented in place of evidence.
> 
> And when I say "evolution", I don't mean "change over time", or "change and mutation within a species", or "abiogenesis" (but thanks so much to the OP for that projection onto others.  I always love a good Wikipedia scientist  ).  I am specifically referring to Darwinism, aka Darwin's theory of evolution.



Then you'll be happy to know that only a few key elements of Darwin's Theory (i.e. natural selection) are present in current Evolutionary Theory (aka "The Modern Synthesis")

If you really have an open mind on this matter and care enough to educate yourself, read a biology textbook or take a biology class at your local university.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 1, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I see how that makes a big difference.
> ...



I was just pointing out the total foolishness and against-all-odds notion that a gamma ray could slam into a DNA molecule and toss around amino acids like bowling pins and rearranging them perfectly to make a gene that makes the organism resistant to new drugs.

I'm happy the 8 years you spent in Med School in Cancun allowed you to correct my spelling from Staff to Staph.  

Again, it was very helpful.


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 1, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > blu said:
> ...



Of course they don't.  Darwin had no real mechanism for genetics.  

To his credit, no one had discovered Mendel's work yet.

As for your prevailing and silly notion that there is some sort of difference between "macro" and "micro" evolution; only the anti-evolution crowd cares about that.

To an evolutionist, it's like saying you believe in a penny, but not a dollar.


----------



## Father Time (Sep 1, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Yeah really, a species can have gradual changes but apparently there's no way those changes can combine to make a new species that would be silly.


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 1, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I was just pointing out the total foolishness and against-all-odds notion that a gamma ray could slam into a DNA molecule and toss around amino acids like bowling pins and rearranging them perfectly to make a gene that makes the organism resistant to new drugs.



Your insistence that gamma rays or radiation has to be involved in this process at all is foolishness.  If you took some time to study genetics, you'd know that most genetic mutations occur at the transcriptional and translational level and don't require any outside energy to occur.  

BTW, you keep referring to "mycins" as if there is an antibiotic class of drugs known as such, there is not.  Simply because many antibiotics have the suffix mycin doesn't mean they are related in their mechanisms of actions which would make them part of a family (unlike beta lactams, macrolides, aminoglycosides, cephalosporins, etc). 



> Of all the millions of combination in all of the millions of strands of DNA that a single gamma ray could hit it knock a single electron in an atom of a GTCA strand and causes that electron to carom off other amino acids?



DNA and RNA are nucleic acids.  Amino acids are found at the translational level in the assembly of proteins.   



> I'm happy the 8 years you spent in Med School in Cancun allowed you to correct my spelling from Staff to Staph.



Oh, it wasn't a spelling mistake Francis.  It was a lack of knowledge.  Let's not try and French it up.  Anyways, on that note, you are welcome.   However, you don't have to go to Medical School to know that "Staph" is a bacteria and "Staff" is what a Ninja Turtle carries.  

I thought you'd be appreciative, lest you persist and look even more foolish.  



> Again, it was very helpful.



And again, you guys can't even get the basic nomenclature down, and you wonder why the rest of us barely have the patience for you idiotic and factually inaccurate rants about how evolution is all wrong.


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 1, 2010)

Father Time said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



And that kind of moronic (and, frankly, disingenuous) thinking is why I weigh whether I want to waste my time discussing this issue with people who have no desire to actually study and learn about this issue.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 1, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > I was just pointing out the total foolishness and against-all-odds notion that a gamma ray could slam into a DNA molecule and toss around amino acids like bowling pins and rearranging them perfectly to make a gene that makes the organism resistant to new drugs.
> ...



See, we're actually very close to saying the same thing. 

I contend that an organism as selfaware energy, is able to rearrange itself energetically to meet the new challenge and when we look at it with our physical and limited human understanding, we call it a "random mutation"


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 1, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> See, we're actually very close to saying the same thing.
> 
> I contend that an organism as selfaware energy, is able to rearrange itself energetically to meet the new challenge and when we look at it with our physical and limited human understanding, we call it a "random mutation"



Sound fascinating.  You should form a hypothesis, research, and publish.

As it stands, it's rather pointless to debate your opinion on genetics when you have absolutely no data to back it up.

I'll stick to the notion that mutations are due to errors in DNA reading or coding and not something that is directed by a cell.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 1, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Excuse me for coming in so late to this discussion, and let me just add my own two cents.
> ...



Been there, done that, standing by my statement:  evolution is NOT proven.

If you really have something to say, say it.  Don't try to imply that you're right;  PROVE that you are.  All "read a book and take a class" proves is that you can't make a real argument.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 1, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Actually, Mendel was a contemporary of Darwin's and was not impressed by him.  This might explain why Darwin's supporters virtually ignored Mendel's work well into the twentieth century.  Are you trying to say that Mendel's work supports Darwinistic evolution, or merely that you think Darwin would have come up with better ideas had he known more about Mendel's work before he published?

If you're dumb enough to think the existence of a penny proves the existence of a dollar, that explains why you're an evolutionist.


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 1, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Been there, done that, standing by my statement:  evolution is NOT proven.
> 
> If you really have something to say, say it.  Don't try to imply that you're right;  PROVE that you are.  All "read a book and take a class" proves is that you can't make a real argument.



Nothing in science is fully proven.  Everything is open to revision.  Evolution is highly supported by the data and evidence we have, but it is not beyond being overturned.

As for your second, I've said plenty on this subject on this and other threads.  I pointed out that Darwin's original theory only proximately represents what we know now to be Evolutionary Theory.  I assume you didn't know that, or you would have never made the statement that you did.  

Or perhaps you did and you just wanted to dishonestly muddy the waters.  When dealing with anti-evolution people, I never know if I am getting dishonesty or ignorance.

At any rate, I don't know what more you want me to say that I haven't already said on the matter here or elsewhere.  Did you have a question?


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 1, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Actually, Mendel was a contemporary of Darwin's and was not impressed by him.  This might explain why Darwin's supporters virtually ignored Mendel's work well into the twentieth century.  Are you trying to say that Mendel's work supports Darwinistic evolution, or merely that you think Darwin would have come up with better ideas had he known more about Mendel's work before he published?



I've never seen anything that suggested Mendel and Darwin had a conflict with each other.  As for ignoring Mendel's work; the entire scientific community ignored Mendel's work.  The importance of what Mendel proposed wasn't realized until the early 1900s.  Sometimes that's just the way it goes.  That has nothing to do with Darwin.  

Darwin's mechanism for inheritence was just silly, and he knew it.  I doubt he would have been anything but enthusiastic about a simple mechanism for inheritance to explain gradual change over generations.

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

It would have certainly strengthened his theory.  As it stands, Mendel is the father of genetics and genetics has only supported the notion of evolutionary theory.  

So to answer you last question:  both.  



> If you're dumb enough to think the existence of a penny proves the existence of a dollar, that explains why you're an evolutionist.



If you're too stupid to grasp the simple analogy and why it's absurd to get wrapped up in "Macro" and "micro" evolution then I can see why you are in the dark.

Intentionally in the dark, I presume.

If you don't support evolution, what is your theory for diversity of life?

You would certainly have to reject Intelligent Design, so are you a straight up creationist?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 1, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Been there, done that, standing by my statement:  evolution is NOT proven.
> ...



There's a big difference between "not fully proven and subject to revision" and "not proven", so don't try to split semantic hairs with me.  This sort of thing masquerading as an argument is EXACTLY why I'm so skeptical of evolution and its adherents.

Ditto "Darwin's original theory".  I said "Darwinism", not "Darwin's original theory".  I'm not interested in verbal shell games.  If anyone is muddying the waters here, it's you.  I've been very precise in my word choices to say exactly what I mean.  As for dishonesty, your attempts to deflect onto things other than the true bone of contention on this subject speaks for itself.

I don't want you to say anything.  The thread topic is "Who doesn't believe in evolution?"  I answered that question.  The topic wasn't "Justify your lack of belief in evolution to dipwads", nor was it "Listen to dipwads try to convince you to believe in evolution without ever actually offering proof".  If I had a question, I would have asked it and there would be no doubt that I had done so.


----------



## blu (Sep 1, 2010)

evolution has been proven for a long time


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 1, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, Mendel was a contemporary of Darwin's and was not impressed by him.  This might explain why Darwin's supporters virtually ignored Mendel's work well into the twentieth century.  Are you trying to say that Mendel's work supports Darwinistic evolution, or merely that you think Darwin would have come up with better ideas had he known more about Mendel's work before he published?
> ...



When I say, "Not impressed with him", I refer to his work and theories, not the man personally.



geauxtohell said:


> As for ignoring Mendel's work; the entire scientific community ignored Mendel's work.



Something to remember when people are touting a "consensus of the scientific community" as proof that something is true.



geauxtohell said:


> The importance of what Mendel proposed wasn't realized until the early 1900s.  Sometimes that's just the way it goes.  That has nothing to do with Darwin.



You'd have to take that viewpoint up with William Bateson.  William Bateson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He said, in his _Mendel's Principles of Heredity_, concerning the delay in acceptance of Mendel's work, "the cause is unquestionably to be found in that neglect of the experimental study of the problem of Species which supervened on the general acceptance of the Darwinian doctrines".



geauxtohell said:


> Darwin's mechanism for inheritence was just silly, and he knew it.  I doubt he would have been anything but enthusiastic about a simple mechanism for inheritance to explain gradual change over generations.



And?  Am I supposed to be impressed that Darwin KNEW he was slinging bullshit?  Why am I supposed to care that HE would have approved of MENDEL?

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie



geauxtohell said:


> It would have certainly strengthened his theory.  As it stands, Mendel is the father of genetics and genetics has only supported the notion of evolutionary theory.



Really?  So now you're going to tell us how the study of genetics "supports" evolution, right?  And you're going to do it without any verbal three-card Monty to try to make "evolution" mean something else, yes?



geauxtohell said:


> So to answer you last question:  both.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I understand the analogy, and I stand by my statement.  If you think the existence of a penny proves the existence of a dollar, you're a dumbass, and I can see why you're stupid enough to be an evolutionist.

Head up your colon, I presume.

Why do I have to have a theory in order to choose not to believe the one you offer?  Where is it written that I can't just say, "you haven't convinced me yet"?

And I don't "have" to reject anything, and I have to tell you that your attempt to make this into a "those stupid religious nuts" argument instead of simply responding to what I'm saying is yet another standard, textbook evolutionist dodge which makes me skeptical of anything they have to say.

What are you so afraid of, that you have to try to project your talking points onto me?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 1, 2010)

blu said:


> evolution has been proven for a long time



Oh, well, if YOU say it's proven, then I'll just get right on accepting it with no further question.  God knows, YOUR word for it proof enough for me.


----------



## Father Time (Sep 1, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> I am specifically referring to Darwinism, aka Darwin's theory of evolution.





Cecilie1200 said:


> Ditto "Darwin's original theory".  I said "Darwinism", not "Darwin's original theory".



Nice backtracking.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 1, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> You completely missed and/or glossed over my point about these random useful mutations. Not surprising. The ODDS of some "random mutation" creating the EXACT mutation necessary to defeat the latest mycin are...well, let's take a step back first.


In all actuality, I directly addressed the point about the odds regarding random mutation.  It's in the very last paragraph of my previous post, which you directly quoted.  Just because the numbers are too big for you to count on all your fingers and toes doesn't mean it's impossible.  If you reread my previous explanation, you will see that the statistics are not only possibly, but likely to occur frequently.  In fact desired mutations happen so quickly that we can study antibiotic resistance in an intro level college bio lab in real time.  

It's not about creating some picture perfect mutation that defeats an antibiotic.  It's about producing a ton of mutations, most of which are useless, but one of which allows for increased survival and replication.  



> Once bacterium develop a resistance to a drug, they NEVER mutate that resistance away. They are resistant to penicillin, they will be resistant to penicillin in another million generations. There is a mechanism in the bacterium that make these resistances additive and permanent.


Actually that's not entirely true. There is no such thing as "permanence".  In fact, studies show that if a bacteria that has a lot of extra genome coding for antibiotics is not exposed to antibiotics, the offspring that accidentally lose the unneeded genetic code can replicate faster, and predominate the population.  



> The reason your colony of mutants collapses is that's not how bacterium work. If they were all mutated, they would not survive, because the vast, overwhelming majority of mutations are harmful (that's why they're called mutations). Moreover, by constant exposure to antibiotics, we are actually breeding the super bugs we fear.  MRSA do not exists out in the wilderness, they only exist where we created them. (I have personal reasons for discussing these particular bacterium because I had two personal experiences with staff A, but thankfully was not MRSA)


The colony of mutants doesn't collapse.  Lethal mutations are lethal to the one bacteria that was made with it.  You continue to think of this concept as an all or none idea, and it's not.  Say a bacterium divides, whereas one offspring is perfectly normal like the parent, and the other has a lethal mutation and dies.  Notice how the entire colony is not lethally mutated.  It's just one dead bug.  Similarly, if one of the offspring gets a viable mutation that gives it antibiotic resistance, the entire colony is not mutated, just the one bacterium.  However if antibiotics are introduced, everything BESIDES that one mutated bug dies, and that one mutated bug can repopulate the colony with a viable mutation.  

Think of it like this: if something magically killed all the right handed people on the planet, what type of person would predominate?  The lefties.  They take over because they're the only survivors, and the surviving trait is not a damaging one.  

btw, it's staph, not staff.



> They develop the resistance, then transmit the new resistance to the others.


Yes, they develop the resistance to the antibiotic before they ever see the antibiotic.  Then when everything else gets wiped out around them, they can transmit their resistance to any other bacteria when they get transferred around.



> Also, I'm glad to see even you have finally realized how completely ridiculous is the notion of radiation causing these "random mutations"


Who has ever said in this thread that radiation causes the majority of random mutations?  It CAN happen, but errors of replication are much more frequent.  Where did you get this radiation idea from?  You're like arguing with yourself and ending the conversation with "see? I'm right!".


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 1, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> I understand the analogy, and I stand by my statement.  If you think the existence of a penny proves the existence of a dollar, you're a dumbass



Actually you completely missed the analogy, because you read it literally instead of figuratively as it was meant.  If I may rephrase it, he is making a statement such as "you believe a penny represents money but not a dollar".  It's essentially saying that this ridiculous made up idea of microevolution is the penny to macroevolution's dollar.  They're both different denominations of the exact same system.  

And as for someone who tells people they shouldn't just make claims without support, you sure are making quite a few yourself.  So let's start here: what part of evolution do you think has not been significantly demonstrated?  Phylogenetics?  Phenotype?  You tell me where the gap in information is, or what information is being misrepresented or used for erroneous conclusions.


----------



## Father Time (Sep 1, 2010)

Forget the whole money analogy, it's real simple an organism will keep getting mutations and change until it's a brand new species.


----------



## Bill Angel (Sep 2, 2010)

Last night I heard a black Baptist preacher assert quite emphatically that "Evolution is a Lie and Charles Darwin is a Liar!" This fellow also believes in the literal truth of the Bible. I think that one possible explanation for his emphatic rejection of evolution (and scientific empiricism) is that there had been in the past pseudo scientific theories that were concocted to assert that blacks were somehow genetically inferior to whites. I think that his belligerent antagonism to evolution (and his embracing of the myth of Adam and Eve) is linked to unfortunate historical associations between pseudo-science and racism.
I think that the Nazis also attempted to concoct some form of pseudo-scientific "master race" theory, with Nordic Races at the top of the evolutionary pyramid.


----------



## HUGGY (Sep 2, 2010)

Cecile1200 quote:
"f you're dumb enough to think the existence of a penny proves the existence of a dollar, that explains why you're an evolutionist."

This might get the dumbest post of the year award.  

Darwin didn't invent evolution.  He found proof of it's effects.

Darwin also studied to be a preist.  Clearly he wasn't genius.  What he was..was thorough and honest.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 2, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > See, we're actually very close to saying the same thing.
> ...



Yet, you've told me that people seem to be walking slowly away from the "Random mutation" nonsense.

Moreover, what you've described IS an organism consciously rearranging itself!


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 2, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Yet, you've told me that people seem to be walking slowly away from the "Random mutation" nonsense.
> 
> Moreover, what you've described IS an organism consciously rearranging itself!


No one is walking away from random mutation.  I will again repeat that random mutations allow for non-random selection and growth of those mutations.  If you don't understand that sentence, you don't understand the concept of evolution.

Furthermore, there is no conscious rearrangement of organism.  You cannon consciously re-organize your genes anymore than a bacteria.  What there is is errors in replicating DNA when a bacteria divides into two.  These errors are random, and allow for change to the DNA.


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 2, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> There's a big difference between "not fully proven and subject to revision" and "not proven", so don't try to split semantic hairs with me.  This sort of thing masquerading as an argument is EXACTLY why I'm so skeptical of evolution and its adherents.
> 
> Ditto "Darwin's original theory".  I said "Darwinism", not "Darwin's original theory".  I'm not interested in verbal shell games.  If anyone is muddying the waters here, it's you.  I've been very precise in my word choices to say exactly what I mean.  As for dishonesty, your attempts to deflect onto things other than the true bone of contention on this subject speaks for itself.
> 
> I don't want you to say anything.  The thread topic is "Who doesn't believe in evolution?"  I answered that question.  The topic wasn't "Justify your lack of belief in evolution to dipwads", nor was it "Listen to dipwads try to convince you to believe in evolution without ever actually offering proof".  If I had a question, I would have asked it and there would be no doubt that I had done so.



As I said, you'll be happy to know, if you don't believe in "Classic Darwinism" you are in good company.  No one believes in it anymore.

If you don't believe in the modern synthesis, or can't at least offer more criticisms than the semantical shell games you are famous for; then I won't try to convince you.  

I have better things to do than toss pearls to the perpetually dense.


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 2, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



You can believe whatever you want.  You just can't debate it.  Pretty simple concept really.  

The rest of this post is just more of the same bullshit that I presume flows from your claptrap as you mutter words in sequence with keystrokes.


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 2, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > I understand the analogy, and I stand by my statement.  If you think the existence of a penny proves the existence of a dollar, you're a dumbass
> ...



That's exactly what I was saying.  But Cecille knew that.  She isn't here to discuss anything.  She basically is here to toss out insults since she is, apparently, some sort of rage-a-haulic who gets off on that kind of behavior.  

That being the case, don't expect any sort of logical discussion out of her.  It's not that she is incapable of such a conversation, it's just that she is not interested in it.

Did I say that out loud?


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 2, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



I did?  Where did I say that?

For the record, what I really believe is the notion that evolution is self directed is fucking too absurd for an audience. 

But if that floats your boat, go for it.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 2, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > I understand the analogy, and I stand by my statement.  If you think the existence of a penny proves the existence of a dollar, you're a dumbass
> ...



I could probably care less about whatever insane stretch you want to pretend is the "real" interpretation of what he said, but it would likely require elective surgery.  If that's what he meant, then that should have been what he said.  It ISN'T what he said, and I only read English.  I don't read minds.



SmarterThanHick said:


> And as for someone who tells people they shouldn't just make claims without support, you sure are making quite a few yourself.  So let's start here: what part of evolution do you think has not been significantly demonstrated?  Phylogenetics?  Phenotype?  You tell me where the gap in information is, or what information is being misrepresented or used for erroneous conclusions.



Pretty much every point of Darwinistic evolution - and don't even try to start with that whole "Darwin's original theory" hairsplitting with me.  It's not working for him, and it won't work for you - is too weak on evidence to warrant my belief.

Oh, and tossing around jargon in an attempt to intimidate me doesn't work either.  You should know that by now.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 2, 2010)

Father Time said:


> Forget the whole money analogy, it's real simple an organism will keep getting mutations and change until it's a brand new species.



Yes, thank you, I understand the theory and assumptions involved.  What's also really simple is that that's all it is:  unproven theory and assumptions.


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 2, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



No, that was exactly what I meant.

But you already knew that didn't you?

Here for your nightly dose of rage?  It must have been a rough day in the office, huh?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 2, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > There's a big difference between "not fully proven and subject to revision" and "not proven", so don't try to split semantic hairs with me.  This sort of thing masquerading as an argument is EXACTLY why I'm so skeptical of evolution and its adherents.
> ...



And as _I _said, that hairsplitting isn't going to work on me, nor is ignoring what I say to continue arguing against what you WISH I had said.



geauxtohell said:


> If you don't believe in the modern synthesis, or can't at least offer more criticisms than the semantical shell games you are famous for; then I won't try to convince you.
> 
> I have better things to do than toss pearls to the perpetually dense.



Must be why you haven't tossed a single pearl so far.

I am, however, very sorry that you came in here spoiling for a fight against an evolution denier and just can't force me to say the things you want to hear.  I know it's hard when your opponents insist on diverging from the script and thinking for themselves.


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 2, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



I am not spoiling for a fight.  I could care less what you personally believe.  If you have no real facts or position to offer than "I just don't believe it" then far be it from me to waste bandwidth.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 2, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



What makes you think I'm trying to debate anything?  I realize you seem to think that anytime someone dares to diverge from your beliefs, you have the godgiven right to demand they justify themselves to you, and that they feel some obligation to do so, but you should really get over yourself.

As I said, I merely answered the OP question.  As yet, I feel no compulsion whatsoever to debate anything with you OR to justify myself to you.  If you want to try to provide the evidence that, as yet, has not been provided sufficient to incline me to believe in evolution, feel free.  Just don't flatter yourself that you're entitled to any explanation of beliefs on my part.  I didn't start this discussion.


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 2, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Then by all means; don't.

Like I said, far be it from me to begrudge you your personal opinions.  I am just obligated to point out they are only that:  personal opinions.  

I won't even waste time offering you evidence that you will (as previous encounters have borne out) ignore anyways.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 2, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



That is NOT what you said, so don't sit there and pretend that I am somehow able to read your peabrain and interpret some completely different meaning from your words than they present.  And don't try to blame ME because you can't make yourself understood in English.  It is, presumably, your mother tongue.  If you can't communicate in it, is it really all that surprising that people are less inclined to respect anything you say?

By all means, though, feel free to move on to having a mutual butt-sniffing session with Hick.  I recognize how important feeling lofty and superior is in both your lives, and that actual debate with free-thinking people doesn't achieve that goal for either of you.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 2, 2010)

Should this thread at any point move on past "All the smart people believe this, so it must be true", and "if you don't believe it, you're an ignorant religious nut" to a real discussion of anything, someone let me know.  I get all the childish gibberish I need from my toddler, and he's a hell of a lot cuter.


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 2, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanHick said:
> ...



That's it.  Let the rage fester..........


----------



## rdean (Sep 2, 2010)

There can be no debate.

There is no such thing as the "occult" or "mysticism" or the "supernatural"

They simply don't exist.


----------



## frazzledgear (Sep 3, 2010)

blu said:


> So who doesn't believe in evolution? Not abiogenesis, but evolution.
> 
> I find it really hard to grasp that some people don't believe in evolution, which is proven, and I think many of those who question "evolution" are actually questioning abiogenesis:
> 
> Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Where has it been "proven" and what "proof" were you told existed and exactly when did the theory of evolution move from "theory" to scientific fact?  ONLY that which has been PROVEN is considered scientific fact -and any theory that isn't proven can NEVER be "fact".  There are reasons it is still a theory -and always will be!

Science is not a religion and there is NO obligation on me whatsoever to "believe" in ANY theory.  Science carries the SOLE obligation of producing INDISPUTABLE and UNCONTESTED proof first.  That is because my BELIEF will never prove a theory to be true or false and that isn't how its done.  What is it people like you don't get?  Scientific truth is NOT determined by CONSENSUS!  It is the obligation of scientists to provide indisputable, uncorrupted proof and their failure or inability to do so means it is not fact.   There are major reasons Darwin theory is still a theory and NOT scientific fact -*and what they don't teach you in public schools is that it never will be fact.*  Until I went to college and entered advanced science classes, I FIRMLY believed what I had been taught in public school about evolution.  I used to scoff at doubters and absolutely believed they had a major screw loose.  

I don't believe in evolution anymore and think Darwin gave it the best shot he could given the level of scientific information that was on hand at that time.  But he got all the major stuff wrong and only got a couple of minor things correct after all.   If Darwin were alive today he would be the very first to admit he got nearly ALL of it dead wrong and would wish he had known then some of the stuff we know for a fact today.  Because THAT stuff is what proved evolution was little more than an a cheap attempt to try and explain EVERYTHING with one exceedingly simple theory -that ended up actually explaining nothing at all.  The ONLY theories that ever pan out are those that identify a very SPECIFIC phenomenon and tries to explain its existence.  No one theory is ever going to explain EVERYTHING like the theory of evolution attempted to do.  

That does NOT mean there is no such thing as natural selection -of course there is.  But natural selection is NOT evolution whereby one species turns into another one.  It only changes how the typical individual of that species LOOKS.  That means the outward appearance of species can change over time -a horse eons ago looked very different from what it looks like today.  But its species was still horse then and it is today.  Only what a typical horse LOOKS like has changed -not its species.  What Darwin did not know is about is DNA and WHERE on the strand mutations do and do not occur.   *The DNA that identifies the species is extremely hardy and resistant to mutations -mutations there are lethal to the individual which is nature's way of keeping the species the SAME!*   If it is "natural" for one species to turn into a totally different one over time -then why would nature build in such a lethal means of eliminating those individuals with mutations on the part of their DNA that identifies their species?? It is why it is a scientific FACT that two parents of one species can ONLY produce offspring of that same species.  No matter how many mutations that affect its APPEARANCE or how its parts function -it will still ALWAYS be of that same species.   Unlike Darwin's THEORY, that is a scientific FACT.  That means it is also a scientific FACT that no matter how you want to cut it, with Darwin's theory, it requires you to accept that at SOME POINT, two parents of one species have produced offspring that are no longer that same species.  There is no such thing as being a "little bit" different species.   Your DNA and the President's DNA that identifies your species is IDENTICAL.   Not just somewhat the same but IDENTICAL.  It is why DNA testing involves only testing that part of the strand regarding how the individual will look -not its species.  And with Darwin's theory, no matter how you want to cut it, at some point you MUST accept that parents of one species must produce offspring of a different species because there is no such thing as a "little bit different species".  The difference between humans and chimps involves just 2% of the DNA strand that identifies SPECIES -yet it IS a different species.  Not just a little bit different.  Yet we KNOW it is scientifically IMPOSSIBLE for two parents of one species to produce offspring that is anything but its own species.  Which means that part of the DNA looks the same no matter how far back you want to go and no matter how far into the future you want to go.  THAT is INDISPUTABLE SCIENTIFIC FACT.  Whoops.

What also does NOT happen -not EVER as anything remotely "natural" -is for nonliving, non-conscious materials to produce a living organism.  Anyone who thinks that would be a "natural event" is gravely mistaken.  The fact man has spent CENTURIES trying to accomplish that as even an unnatural act should be a big clue here and it has never once ever been seen to occur in nature -which means it is not part of nature at all.  It is scientific FACT that such a thing would be totally UNNATURAL if it ever occurred!  So a theory that posits such a thing as being part of nature should be recognized as the silliness it really is  -unless you have a deep seated need to believe that this planet once had a magical property to create life from nonliving stuff but then lost its magic and it was never to be seen to occur ever again!!  Man's efforts to try and create life from non-living materials has only proven how UNNATURAL it would be.  So if YOU think a living organism arising from the non-living muck is a "natural event" when we know for a fact no life has EVER resulted from non-living materials -it is YOUR critical thinking skills that should be called into question.    

Another part Darwin got wrong was the utterly RIDICULOUS notion that over time one species will turn into a completely different one!  Wow -think about that one.  It would mean it is possible for YOUR descendants to not be human at all!  But we also know that two parents of one species can NEVER produce anything but an offspring of that species.  No exceptions EVER found.  Now the outward physical appearance of a species can change over time -but no matter how dramatic those changes may be, it will NEVER change their species.  THAT is the part of the DNA strand that is nearly 100% resistant to any mutation.  And when it does mutate, it is also exceedingly lethal to the individual even before its birth.  It is nature's way of keeping the species the SAME!  Which tells you that one species turning into another one is something nature RESISTS and not natural at all!

If there is no way to prove a theory correct, it is useless.  If the person who came up with the theory tells you exactly where the evidence that would back up his theory exists and what he believes that evidence will be -then we should take that seriously whether it does indeed back up his theory -or contradicts it instead.  Darwin said the ONLY evidence backing up his theory would be found in the fossil record -got that one?  The ONLY evidence to support his theory at all would be in the fossil record and nowhere else.  He said the MAJORITY of fossils would be "in-between" showing one species in the process of turning into a totally different one and the minority of fossils of a clearly identifiable species.  He was wrong.  Not just a little wrong but 100% wrong.  Not only are the majority of fossils not "in-betweens", there isn't even ONE found for ANY species EVER.  No "in-between" fossil for even a single species.   And the fossil record has been massively added to since Darwin and still -not a single "in-between" for even ONE species much less the majority of them being "in-betweens".  Whoops -in the world of science THAT is a biggie!  In fact, in the science world that is some serious evidence indicating a major problem with the theory!  

Another major part of his theory was that life has become MORE diversified over time.  Meaning that with every geological age that moves closer to our current time, the greater the number of different species.  Except he got THAT dead wrong too.  In fact the greatest diversity of life took place in the Cambrian -and it has become LESS diverse with each passing geological age since -the EXACT OPPOSITE of what he theorized!  Another major WHOOPS.  There are actually more than 20 MAJOR "whoops" with Darwin's theory and ANY theory that is that wrong -is NOT RIGHT.  That is how science works -not by whether I fall to my knees and "believe"!

We have far more scientific knowledge today than Darwin had -and I have no doubt he wished he had known a lot of it before offering his theory because there was no way for him to know at the time that a lot of the stuff he believed to be true, just wasn't.  If he were alive today he'd be the first to admit he got it wrong because above all, he was a scientist -not a political ideologue demanding religious worship of a failed theory.


----------



## HUGGY (Sep 3, 2010)

*"Where has it been "proven" and what "proof" were you told existed and exactly when did the theory of evolution move from "theory" to scientific fact? ONLY that which has been PROVEN is considered scientific fact -and any theory that isn't proven can NEVER be "fact". There are reasons it is still a theory -and always will be!"*

God is a theory.  There is no evidence whatsoever that a god exists.  It is pure speculation.  The fact than many believe it does not add anything to argument.  

Evolution is a theory only in that there are a few gaps in the billions of bits of factual information and studies supporting it. 

Idiots use word games to support arguments.  If you are keen to challenge a "theory"  Why not make it easy on yourself and pick a theory with zero factual support ..like the existance of god.


----------



## eagleseven (Sep 3, 2010)

frazzledgear said:


> Where has it been "proven" and what "proof" were you told existed and exactly when did the theory of evolution move from "theory" to scientific fact?  ONLY that which has been PROVEN is considered scientific fact -and any theory that isn't proven can NEVER be "fact".  There are reasons it is still a theory -and always will be!


Why don't you challenge the Theory of Gravity by jumping off a cliff?


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 3, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> I could probably care less about whatever insane stretch you want to pretend is the "real" interpretation of what he said, but it would likely require elective surgery.  If that's what he meant, then that should have been what he said.  It ISN'T what he said, and I only read English.  I don't read minds.


You had trouble seeing the connection that a penny and a dollar were both money.  This isn't the case of "insane stretch" as blatant stupidity.  But hey, keep telling yourself it was really hard if it makes you feel better.




> Pretty much every point of Darwinistic evolution - and don't even try to start with that whole "Darwin's original theory" hairsplitting with me.  It's not working for him, and it won't work for you - is too weak on evidence to warrant my belief.
> 
> Oh, and tossing around jargon in an attempt to intimidate me doesn't work either.  You should know that by now.


Darwin passed away a long time ago.  Quite a bit of knowledge has surfaced since Darwin, including that little thing called genetics.  See I thought you were interested in talking about evolution.  When I bring up actual points about evolution, including words you could easily google, you once again claim it's too hard for you and actually say I'm attempting to intimidate you?  HAHAHAHA.

So I see the trend here.  You claim no one really wants to talk about the topic, and when the topic is actually discussed, you claim it's too difficult or someone is somehow splitting hairs or being mean.  Awwww.

In all actuality it appears you don't actually know anything about this topic, and any attempt to discuss the major points with you yields.....    you flipping out.

So it seems to either be theories from centuries ago, or too difficult for you to talk about.  Once again I will ask: what part of current understanding of evolution doesn't work for you?  No, Darwin is not current evolution.


----------



## konradv (Sep 3, 2010)

*We have far more scientific knowledge today than Darwin had -and I have no doubt he wished he had known a lot of it before offering his theory because there was no way for him to know at the time that a lot of the stuff he believed to be true, just wasn't. If he were alive today he'd be the first to admit he got it wrong because above all, he was a scientist -not a political ideologue demanding religious worship of a failed theory. *

Despite getting some details wrong, Darwin's theory stands up on the major points.  You're making too much of the mistakes and seem to think their very existence proves your point.  Many theories have changed over time.  That doesn't make them untrue, just amended.  Would you call those who think the world is round "wrong", because it really isn't totally spherical?


----------



## HUGGY (Sep 3, 2010)

konradv said:


> *We have far more scientific knowledge today than Darwin had -and I have no doubt he wished he had known a lot of it before offering his theory because there was no way for him to know at the time that a lot of the stuff he believed to be true, just wasn't. If he were alive today he'd be the first to admit he got it wrong because above all, he was a scientist -not a political ideologue demanding religious worship of a failed theory. *
> 
> Despite getting some details wrong, Darwin's theory stands up on the major points.  You're making too much of the mistakes and seem to think their very existence proves your point.  Many theories have changed over time.  That doesn't make them untrue, just amended.  Would you call those who think the world is round "wrong", because it really isn't totally spherical?



I agree on your presentation.

Darwin was very religious prior to his voyage on the Beagle.  His discoveries cast doubt on what the Bible taught.  He was intellectually honest enough to present his findings publicly in the Origin of Species.

Wiki:
"Charles Darwin's views on religion have been the subject of much interest. His work which was pivotal in the development of modern biology and evolution theory played a prominent part in debates about religion and science at the time, then in the early twentieth century became a focus of the creation-evolution controversy in the United States.

Charles Darwin had a non-conformist background, but attended a Church of England school.[1] With the aim of becoming a clergyman he went to the University of Cambridge for the required BA degree, which included studies of Anglican theology. He took great interest in natural history and become filled with zeal for science as defined by John Herschel, based on the natural theology of William Paley which presented the argument from divine design in nature to explain adaptation as God acting through laws of nature.[2][3] On the voyage of the Beagle he remained orthodox and looked for "centres of creation" to explain distribution, but towards the end of the voyage began to doubt that species were fixed.[4][5] By this time he was critical of the Bible as history, and wondered why all religions should not be equally valid. Following his return in October 1836, he developed his novel ideas of geology while speculating about transmutation of species and thinking about religion.[6]"


----------



## chesswarsnow (Sep 3, 2010)

Sorry bout that,


1. Wow frazzeledgear just mopped the floor with all you guys.
2. Thats gotta hurt!
3. Nice!!!!

EXAMPLE: 

"That does NOT mean there is no such thing as natural selection -of course there is. But natural selection is NOT evolution whereby one species turns into another one. It only changes how the typical individual of that species LOOKS. That means the outward appearance of species can change over time -a horse eons ago looked very different from what it looks like today. But its species was still horse then and it is today. Only what a typical horse LOOKS like has changed -not its species. What Darwin did not know is about is DNA and WHERE on the strand mutations do and do not occur. The DNA that identifies the species is extremely hardy and resistant to mutations -mutations there are lethal to the individual which is nature's way of keeping the species the SAME!"


4. Man you just can't beat this kind of logic, try as you may, you will just be pushing up on a rope!



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


----------



## Father Time (Sep 3, 2010)

chesswarsnow said:


> Sorry bout that,
> 
> 
> 1. Wow frazzeledgear just mopped the floor with all you guys.
> ...



I usually skip over frazzledgear's walls of posts but thanks for highlighting what has to be THE stupidest argument against evolution I've ever heard.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 3, 2010)

At first I decided to completely skip over reading this, but based on the fact that someone else actually read this, I think I'll rip it apart now.



frazzledgear said:


> Where has it been "proven" and what "proof" were you told existed and exactly when did the theory of evolution move from "theory" to scientific fact?  ONLY that which has been PROVEN is considered scientific fact -and any theory that isn't proven can NEVER be "fact".  There are reasons it is still a theory -and always will be!



Theory is the best it can achieve.  Gravity is also a theory.  People who don't know what they're talking about say things like "scientific fact".  



frazzledgear said:


> Science is not a religion and there is NO obligation on me whatsoever to "believe" in ANY theory.  Science carries the SOLE obligation of producing INDISPUTABLE and UNCONTESTED proof first.  That is because my BELIEF will never prove a theory to be true or false and that isn't how its done.  What is it people like you don't get?  Scientific truth is NOT determined by CONSENSUS!  It is the obligation of scientists to provide indisputable, uncorrupted proof and their failure or inability to do so means it is not fact.   There are major reasons Darwin theory is still a theory and NOT scientific fact -*and what they don't teach you in public schools is that it never will be fact.*  Until I went to college and entered advanced science classes, I FIRMLY believed what I had been taught in public school about evolution.  I used to scoff at doubters and absolutely believed they had a major screw loose.


This appears to be a useless paragraph that doesn't actually say anything.  Darwin's theories do not define our understanding of evolution.  He was a starting point, not a finalized version.  Scientific proof is determined by evidence, which is present.  Making vague claims in long redundant paragraphs about consensus and truth in no way refutes this evidence. 



frazzledgear said:


> I don't believe in evolution anymore and think Darwin gave it the best shot he could given the level of scientific information that was on hand at that time.  But he got all the major stuff wrong and only got a couple of minor things correct after all.   If Darwin were alive today he would be the very first to admit he got nearly ALL of it dead wrong and would wish he had known then some of the stuff we know for a fact today.  Because THAT stuff is what proved evolution was little more than an a cheap attempt to try and explain EVERYTHING with one exceedingly simple theory -that ended up actually explaining nothing at all.  The ONLY theories that ever pan out are those that identify a very SPECIFIC phenomenon and tries to explain its existence.  No one theory is ever going to explain EVERYTHING like the theory of evolution attempted to do.


This long paragraph only states that you believe no one theory can explain complex things.  This is ignorant reasoning.  Just because it's larger than your minuscule understanding doesn't mean it's impossible or outside the realm of understanding.  



frazzledgear said:


> That does NOT mean there is no such thing as natural selection -of course there is.  But natural selection is NOT evolution whereby one species turns into another one.  It only changes how the typical individual of that species LOOKS.


Well actually natural selection IS evolution.  Evolution is comprised of instances of natural selection.  The idea that selection only changes appearances just shows your lack of knowledge regarding genetics.  Changing genes can alter both form AND function.  Again you seem to resort to the idea of "if I can't see it then it doesn't really exist".  This is infantile.  There are a myriad of proteins which, when changed, can alter an organisms appearance.  But there are a myriad of proteins which have no physical appearance changes when altered.  For example, bacteria gaining antibiotic resistance has nothing to do with its appearance.  The fact that there are so many human genetic diseases that you can't see, such as Huntington's Disease, sickle cell anemia, and color blindness, should prove this point to you.



frazzledgear said:


> *The DNA that identifies the species is extremely hardy and resistant to mutations -mutations there are lethal to the individual which is nature's way of keeping the species the SAME!*    THAT is INDISPUTABLE SCIENTIFIC FACT.


Except, this is not indisputable scientific fact.  Here's an easy test: cite any source that supports what you just said.  The fact remains that there is no such DNA sequence that defines a species.  We know the entirety of the human genome, and yet you can't find a single source which defines the "human species identifier".  It doesn't exist. 

Once again you show your lack of knowledge of genetics.  There are no secret genetic codes that define a species, just as all genetic changes do not equate to physical visible differences.  



frazzledgear said:


> What also does NOT happen -not EVER as anything remotely "natural" -is for nonliving, non-conscious materials to produce a living organism.  Anyone who thinks that would be a "natural event" is gravely mistaken.  The fact man has spent CENTURIES trying to accomplish that as even an unnatural act should be a big clue here and it has never once ever been seen to occur in nature -which means it is not part of nature at all.  It is scientific FACT that such a thing would be totally UNNATURAL if it ever occurred!  So a theory that posits such a thing as being part of nature should be recognized as the silliness it really is  -unless you have a deep seated need to believe that this planet once had a magical property to create life from nonliving stuff but then lost its magic and it was never to be seen to occur ever again!!  Man's efforts to try and create life from non-living materials has only proven how UNNATURAL it would be.  So if YOU think a living organism arising from the non-living muck is a "natural event" when we know for a fact no life has EVER resulted from non-living materials -it is YOUR critical thinking skills that should be called into question.


This has nothing to do with evolution.  



frazzledgear said:


> Another part Darwin got wrong was the utterly RIDICULOUS notion that over time one species will turn into a completely different one!  Wow -think about that one.  It would mean it is possible for YOUR descendants to not be human at all!  But we also know that two parents of one species can NEVER produce anything but an offspring of that species.  No exceptions EVER found.  Now the outward physical appearance of a species can change over time -but no matter how dramatic those changes may be, it will NEVER change their species.  THAT is the part of the DNA strand that is nearly 100% resistant to any mutation.  And when it does mutate, it is also exceedingly lethal to the individual even before its birth.  It is nature's way of keeping the species the SAME!  Which tells you that one species turning into another one is something nature RESISTS and not natural at all!


This is repeating all of your previous paragraphs, once again incorrectly focusing on Darwin instead of modern evolution understanding, and returning to your misconception that species are defined by some magical species genetic identifier.  So...... you added absolutely nothing new in this gigantic paragragh.



frazzledgear said:


> If there is no way to prove a theory correct, it is useless.  If the person who came up with the theory tells you exactly where the evidence that would back up his theory exists and what he believes that evidence will be -then we should take that seriously whether it does indeed back up his theory -or contradicts it instead.  Darwin said the ONLY evidence backing up his theory would be found in the fossil record -got that one?  The ONLY evidence to support his theory at all would be in the fossil record and nowhere else.  He said the MAJORITY of fossils would be "in-between" showing one species in the process of turning into a totally different one and the minority of fossils of a clearly identifiable species.  He was wrong.  Not just a little wrong but 100% wrong.  Not only are the majority of fossils not "in-betweens", there isn't even ONE found for ANY species EVER.  No "in-between" fossil for even a single species.   And the fossil record has been massively added to since Darwin and still -not a single "in-between" for even ONE species much less the majority of them being "in-betweens".  Whoops -in the world of science THAT is a biggie!  In fact, in the science world that is some serious evidence indicating a major problem with the theory!


The theory of evolution is not defined by Darwin's understanding.  Scientific theory is verifiable, reproducible, and reliable understanding.  This explains why gravity remains pretty constant, even though it's just a theory.



frazzledgear said:


> Another major part of his theory was that life has become MORE diversified over time.  Meaning that with every geological age that moves closer to our current time, the greater the number of different species.  Except he got THAT dead wrong too.  In fact the greatest diversity of life took place in the Cambrian -and it has become LESS diverse with each passing geological age since -the EXACT OPPOSITE of what he theorized!  Another major WHOOPS.  There are actually more than 20 MAJOR "whoops" with Darwin's theory and ANY theory that is that wrong -is NOT RIGHT.  That is how science works -not by whether I fall to my knees and "believe"!


This paragraph is a complete misunderstanding of a point.  Specifically, natural selection allows for diversity.  KILLING THINGS is NOT natural selection, nor is it diversification.  So pointing out a time when large amounts of organisms died says absolutely nothing about natural selection or evolution.  If a continent sinks into the ocean and things die, it has nothing to do with evolution.


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 4, 2010)

Father Time said:


> chesswarsnow said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry bout that,
> ...



I figure that anyone who is too stupid to know that 99.9% of posters won't read past 100 words or so is going to also post something too stupid for me to waste time on.


----------



## chesswarsnow (Sep 4, 2010)

Sorry bout that,


1. But I think you evolutionists have to have more faith in evolution than I do in God, and the Bible.
2. You girls do indeed have a lot of faith! 
3. You go girls! 


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


----------



## chesswarsnow (Sep 4, 2010)

Sorry bout that,






Father Time said:


> chesswarsnow said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry bout that,
> ...






1. And your counter is??? 
2. Speechless,........
3. How's that pushing up on a rope going for you son??? 
4, STH said, ..... blah, blah blah,.....her rope pushing is coming along quite well too I see. 


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


----------



## Father Time (Sep 4, 2010)

chesswarsnow said:


> Sorry bout that,
> 
> 
> 1. But I think you evolutionists have to have more faith in evolution than I do in God, and the Bible.



And your basis for this is...

There's evidence for evolution, there's not really any evidence for the God of the Bible.


----------



## Father Time (Sep 4, 2010)

chesswarsnow said:


> Sorry bout that,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You serious? If an organism changes it's appearance and function of its parts it'll still be the same species? Ok then I guess if an organism does something like this






it's still the same species.

Oh and we don't use DNA to define a species

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...0&aqi=l1g10&aql=&oq=species+de&gs_rfai=&pbx=1

species-(biology) taxonomic group whose members can interbreed


----------



## chesswarsnow (Sep 4, 2010)

Sorry bout that,






Father Time said:


> chesswarsnow said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry bout that,
> ...





1. State your evidence.
2. Do you revere Einstien?


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 4, 2010)

chesswarsnow said:


> Sorry bout that,
> 
> 
> 1. But I think you evolutionists have to have more faith in evolution than I do in God, and the Bible.
> ...


Understanding reproducible evidence in no way takes faith.  It takes logic and reasoning.  




chesswarsnow said:


> 1. And your counter is???
> 2. Speechless,........
> 3. How's that pushing up on a rope going for you son???
> 4, STH said, ..... blah, blah blah,.....her rope pushing is coming along quite well too I see.
> ...


So YOUR counter to my well stated refutation of his misconstrued ideas is.... NOTHING.

Your counter to the evidence behind evolution is....  NOTHING.

Your understand of evolution is.... NOTHING.

And yet you still believe your opinion on this topic has any value whatsoever.  Funny that.




chesswarsnow said:


> 1. State your evidence.



If you want evidence, read my posts in this thread.  Here's a good starting point if you want a specific bit of evidence:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk]YouTube - Ken Miller on Human Evolution[/ame]

Let me know if you have questions.


----------



## HUGGY (Sep 4, 2010)

chesswarsnow said:


> Sorry bout that,
> 
> 
> 1. But I think you evolutionists have to have more faith in evolution than I do in God, and the Bible.
> ...



It is clear why Christian fundimentalists don't believe in evolution.  You do not read the scientific evidense.  When you survey your peers there is no evidense that the human brain has evolved for several hundred years.


----------



## chesswarsnow (Sep 4, 2010)

Sorry bout that,






SmarterThanHick said:


> chesswarsnow said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry bout that,
> ...





1. I watched it, nothing but conjecture bullshit.
2. Then claims he's a Roman Catholic.
3. Come on,......
4. Humans will not be a monkey made.
5. Humans are the very image of God.
6. Some humans want to mock God by making outlandish claims, how we actually came from apes, gorillas, monkeys, but prove it, I still have not seen any proof, and I am sure its not out there.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


----------



## HUGGY (Sep 4, 2010)

chesswarsnow said:


> Sorry bout that,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why do you bother to enter into a "discussion"?  You do not discuss.  You preach dogma.  No one will be swayed by dogmatic nonsense.  If you hope to convince you need to support your claims with facts.  Just robotically claiming that man has not evolved from lesser developed beings because he is in the image of your fantasy god is the weakest possible argument.  Evolution has been proven.  Your god has not.


----------



## chesswarsnow (Sep 5, 2010)

Sorry bout that,






HUGGY said:


> chesswarsnow said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry bout that,
> ...





1. My side of the arguement is dogma.
2. The way I see it, your side of the arguement is monkeyman.
3. I have read your evidence, and still see no proof.
4. On the other hand, I listen to God all the time, and he hears me.
5. When you tune in and tune out to monkeyman, then you might could understand.
6. But unless you get called and or chosen by God, you are pretty much a hamster on a endless loop.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 5, 2010)

chesswarsnow said:


> 1. I watched it, nothing but conjecture bullshit.
> 2. Then claims he's a Roman Catholic.
> 3. Come on,......
> 4. Humans will not be a monkey made.
> ...



So your refutation to reproducible evidence that shows beyond any doubt that one of our chromosomes looks like the fusion of two ape chromosomes is "nothing but conjecture".  Which part is conjecture exactly?  How else do you explain our chromosome #2?  I'd be interested in YOUR conjecture as to WHY it has these odd end pieces in the middle, and two middle pieces.  

You then go on to state opinions with no factual basis.  So once again the evolution side shows reproducible evidence, and the religious side sticks their fingers in their ears, yells "THATS NOT TRUE" and provides.... NOTHING.

See the trend yet?


----------



## HUGGY (Sep 5, 2010)

chesswarsnow said:


> Sorry bout that,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'll go you one better.  My side of the argument claims that our species greatest grandmother/grandfather was a chemical compound with no other life like quality than the ability to replicate.

Your thinking proccess is much more like the ape than you want to believe.  We cannot teach the ape to talk because they are not interested enough in communicating with us to make the effort to learn and use our language.  They do make primitive sounds as do you.  They just seem to be satisfied being uneducated creatures.  I am less critical of them than you because their retardation of the next level is a much greater leap than the one afforded to you.  You keep asking what is the "missing link".  It is all around us.  It is you.  Hopefully you have noticed that I have not been rude or overly unkind in this post.  I don't hate the ape for not evolving fast enough.  I don't hate you for the same reason.  I do feel it is unfortunate for the human species that we have to carry your water on into the future and look for a day that your sub set of our species can come up to speed.


----------



## rdean (Sep 5, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Because they left out university professors and teachers.  Many scientists teach.  The number of Republican scientists are undoubtedly, much, much less.

Why does this rile Republicans?  I'm, well, pardon the word, "mystified".  Republicans aren't into education.  The majority don't believe in evolution.  Why does it bother them that so few scientists want to be Republicans?  I would think Republicans would be happy.


----------



## Father Time (Sep 5, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



Don't forget the constant need to remind herself how superior she is.


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 5, 2010)

Father Time said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Yeah, she apparently decided to desert this thread.  Perhaps it became no fun for her, when her M.O. was pointed out.  

Anyways, once you realize that the anti-evos will never be honest on this issue, it all becomes much easier.


----------



## chesswarsnow (Sep 5, 2010)

Sorry bout that,


1. Those who can't,.... teach,........ *shit*.
2. Thats about the size of it.......*its shit*.
3. Those upity educated folks, who are lost, only hope is to teach this *shit*.
4. Atleast they can get a paycheck,..so its not all bad, *for them*.
5. Unless you get broken, you can never get fixed.
6. Problem with those who want to say humans are slime based monkeys, is, its unprovable, its genetically impossible, and its degrading to humans,, also gives slime a bad name,..compared to some of you.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


----------



## Father Time (Sep 5, 2010)

Chess your attempts to be funny just come off as the ramblings of a drug addict.


----------



## HUGGY (Sep 5, 2010)

chesswarsnow said:


> Sorry bout that,
> 
> 
> 1. Those who can't,.... teach,........ *shit*.
> ...



You have gone from support of creation to the nonsense of a child with no focus.

Your steady descent into pre-pubescent blathering surely at least proves the theory of devolution.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 5, 2010)

chesswarsnow said:


> Sorry bout that,
> 
> 
> 1. Those who can't,.... teach,........ *shit*.
> ...



So your response to me asking how you can possibly explain the reproducible chromosomal proof is to avoid the topic and go off into immaturity.  The phrease "if you can't do, teach" does not apply to higher education.  I suspect you have no such education, which is why you didn't realize that, and why you seem almost jealous of those who do.  Most top tier university professors "teach" AND "do", with extensive research and publications.  In graduate school, only the best "doers" can teach at all.  You won't see someone teaching law or medicine who doesn't know the practice inside and out.

So let's recap: you have no reproducible evidence for your claims.  You disregard or ignore all reproducible evidence for evolution, claiming it somehow doesn't count yet providing no actual refutation as to why.  Then when all else fails, you resort to immaturity.

Let me know if you have any questions, or if you'd like to actually discuss this topic.


----------



## chesswarsnow (Sep 5, 2010)

Sorry bout that,


1. Well I have listened to your evidence, but sorry I am not convinced.
2. What can I say, I just don't buy into it at all.
3. I am sure you believe in it, and thats fine with me, but I won't support it, because I don't believe in it.
4. If you can lay down your head at night thinking about how your kin to slime and monkeys, and can go to sleep doing so.
5. Then fine, you do that, you lower your expectations on life and the after life, but historically, the smartest scientists on earth always knew that their had to be a *Master Designer*.
6. You can reject that if you want, but I tend to agree with them.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


----------



## HUGGY (Sep 5, 2010)

chesswarsnow said:


> Sorry bout that,
> 
> 
> 1. Well I have listened to your evidence, but sorry I am not convinced.
> ...



It is clear that this poster is an imposter as a source of any intelligent information.  It is somewhere between 8 and 12 years old and already indoctrinated into Christian fudimentalism.  It must be only home and sunday schooled to have such a suffocated education.  It resorts to childish jibberish because it is a child.  First language.."whatever it was told".


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 5, 2010)

chesswarsnow said:


> Sorry bout that,
> 
> 
> 1. Well I have listened to your evidence, but sorry I am not convinced.
> ...



No one is interested in trying to convince you people of anything.  We know your mind is made up.  

We are just pointing out that when you say "there is no evidence of evolution" it's not true.


----------



## chesswarsnow (Sep 5, 2010)

Sorry bout that,






HUGGY said:


> chesswarsnow said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry bout that,
> ...





1. You must be falling back on your heels, seeing all you want to do is make this a personal attack thread.
2. Why is it you keep slipping to this form of posting?
3. Whether I'm 8 or 80, I still don't believe, so why don't you convince me.
4. You can not, so you go on attack, you need to grow up my friend.
5. You have little respect for yourself, and less for others, *sucks to be you*, but you do think your ancestors are slime after all, so I completely understand you, you have my condolences


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


----------



## chesswarsnow (Sep 5, 2010)

Sorry bout that,







geauxtohell said:


> chesswarsnow said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry bout that,
> ...





1. So you actually believe you came from a pool of slime eh?
2. Thats fine with me, but thats your road to travel, just because I don't want to follow you, doesn't make me a bad guy does it?


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


----------



## HUGGY (Sep 5, 2010)

chesswarsnow said:


> Sorry bout that,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Falling *asleep* reading your juvenile posts is more like it.  You have not been attacked.  Quit your sobbing.  The replies you present are tediously repetitive in form and content showing the debating skills of a young child.  

It is your posts that stand no chance of delivering any substance to gain ground in this argument.

The sad part is that you are the only representative of the side you take.  Arguing facts with uneducated children is pointless.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 6, 2010)

chesswarsnow said:


> Sorry bout that,
> 
> 
> 1. Well I have listened to your evidence, but sorry I am not convinced.
> ...



Any infant can choose not to understand or be convinced of a complex topic.  The question is: why?  I ask for refutation to the evidence, and you simply say "I am not convinced".  Do you disagree with the evidence presented?  Do you believe it is made up?  Or do you agree that our chromosome appears to be two ape chromosomes fused together?


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 6, 2010)

blu said:


> So who doesn't believe in evolution? Not abiogenesis, but evolution.
> 
> I find it really hard to grasp that some people don't believe in evolution, which is proven, and I think many of those who question "evolution" are actually questioning abiogenesis:
> 
> Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I do believe in Evolution, However proven? I think that might go a bit far. There is certainly a lot of Evidence for it, but to say it has been proven when we still lack the Missing link is a stretch IMO.

Just to be fair.

However I have to agree that Creationist are well. Out of their minds. lol


----------



## chesswarsnow (Sep 6, 2010)

Sorry bout that,






Charles_Main said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > So who doesn't believe in evolution? Not abiogenesis, but evolution.
> ...





1. Yes we Christains are out of our minds and in Gods mind.
2. Gods mind is above our minds, and holds promise of better things to come.
3. The mind of slime, offers little, so, *good luck with that*,...


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 6, 2010)

chesswarsnow said:


> 1. So you actually believe you came from a pool of slime eh?



No.  Abiogenesis is a completely separate theory from evolution.  This basically backs up my earlier statement;  you are so ignorant  of this topic, you can't even discuss it rationally.  



> 2. Thats fine with me, but thats your road to travel, just because I don't want to follow you, doesn't make me a bad guy does it?



No shit Sherlock, that's why I said no one here is interested in trying to convince you.  I am only interested in pointing out you choose to remain perpetually ignorant on this issue.  That's your choice, but don't kid yourself that you are offering any sort of reasonable criticism of evolution.


----------



## chesswarsnow (Sep 6, 2010)

Sorry bout that,






geauxtohell said:


> chesswarsnow said:
> 
> 
> > 1. So you actually believe you came from a pool of slime eh?
> ...





1. If I don't believe in evolution, how and why would I study it?
2. Same goes with you and God, you have no belief in God, so you don't study God.
3. What we have here is a *Mexican Standoff*.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 6, 2010)

chesswarsnow said:


> 1. If I don't believe in evolution, how and why would I study it?



I do believe in evolution.  Again, the fact that you don't know that evolution says nothing about the origin of life shows how clueless you really are on the issue.  



> 2. Same goes with you and God, you have no belief in God, so you don't study God.



I do believe in God.  Stop being a knucklehead and assuming you know something about me that you do not.


----------



## MikeK (Sep 6, 2010)

Againsheila said:


> [...]
> 
> I'm not saying I believe in ghosts, but when my sister was pregnant with her first child, I was two blocks away and could hear her talk.  I heard her say "Lemonade?  Lemonade will be fine."  This was at 2:30 in the morning, I decided that was God telling me not to worry about her and to go to sleep.  Next morning, 8am, I walked to the hospital, she still hadn't had the baby and there was an empty pitcher by her bed.  I kept looking at it while she was talking to me and finally she said, "Is something wrong?"  I asked her if she had lemonade around 2:30 in the morning and she said, "How did you know?"  Apparently her water pills made her so dehydrated, they wanted her to drink a lot of liquids so they gave her an entire pitcher of lemonade and made her drink it all.
> 
> How did I know?  IMO, it was supernatural, meaning other than the 5 senses we all have.


I fully believe what you've described above really happened but I disagree that it was a _supernatural_ phenomenon but was entirely natural and will one day be as clearly understood as are most other electronic phenomena, the basic understanding being rooted in the already demonstrated fact that thought waves are electrical in nature and are transmissible.  Why you were able to receive your sister's thought wave is at present subject to speculation but one day will be clearly understood.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 6, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> I do believe in Evolution, However proven? I think that might go a bit far. There is certainly a lot of Evidence for it, but to say it has been proven when we still lack the Missing link is a stretch IMO.


People tend to vaguely reference the "missing link".  Which link, in your opinion, is missing?  Genetic?  Fossil?  The bible not saying so?

Needless to say, it sounds like you agree that regardless of that point, you still see evolution as providing the strongest explanation based on the evidence.




chesswarsnow said:


> Sorry bout that,
> 
> 1. If I don't believe in evolution, how and why would I study it?
> 2. Same goes with you and God, you have no belief in God, so you don't study God.
> ...



I see you went back to completely avoiding my well formed argument: that you have absolutely no refutation of evolution, and can't even point out what you don't believe is correct or convincing.  

As for your #1 in the above quote: you don't need to study a topic to have a basic understanding of it.  Most non-Christians in the world can understand the basic tenants of Christianity, yet they don't need to study the topic.  People who don't have driver's licenses still understand the concept of the gas pedal and steering wheel.  

You, in your ignorance, on the other hand, neither attempt to understand nor acknowledge the basics of this topic.  And yet you continue to enter threads like this with an opinion on the matter.  You say you're not convinced about evolution, and yet time after time show you have absolutely no clue what it is.  All you know is that it's not the thing you WANT to believe, and so therefore cannot be acknowledged. Decision without understanding.  True ignorance.


----------



## MikeK (Sep 6, 2010)

kwc57 said:


> [...]Proven?  Keep in mind that it is called the THEORY of evolution for a reason.  As a theory, it is the most plausable explanation available thru the scientific method.


Evolution is still referred to as a theory because the entire body of irrefutable evidence is not yet established, so until it is established Evolution will continue to be called an inconclusive theory.  But enough is known about The Origin of Species to believe in Evolution as it exists in the commonly accepted sense of the word.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Sep 6, 2010)

Count Dracula said:


> I am grounded in the belief that I was created in the image of God, by God, and nobody else created me except for him. However, I am pretty sure my wife evolved from monkeys.


 
Three monkeys sat on a coconut tree,
Discussing things as they're said to be.
Said one to the other,
"Now listen you two,
There's a certain rumor
That can't be true ...
That man descended from our noble race.
The very idea is sure to disgrace."
"No monkey ever deserted his wife,
Starved her babies and ruined her life.
And you've never known another monk,
To leave her babies with others to bunk,
Or pass them on from one to another."
"And another thing you will never see ...
Is a monk build a fence around a coconut tree;
And let the coconuts go to waste,
Forbidding all the other monks to taste."
"Why, if I put a fence around this tree,
Starvation would force you to steal from me."
"And here's something else a monk won't do ...
Go out at night and get on a stew;
Or use a gun or club or knife,
To take some other monkey's life."
"Yes, man descended ... ornery cuss,
But, brother, ... he didn't descend from us!

~ Author Unknown ~


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 6, 2010)

once again providing absolutely nothing to the topic.  well done.


----------



## HUGGY (Sep 6, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> Count Dracula said:
> 
> 
> > I am grounded in the belief that I was created in the image of God, by God, and nobody else created me except for him. However, I am pretty sure my wife evolved from monkeys.
> ...



AH!... The old "three monkey" defense!  Nice!


----------



## THE LIGHT (Sep 6, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> once again providing absolutely nothing to the topic. well done.


 
I'm not sure this post provided anything to the topic either, but then again I'm not sure anything you post ever does anyway.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 6, 2010)

i've provided numerous sources and citations to the evidence of evolution.  You have provided no refutation, and instead demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the basics of evolution.  Then you posted a poem.  Worthless.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Sep 6, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> i've provided numerous sources and citations to the evidence of evolution. You have provided no refutation, and instead demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the basics of evolution. Then you posted a poem. Worthless.


 
Lighten up dude, it's just a poem. 

Sheeeesh.

I post a poem and you go bananas over it. (pun intended)

Thou dost protest much over the trivial. hmmm...


----------



## chesswarsnow (Sep 6, 2010)

Sorry bout that,


1. In my opinion you can *NOT* believe in evolution and believe in God.
2. Thats seals it, I said it, its done!


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


----------



## HUGGY (Sep 6, 2010)

chesswarsnow said:


> Sorry bout that,
> 
> 
> 1. In my opinion you can *NOT* believe in evolution and believe in God.
> ...



I think it's great when a kid can predict he will remain retarded saving his folks all that anxiety and wondering.

Good for you sport!


----------



## THE LIGHT (Sep 6, 2010)

chesswarsnow said:


> Sorry bout that,
> 
> 
> 1. In my opinion you can *NOT* believe in evolution and believe in God.
> ...


 
You can believe in evolution and believe in God. Just not evolutionism.


----------



## HUGGY (Sep 6, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> chesswarsnow said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry bout that,
> ...



I think the burning question is..can you believe in God and Santa..and the tooth fairy.!


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 6, 2010)

chesswarsnow said:


> Sorry bout that,
> 
> 
> 1. In my opinion you can *NOT* believe in evolution and believe in God.
> ...



You mean, someone can't believe in evolution and your imagined ideas of God, or perhaps you meant the bible.  Hard to believe I know, but the concept of God extends outside of Christianity.  

But you know what really makes it hard to believe in evolution?  Not having any clue what it is.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Sep 6, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > chesswarsnow said:
> ...


 
Depends on what you mean by "believe in".


----------



## THE LIGHT (Sep 6, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> chesswarsnow said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry bout that,
> ...


 
That's right. People don't believe in fairy tales because they don't have any clue what they are.


----------



## Father Time (Sep 7, 2010)

chesswarsnow said:


> Sorry bout that,
> 
> 
> 1. In my opinion you can *NOT* believe in evolution and believe in God.
> ...



Why do you apologize in front of every post?

And anyway it is possible to believe in both, in fact IIRC the Vatican even said the two don't contradict each other (evolution says nothing about the existence of a god).


----------



## HUGGY (Sep 7, 2010)

It'a past the little tykes bedtime..  I'm gonna try and soften him up with a bedtime story!!!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5G5x3fpfpFI&feature=fvsr]YouTube - House at Pooh Corner[/ame]


----------



## THE LIGHT (Sep 7, 2010)

Father Time said:


> chesswarsnow said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry bout that,
> ...



I'm not sure either, but I'm afraid to say it anoys me because I think the answer would be... "sorry bout that"


----------



## Bill Angel (Sep 7, 2010)

Father Time said:


> ... it is possible to believe in both [god and evolution], in fact IIRC the Vatican even said the two don't contradict each other (evolution says nothing about the existence of a god).



It's really the conflict between proponents of science and creationism that is irresolvable.
Last night I asked a believer in creationism how old he thought the universe was. His assertion was that the universe was 10,000 years old! And that the earth was also of the same age. Now anyone with a scientific interest in the subject is aware that the elements of which life is constructed (carbon, nitrogen, etc) were formed via nuclear fusion in stars over a period of billions of years. And that the earth is composed of these elements that were created in stars that had exploded eons ago. While the details of "Darwinism" might be for some debatable, the details of nuclear fusion (as determined by astrophysics) are not. 

I know this is a tactless way of putting it, but one dramatic demonstration that scientists have understood the physics correctly is their success in developing the Hydrogen Bomb!


----------



## konradv (Sep 7, 2010)

chesswarsnow said:


> Sorry bout that,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The fossil record.   It clearly shows species changing over time.

Einstein???  WTF???


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 7, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> Count Dracula said:
> 
> 
> > I am grounded in the belief that I was created in the image of God, by God, and nobody else created me except for him. However, I am pretty sure my wife evolved from monkeys.
> ...



Wow.  That was an academic heavy hitter argument in line with this little ditty. 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4W_4ct10dS4&feature=related]YouTube - "I'm No Kin to a Monkey" (10-04-2005)[/ame]

Once again, you are trying to walk with a pair of deuces on this argument.


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 7, 2010)

chesswarsnow said:


> 1. In my opinion you can *NOT* believe in evolution and believe in God.



Your opinion is irrelevant and above your pay grade (assuming you aren't God).

"Hypocrite!  Remove the plank from your eye before you concern yourself with the speck in your neighbors."


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 7, 2010)

Father Time said:


> chesswarsnow said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry bout that,
> ...



I think this would hinge on whether he thinks Catholics are really Christians.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 7, 2010)

konradv said:


> chesswarsnow said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry bout that,
> ...



Finally, someone says something I find vaguely interesting.

The fossil record CANNOT, in principle, provide evidence for descent with modification, aka Darwinian evolution.

"No fossil is buried with its birth certificate.  That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way . . . To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story - amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific." - Henry Gee, evolutionary biologist and writer for _Nature _magazine

Even if we had a fossil representing every generation and every imaginable intermediate - which we don't - if there were no missing links whatsoever - which there are - it would still be impossible IN PRINCIPLE to establish ancestor-descendant relationships from the fossil record.  We could not conclude from the fossil record alone that any one step was descended from the one before it.  All you can do is assume, based on the first assumption that Darwinism is true.

"The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion." - Gareth Nelson, American Museum of Natural History

And this is leaving aside the Cambrian Explosion, which argues directly AGAINST Darwinian evolution.


----------



## HUGGY (Sep 7, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > chesswarsnow said:
> ...



The above is not true.  There are many places to find DNA remains.  Deep ice in glaciers, Tar pits, Amber and it is likely to find remains in space from impacts with earth landing on the moon and Mars.


----------



## Father Time (Sep 7, 2010)

Cec why do you insist on calling it 'Darwinian evolution' when it's been pointed out to you several times that current evolutionary theory is not what Darwin originally proposed?

Oh and how exactly is the Cambrian explosion evidence against evolution?


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 7, 2010)

the theory of Evolution in now way precludes the possibility of a god existing.

science has yet to prove what existed before the big bang, and they have yet to trace Evolution all the way back to the start. I do not see how Evolution can not co exist with Religion. It blows Creationism out of the water but it does not preclude the existence of a god at all.


----------



## HUGGY (Sep 7, 2010)

Clinging desperately to ones "faith" despite clear real evidence to the contrary is an admission of defeat in this argument.   The only question left to answer is how deep into the delusion they will sink.  Will they compltely go "All in" and opt to go the "Jonestown" way as a final act of "faith"?  Prove it!..no!.you prove it!  OK!!...pass the KoolAide motherfucker!!!


----------



## chesswarsnow (Sep 7, 2010)

Sorry bout that,




Bill Angel said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> > ... it is possible to believe in both [god and evolution], in fact IIRC the Vatican even said the two don't contradict each other (evolution says nothing about the existence of a god).
> ...





1. Bill, Bill, you need a bigger cup of coffee my man!
2. I don't buy into your statements.
3. What makes you think this universe is that old?
4. I just can't take your word for it.
5. Prove it!
6. I happen to believe God created the earth and everything in it.
7. In roughly 7000 years ago, all this that wasn't was, and appeared in a flash.
8. Big Bang never happened, the universe rolled out like a scroll.
9. More or less unfolded.
10. Huggy you drink first my man,...


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


----------



## chesswarsnow (Sep 7, 2010)

Sorry bout that,





geauxtohell said:


> chesswarsnow said:
> 
> 
> > 1. In my opinion you can *NOT* believe in evolution and believe in God.
> ...





1. Errr,...why am I a hypocrite dude a rooney?
2. I'm not scecretly saying one thing while doing another in this arguement,....
3. I am standing firn on Gods words.
4. Can you show me where I've fallen?
5. I thinketh thou protesteth too much,..humm,.......

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


----------



## chesswarsnow (Sep 7, 2010)

Sorry bout that,







geauxtohell said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> > chesswarsnow said:
> ...





1. I think Catholics are just playing along with the scientific community.
2. Wanting to draw in some of the lost.
3. I don't think they swallow evolution down hook line and sinker, like the masses do.
4. They just wink the eye at it, and know, they can win more with honey than vinager.
5. But they have way more proof as to why God is the *Real Deal* than any other Christian Church.
6. Another topic though.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 7, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Finally, someone says something I find vaguely interesting.
> 
> The fossil record CANNOT, in principle, provide evidence for descent with modification, aka Darwinian evolution.
> 
> ...



This seems to be the entirety of your ridiculous argument all rolled up into one post: complete lack of understanding of current evolution, reliance on quotes from the previous century, and brash unsupported claims regarding scientific understanding.  Once again you return to "Darwinian evolution" when several people have pointed out several times that the infant understanding of the topic in the early 1800s is not equivalent to evolution.  

You then go on to talk about the missing link, and how fossils don't have birth records.  Which link is missing, exactly?  I'm interested in hearing what you think we don't know on this topic, specifically, instead of making vague references.  As for the dating process, we have a number of processes that date materials.  As someone else mentioned, physics and science tends to get things right, as seen by the atomic bomb, snuggies, and all of modern medicine, to name a few.

So do you plan on continuing to focus on the inadequacies of 200 year old preliminary investigations on the topic?  Or actually talk about knowledge from this millennium?



chesswarsnow said:


> 2. I don't buy into your statements.


This seems to be the entirety of your intellectual capacity.



chesswarsnow said:


> 4. I just can't take your word for it.
> 5. Prove it!
> 6. I happen to believe God created the earth and everything in it.


See your #6 there?  Now apply #4 and 5.  Prove it.


----------



## chesswarsnow (Sep 7, 2010)

Sorry bout that,







Cecilie1200 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > chesswarsnow said:
> ...






1. Agreed, you just have to assume too much with digging in the dirt.
2. Nothings labeled.
3. This goes to this, that to that, this happened after that happened, and not before this etc.
4. Just guessing.
5. Not my kind of belief system, I like solid facts to work with, like, God created evrything in 7 days.
6. I can wrap my head around it, not because I want something simplistic, its because it really happened, and the signs of it are everywhere, if you know where to look.
7. Love is everywhere, and its just a stones throw away, if you know how to uncover it.
8. Its good God loves the sinner, if not, this world would just blow away.


Regards,
SirjamesofTexas


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 7, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



Which in no way invalidates any of my points.  Mitochondrial DNA would conclusively prove that I gave birth to my children, and certain DNA markers would prove that some male in my husband's family fathered them, but since you sure as hell don't have every single generation and intermediate, let alone actual parent-child strings of fossils, DNA isn't going to tell you much more than "similar genetic structure".  And that, again, only proves Darwinism if you're already a disciple of it and determined to see everything as proof thereof.


----------



## chesswarsnow (Sep 7, 2010)

Sorry bout that,






HUGGY said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...






1. Okay, Huggy says it not true, we can all go home now,.....
2. And Huggys willing to go into outer space to prove he's right too.
3. Lets start a fund to get Huggy into space!
4. Call it, *Huggy Goes Hunting In Space For DNA Fund* 


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 7, 2010)

Father Time said:


> Cec why do you insist on calling it 'Darwinian evolution' when it's been pointed out to you several times that current evolutionary theory is not what Darwin originally proposed?
> 
> Oh and how exactly is the Cambrian explosion evidence against evolution?



First question - because that's a disingenuous dodge to try to pretend that we're talking about something different than we are.  It's one of the hallmark reasons that I view evolution with such suspicion:  because its adherents can't argue honestly and straightforwardly.

Darwinian evolution, aka Darwinism - which is what the controversy is about - is defined thusly:  1) all living things are modified descendants of a common ancestor; 2) the principal mechanism of modification has been natural selection acting on undirected variations that originate in DNA mutations; and 3) unguided processes are sufficient to explain all features of living things - so whatever may _appear _to be design is just an illusion.

All of this was posited in Darwin's theories, and all of this is still a part of evolutionary theory and belief today, so this sad attempt to hide behind "no one believes in Darwin anymore" is exactly that:  a sad attempt to hide.

Second question - If evolutionary theory was correct, the fossil record should show a pattern of gradual divergence from a common ancestor, with major differences arising only after a long accumulation of minor differences.  But the fossil record shows exactly the opposite.

The Cambrian Explosion is called that because the Cambrian fossil record doesn't start with one or a few species that diverged gradually over millions of years into genera, then families, then orders, then classes, then phyla.  Instead, most of the major animal phyla - and many of the major classes within them - appear together abruptly during the Cambrian period.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 7, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Finally, someone says something I find vaguely interesting.
> ...



When I want empty, childish insults, I'll go visit the local middle school and save you the trouble of cluttering the message board with posts like these.  Therefore, please don't feel the need to waste my time if you're not planning to actually address any points with more than "this just proves how stupid you are".

And by the way, cramming two people's (cherrypicked) posts into one response is incredibly rude.  It's not that I expect any better from someone who thinks "all the smart people believe in evolution" is an argument, but you should know that I won't respond to this sort of thing again.


----------



## HUGGY (Sep 7, 2010)

chesswarsnow said:


> Sorry bout that,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Look around you moron!  Is that your teddy bear?..your blankie? ..your binkie?

YOU *ARE *HOME!!!!!!!


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 7, 2010)

chesswarsnow said:


> 2. Nothings labeled.


Actually, everything's labeled.  That's why it's called radiolabeling, and radiometric decay.  



chesswarsnow said:


> 5. Not my kind of belief system, I like solid facts to work with, like, God created evrything in 7 days.
> 6. I can wrap my head around it, not because I want something simplistic, its because it really happened, and the signs of it are everywhere, if you know where to look.



Yes, if you know where to look for "evidence", and how to overlook contradictory information, things are simple!  But yes, you believe it because it is simple, as proven by the fact that it hasn't changed in thousands of years.  All this progress to man, and yet you have ZERO further understanding of your simplistic folklore.  You say you like solid facts.  I have asked time and time again what your reproducible evidence is.  You have yet to provide it.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 7, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Which in no way invalidates any of my points.  Mitochondrial DNA would conclusively prove that I gave birth to my children, and certain DNA markers would prove that some male in my husband's family fathered them, but since you sure as hell don't have every single generation and intermediate, let alone actual parent-child strings of fossils, DNA isn't going to tell you much more than "similar genetic structure".  And that, again, only proves Darwinism if you're already a disciple of it and determined to see everything as proof thereof.


Why is it you think that you can prove maternal lineage through mitochondria and paternal lineage through the Y chromosome in direct offspring, but not jumps in generations?  The idea is just short-sighted.  You just identified that mitochondrial DNA is generally preserved between generations, and yet you completely fail to see how skipping generations would similarly conserve DNA.  You furthermore seem incapable of understanding that small changes over time still occur, which allow us understand the branch points of genetics.  That would be the topic of phylogenetics you claimed I used to intimidate you.  





Cecilie1200 said:


> First question - because that's a disingenuous dodge to try to pretend that we're talking about something different than we are.  It's one of the hallmark reasons that I view evolution with such suspicion:  because its adherents can't argue honestly and straightforwardly.
> 
> Darwinian evolution, aka Darwinism - which is what the controversy is about - is defined thusly:  1) all living things are modified descendants of a common ancestor; 2) the principal mechanism of modification has been natural selection acting on undirected variations that originate in DNA mutations; and 3) unguided processes are sufficient to explain all features of living things - so whatever may _appear _to be design is just an illusion.
> 
> All of this was posited in Darwin's theories, and all of this is still a part of evolutionary theory and belief today, so this sad attempt to hide behind "no one believes in Darwin anymore" is exactly that:  a sad attempt to hide.


Once again you return to Darwin's theories from 200 years ago as your basis for understanding evolution today.  Why do you focus so much on Darwin?  Why can't you converse in this topic without continually fleeing back to his limited ideas?  You do realize the entire field of genetics has been established, 100 years after his time, right?



Cecilie1200 said:


> Second question - If evolutionary theory was correct, the fossil record should show a pattern of gradual divergence from a common ancestor, with major differences arising only after a long accumulation of minor differences.  But the fossil record shows exactly the opposite.
> 
> The Cambrian Explosion is called that because the Cambrian fossil record doesn't start with one or a few species that diverged gradually over millions of years into genera, then families, then orders, then classes, then phyla.  Instead, most of the major animal phyla - and many of the major classes within them - appear together abruptly during the Cambrian period.


It's odd because you acknowledge that different species arise at different times..... and yet you have trouble that it's because of change in time.  You do realize the Cambrian Explosion took place over many millions of years, right?



Cecilie1200 said:


> When I want empty, childish insults, I'll go visit the local middle school and save you the trouble of cluttering the message board with posts like these.  Therefore, please don't feel the need to waste my time if you're not planning to actually address any points with more than "this just proves how stupid you are".
> 
> And by the way, cramming two people's (cherrypicked) posts into one response is incredibly rude.  It's not that I expect any better from someone who thinks "all the smart people believe in evolution" is an argument, but you should know that I won't respond to this sort of thing again.


Why is using the built in multi-quote function rude?  You really just need to complain about anything you can instead of addressing the points at hand.  In my previous post, I made the following claims: you continue to resort to 200 year old ideas instead of modern understanding of evolution to twist the topic, you continue to use quotes that aren't even from this century to support your outdated understanding, and you continue to make vague claims about a missing link without actually pointing out what link you're referring to.  

Now you can continue to focus on how hurt you were because you interpreted my text as calling you stupid, despite me never actually using that word once in the post, but it's clear to everyone else reading this thread that you're using this overblown victimization to avoid actually discussing the topics and points I just restated.

Let me know if you'd actually like to talk about up to date understanding of evolution, for once.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Sep 7, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > Count Dracula said:
> ...


 

Glad you liked it.


----------



## HUGGY (Sep 8, 2010)

Cecile1200:
"And by the way, cramming two people's (cherrypicked) posts into one response is incredibly rude.  It's not that I expect any better from someone who thinks "*all the smart people believe in evolution*" is an argument, but you should know that I won't respond to this sort of thing again."

Maybe you don't spend enough time with smart people.  I do.  Let me share a few tips on what I know of "smart people".

Smart people do not "believe" the same way others do.  They try to keep their minds open because in their lives they have seen advances they didn't predict but upon examination must accept to remain intellectually honest.

Smart people are eager to have their knowledge challenged because they want to know the best information.  They know they have to be proactive in that task and risk suffering idiots sifting for gold nuggets.

Smart people watch very little if any commercial television.  It pollutes their hard won base of knowledge.  Smart people are quick to see most commercial television is an intentional deversion from important information. 

Yes, most smart people believe in evolution and the studies that came from it because that is the "best knowledge".  There is no such thing as "final" knowledge because even the most perfect appearing "law" can be polished to more clearity.

I guess I must cover what truly smart people do not "believe" also.  They do not believe fantasy in place of fact.  Fact being for the purposes of this description the best information available.


----------



## Bill Angel (Sep 8, 2010)

chesswarsnow said:


> Sorry bout that,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You assert that everthing in the Universe appeared in a flash 7000 years ago.
The most straightforward evidence against that assertion would be the radiometric dating of the age of the earth.

_"The age of the Earth has been determined to be 4.54 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%).This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples."_

See Age of the Earth


----------



## HUGGY (Sep 8, 2010)

The indisputable evidense that creationists refuse to acknowledge is how elements change.  With sufficient preasure and heat elements can gain electrons and neutrons adding to their molecular weight.  These "new" elements have different properties than those of which the previous elements had beeen assembled.  The unused particles left over are not gone but transform into an infinitely wide range of byproducts from lighter elements all the way to waves of pure energy including visible and invisible light.  That is not "theory" but fact.

Elements can and all do change towards lighter elements just by being around for a very long period of time.  The electrons fly off slowly one at a time at a very predictable rate and as they do the elements eventually transform into lighter ones untill they are captured by a stars gravity and are reabsorbed into heavier ones again in the nuclear furnaces of those stars.  None of this proccess is conjecture.  It is all fact. 

No amount of "faith" or "belief" can alter the proccess.  Those that choose to ignore these facts willfully or replace them in favor of a dogma of religion have no business getting involed in the discussion.  I have no problem if someone wants to be ignorant.  Just keep that stupid shit to yourself and your ignorant peers.  Attempting to poison hard earned human knowledge with this ignorance is not tolorable.


----------



## chesswarsnow (Sep 8, 2010)

Sorry bout that,







Bill Angel said:


> chesswarsnow said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry bout that,
> ...






1. So you believe that stuff?
2. Tell me how long does it take for rock to form?
3. Does anybody really know?
4. An educated guess is all anyone can come up with.
5. Maybe rock doesn't form but needs a creator?
6. Can rocks be humanly made?


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


----------



## Flopper (Sep 8, 2010)

blu said:


> So who doesn't believe in evolution? Not abiogenesis, but evolution.
> 
> I find it really hard to grasp that some people don't believe in evolution, which is proven, and I think many of those who question "evolution" are actually questioning abiogenesis:
> 
> Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


*Many people with strong religious beliefs can not accept evolution because they feel it conflicts with the scriptures.  If somehow man was excluded from evolution, which of course it can not be, then it would be far more acceptable.  I think very few religious people really care if the earthworm evolved from something else, but once you say man evolved, you are stepping on Superman's cape. 

More important, to accept that man evolved from any other species. implies that man does not have that unique special place in the world of the scriptures.   

"Today, the theory of evolution is an accepted fact for everyone but a fundamentalist minority, whose  objections are based not on reasoning but on doctrinaire adherence to religious principles
 James D. Watson*


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 8, 2010)

Flopper said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > So who doesn't believe in evolution? Not abiogenesis, but evolution.
> ...



It's interesting how the people talking the most about religion on this subject are the evolution supporters, telling everyone else how their only objections are religious.  Can we say, "talking point"?


----------



## HUGGY (Sep 8, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > blu said:
> ...



Interesting? How so?  I just spelled out how matter gets created and goes through it's changes so even a child could absorb it.  I didn't pick on any religion.  I stated clearly my objection was with willfull ignorance and interference with the procces of adding to human knowledge.  No one is going into your stupid churches and making you accept anything at gunpoint.  Kindly return the courtesy and restrain from engaging in discussions about how matter came to be with useless dogma that cannot be supported with any proof.  How you WANT things to be is not proof.  If your fantasy falls apart under the weight of the truth it is not my problem.  What is noteable but hardly "interesting" is how long it takes some eyes to see, ears to hear and minds to proccess that information.  What it is..is an anchor on human progress.


----------



## Flopper (Sep 8, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > blu said:
> ...


Many who accept evolution are also religious which results in a conflict of beliefs. So no it's not surprising.  They are simply looking to resolve a conflict that can never be resolved.  The only way a Christian can accept evolution is too reject a literal interpretation of the Bible and instead accept an interpretation that matches scientific fact.


----------



## HUGGY (Sep 8, 2010)

Flopper said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



I get it perfectly about the personal inner conflict.  It's like meeting a gal and you become a couple and she wants you to honor her feelings about her old boyfiends.  Sure HUGGY I love ya madly but I used to believe I loved so and so too.  I just want you to share me with the old flame from time to time and see how it goes.  Fuck their inner conflict!  Not my problem.  I'm okay with someone walking away admitting like those cowboy fags that they can't quit each other but I have no obligation to cheer em on and wish them a happy life together.


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 8, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> the theory of Evolution in now way precludes the possibility of a god existing.
> 
> science has yet to prove what existed before the big bang, and they have yet to trace Evolution all the way back to the start. I do not see how Evolution can not co exist with Religion. It blows Creationism out of the water but it does not preclude the existence of a god at all.



Nor does it claim too.

The problem comes from people who want to use evolution to prove God does exists.

Science is mute on the issue of God.


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 8, 2010)

chesswarsnow said:


> Sorry bout that,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So the Catholic Church is lying about what it really believes?  

Laughable.  

Of course, you are used to that.


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 8, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> When I want empty, childish insults, I'll go visit the local middle school and save you the trouble of cluttering the message board with posts like these.



Oh my God.

Pot meet fucking kettle.

If you don't want to be insulted, don't insult.

Since your entire M.O. is to insult without offering any substance, your protestations are just too fucking hilarious.


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 8, 2010)

It takes way, way more "Faith" to believe in evolution.

Then to believe in any religion.


----------



## HUGGY (Sep 8, 2010)

Sunni Man said:


> It takes way, way more "Faith" to believe in evolution.
> 
> Then to believe in any religion.



Poppycock!  Fiddlesticks!


----------



## Flopper (Sep 8, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


I personally do not see a conflict between evolution and religion.  If one accepts the Bible as a guide to living your life and how to treat others, there is no conflict.  But once one accepts only a literal interpretation of the Bible and treats it as a book of history, science, geography, and anthropology then there are huge conflicts not just with evolution, but a number branches of science, and other disciplines.


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 8, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > the theory of Evolution in now way precludes the possibility of a god existing.
> ...




Agreed, However not only do people on the right try to use it to prove GOD exists. The left also regularly tries to say it killed god.


----------



## Flopper (Sep 8, 2010)

chesswarsnow said:


> Sorry bout that,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Everything got created in 7,000 years?  If you look at the creation in Genesis, the time for creation is not really defined.  When the heavens and earth were created there was no day and night therefore there was no definition of time.  A day could have been 24 hours or 24 million years.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 8, 2010)

Flopper said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Well, I do thank you so much for telling me what I must and must not believe and how my religion works.  I'm always gratified when other people try to define my religion, beliefs, and thoughts for me, as though I'm not capable of doing it on my own.

However, I don't believe for a second that the only reason that you and the others are obsessed with "Religion!  It's all about religion!  They only disbelieve evolution because of religion!" is because you're selflessly concerned about whatever conflict you have personally determined that I and others must be having based on your - no doubt extensive - knowledge of our beliefs.

Now we've gone from "talking point" to "hubristic talking point".  Sometimes I think the only reason some people cling so desperately to evolution is because they're hoping it rules out the existence of God, and there's no room in their lives for any god but themselves.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 8, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > When I want empty, childish insults, I'll go visit the local middle school and save you the trouble of cluttering the message board with posts like these.
> ...



Oh, my God.  Talk about missing the point.

I don't give a fuck if you puerile little dimwits insult me or not.  Like any of you has the imagination or creativity to say anything that would matter to me, anyway.  My objection is to posts that serve no purpose BUT to insult, and say nothing whatsoever of substance in the process.  And no, "without offering substance" is NOT defined as "saying things that disagree with my worldview, therefore I skip over them and rush right to my own posting to tell you how stupid you are because you don't believe what 'all the smart people' do".  

I believe that actually is the most substantive argument in favor of evolution that any of you have offered, and it's only substantial in the sense that it tells everyone a great deal about you and your "scientific acumen".

At least when I tell you you're a puerile little dimwit, I continue on to explain exactly HOW you're a puerile little dimwit.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 8, 2010)

Flopper said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Once again, I thank you deeply for going to the trouble of telling me what I have to believe and how I have to believe it and defining my religion for me.  Unfortunately for your navel-gazing worldview, I neither asked you for any input on the subject, nor do I need or want it.  And I'm pretty sure most religious people would tell you the same.  Shockingly (to you, at least), it's entirely possible to be free-thinking and still come to the conclusion that YOUR opinion is bullshit.


----------



## HUGGY (Sep 9, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



Question for ya Cecile..  Do you understand how atoms work?  seriously.  Do you understand how they get formed and the forces needed to make them change into other atoms?  This has nothing to do with religion.  I am curious if you know anything about atoms.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Sep 9, 2010)

Bill Angel said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> > ... it is possible to believe in both [god and evolution], in fact IIRC the Vatican even said the two don't contradict each other (evolution says nothing about the existence of a god).
> ...


 
Yes, it is possible that the universe is 15-16 billion years old.


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 9, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



They second people like Dawkins try to do that, they have stepped outside the scope of the scientific method.


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 9, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Rough day at the office, huh?  Or is it that your weight loss plan isn't going as well as you'd hoped?

Either way, you are a textbook case of transference.


----------



## Bill Angel (Sep 9, 2010)

chesswarsnow said:


> Sorry bout that,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Concerning your last two questions:

5. Maybe rock doesn't form but needs a creator?
6. Can rocks be humanly made?

There are scientific papers with subjects such as:
"Shock and Thermal Metamorphism of Basalt by Nuclear Explosion, Nevada Test Site"
The paper reports that, as a consequence of being exposed to the intense effects of a nuclear explosion:
"Basalt rocks are converted to inhomogeneous basaltic glass."

Or turning the question around, where scientists discover basaltic glass, also known as "volcanic glass", they can make an analysis of the physical conditions that needed to be present to create this "volcanic glass".  I believe that Creationist theory would simply assert that God said "let there be basaltic glass at this site" and BANG there was basaltic glass created at that site instantanously!


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 9, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



Thank you for proving my point.  Toddle along now.  Perhaps if you weren't taking up so much space with your empty posts, someone with something to say might come along.


----------



## konradv (Sep 9, 2010)

*Second question - If evolutionary theory was correct, the fossil record should show a pattern of gradual divergence from a common ancestor, with major differences arising only after a long accumulation of minor differences. But the fossil record shows exactly the opposite.*

This directly contradicts what you're saying regarding "Darwinism".  While he may have theorized that scenario, that's NOT the modern view of how evolution works.  The reason you don't find all the intermediary steps is that there are so few of them.  Modern theory postulates that changes occur in relatively small groups that a nearly indistinguishable from the greater population, until such time as those changes prove a definite advantage and the population explodes.  Look up "Punctuated Equilibrium".


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 9, 2010)

konradv said:


> *Second question - If evolutionary theory was correct, the fossil record should show a pattern of gradual divergence from a common ancestor, with major differences arising only after a long accumulation of minor differences. But the fossil record shows exactly the opposite.*
> 
> This directly contradicts what you're saying regarding "Darwinism".  While he may have theorized that scenario, that's NOT the modern view of how evolution works.  The reason you don't find all the intermediary steps is that there are so few of them.  Modern theory postulates that changes occur in relatively small groups that a nearly indistinguishable from the greater population, until such time as those changes prove a definite advantage and the population explodes.  Look up "Punctuated Equilibrium".



You know, everyone keeps saying, "Oh, we don't believe Darwin any more.  You keep referencing Darwin (even though it's not Darwin I'm referencing at all) but that's obsolete", but no one feels the need to tell me what it is they think modern evolutionists DO believe that's so wildly divergent from what I listed.  Curious.

By the way, nothing you said changes what I said a single iota.  The fossil record still doesn't show what your theory would require, no matter how much you try to manipulate the facts to fit your theory.  And frankly, the theory you're currently postulating is even less likely than the original.  It never ceases to amaze me that evolutionists will pooh-pooh intelligent design for being "wild and unlikely", but will embrace comic-book scenarios like this without a peep.


----------



## HUGGY (Sep 9, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Miss 1200,

The only point you seem to make repeatedly is that you are offended and misunderstood.  Unfortunately this thread is one of substance.  This thread is not about your offense.  It is a debate about issues surrounding evolution.  I have inquired as to your understanding within the scope of this topic without assault and you have avoided these questions.  I must assume you do so because I offer you no personal attack to respond to.  I find this topic interesting especially because it draws the opposing viewers together for an exchange of thoughts on something we all find important.  Soooo.... when are you going to get over yourself and enter the discussion?

Again..I ask:

Do you know how atoms work?
Do you know how long the universe has been in existance?
Do you believe that Darwins study of finches is valid?
Do you know how DNA gets altered in nature?
Do you believe that we and all life as we know it came from stars? If not do you believe a god assembled us? How do you believe that happened?

Pick any of these questions and expand.  Thank you.


----------



## KissMy (Sep 9, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> ever been in old houses and bumped your head on the doorways?
> People have gotten taller.
> 
> And we are evolving in a negative direction lately it seems.
> ...



Old houses have taller doorways & higher celings.

99.9% of evidence points to de-evolution. plants, animals & people are losing genetic diversity at high rates. We are a hollow shell of our ancestors.

People who believe the 1 in a billion trait that progressively evolve verses the billions of benificial DNA traits they lost is progressive evolution are crazy.


----------



## HUGGY (Sep 9, 2010)

KissMy said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > ever been in old houses and bumped your head on the doorways?
> ...



Evolution is not linear.  Humans are an anomaly in the direction"s" evolution has gone because of the intelligence factor.  We have survived many potentially fatal diseases alone because we acted as no other species(on earth) can. 

Evolution is more like Bingo.  Each ball that pops up is a circumstance that either helps or hurts the chances of survival.  The black plague.. one ball.  A massive volcano..another.  A new food supply appears..another.  The ability to make fire..another.  It is random and the opportunities or challenges can come from any direction at any time.


----------



## Father Time (Sep 9, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> It's not that I expect any better from someone who thinks "all the smart people believe in evolution" is an argument



When did Hick say that?


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 9, 2010)

chesswarsnow said:


> 1. So you believe that stuff?
> 2. Tell me how long does it take for rock to form?
> 3. Does anybody really know?
> 4. An educated guess is all anyone can come up with.
> ...



Once again you come back to "I'm not convinced", while still not understanding "that stuff" that has been thoroughly studied.  You doubt science when it suits you, but have no problem believing every other aspect of it, including all of modern medicine, and even this technological communication, despite the fact that the same scientific method was applied to everything.

These are not educated guesses.  These are tested and reproducible evidence leading to solid conclusions.  You don't actually bother to look at the evidence, let alone formulate conclusions from it.  It's no wonder you remain in ignorance.


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 9, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Thank you for proving my point.  Toddle along now.  Perhaps if you weren't taking up so much space with your empty posts, someone with something to say might come along.



Other than satisfying your inner rage, you have no point on this thread or this board.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 9, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Oh, my God.  Talk about missing the point.
> 
> I don't give a fuck if you puerile little dimwits insult me or not.  Like any of you has the imagination or creativity to say anything that would matter to me, anyway.


And yet you CONTINUALLY return to playing this ridiculous role of victimization while concurrently claiming you don't care about it.  I have brought up several points which you thoroughly ignore, including my last post which reiterated previous posts you completely ignored to instead go off on some rant about how you thought I was calling you stupid, even though I didn't actually use that word.  *Are you seeing the trend here?*  Let me point it out for you, just in case: YOU CARE ABOUT BEING INSULTED.  You are insecure and paranoid about it.  You obsess over it, foregoing all actual topics of conversation to address it time and time again, including but not limited to the post I just quoted.




Cecilie1200 said:


> Once again, I thank you deeply for going to the trouble of telling me what I have to believe and how I have to believe it and defining my religion for me.  Unfortunately for your navel-gazing worldview, I neither asked you for any input on the subject, nor do I need or want it.  And I'm pretty sure most religious people would tell you the same.  Shockingly (to you, at least), it's entirely possible to be free-thinking and still come to the conclusion that YOUR opinion is bullshit.


More insecurity without substance on the actual topic.




Cecilie1200 said:


> The fossil record still doesn't show what your theory would require, no matter how much you try to manipulate the facts to fit your theory.


You've made reference to this more than once now.  I've asked you each time to point out what you feel doesn't support evolution.  You have yet to provide an answer.  You make vague references to a "missing link" and fossil records that require fact manipulation.  Well?  What specifically are you referencing?  Which link is missing?  Which facts require manipulation?  Yes, I'm asking you to support something you say.  Very difficult after victimizing yourself for so long, I know.




Cecilie1200 said:


> no one feels the need to tell me what it is they think modern evolutionists DO believe that's so wildly divergent from what I listed.


"Does the idea that there might be knowledge frighten you?
Does the idea that one afternoon
On Wiki-f@#%ing-pedia might enlighten you frighten you?
Does the notion that there may not be a supernatural
So blow your hippy noodle
That you would rather just stand in the fog
Of your inability to Google?"

Ever so rarely you'll say you want to know what it's all about, and yet you've taken zero initiative to actually make the 20 second wikipedia search on evolution.  I've explained it in this thread, and in several others, and have no problem explaining it again.

Evolution can be boiled down to random mutations which we know occur between generations producing variation which, under natural pressures, skews a population towards or away from specific subsets in the variation, thus strengthening or dampening those genes within the population.  It is random mutations producing non-random selection.  It is genetic.  It is not a fossil phenomenon.  It is not Darwin.  It is not any one scientist anywhere.  Evolution is a collection of reproducible verifiable facts which construct one logical conclusion.  

Let me know if you have questions, or would like to address the avoided points from my previous posts.  No need to respond if you plan on once again addressing your fixation on feeling insulted, or why Darwin isn't good enough for you.


----------



## konradv (Sep 10, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > *Second question - If evolutionary theory was correct, the fossil record should show a pattern of gradual divergence from a common ancestor, with major differences arising only after a long accumulation of minor differences. But the fossil record shows exactly the opposite.*
> ...



You're incorrect.  No one says, "we don't beieve in Darwin anymore".  That would be as dumb as saying, "we don't believe in Newton anymore", just because Einstein expanded our notion of how gravity works.  The fossil record does show species disappearring and new ones appearring.  How does that happen?  We're not manipulating facts to fit the theory; we're manipulating the theory to fit the facts.  The facts are: many species not found millions of years ago are found now and many species are very similar to those from the past, but obviously different.  To expect to find all the intermediary forms is unlikely because a whole species does not change, rather individuals within that species acquire new characteristics.  Therefore, initial numbers will be very small until some change provides the emerging species an advantage that helps them out-compete the old or gives them the ability to move to a new ecologoical niche and thrive.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 10, 2010)

konradv said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



Well, this is what you said:

This directly contradicts what you're saying regarding "Darwinism". While he may have theorized that scenario, that's NOT the modern view of how evolution works.

Sounds like "We don't believe Darwin anymore" to ME, but maybe they interpret English differently where you live.

This is what Father Time said just a couple of pages ago:

Cec why do you insist on calling it 'Darwinian evolution' when it's been pointed out to you several times that current evolutionary theory is not what Darwin originally proposed?

Sounds like "We don't believe Darwin anymore" too.

This is Hick, just a couple of posts later:

Once again you return to "Darwinian evolution" when several people have pointed out several times that the infant understanding of the topic in the early 1800s is not equivalent to evolution.

I found that particularly funny, since I had been quoting a science writer from Nature magazine just recently, but at any rate, it still sounds like "We don't believe Darwin anymore".

But now you're telling me no one's actually saying that, so I have to ask:  Are you reading the same thread I am?

How do species disappear?  They die.  No one has ever argued over the existence of death, or the fact that species go extinct.  How do they appear?  Well, that would be the argument, now wouldn't it?  

While I appreciate that modern evolution has had to make allowances for the fact that Darwin didn't know much that is now standard knowledge, it is just a piece with the general disingenuousness of evolution apologists to pretend that I'm citing Darwin's original theory.  Rather than sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting, "Evolution today is different, and you just don't understand!" over and over, why don't you try actually READING my definition of Darwinian evolution, and telling me what it is that you believe that's so radically different from what I said?  Because so far, all I'm getting are dodges, designed to allow everyone to pretend that the controversy is over things that no one is actually arguing.

I never said I expected to find all the intermediates.  What I said was that the impossibility of doing so is one reason the fossil record cannot, in principle, prove evolution.  I further said that even if we DID have all the generations and intermediates, it STILL wouldn't prove evolution.  All it proves is that stuff lived then died.  As the man said, no fossil is buried with its birth certificate.

This idea that species exist now that didn't then, therefore that proves they evolved from some totally other species is rather a large leap of . . . well, I can't call it a leap of logic, because it's not logic.  I guess I'll have to call it what it really is:  a leap of faith.  Which belongs in the realm of religion, not science.

Furthermore, no one has ever argued that species change within themselves.  This is, as I said, a disingenuous dodge to try to pretend that the debate is over something completely non-controversial and undisputed.  Change within a species does not prove change from one species to another, no matter how much evolutionists have tired of trying to prove that it does, and decided to simply assert that the issue is "obvious, and settled, and you're stupid!"


----------



## THE LIGHT (Sep 10, 2010)

Father Time said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > It's not that I expect any better from someone who thinks "all the smart people believe in evolution" is an argument
> ...


 
I have been called a hick by him because I didn't believe in evlutionism. And I am sure that was not an isolated case. 

He also refuses to answer the question of "which scientists are smart/correct, the ones that he believes in or the ones that he doesn't?"


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 10, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> This is Hick, just a couple of posts later:
> 
> Once again you return to "Darwinian evolution" when several people have pointed out several times that the infant understanding of the topic in the early 1800s is not equivalent to evolution.
> 
> I found that particularly funny, since I had been quoting a science writer from Nature magazine just recently, but at any rate, it still sounds like "We don't believe Darwin anymore".


You quoted a writer.  Who works with Nature.  The quote was not published in Nature.  It does not represent scientific theory, nor any form of research.  It is an opinion, which, if anything, supports the claim that there is much more to evolution besides bones: a concept you have yet to acknowledge.  Meanwhile, you continue to overlook that thing called GENETICS, an integral and defining part of evolution.




			
				Cecile said:
			
		

> Rather than sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting, "Evolution today is different, and you just don't understand!" over and over, why don't you try actually READING my definition of Darwinian evolution, and telling me what it is that you believe that's so radically different from what I said?


Because no one cares about your made up definition of what you think Darwinian evolution is, especially since it is not evolution.  I have explained several times what evolution is, and why your idea is incorrect, including but not limited to the entire lack of genetics which your fabricated definition avoids.  



			
				Cecile said:
			
		

> I never said I expected to find all the intermediates.  What I said was that the impossibility of doing so is one reason the fossil record cannot, in principle, prove evolution.


But genetics can.  Except you keep pretending it doesn't exist for some reason.  Hey maybe you should start a nice long list of things you don't think can prove evolution.  Here let me help you:

staring at the ceiling
examining dirt structures
looking at footprints of animals
clapping and thinking happy thoughts
examining the contents of vomit from various animals
copying and pasting out of context quotes from the internet
examining ideas that are known to be outdated

Hey don't let me stop your fun of pointing out things that don't provide a full picture to this well studied and supported conclusion.  Keep going!  Maybe next week you can give us a list of things that don't prove gravity.  But when you grow tired of that exercise and want to discuss the things that DO support evolution, you let me know.  



			
				Cecile said:
			
		

> This idea that species exist now that didn't then, therefore that proves they evolved from some totally other species is rather a large leap of . . . well, I can't call it a leap of logic, because it's not logic.  I guess I'll have to call it what it really is:  a leap of faith.  Which belongs in the realm of religion, not science.


So you're saying that when you don't understand a topic, and you only analyze outdated ideas in the topic which today do not provide the full support of the topic, you don't see the logic.  Wow that's almost expected....



			
				Cecile said:
			
		

> Furthermore, no one has ever argued that species change within themselves.  This is, as I said, a disingenuous dodge to try to pretend that the debate is over something completely non-controversial and undisputed.  Change within a species does not prove change from one species to another, no matter how much evolutionists have tired of trying to prove that it does, and decided to simply assert that the issue is "obvious, and settled, and you're stupid!"


Did you miss that video that I showed you of ape chromosome fusion in the human genome?  Oh right that's genetics and you pretend it doesn't exist.


So let's recap your line of thinking: You only believe things that  are over 100 years old, are known to be outdated, and don't fully support the idea.  You reject, ignore, or avoid all of modern science, including genetics and radiometric dating.  Anything you post was not even said/done in this century.  Based on this ignorance, you therefore conclude your uneducated model of the concept can't possibly be correct.

So which links are missing again?  You still haven't answered this.


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 11, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Probably because it's a retarded question.   

At any rate, I am not aware of any scientists who don't believe in evolution.  Even Behe and the ID clowns believe in the mechanism of evolution.


----------



## HUGGY (Sep 11, 2010)

This is one great country!  We have Internet everywhere..even in caves and under rocks.  Eventually the fundis will transform their dogma to account for science.. The evolution is not to be denied.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 11, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > Father Time said:
> ...



I'm sure you aren't aware of any scientists who don't believe in evolution, in exactly the same way that most liberals don't know of anyone who votes Republican.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

I can only assume that your last paragraph is another disingenuous attempt to claim mundane and utterly non-controversial facts as the "evolution" actually in dispute, or "proof" thereof.


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 11, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> I'm sure you aren't aware of any scientists who don't believe in evolution, in exactly the same way that most liberals don't know of anyone who votes Republican.
> 
> http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660
> 
> I can only assume that your last paragraph is another disingenuous attempt to claim mundane and utterly non-controversial facts as the "evolution" actually in dispute, or "proof" thereof.



As I said:



> Even Behe and the ID clowns believe in the mechanism of evolution.



You really are clueless on this subject aren't you?  Thanks for the link though, now I know why you are so insistent on the use of the phrase "Darwinian theory".  

You are on par with the Discovery Institute in terms of dishonesty when it comes to discussing this matter.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 11, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> I'm sure you aren't aware of any scientists who don't believe in evolution, in exactly the same way that most liberals don't know of anyone who votes Republican.
> 
> http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660
> 
> I can only assume that your last paragraph is another disingenuous attempt to claim mundane and utterly non-controversial facts as the "evolution" actually in dispute, or "proof" thereof.



So your "proof" is an unverified list from people around the world, the majority of which have zero biology education, some of which are DECEASED, some of which have been asked to be removed from the list? Oh but look, a research assistant in chemistry from the Ukraine doesn't believe in evolution!  Strong supporting evidence! 

The reason we haven't met people who deny evolution is because that list, combined with the estimated others who agree with it, comprise 0.01% of scientists, without exaggeration. Over 99.9% of scientists, including American biologists), think intelligent design is utter crap. So please, don't compare this to being a republican.  It is not some gigantic minority that comes into power from time to time.   They are a laughable rare exception to logic, generally fueled by religious beliefs and NOT scientific reasoning.  

Perhaps you should stop using the word "disingenuous".  You're either being hypocritical, or you don't actually know what it means.

But despite having the overwhelming majority agreeing with us, this debate is about factual evidence, which we have provided.  You, however, continue to provide....  NOTHING.  Where is your evidence?  Where is your missing link?  What can you show to support ANYTHING of what you say?  Your points are so feeble and uneducated that you can't even address my posts.


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 11, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> So your "proof" is an unverified list from people around the world, the majority of which have zero biology education, some of which are DECEASED, some of which have been asked to be removed from the list? Oh but look, a research assistant in chemistry from the Ukraine doesn't believe in evolution!  Strong supporting evidence!
> 
> The reason we haven't met people who deny evolution is because that list, combined with the estimated others who agree with it, comprise 0.01% of scientists, without exaggeration. Over 99.9% of scientists, including American biologists), think intelligent design is utter crap. So please, don't compare this to being a republican.  It is not some gigantic minority that comes into power from time to time.   They are a laughable rare exception to logic, generally fueled by religious beliefs and NOT scientific reasoning.
> 
> ...



Oh yeah, the DI list has more holes in it than Swiss Cheese.

CA111.1: Scientists skeptical of evolution?

I am sure Cecille is sharp enough to know it.  Like I said, you can't expect any form of honesty when discussing this issue with these people.  

As you pointed out, their objections are grounded in religious perspective and are not scientific.


----------



## Father Time (Sep 11, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...



[youtube]Ty1Bo6GmPqM[/youtube]


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 11, 2010)

Father Time said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



Don Exodus has made a ton of good videos on evolution.  

You could literally direct any skeptic that honestly has an open mind on this matter to his site and they would have a hard time doubting evolution after that.


----------



## Father Time (Sep 11, 2010)

It'd be wise not to trust anything that comes out of the DI's mouth. They have this memo of theirs called the wedge document

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf

In it they admit they want to "reverse stifling dominance of the materialist worldview and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions"

and that one of their major goals is "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"

Doesn't sound like anything that would come from a scientific organization.


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 11, 2010)

Father Time said:


> It'd be wise not to trust anything that comes out of the DI's mouth. They have this memo of theirs called the wedge document
> 
> http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf
> 
> ...



It's not a scientific organization in the least.  It's really  PAC.  They dovote little, if any, money to bench science and research and most of their money goes towards advertisement and lobbying.  

It's yet another reason they were excoriated at the Dover trial.  They are a dishonest group of hacks.  Anyone that parrots their talking points should also have their honesty called into question.


----------



## Father Time (Sep 11, 2010)

What's a PAC?


----------



## Trajan (Sep 11, 2010)

blu said:


> So who doesn't believe in evolution? Not abiogenesis, but evolution.
> 
> I find it really hard to grasp that some people don't believe in evolution, which is proven, and I think many of those who question "evolution" are actually questioning abiogenesis:
> 
> Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



No, I believe in evolution, species shed or adapt&#8230;.I do however have issue with motor functions & sight, as to how from whole clothe that came  about&#8230;.maybe it&#8217;s the Monolith theory? ( hat tip to A C Clarke)..then theres who built/created the Monolith and all that...


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 11, 2010)

Father Time said:


> What's a PAC?



Political action committee.


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 11, 2010)

Trajan said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > So who doesn't believe in evolution? Not abiogenesis, but evolution.
> ...



2001 is basically intelligent design.  Of course, Clarke never claimed it was anything more than fiction.  

Clarke was an accomplished scientist in his own right.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 11, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> > So your "proof" is an unverified list from people around the world, the majority of which have zero biology education, some of which are DECEASED, some of which have been asked to be removed from the list? Oh but look, a research assistant in chemistry from the Ukraine doesn't believe in evolution!  Strong supporting evidence!
> ...



Ooh.  A website that does the same thing your posts does:  tries to claim everything and anything as supporting evolution by lies and disingenuity.

And please, in the future, when you're talking to people who still think your posts are honest and intelligent enough to be worth reading and responding to - people who aren't me, in other words - do NOT ever again try to spread your dishonest net of "claim everything" to me.  I'm sure you think you're handing out a compliment by trying to tell everyone that I secretly know how right and brilliant you are and am just lying about you for my own nefarious purposes.  The truth is, though, that I think you're a halfwit.  Not because you believe in evolution, but because you don't even know WHY you believe in it, yet your reaction to any questioning of your dogma approaches frothing zealotry.

I started this thread by saying that I don't believe in evolution.  I don't actively or zealously disbelieve in it, either.  I'm not married to the proposition that it's untrue.  I just don't feel it's been proven sufficiently to command my belief.  You and your lover, Hick, have since reacted to that statement as if I proposed burning all science textbooks and putting evolutionists to the torch, and neither one of you has come up with an argument that amounted to any more than adolescent peer pressure.  "You should believe evolution because that's what smart people do.  If you don't accept it as settled fact, you're an anachronistic religious nut."  

Your boyfriend has long since put himself out of the running of being even vaguely worth the effort of reading, although I note with amusement that he's still running his gums in long-winded, bloviating insult rants to himself.  You have now reached the same boredom factor as him, so feel free to turn all your attentions to more verbal mutual masturbation like this post.  I have no intention of interrupting your lovefest any more, and would be appreciative if you wouldn't interrupt any conversation I might manage to find with someone who actually has something to say, should such a person show up.


----------



## Father Time (Sep 11, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanHick said:
> ...



So basically you can't handle it and you're running away again. Ok let me know when you actually plan to stick with that.

And I'm still waiting on you telling me when they actually said "You should believe evolution because that's what smart people do."


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 11, 2010)

Ah I see.  The tactic of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting loudly.  I've given you video, text, and my own explanation regarding the proof of evolution.  You have ignored all of it, while claiming we only say "it's true because people believe it".  No.  It's true because of the evidence you refuse to acknowledge exists.  In fact you're the only one who has provided as their sole evidence a list of people who agree with you.

*I know exactly why I believe in evolution: the reproducible evidence. * And I can tell you for a fact that I know GTH has a firm understanding as well, seeing as it's somewhat difficult to obtain an MD without understanding how things work.  But sure, continue deluding yourself into thinking the two highly educated and knowledgeable individuals you are speaking to are somehow just parroting off nonsense.

Now that you've backed yourself into an intellectual sinkhole, your only option is to run for the door and hope no one notices the crap still actively spewing from your mouth.  Run along now, little girl.


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 11, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> The truth is, though, that I think you're a halfwit.  Not because you believe in evolution, but because you don't even know WHY you believe in it, yet your reaction to any questioning of your dogma approaches frothing zealotry.



If you didn't make a habit of being intentionally abrasive and rude, you wouldn't be viewed as a total asshole and perhaps people would entertain the notion of intelligent conversation with you.  

Ironic that you whine about me presuming to speak for you and yet you do the same for me.  FWIW, I accept evolution because I have formally studied it in an academic setting.  I did so with an open mind and without sticking my finger in my ears as you are.   



> I started this thread by saying that I don't believe in evolution.  I don't actively or zealously disbelieve in it, either.  I'm not married to the proposition that it's untrue.  I just don't feel it's been proven sufficiently to command my belief.  You and your lover, Hick, have since reacted to that statement as if I proposed burning all science textbooks and putting evolutionists to the torch, and neither one of you has come up with an argument that amounted to any more than adolescent peer pressure.  "You should believe evolution because that's what smart people do.  If you don't accept it as settled fact, you're an anachronistic religious nut."




As I said before, I could care less if you don't want to believe evolution.  However, your claim that your stance comes from any sort of educated or honest place is absurd.  You merely choose to ignore the evidence.  That's your right, but don't think you are so crafty that it's not patently obvious.    



> Your boyfriend has long since put himself out of the running of being even vaguely worth the effort of reading, although I note with amusement that he's still running his gums in long-winded, bloviating insult rants to himself.  You have now reached the same boredom factor as him, so feel free to turn all your attentions to more verbal mutual masturbation like this post.  I have no intention of interrupting your lovefest any more, and would be appreciative if you wouldn't interrupt any conversation I might manage to find with someone who actually has something to say, should such a person show up.



Most likely because other posters believe you are capable of discussing this, or any issue, reasonably if they just try hard enough.  I know otherwise.  I see you as an angry person that basically jumps on threads to stoke up your anger and lash out at other posters.  Why you choose to do so I can only guess.

Either way, I could care less.  I can assure you that your opinion of me is just as irrelevant in my eyes as is my opinion of you in your eyes.  

It is also only too predictable that, now that you have gotten your fix, you choose to run away.


----------



## Father Time (Sep 11, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> Ah I see.  The tactic of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting loudly.  I've given you video, text, and my own explanation regarding the proof of evolution.  You have ignored all of it, while claiming we only say "it's true because people believe it".  No.  It's true because of the evidence you refuse to acknowledge exists.  In fact you're the only one who has provided as their sole evidence a list of people who agree with you.
> 
> *I know exactly why I believe in evolution: the reproducible evidence. * And I can tell you for a fact that I know GTH has a firm understanding as well, seeing as it's somewhat difficult to obtain an MD without understanding how things work.  But sure, continue deluding yourself into thinking the two highly educated and knowledgeable individuals you are speaking to are somehow just parroting off nonsense.
> 
> Now that you've backed yourself into an intellectual sinkhole, your only option is to run for the door and hope no one notices the crap still actively spewing from your mouth.  Run along now, little girl.



Remind me again what evidence did you show? All I remember you doing is giving her terms to google (which she ignored) and asking her to specify what she meant by 'missing link' (which she also ignored).


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 11, 2010)

Father Time said:


> Remind me again what evidence did you show? All I remember you doing is giving her terms to google (which she ignored) and asking her to specify what she meant by 'missing link' (which she also ignored).



Perfectly reasonable question.  I have no problem skimming the thread to answer it. First, I started with a youtube video that shows ape ancestry, as I know people don't like to read things:



SmarterThanHick said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Provide evidence that a single species of ANIMAL has ever evolved into 2 or more DIFFERENT species. That is what is claimed by evolution.
> ...



Then at someone's request, I walked through the basics of evolution:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...oesnt-believe-in-evolution-5.html#post2678278

Then I addressed the statistics of those basics:


> Ecoli have about 4 million different places for a mutation. A single E.coli can create 4 million progeny in about 8 hours. Even IF mutations only occur every 1 in a thousand replications, that means statistically every place can be mutated in less than half a day. There is further complexity to the math when you factor in HOW things are getting changes, or deletions, or additions, but the idea that it is impossible just because you can't count past 100 is silly.



I then mentioned a few different aspects of evolution, asking her which she was unsure of or needed clarification on.  She responded by claiming I was using those aspects to intimidate her, avoiding the question.

I then mentioned radiometric dating, which she ignored, mitochondrial tracking, which she ignored, and reiterated the basics of evolution with a wikipedia link, which she ignored.  Note the trend.

Let me know if there are any questions.


----------



## Richard-H (Sep 11, 2010)

Methinks that the beginnings of an evolutionary division of the human race into separate species is being made apparent in this thread.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Sep 11, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > Father Time said:
> ...


 
Yes, and for that matter, all scientists believe in creation too.


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 12, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...



So what is your theory on the diversity of life?

We get that you reject evolution.  That's fine.  But by all means, please explain what you believe and why?


----------



## THE LIGHT (Sep 12, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...


 
I don't reject evolution. I reject evolutionism.


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 12, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...



What does that mean?

And why are you so scared to answer a simple question?


----------



## konradv (Sep 13, 2010)

*This directly contradicts what you're saying regarding "Darwinism". While he may have theorized that scenario, that's NOT the modern view of how evolution works.

Sounds like "We don't believe Darwin anymore" to ME, but maybe they interpret English differently where you live.*

Apparently we do.  Newton's Laws have been modified by Einstein, but are still valid in many cases where relativistic speeds aren't an issue.  Many of Darwin's points are similarly valid, despite the fact that some aspects of the theory have been modified to take into account new information.  It's not a different interpretation that's the problem here, but that you seem to want everything to follow your interpretation.


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 13, 2010)

konradv said:


> *This directly contradicts what you're saying regarding "Darwinism". While he may have theorized that scenario, that's NOT the modern view of how evolution works.
> 
> Sounds like "We don't believe Darwin anymore" to ME, but maybe they interpret English differently where you live.*
> 
> Apparently we do.  Newton's Laws have been modified by Einstein, but are still valid in many cases where relativistic speeds aren't an issue.  Many of Darwin's points are similarly valid, despite the fact that some aspects of the theory have been modified to take into account new information.  It's not a different interpretation that's the problem here, but that you seem to want everything to follow your interpretation.



When it comes to anti-evos, the question they will never answer is "how do you account for the diversity of life".  

They make a cottage industry out of tossing stones at established scientific theory while never offering any workable alternative.


----------



## antagon (Sep 13, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > So who doesn't believe in evolution? Not abiogenesis, but evolution.
> ...



 the no evidence act again.


----------



## antagon (Sep 13, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I was going to start a thread like this one, so instead let me contribute here.
> 
> First, why is evolution an article of faith?  Why do you ask if I "Believe" in it?  Is it like time and gravity?
> 
> ...



ah, frank.  back pretending old questions about evolution remain unanswered.  what is it with your random mutation obsession?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 13, 2010)

konradv said:


> *This directly contradicts what you're saying regarding "Darwinism". While he may have theorized that scenario, that's NOT the modern view of how evolution works.
> 
> Sounds like "We don't believe Darwin anymore" to ME, but maybe they interpret English differently where you live.*
> 
> Apparently we do.  Newton's Laws have been modified by Einstein, but are still valid in many cases where relativistic speeds aren't an issue.  Many of Darwin's points are similarly valid, despite the fact that some aspects of the theory have been modified to take into account new information.  It's not a different interpretation that's the problem here, but that you seem to want everything to follow your interpretation.



And when I start talking about Newton, this will matter.  While you're still doubletalking around Darwinism, this will just make me roll my eyes in contempt.  "Oh, we respect Darwin, but don't you dare call what we believe in Darwinism.  That's too damned specific, and makes it hard for us to claim that you're arguing against change over time!"

Spare me.  Just more cover-ups and dodges.  How is anyone supposed to believe in something whose proponents support it with empty shell games?

Like I said before.  When one of you grows a pair of stones and can actually tell me where what you believe differs from Darwinism as defined by me - or fuck, actually explain what you believe other than "evolution is settled fact, all the smart people believe it, so it's beneath me to define it for you religious nut peons" - you call me.  Otherwise, you're a waste of time, and thanks to the "stellar" debating skills of you, Geaux, and Hick, I now am even less-inclined to believe evolution than I was when the thread started.  Congratulations.


----------



## Neser Boha (Sep 13, 2010)

Let's see ... at least 7 people on this forum are retarded ...


----------



## Father Time (Sep 13, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > *This directly contradicts what you're saying regarding "Darwinism". While he may have theorized that scenario, that's NOT the modern view of how evolution works.
> ...



Internet Argument Techniques | Cracked.com

It looks like we got ourselves another Hotel California Guest.


----------



## konradv (Sep 13, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > *This directly contradicts what you're saying regarding "Darwinism". While he may have theorized that scenario, that's NOT the modern view of how evolution works.
> ...



Newton matters because this is a matter of logic.  If you can't see the connection, then it's me that needs to roll my eyes.  This isn't double-talk.  This is a simple explanation of CURRENT evolutionary theory.  This talk of "Darwinism" is the REAL dodge.  It isn't a theory based solely on his writings and certainly doesn't depend on ANYTHING as defined by you.  You've got a lot of nerve taking about "stones" and someone's debating skills.  Weren't you the one that was complaining that people were calling names and not actually debating?  Now you're doing the very same thing.  I've haven't done that, so I believe you owe me the same or you're just being hypocritical.  I've tried to explain "punctuated equilibrium".  Maybe I haven't explained it well enough, but to suggest that no attempt has been made is disingenuous.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 13, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> And when I start talking about Newton, this will matter.  While you're still doubletalking around Darwinism, this will just make me roll my eyes in contempt.  "Oh, we respect Darwin, but don't you dare call what we believe in Darwinism.  That's too damned specific, and makes it hard for us to claim that you're arguing against change over time!"
> 
> Spare me.  Just more cover-ups and dodges.  How is anyone supposed to believe in something whose proponents support it with empty shell games?


Yes, we respect the man for making a good starting point on the topic, even though we have moved far past the topic.  That does not support his ideas as perfect, it simply acknowledges he was moving in the right direction.  But once again you focus on Darwinism, as defined by you, instead of current evolutionary understanding.




Cecilie1200 said:


> Like I said before.  When one of you grows a pair of stones and can actually tell me where what you believe differs from Darwinism as defined by me - or fuck, actually explain what you believe other than "evolution is settled fact, all the smart people believe it, so it's beneath me to define it for you religious nut peons" - you call me.


Actually, I did just that in a summary in this post.  Oh but that's right: you claim you're not reading my posts, while concurrently claiming no one has explained it to you.  Keep your eyes closed hard enough and you are effectively blind, dear.


----------



## HUGGY (Sep 13, 2010)

Well as I see it all that talk from the buckle of the bible belt as how GAAAAWWWWDDD just loves their football team is crap!  GOD doesn't know shit about football because around here he just plays his cheerleaders!


----------



## Liberty (Sep 13, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> Well as I see it all that talk from the buckle of the bible belt as how GAAAAWWWWDDD just loves their football team is crap!  GOD doesn't know shit about football because around here he just plays his cheerleaders!



Easy, Jimmy.


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 13, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Like I said before.  When one of you grows a pair of stones and can actually tell me where what you believe differs *from Darwinism as defined by me* - or fuck, actually explain what you believe other than "evolution is settled fact, all the smart people believe it, so it's beneath me to define it for you religious nut peons" - you call me.  Otherwise, you're a waste of time, and thanks to the "stellar" debating skills of you, Geaux, and Hick, *I now am even less-inclined to believe evolution than I was when the thread started.*  Congratulations.





Darwinism as defined by you?  Give me a break.  

As for the second bolded item:  even if I believed that was true, I can't state anymore times how little I care what you personally believe.  Just so long as you understand that your personal opinion is irrelevant to as a whole.  If you don't understand that, or doubt it, then consider yourself informed.  

I'll go ahead and submit videos from a physician who goes by the handle DonExodus2 who has spent a lot of time covering the issue of evolution on youtube.  

This is what we (and people who accept the modern synthesis) believe.  Again, I am not trying to convince you, but you now can consider yourself completely informed about what we believe and can no longer hide behind idiotic ad hominem attacks to cover your willful ignorance.  

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpNeGuuuvTY&feature=fvsr]YouTube - How Evolution Works- Introduction (Part I)[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtIQvkQWTZY]YouTube - How Evolution Works- Forces (Part 2)[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZ17JKIBSS4&feature=channel]YouTube - How Evolution Works Part 3- DNA[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGFvK77Fsz8&feature=channel]YouTube - How Evolution Works Part 4- Mutations[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gL0tmb3Evhc&feature=channel]YouTube - How Evolution Works Part 5- Natural Selection[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLtBLucfIrg&feature=channel]YouTube - How Evolution Works 6- The Constraints of Evolution[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEGQu3cm3CE&feature=channel]YouTube - How Evolution Works 7: Speciation[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne1GwkFmylY&feature=channel]YouTube - How Evolution Works 8: Speciation II[/ame]

You will no doubt ignore the information contained in these videos, as you really aren't concerned with an honest discussion on this topic.  

I thought you were leaving?


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 14, 2010)

I'm guessing she won't watch a single one.  And then in a month or two claim no one has shown her anything.


----------



## antagon (Sep 14, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> I'm guessing she won't watch a single one.  And then in a month or two claim no one has shown her anything.



obstinacy: the talent that's needed to remain uninformed, even in the information age.


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 14, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> I'm guessing she won't watch a single one.  And then in a month or two claim no one has shown her anything.



That's exactly what she'll do.  Or maybe she'll bitch that no one can argue "Darwinism as defined by" her (because none of us believe that anyways, obviously).

I have long ceased to try and convince these people of anything.  They are like the third group of people Exodus talks about in the first minutes of his video.

I only put that up there to shut up the "you guys can't explain to me what you believe"..

Of course, she'll probably still say it.


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 14, 2010)

Oh, some simple stats from the intro video that are often paraded around:

70% of Scientists believe in God.
99.98% of biologists accept evolution.

Sources in the video.


----------



## USViking (Sep 25, 2010)

Yes, I do believe evolution is true.


----------



## Big Fitz (Sep 25, 2010)

rdean said:


> Even if it came down to simply, "Who is more believable?"  Those that push the supernatural or those that offer scientific evidence.   I would still believe scientists, simply because they present so much evidence.  Way beyond, "Gawd did it".
> 
> What is the evidence for evolution?
> 
> This is why Republicans don't get scientists:




BARACK!  Six Percent!  Six Percent!  BARACK OBAMA!  Tweetweet!

It's not a lib science thread till Rdolt posts useless charts!



Now to the OP.


I do believe in micro-evolution.  It's been proven quite conclusively it happens.  Diseases and insects become immune to all sorts of treatment.  Minor non structural mutations that don't kill occur.  Things like that.  This has been proven through direct observation and time.

I don't believe in macro-evolution.  The fish didn't become a frog, or a bird or a dinosaur.  Sorry, I have seen no evidence of 'bootstrapping' in biology from one species to the next.  

If you want to get really convoluted, consider maybe that the world WAS created by God, and then sin is the source of all mutation and "evolution".  The monsters (yes that was an official scientific term once) we find in the fossil record had lived at one time, but were perversions created by a sin damaged world.  Most of which, if you believe in the Bible, were destroyed during the Flood.

I don't know for sure.  I don't claim the Bible is a scientific document either.  I'm just throwing that open for the possibility it's true.  For at this point, it has just as much weight as species evolving into another, even somewhat similar, species.  No proof, just belief based on what you trust.


----------



## antagon (Sep 25, 2010)

fitz, what is the difference between your ideas of micro and macro evolution?   what prevents the changes you accept from diverging to the extent that scientists might call the original specimen a different creature than the evolved?

the challenge for folks like yourself who believe that there are two types of evolution is to show the natural barrier that differentiates them.  if i contend that there are two sexes, i could point to their respective genes to substantiate it.  _what substantiates your idea about micro and macro evolution?  where is the evidence for your claimed ceiling on the extent of evolutionary change?_


----------



## Big Fitz (Sep 25, 2010)

Show me the fossil record of change.  We've no evidence of organs evolving, or skeletal records changing, gradual or radically.  

It doesn't exist.


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 25, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Show me the fossil record of change.  We've no evidence of organs evolving, or skeletal records changing, gradual or radically.
> 
> It doesn't exist.



It might surprise you to learn that soft tissue is not well represented in the fossil record.  

Shocking, I know.


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 25, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> [
> I do believe in micro-evolution.  It's been proven quite conclusively it happens.  Diseases and insects become immune to all sorts of treatment.  Minor non structural mutations that don't kill occur.  Things like that.  This has been proven through direct observation and time.
> 
> I don't believe in macro-evolution.  The fish didn't become a frog, or a bird or a dinosaur.  Sorry, I have seen no evidence of 'bootstrapping' in biology from one species to the next.



As I said before, this statement is akin to saying you believe in a penny but not a quarter.  It further becomes silly when you consider that the concept of species is a man-made venture.  We define where to draw the line for what is and isn't a species based on our own rules.  You accept that MSSA became MRSA and you are fine with that, because it's still Staph aureus.  However, if tomorrow the microbiologists decided that MRSA was a novel species that deserved it's own name (like what happened when member of the Strept family became enterococcus), would you cease to believe that MRSA exists since it is now a new species?

This is why this is simply a silly rhetorical argument that only the anti-evolution people toss around.  No one else pays attention to it. 



> I don't know for sure.  I don't claim the Bible is a scientific document either.  I'm just throwing that open for the possibility it's true.  For at this point, it has just as much weight as species evolving into another, even somewhat similar, species.  No proof, just belief based on what you trust.



And again, you may choose to reject the evidence for evolution.  That doesn't mean it is non-existent.


----------



## Big Fitz (Sep 25, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Show me the fossil record of change.  We've no evidence of organs evolving, or skeletal records changing, gradual or radically.
> ...


no shit?

I never would have known.  But soft tissue a structural change does not make.


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 25, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



But it does bear out your complaint about "no evidence of organs evolving" to be absurd nonsense.

As for the fossil record, it absolutely shows gradual change.


----------



## Big Fitz (Sep 25, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


So now you're saying all evolutionary change is a straight line progression?

A rat is a cat is a dog is a boy?

You're talking micro-evolution.  But let me ask this then.  If micro and macro evolution are the same, where are the wooly mammoths?  Where are the neanderthals?  Why are there still apes?  Why don't Dinosaurs exist?

I'm not saying science is infallible.  In fact I'm insisting Science is VERY fallible, and is nothing more than mankind's best guess on how the universe works.  It is not the definer of reality.


----------



## Big Fitz (Sep 25, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...


No shit?

You mean you have incontrovertible proof, and not just guesses, conjecture and theory?  I'd love to see that.

Can shove that "fact" right back up where you pulled it out.


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 25, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> So now you're saying all evolutionary change is a straight line progression?



No.  I never said that.  In light of that, the rest of your post makes little sense.  Furthermore, the existence of macroevolution doesn't extinguish the concept of extinction.



> I'm not saying science is infallible.  In fact I'm insisting Science is VERY fallible, and is nothing more than mankind's best guess on how the universe works.  It is not the definer of reality.



I agree except for the "best guess" statement.  Again, evolution is well supported if you are willing to not simply dismiss the evidence out of hand.


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 25, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> No shit?
> 
> You mean you have incontrovertible proof, and not just guesses, conjecture and theory?  I'd love to see that.
> 
> Can shove that "fact" right back up where you pulled it out.



No one claimed "incontrovertible proof".  We have claimed that it is far more than whimsical guesses made in the back rooms of academia.  

You can see the proof if you care to watch any of the videos I linked or crack a biology book.


----------



## konradv (Sep 25, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Show me the fossil record of change.  We've no evidence of organs evolving, or *skeletal records changing*, gradual or radically.
> 
> It doesn't exist.



No skeletal record?!?!  What about the evolution of the horse?

Evolution of the horse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Big Fitz (Sep 25, 2010)

> Again, evolution is well supported if you are willing to not simply  dismiss the evidence out of hand.



Nice try to misconstrue.  I said, microevolution happens.  Still seen no proof of macro.


----------



## Big Fitz (Sep 25, 2010)

konradv said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Show me the fossil record of change.  We've no evidence of organs evolving, or *skeletal records changing*, gradual or radically.
> ...


interesting.  A solid record of mutation to be sure.

Whether or not it's macroevolution, I'm still unconvinced.  After all, you have zebras, impalas, and all sorts of other dromidaries out there that could be mistaken potentially for ancestors.  That's what I'm talking about best guess.  We've made lots like this before in science.

Also,


----------



## konradv (Sep 25, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



No they wouldn't be mistaken for possible anscestors, because they're modern species, i.e. descendents.  I think you're getting confused in your defintions.  Is horse evolution as presented evidence of macroevolution or isn't it?  Just because it's our "best guess" doesn't make it wrong.  it's up to the doubters to prove that.  We'll just be pulling in more fossil data.  Hope you can keep up.


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 25, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> > Again, evolution is well supported if you are willing to not simply  dismiss the evidence out of hand.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try to misconstrue.  I said, microevolution happens.  Still seen no proof of macro.



That's because you don't understand that there is no real difference between the two.


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 25, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



Is this honestly the first time you have seen this?  

How can you say there is no evidence to support evolution when you obviously haven't really looked at the evidence?


----------



## Big Fitz (Sep 25, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...


First time ever.  See, I don't waste my time pouring over national geographic looking for meaning between pictures of naked native women.  I've got much better things to do with my time.

The OP was a question of opinion.  If you want to evangelize, find someone else.  I'm not looking to convert to your religion.  Cause that's all you're pushing.


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 25, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> First time ever.  See, I don't waste my time pouring over national geographic looking for meaning between pictures of naked native women.  I've got much better things to do with my time.



In other words, you are too intellectually lazy to really look at the evidence that supports evolution and instead choose to "dismiss first, look at later" and with a particularly lame excuse.  National Geographic?  WTF???



> The OP was a question of opinion.  If you want to evangelize, find someone else.  I'm not looking to convert to your religion.  Cause that's all you're pushing.



Of course you would consider any attempt to beat some information into your thick cranium as "evangelizing".  You couldn't be bothered to actually consider the facts and data.  No wonder you think it's voodoo.  Of course, that is your fault and not anyone or anything elses.


----------



## antagon (Sep 25, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Show me the fossil record of change.  We've no evidence of organs evolving, or skeletal records changing, gradual or radically.
> 
> It doesn't exist.



there's plenty to establish all of that, fitz.  plenty.  but the question remains about what facilitates a barrier to your concept of microevolution from allowing differences to come about which over time might constitute your idea of macro evolution.

from what i understand about biology, there is nothing like that -- no such barrier.  if you know otherwise, that could explain why you believe evolution is split like that.  if there isn't anything to substantiate a difference between these concepts you endear, maybe there is no difference and your thoughts about microevolution do extend to evolution in the way virtually every biologist believes.

do you have an answer or could you appreciate that there's no such thing as micro and macro evolution?


----------



## Big Fitz (Sep 25, 2010)

Oh yeah, the priests of evolution think they got a winner.  Look at em try the full court press.  You still only have best guess, not truth like the rest of it.  You trust scientists completely.  I don't.  Science is full of people blowing smoke up the asses of people and covering with pretty charts graphs and experiments.

I don't give a fuck about your faith.


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 25, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Oh yeah, the priests of evolution think they got a winner.  Look at em try the full court press.  You still only have best guess, not truth like the rest of it.  You trust scientists completely.  I don't.  Science is full of people blowing smoke up the asses of people and covering with pretty charts graphs and experiments.
> 
> I don't give a fuck about your faith.



Full court press on what?  No one cares what you personally believe in.


----------



## antagon (Sep 25, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Oh yeah, the priests of evolution think they got a winner.  Look at em try the full court press.  You still only have best guess, not truth like the rest of it.  You trust scientists completely.  I don't.  Science is full of people blowing smoke up the asses of people and covering with pretty charts graphs and experiments.
> 
> I don't give a fuck about your faith.



is this really what you think about science?

you've got to admit going from stating that you have a rational stance based on your perception of a lack of evidence presumably because what you believe is supported by evidence.

now i think you've abandoned any interest in truth or evidence, and have contended that studying anything in the pursuit of understanding it is a waste of time -- even paying attention in high school.  you've characterized science as being bullshit with pretty charts -- what i would describe as the observations of a total ignoramus.  ignorant and reticent to learning at once.

why did you bother holding an opinion based on fact at all, no matter how loosely?


----------



## konradv (Sep 25, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Oh yeah, the priests of evolution think they got a winner.  Look at em try the full court press.  You still only have best guess, not truth like the rest of it.  You trust scientists completely.  I don't.  Science is full of people blowing smoke up the asses of people and covering with pretty charts graphs and experiments.
> 
> I don't give a fuck about your faith.



...or logical debate, apparently!


----------



## Big Fitz (Sep 25, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Oh yeah, the priests of evolution think they got a winner.  Look at em try the full court press.  You still only have best guess, not truth like the rest of it.  You trust scientists completely.  I don't.  Science is full of people blowing smoke up the asses of people and covering with pretty charts graphs and experiments.
> ...


Ditto.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 25, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> I do believe in micro-evolution.  It's been proven quite conclusively it happens.  Diseases and insects become immune to all sorts of treatment.


Everyone seemed to ask you "What's the difference between the minor changes you 'believe' in, and multiple small changes in combination to make larger ones?".  You have yet to answer this.  The term "micro-evolution" is a made up term to distinguish between things which can absolutely not be refuted by even the most ignorant of people, and the rest of the concept, which is actually all the same thing.



			
				Fitz said:
			
		

> I don't believe in macro-evolution.  The fish didn't become a frog, or a bird or a dinosaur.


I think the better quote would be "I don't understand macro-evolution", because the example you gave in that quote is NOT evolution.  No scientist believes fish became frogs or dinosaurs.  



			
				Fitz said:
			
		

> If you want to get really convoluted, consider maybe that the world WAS created by God, and then sin is the source of all mutation and "evolution".


So in other words, this is your personally made up idea of what's going on, with absolutely no supporting evidence.  You seem to focus on the idea that evolution is a "belief" or "guess" just like the religious bullshit I just quoted above.  The difference, of course, being that the smart people have evidence, and you....   don't.  You have make-believe bedtime stories supported only by the hot air between your ears.  



			
				Fitz said:
			
		

> The monsters (yes that was an official scientific term once)


When was that?  Recently?  Few decades ago?  Centuries?  When was "monsters" a scientific term, exactly?

The reason I'm bringing this up is to point out an underlying theme to your ignorance: you have absolutely NO CLUE what current scientific understanding consists of.  You bring up fossils as the end-all evidence, when it hasn't been the case in half a century.



			
				Fitz said:
			
		

> I don't claim the Bible is a scientific document either.  I'm just throwing that open for the possibility it's true.  For at this point, it has just as much weight as species evolving into another, even somewhat similar, species.  No proof, just belief based on what you trust.


Except, that's not true at all.  Just because you have a different belief does not mean it is equal in the least.  All opinions are not equal.  Some are far superior.  In this case, evolutionary theory has an overwhelming amount of reproducible genetic evidence, all of which supports evolution, none of which refutes it.  The bible theory has absolutely no reproducible evidence, and no further investigation into the physical world can procure any additional information on biblical theory.  In short: you have nothing to show, and I have 3 billion base pairs in every human in my support.



Big Fitz said:


> First time ever.  See, I don't waste my time pouring over national geographic looking for meaning between pictures of naked native women.  I've got much better things to do with my time.



So in other words, you have absolutely no knowledge on the topic, decide to form ignorant opinions anyway, and still claim it's equal to our understanding.  How silly.  How immature.  I'm guessing you're still a teenager.  By all means, tell me I'm wrong.

In the meantime, it would behoove you to acquire a minuscule amount of knowledge on a topic before entering a conversation about it.


----------



## Big Fitz (Sep 25, 2010)

Don't have to be an expert to hold an opinion on any subject.  Of course, I can see it is not permissible to tolerate anyone differing from YOUR opinion, so just put me in the death camp with the cool people.  We'll enjoy ourselves, sing hymns and pray for your souls after you kill us all.

Oh and you can have reciprocal neg rep every time you pop me with your piddly ass 15 points.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 25, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Don't have to be an expert to hold an opinion on any subject.


Oh that's certainly true.  But generally you want to have SOME idea of the topic before actually forming an opinion.  That's the difference between ignorance and an educated understanding.  That "guessing" you refer to is only done by people such as yourself.  

So once again I will restate: it would behoove you to acquire a minuscule amount of knowledge on a topic before entering a conversation about it.  But as I said before, all opinions are not created equal.  Yours, for example, is worthless when it comes to this topic, it seems.



> Oh and you can have reciprocal neg rep every time you pop me with your piddly ass 15 points.


Be my guest.  Stupidity does not abate just because you reciprocate a neg rep.  

Let me know if you'd actually like to learn a bit on the topic.  Knowledge might help with that "opinion" you have simmering.


----------



## antagon (Sep 25, 2010)

nobody's said anything about being an expert, fitz, however, you've demo'd that you have fled from informing yourself on the subject entirely.  you've challenged the factual validity of other's knowledge, but not answered challenges to your own.  simple questions.

everyone can have an opinion.  there's expert opinions and there's willfully ignorant opinions and plenty in between.  i dont think there's any cool, willfully ignorant adults, man.  there's no moral or spiritual high ground afforded by your willful ignorance either.


----------



## Woyzeck (Sep 25, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Oh yeah, the priests of evolution think they got a winner.  Look at em try the full court press.  You still only have best guess, not truth like the rest of it.  You trust scientists completely.  I don't.  Science is full of people blowing smoke up the asses of people and covering with pretty charts graphs and experiments.
> 
> I don't give a fuck about your faith.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-agl0pOQfs]YouTube - Insane Clown Posse - Miracles[/ame]

I never knew Fitz could write such catchy songs.


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 26, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



Obviously you do, or you wouldn't devote so much time to arguing against evolution.

As we are arguing for what the scientific establishment deems to be the most accurate account of the origins of species, we can dismiss your sillyness.

The same is not true for you.  You have the burden of proof if you want to disprove or argue against evolution.  That is why you spend time making banal posts.

If you really didn't care about evolution, you wouldn't make any posts on it.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 26, 2010)

Pulling articles from Wikipedia does not make anyone smart.


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 26, 2010)

antagon said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Oh yeah, the priests of evolution think they got a winner.  Look at em try the full court press.  You still only have best guess, not truth like the rest of it.  You trust scientists completely.  I don't.  Science is full of people blowing smoke up the asses of people and covering with pretty charts graphs and experiments.
> ...



This is the basic dead-end you run into with most anti-evolution people.  Then you realize their objections are not based in any sort of legitimate scientific argument.  It's all religious in nature.

Then you realize that you have wasted your time arguing something with someone who will never accept it anyways.


----------



## antagon (Sep 26, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Pulling articles from Wikipedia does not make anyone smart.



c'mon. what would you know about smart, frank?


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 26, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Pulling articles from Wikipedia does not make anyone smart.



Correct.  It's used to support smart arguments in simple language for people such as yourself.  If you'd like primary research publications, I'd be happy to share that as well.  But my guess is those types of references are above your head.  

You let me know how you'd like me to support my claims.  I don't mind using Wikipedia as long as people like you can understand it.  But really, wikipedia as a supporting source is still better than your supporting source of.....   nothing.


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 26, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Pulling articles from Wikipedia does not make anyone smart.
> ...



The Wiki argument is so lame anyways.  If we were talking about academic work, then I'd agree, but it suffices for internet debate.

And if anyone has a problem with the information, they can check out the citations/primary sources.


----------



## konradv (Sep 27, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Don't have to be an expert to hold an opinion on any subject.  Of course, I can see it is not permissible to tolerate anyone differing from YOUR opinion, so just put me in the death camp with the cool people.  We'll enjoy ourselves, sing hymns and pray for your souls after you kill us all.
> 
> Oh and you can have reciprocal neg rep every time you pop me with your piddly ass 15 points.



LOL!!!  So it's all about rep and being cool?  Who's got time to think that kind of loser attitude passes for enlightening debate?  I don't believe you see very much at all.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 27, 2010)

Where does the force of Evolution fit in the Unified field theory?

We have the Electromagnetic force, the strong force, the weak force and the force of gravity. Where does the force of Evolution fit into the matrix?

Is evolution like time, the 4th dimension of our physical world? 

What is the quantum particle of evolution?

Continue to clip articles from Wikipedia to enlighten me on the topic

Is evolution a "Force"?  If not, what is it?


----------



## antagon (Sep 27, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Where does the force of Evolution fit in the Unified field theory?
> 
> We have the Electromagnetic force, the strong force, the weak force and the force of gravity. Where does the force of Evolution fit into the matrix?
> 
> ...



what could he be thinking?  is this from thought at all?


----------



## konradv (Sep 27, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Where does the force of Evolution fit in the Unified field theory?
> 
> We have the Electromagnetic force, the strong force, the weak force and the force of gravity. Where does the force of Evolution fit into the matrix?
> 
> ...



DUUUUUUUUUH!!!  A completely seperate theory.  After participating in so many evolution threads, you'd think there'd be a little bit of comprehension, unless Frank's true agenda is to be a TROLL!!!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 27, 2010)

antagon said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Where does the force of Evolution fit in the Unified field theory?
> ...



Maybe evolution is like gravity, we know it's there, we can see it at work, we can even measure it like the peppered moth, but we cannot locate the particle that propagates it through our physical Universe


----------



## antagon (Sep 27, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



have you considered that genetics propagates evolution, frank?  heredity?


----------



## Bill Angel (Sep 27, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Here is another fact from Wiki supporting evolution:

"Human embryos have a tail that measures about one-sixth of the size of the embryo itself.As the embryo develops into a fetus, the tail is absorbed by the growing body. The developmental tail is thus a human vestigial structure."
See: Tail - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's hard to envision an "Intelligent Designer" creating a design for an embryo that would possess  vestigial structures such as a tail. 

But that still leaves open the question of what evolutionary advantage an individual would possess through the elimination of a tail? Why would humanoids with smaller tails (or with no tail) win out in that continuing contest known as "Natural Selection"?


----------



## konradv (Sep 27, 2010)

Bill Angel said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanHick said:
> ...



Presumably tails would help with balance when one lived in the trees.   When wetarted living on the ground a tail was just something else for a predator to grab or an extra appendage that could get injured and infected.  Therefore, evolutionary pressure would trend towards those with smaller tails until they were completely elimated, except in vestigal and embryonic forms.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 27, 2010)

antagon said:


> fitz, what is the difference between your ideas of micro and macro evolution?   what prevents the changes you accept from diverging to the extent that scientists might call the original specimen a different creature than the evolved?
> 
> the challenge for folks like yourself who believe that there are two types of evolution is to show the natural barrier that differentiates them.  if i contend that there are two sexes, i could point to their respective genes to substantiate it.  _what substantiates your idea about micro and macro evolution?  where is the evidence for your claimed ceiling on the extent of evolutionary change?_



I can't speak for Fitz, but for myself, I can say that I never said that there was any barrier preventing microevolution from becoming macroevolution.  And I think you have it backward.  It's not OUR job to prove that they are separate and differentiated, it's YOUR job to prove that they aren't.  And you haven't, which is one reason I don't currently believe in evolution.  The idea that you can say, "See, this happens, so that proves that THAT happens" and I'm supposed to either prove you wrong or believe you is nuts.  Prove that you're correct and THEN I'll follow.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 27, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



Apparently, the inability of evidence to exist is supposed to be accepted as evidence.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 27, 2010)

Christine O'Donnell does not believe in evolution....but then again she is a witch


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 27, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Is evolution a "Force"?  If not, what is it?


Things that are not forces:

car
elephant
pancake
evolution
Muslims
computer
Jupiter
library

Let me know if you have any other question on things that evolution is NOT, or if you need a dumbed down Wikipedia article to help you.  Now it's clear to me that your pathetic drive to disprove a concept you know nothing about is what prompts these silly questions, but perhaps you should first learn what evolution IS before asking what it's NOT.  No, just because gravity and evolution share something in common in your mind, being you have no clue about the underlying science, does not mean they are the same thing. 



Cecilie1200 said:


> Apparently, the inability of evidence to exist is supposed to be accepted as evidence.


Well, no.  This once again is YOUR moronic reasoning.  You choose to ignore all evidence, and claim none exists.  You claim there is a missing link, but can't point out what it is.  Meanwhile the genetic evidence is overwhelming but OH RIGHT that seems to not exist in the vacuum between your ears.


----------



## manu1959 (Sep 27, 2010)

i think evolution is pretty cool.....

at one point there was nothing...then poof...something and then everything....

it just took a looooooooooooooong time...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 27, 2010)

antagon said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > antagon said:
> ...



Self awareness propagates "evolution"


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 27, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Is evolution a "Force"?  If not, what is it?
> ...



I know you're ignorant, try not to get so hysterical about stuff you don't understand, OK?  It's not real pleasant to experience


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 27, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



Oh you are back?

Did you look at the videos?


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 27, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > fitz, what is the difference between your ideas of micro and macro evolution?   what prevents the changes you accept from diverging to the extent that scientists might call the original specimen a different creature than the evolved?
> ...



Our job is not to waste time trying to prove things to the deliberately obtuse.  

As for micro and macro evolution, that is a just a semantics issue to biologists.

If you guys are claiming that they are two discrete and separate things then that flies in the face of conventional science and the burden of proof is on you.

Here is another video for you to ignore:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ho7GaI2rCwI[/ame]


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 27, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I know you're ignorant, try not to get so hysterical about stuff you don't understand, OK?  It's not real pleasant to experience



Aw, sounds like you're upset with being proven wrong so many times, you've taken to a completely new tactic?

So once again the things I say are supported by reproducible evidence from legitimate unbiased research, and the things you say are made up by you and supported by.... NOTHING.  How's that working out for you as a life skill?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 27, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > I know you're ignorant, try not to get so hysterical about stuff you don't understand, OK?  It's not real pleasant to experience
> ...



No, seriously. I don't need you to find stuff on Wikipedia or Evolution Now magazine. That you think Ive "taken a new tact" just shows you've not been paying attention to anything I've posted in this or any other Evolution thread. 

You just like to show off your "Superiority" by ranting and raving. You think you're making a point by insulting me and all you're doing is making a point about your own shortcomings.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 27, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> No, seriously. I don't need you to find stuff on Wikipedia or Evolution Now magazine. That you think Ive "taken a new tact" just shows you've not been paying attention to anything I've posted in this or any other Evolution thread.
> 
> You just like to show off your "Superiority" by ranting and raving. You think you're making a point by insulting me and all you're doing is making a point about your own shortcomings.



Well this is a new track for you.  You went from rhetorical questions which showed you have no clue about evolution to giving that up to instead whine about how superior I am and complain about sources, none of which you've actually read. 

As I've offered in previous posts, I am happy to show you primary research articles instead of dumbed down Wikipedia articles for you, but let's be honest here: if you're not reading the dumbed down version, you're definitely not going to read the intelligent things.  Nonetheless, I can still support my facts with primary unbiased research.  RESEARCH.    You're still supporting your made up idea with...   NOTHING.  If you want to talk about "shortcomings", I recommend you look at your own ability to support the things you say.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 27, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > No, seriously. I don't need you to find stuff on Wikipedia or Evolution Now magazine. That you think Ive "taken a new tact" just shows you've not been paying attention to anything I've posted in this or any other Evolution thread.
> ...



By all means! Please don't be shy about sharing the research! 

I learned all about ManMade Global Warming by reading their research.


----------



## antagon (Sep 28, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > fitz, what is the difference between your ideas of micro and macro evolution?   what prevents the changes you accept from diverging to the extent that scientists might call the original specimen a different creature than the evolved?
> ...



there is no barrier limiting evolution to small changes in the context of millions of years.  it is the responsibility for those who propose that there is such a barrier to prove that is the case.  this is an implication of the popular micro/macro dichotomy which skeptics put forward.  it is an attempt to concede an acceptance of the mechanisms of genetics without accepting the implications of these mechanisms in evolution.  it is a fallacy because it thereby refutes our understanding of genetics without proposing a new understanding or proof of an additional mechanism which precludes sufficient change to constitute a new species.

its not a matter of making claims which science has to prove.  it is a matter of making scientific claims.  it is not a scientific claim to declare that the moon is made of cheese, or that there is an unaccounted genetic barrier to creating what we have decided to declare as independent species.

not remotely plausible.


----------



## antagon (Sep 28, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



you consider genetics self awareness.


----------



## antagon (Sep 28, 2010)

Bill Angel said:


> But that still leaves open the question of what evolutionary advantage an individual would possess through the elimination of a tail? Why would humanoids with smaller tails (or with no tail) win out in that continuing contest known as "Natural Selection"?



works for gorillas and chimps.  selection isnt always about winning out as much as it could be a matter of divergent evolution.  the lifestyles of upper primates and monkeys are quite different.  the tail issue might have been redundant for the decidedly more surface-active creatures among which we are part.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 28, 2010)

Its not just that O'Donnell does not believe in evolution, she has no concept of what it is (or anything else dealing with science)

Evolution never said we evolved from monkeys. It said humans and monkeys evolved from a common ancestor


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 28, 2010)

antagon said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > antagon said:
> ...



No, dear, it's not our responsibility to prove you wrong.  It 's yours to prove yourself right.  Just saying, "There's no barrier, they're the same thing" doesn't constitute proof.  I can't imagine what there is about our understanding of genetics that you think DOES constitute proof that one thing can change into an entirely different thing.  At most, all you can say definitively is that it's a possibility.

By the way, this is just another example of those arguments I mentioned that make me that much more skeptical of evolution.  I can remember when there was actually a debate on the subject of whether micro-evolution necessarily followed to macro-evolution, with people actually trying to find and present evidence.  It's obvious to me that they just gave up and decided to declare the debate decided in their favor.


----------



## HUGGY (Sep 28, 2010)

Two words that confirm evolution:  *Dogs, Mosquitos*.

The dummies in the god camp keep screeching for examples of modern evolution.  The mosquito would be history if natural selection hadn't overcome DDT.  What better example of super evolution than the thousands of varieties of dog that have been created by human breeding.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 28, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



That's perfect!  

Because when you question the underlying assumption about evolution you get answers from the ManMade Global Warming play book eg., ridicule, settled science, concensus


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 28, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> Two words that confirm evolution:  *Dogs, Mosquitos*.
> 
> The dummies in the god camp keep screeching for examples of modern evolution.  The mosquito would be history if natural selection hadn't overcome DDT.  What better example of super evolution than the thousands of varieties of dog that have been created by human breeding.



Huggy, it has nothing to do with the "God Camp" My views are clearly not IntDes either. Evolution is a theory and as such is subject to question.

We find that we still don't yet have a firm handle on gravity so the idea that our understanding of the force of evolution is beyond reproach is not only laughable, but seems to indicate that it probably will wither under questioning.


----------



## HUGGY (Sep 28, 2010)

Fuck-A-Duck Frankie!!!  That post wasn't directed at YOU!!! It was following the Oh so very stupid CC's post.  I just can't bring myself to quoting such proudly willfully ignorant rubbish. 

This is old ground...The definition of "the scientific theory" as opposed to the dictionary definition of the singular word "theory" has been abused past sanity by the god squad.

If you cannot differentiate between a pure "theory" like the existance of god and a hypothisis like "a scientific theory" with most of the questions answered fully such as evolution and natural selection then you are just blowing smoke.  I know that you are far too intelligent to deny much of the evidense of evolution.  You know that I am too well informed to grant any credit for faith as evidense of anything including the existance of god or creation.

One is just wishful thinking ..the other is a compilation of millions of factual examples with a few holes that have not yet been fleshed out.

The effects of gravity have been proven...  we do not need to pretend we are imbiciles and deny gravity just because most people do not understand everything about it.


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 28, 2010)

Complexity not so costly after all, analysis shows


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 28, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> Two words that confirm evolution:  *Dogs, Mosquitos*.
> 
> The dummies in the god camp keep screeching for examples of modern evolution.  The mosquito would be history if natural selection hadn't overcome DDT.  What better example of super evolution than the thousands of varieties of dog that have been created by human breeding.



First of all, mosquitos only prove change within a species, something that no one has ever argued.  Unless you're suggesting that mosquitos are no longer mosquitos.  Second of all, the fact that it is HUMAN BREEDING that produces changes in dogs looks more like support for intelligent design than it does support for evolution.  Could you please explain to me how you get "example of super evolution" from the deliberate, controlled manipulation of a species by an intelligent outside force?


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 28, 2010)

Hey cecilie, where's that missing link again?  Oh right you won't say.  Am I supposed to "prove" YOUR idea of a missing link wrong?  Well no.



Cecilie1200 said:


> No, dear, it's not our responsibility to prove you wrong.  It 's yours to prove yourself right.




That's not what he said at all.  Timeline matters hear, so pay attention for a change.  Someone ELSE made the claim that there is a barrier.  Why should anyone aside from that person try to prove it?  See evolution is defined on the basis of reproducible evidence from research, while this barrier claim is yet another made up piece of garbage.  And yet you think it's our responsibility to prove it wrong?

Let me know when you figured out what GENETICS is.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 28, 2010)

antagon said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > antagon said:
> ...



I consider "genetics" the effect rather than the cause


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 28, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Its not just that O'Donnell does not believe in evolution, she has no concept of what it is (or anything else dealing with science)
> 
> Evolution never said we evolved from monkeys. It said humans and monkeys evolved from a common ancestor



Janet Reno?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 28, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Its not just that O'Donnell does not believe in evolution, she has no concept of what it is (or anything else dealing with science)
> ...



  Be nice.


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 28, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



And the raging fire is the effect of the light cast by the fire, not the cause of the light it casts off


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 28, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



unfortunately for you, all reproducible evidence on the topic shows otherwise, and nothing supports your idea.


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 28, 2010)

Gravity is caused by things falling when dropped, eh Frank?


----------



## antagon (Sep 28, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



wow.  for kicks, could you explain how that works?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 28, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > antagon said:
> ...



You meant nothing besides quantum physics, right?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 28, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Gravity is caused by things falling when dropped, eh Frank?



That's not what I said.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 28, 2010)

antagon said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > antagon said:
> ...



Remember e=mc^2?

We're energy first and energy that is self aware. 

So the changes comes first as energy, then we process it as a "mutation"


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 28, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...




that's not at all what that formula means.

Where are you getting this stuff?


----------



## antagon (Sep 28, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > there is no barrier limiting evolution to small changes in the context of millions of years.  it is the responsibility for those who propose that there is such a barrier to prove that is the case.  this is an implication of the popular micro/macro dichotomy which skeptics put forward.  it is an attempt to concede an acceptance of the mechanisms of genetics without accepting the implications of these mechanisms in evolution.  it is a fallacy because it thereby refutes our understanding of genetics without proposing a new understanding or proof of an additional mechanism which precludes sufficient change to constitute a new species.
> ...



is the debate you remember a fantasy, perhaps? _* when*_ was that? _* who*_ was it who proposed that there was a barrier to the theories of earlier biologists, and_* how*_ did they argue that it worked?  the history with which i am familiar has never included serious inquest into this matter of a barrier.  _*i dont think your history is true at all, but welcome you to substantiate that is.*_

evolution is of course based on genetics which employs the same mechanism for encoding phenotypes for a lizard as in a human.  in this way, perhaps your characterization of 'entirely different' is inaccurate.  in fact, DNA and RNA are fundamental to all life.  *no barrier there.  no different system between creatures*.

next there's heredity  the natural method of gene transfer between generations retains genes from the parent or parents.  in this way we know that the genes from offspring will indicate the parentage of the subject.  using this fact, it is indicated that while genomes for different creatures are different, that there is evidence for direct heredity between different creatures.  they are related. _* no barrier had functioned to obstruct alleles from ascendant creatures from being transferred to descendant creatures*_, even though they are of a different species.  this is how creatures which are descendant from one another share genes for crucial proteins and enzymes, and why descendants' genes indicate 'elaborations' and truncations on ascendant versions.  no barrier. 

then there's the phenotype-genotype relationship.  in all life, without barrier or exception, genes are the mechanisms which determine the traits or phenotypes of organisms.  because of the inability for fossils, sometimes aged millions of years, to provide genetic information, we rely on the way all life uses genes to determine the appearance of creatures. similarly to our ability to associate children with their parents from how they look, even without getting a DNA test, we could and have used phenotypes of creatures to presume heredity of fossilized creatures.  combined with observations of time, heredity is further established.  that is, offspring cannot precede parents.  we know that traits are communicated between generations exclusively via genetic heredity.  there appears to be heredity, _*there appears to be no barrier*_.

i dont trust that any scientist has proposed any barrier to the extents of evolution because evidence of its existence would have been the reason why they proposed that possibility.  since no evidence exists, i think there's good reason to conclude that a time when scientists proposed such an idea broadly is a figment of your own imagination which you have put forward as fact.


----------



## antagon (Sep 28, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



intriguing.  what do you mean by '_then we process it as a "mutation"_'?  this makes so little sense to me.


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 28, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Its not just that O'Donnell does not believe in evolution, she has no concept of what it is (or anything else dealing with science)
> 
> Evolution never said we evolved from monkeys. It said humans and monkeys evolved from a common ancestor



O'Donnell also has no concept of the notion that mice and humans can't interbreed.


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 28, 2010)

antagon said:


> there is no barrier limiting evolution to small changes in the context of millions of years.  it is the responsibility for those who propose that there is such a barrier to prove that is the case.  this is an implication of the popular micro/macro dichotomy which skeptics put forward.  it is an attempt to concede an acceptance of the mechanisms of genetics without accepting the implications of these mechanisms in evolution.  it is a fallacy because it thereby refutes our understanding of genetics without proposing a new understanding or proof of an additional mechanism which precludes sufficient change to constitute a new species.
> 
> its not a matter of making claims which science has to prove.  it is a matter of making scientific claims.  it is not a scientific claim to declare that the moon is made of cheese, or that there is an unaccounted genetic barrier to creating what we have decided to declare as independent species.
> 
> not remotely plausible.



In other words, the burden of proof is on those who would challenge the status quo.  

Though the flat-earthers try to deny that (and then wonder why no on listens to them).

Want to have some fun?  Ask an anti-evolution person where they believe the origin of species came from.


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 28, 2010)

antagon said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > antagon said:
> ...



Yes he does.  He thinks our genetic code self directs itself while mocking evolution for being outlandish and fanciful.

(see what I mean in the above post?)


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 28, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> I can't imagine what there is about our understanding of genetics that you think DOES constitute proof that one thing can change into an entirely different thing.



You didn't watch my macro/micro evolution video, did you?


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 28, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Two words that confirm evolution:  *Dogs, Mosquitos*.
> ...



Yep.  You definitely ignored my video, which directly referenced mosquitoes as an example of macroevolution.


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 28, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> Hey cecilie, where's that missing link again?  Oh right you won't say.  Am I supposed to "prove" YOUR idea of a missing link wrong?  Well no.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I owe you a beer for correctly predicting that Cecillie would show up in a month or so and claim that we haven't presented her with any evidence to support our assertions.  

Good call.


----------



## HUGGY (Sep 28, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



I found your song Frankie..enjoy!

    

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFwrLZijNLk]YouTube - King of Wishful Thinking with lyrics[/ame]


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 28, 2010)

An Evolutionary Biologist Answers Christine O'Donnell's Question About the Missing Monkey-Humans - Newsweek


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 28, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


You have no clue what quantum physics is about, as demonstrated by:



CrusaderFrank said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > wow.  for kicks, could you explain how that works?
> ...


Except the equation e=mc^2 has nothing to do with "self aware" energy.  What does it have to do with being self aware? There are no peer reviewed scientific articles that support what you say.  There aren't even Wikipedia articles you hate so much.  This came from....   your head.  And is supported by....  wait for it yet again.....   NOTHING.

Once again you equate mutation to a force or energy.  Perhaps you should revisit my list of things that are not forces.  On it, you will note that evolution is not a force.  It is similarly not an energy.  Mutation is no more relevant to mc^2 than driving a car is.  Even if these processes USE energy, they do not use mc^2 amount of energy, and are not themselves a type of energy being used. 

So do you concede this point or wish to continue your stance with supporting evidence?



geauxtohell said:


> I owe you a beer for correctly predicting that Cecillie would show up in a month or so and claim that we haven't presented her with any evidence to support our assertions.
> 
> Good call.


 Now we get to watch her repeat the process.


----------



## konradv (Sep 30, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Yes, it is YOUR responsibility.  Evolution is the explanation for the fossil record.  If you have another explanation it's up to YOU to provide it.  Given what we know, there are only two logical explanations, IMO:  evolution is true or God lies to us.  I favor the first.


----------



## konradv (Sep 30, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > antagon said:
> ...



If the science isn't settled, Frank, what's your explanation for the fossil record?  If you're feeling ridiculed, it's because you ignore the obvious.  What other explanations for the fossil record are there besides evolution and "God lies to us"?


----------



## vonbolical5 (Sep 30, 2010)

wow


----------



## KissMy (Sep 30, 2010)

konradv said:


> If the science isn't settled, Frank, what's your explanation for the fossil record?  If you're feeling ridiculed, it's because you ignore the obvious.  What other explanations for the fossil record are there besides evolution and "God lies to us"?



Is this the fossil record you are referring to.


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 30, 2010)

Ah, Cecille won't play with me anymore!

I guess looking like a total ass ad naseum eventually takes its toll.  

I have a simple solution:

For those who have decided that they are too intellectually lazy to take the time to actually learn science:  simply duck out of scientific issues and stop polluting the environment with your absurd bullshit.

We will get along just fine without you.  In fact, we are better off without you and your mythology.


----------



## konradv (Oct 1, 2010)

KissMy said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > If the science isn't settled, Frank, what's your explanation for the fossil record?  If you're feeling ridiculed, it's because you ignore the obvious.  What other explanations for the fossil record are there besides evolution and "God lies to us"?
> ...



NO, that's a cartoon!!!


----------



## konradv (Oct 4, 2010)

What's next?  Are you going to show us a clip from the Flinstones to prove that dinosaurs and humans co-existed?!?!


----------

