# Why the Theory of Evolution is not only the right answer, why it is a critical answer



## orogenicman (Jan 24, 2014)

Cures for disease. For instance:

Giant leaps of evolution make cancer cells deadly - health - 23 January 2014 - New Scientist



> _Tumour cells take big genetic jumps called macromutations to become invasive "hopeful monsters". Treatment to block that evolution could be the next step_


 
More at the link.


----------



## TheOldSchool (Jan 24, 2014)

I dint avolve from no monkey!!!


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 24, 2014)

TheOldSchool said:


> I dint avolve from no monkey!!!


 
No you didn't. But you are a primate, and that means that monkeys, apes, and human beings all have common ancestors. You are also a mammal, which means that you have ancestors in common with ALL mammals. You also have vertebrae, which means that you have ancestors in common with ALL vertebrate animals. All life on Earth is ultimately related. Perhaps you should trade your old school in for the new school. Why? Because it is the new school that is solving the medical issues of today.

Oh, and by the way, the word is "evolve", not "avolve". Spelling and grammar are things your old school apparently didn't teach you either.


----------



## ZenBubba (Jan 24, 2014)

Common ancestry didn't play a role in this research.


----------



## LTCArmyRet (Jan 24, 2014)

Until the "theory" is proven, it isn't true.


----------



## Politico (Jan 24, 2014)

Thus why they are called theories.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 24, 2014)

It is our best guess about what really happened as of now.  

We look at bones, genes, and tools to get a idea of what happened.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 24, 2014)

ZenBubba said:


> Common ancestry didn't play a role in this research.


 
Many cancers are caused by viruses (cervical cancer, for instance).  And viruses do, in fact, evolve by the exact same processes that all life evolves. Many other cancers are caused by *genetic mutations*, which is part of the basis for evolution.  So to declare that common ancestry doesn't play a role is a meaningless statement.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 24, 2014)

Politico said:


> Thus why they are called theories.


 
Indicating that you don't have much of an understanding of what scientific theories are all about.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 24, 2014)

LTCArmyRet said:


> Until the "theory" is proven, it isn't true.


 
Science is not about proofs.  It is about empirical evidence.  The evidence in support of the theory of evolution is leading us towards more and more medical advancements, particularly in the field of disease prevention and cures to disease and genetic disorders.  This is not merely an opinion.  It is a demonstrable scientific fact.


----------



## Mr. H. (Jan 24, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> > I dint avolve from no monkey!!!
> ...



Every thing, living and inanimate, is an ancestor of creation.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 24, 2014)

Mr. H. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > TheOldSchool said:
> ...


 
So, erm, according to your wag, every thing came BEFORE creation.  No doubt, you also believe that the Flintstones is a documentary.


----------



## LTCArmyRet (Jan 24, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> > Until the "theory" is proven, it isn't true.
> ...



Where is your empirical evidence where man made the leap from ape to humanoid?  Where did it all begin? Big Bang theory?  How did that big ball of mass that exploded come to be?  If it even existed at all.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Jan 24, 2014)

LTCArmyRet said:


> Until the "theory" is proven, it isn't true.



Though military officers had to go to university? Maybe that's only the Navy but not the Army. Should look at what a scientific theory actually indicates. It isn't the same thing as when an individual says, "I have a theory about this thing." It's as true and reliable as it gets.  

Scientific Hypothesis, Theory, Law Definitions

defs for scientific theory, laws, and hypothesis.


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 24, 2014)

LTCArmyRet said:


> Until the "theory" is proven, it isn't true.



Evolution is a fact

God is a theory


----------



## PredFan (Jan 24, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Cures for disease. For instance:
> 
> Giant leaps of evolution make cancer cells deadly - health - 23 January 2014 - New Scientist
> 
> ...



That quite a big chunk of hyperbole there.

Evolution is the right answer, but converting creationists will in no way affect cancer research.


----------



## PredFan (Jan 24, 2014)

LTCArmyRet said:


> Until the "theory" is proven, it isn't true.



Until creation is proven, it isn't true.


----------



## PredFan (Jan 24, 2014)

Matthew said:


> It is our best guess about what really happened as of now.
> 
> We look at bones, genes, and tools to get a idea of what happened.



Not only that but we see e lout ion happening all around us right now. These cancer cells for example, antibiotic resistant germ is another.


----------



## PredFan (Jan 24, 2014)

LTCArmyRet said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > LTCArmyRet said:
> ...



It came from the collapsing of the previous universe.


----------



## rdean (Jan 24, 2014)

Evolution is one of mankind's greatest discoveries.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Jan 24, 2014)

"If 65,000 repetitions makes one truth, why do we still argue whether G-d exists or not when billions have said more than once that He does?" - Me.

"If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed." Adolph Hitler

Think this is why so many believe. It's a big lie that's also been repeated enough that many accept it as truth.


----------



## regent (Jan 24, 2014)

Wonder how that atomic theory is working out?


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Jan 24, 2014)

Bah, atomic weapons aren't real since the Bible doesn't mention anything about atoms.


----------



## LTCArmyRet (Jan 24, 2014)

Delta4Embassy said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> > Until the "theory" is proven, it isn't true.
> ...



From your own reference:  One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis. 

So accept it if you must, I do not accept it as the singular explanation for how we came to be on this earth.


----------



## LTCArmyRet (Jan 24, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> > Until the "theory" is proven, it isn't true.
> ...



No, not fact, best guess.


----------



## LTCArmyRet (Jan 24, 2014)

PredFan said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Evidence???


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 24, 2014)

LTCArmyRet said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > LTCArmyRet said:
> ...



Evolution occurs and is supported by mountains of scientific evidence
God is a guess and not supported by any scientific evidence


----------



## Mr. H. (Jan 24, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


Yabba dabba do!

Creation is the condensation of pure spirit, so yes, the elements are all there.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 24, 2014)

Mr. H. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...



Do they spirits have something?


----------



## rdean (Jan 24, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I suspect that makes him a "wish" and not a "guess".


----------



## PredFan (Jan 24, 2014)

LTCArmyRet said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > LTCArmyRet said:
> ...



You, me, computers, the air we breathe, flowers, volcanoes, lions and tigers and bears oh my!


----------



## PredFan (Jan 24, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Or any evidence at all.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 24, 2014)

"If man evolved from monkeys and apes, why do we still have monkeys and apes?"  -- George Carlin


----------



## PredFan (Jan 24, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> "If man evolved from monkeys and apes, why do we still have monkeys and apes?"  -- George Carlin



Crusader Frank nnnnooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!

Don't get your opinions from comedians, leave that to the ignorant left.
Are you going to start quoting Bill Maher next???


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 24, 2014)

LTCArmyRet said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > LTCArmyRet said:
> ...


 
You seem to believe that somewhere in the past an ape suddenly became a human being via magic.  That is probably a result of your biblical upbringing, but it has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.  Evolution works on populations via natural selection.  The big bang theory is irrelevant to the theory of evolution - you bringing it up is notrhing but creationist misdirection.  The conversation, in case you have forgotten, is about how cancer evolves, and how knowledge of that evolution will likely lead to cures.  Not only that, but this research demonstrates macroevolution.  Do you have anything to add to that discussion?


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 24, 2014)

PredFan said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Cures for disease. For instance:
> ...


 
How so?



			
				PredFan said:
			
		

> Evolution is the right answer, but converting creationists will in no way affect cancer research.


 
You don't know that.  For all we know, a converted creationist could be so inspired by his revelation that he goes on and finds the cure of many diseases.  After all, a former creationist had a major hand in the Human Genome project.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 24, 2014)

LTCArmyRet said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > LTCArmyRet said:
> ...


 
And you have a right to be as stupid as you like.  Congratulations.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 24, 2014)

regent said:


> Wonder how that atomic theory is working out?


 
If you are talking about the Standard Model, it is working out just fine, thanks for asking.  Now, do you have anything to add to the discussion with regard to the OP?


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 24, 2014)

LTCArmyRet said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > LTCArmyRet said:
> ...


 
The fat man and little boy were also best guesses, and they ended WWII.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 24, 2014)

Mr. H. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...


 
Unsupported claims are meaningless.  You didn't know this?  Huh.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 24, 2014)

PredFan said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > "If man evolved from monkeys and apes, why do we still have monkeys and apes?" -- George Carlin
> ...


 
To answer his question, we still have monkeys and apes because their present existence doesn't depend on whether or not we evolved from a common ancestor.  But stay tuned, I suspect that many will be extinct at our hands in the near future.


----------



## ZenBubba (Jan 24, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> ZenBubba said:
> 
> 
> > Common ancestry didn't play a role in this research.
> ...




For your hypothesis to be valid cancer cells would have to become another species like a tapeworm. LOL

The article doesn't support what you are claiming.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 24, 2014)

ZenBubba said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > ZenBubba said:
> ...


 
Indicating that you not only don't understand cancer, you don't understand the theory of evolution.  Care to try again?


----------



## PredFan (Jan 24, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Again with the hyperbole.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 24, 2014)

PredFan said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...


 
Again with the non-response.


----------



## Mr. H. (Jan 24, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I was there when it happened, but wasn't able to take notes at the time.

Stupid fuck.


----------



## Mr. H. (Jan 24, 2014)

Matthew said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



No, they black cock.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 24, 2014)

Mr. H. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...


 
Ad hominem.  You lose.


----------



## LTCArmyRet (Jan 25, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



So?  What's your point?


----------



## LTCArmyRet (Jan 25, 2014)

PredFan said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Flowers? Volcanos, etc.... are proof of a previously collapsed universe?   That's a huge leap.


----------



## LTCArmyRet (Jan 25, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



so if we evolved from apes, which are all brown eyed, how did humans come to have blue, hazel, green eyes?  mutation does not equate to evolution.


----------



## LTCArmyRet (Jan 25, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...



And you have the right to continue to be a fertilizer spreader.


----------



## LTCArmyRet (Jan 25, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



That's the best comparison you have to attempt to lend credit to the theory of evolution?  That the theory of relativity is sound?  I'm not arguing the theory of relativity.  Are you saying the theory of relativity ended WWII?  The conflict would have ended anyway.  The theory of relativity enabled man to build a weapon that hastened the end of that conflict.  Not sure how this supports the theory of evolution, but thanks for trying.


----------



## LTCArmyRet (Jan 25, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



So are you admitting that the theory of evolution has holes in it?


----------



## westwall (Jan 25, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> > Until the "theory" is proven, it isn't true.
> ...










Absolutely true.  It's a shame the climatologists aren't held to the same high standard don't you think?


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 25, 2014)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > LTCArmyRet said:
> ...


 
If you want to discuss climate science, I suggest you go elsewhere.  It is irrelevant to this thread.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 25, 2014)

LTCArmyRet said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...


 
WTF?

Just because a new species evolves doesn't mean that the one(s) before it automatically disappears.  Get as clue.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 25, 2014)

LTCArmyRet said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > LTCArmyRet said:
> ...


 
The point, Mr. retired GI, is that scientific theories are not in the same category of "theory" that the average retired schumck understands (such as when a retired GI might say "I had a theory that corporal Kelly was a moron". Scientific theories are backed by extensive evidence collected by hundreds to thousands of scientists during many decades (in the case of evolution, by over 150 years) of research, experimentation, and verification. If I have to explain this to you, perhaps you aren't qualified to be in this discussion. Being a retired military guy, you, of all people should know not to get into a gun fight unarmed. But thanks for trying.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 25, 2014)

LTCArmyRet said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > LTCArmyRet said:
> ...


 
Obviously, your only point in coming to this thread is to  disrupt it.  So my only recourse is to put you on my ignore list.  Congratulations, schmuck.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 25, 2014)

LTCArmyRet said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > LTCArmyRet said:
> ...


 
It is if it is passed down to offspring.  What surprises me is that you even asked that question at all.  You really do need a primer on the subject.


----------



## ZenBubba (Jan 25, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> ZenBubba said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



You are attempting to shoe horn macro evolution into the research science into the article that you provided a link to. The article doesn't support what you are saying.

Your rebuttal is essentially "nuh uh" to my previous post. Please explain yourself better.


----------



## LTCArmyRet (Jan 25, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Proof?   Dizzy yet?  Keep spinning


----------



## LTCArmyRet (Jan 25, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Thanks for displaying the weak mindedness of not being capable of withstanding a dissenting opinion of your argument.  Evidenced by the resorting to derogatory and insulting comments that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.


----------



## LTCArmyRet (Jan 25, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Once again displaying how weak your argument and mind is that you cannot not withstand a dissenting opinion.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 25, 2014)

LTCArmyRet said:


> *Until the "theory" is proven, it isn't true.*





Politico said:


> Thus why they are called theories.



That/BOTH are Laughably False/Ignorant.
Theories don't get "proved", they get affirmed over time.
Gravity is also Theory - not "proved" - and it is Also TRUE/Fact.
*
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense*
Scientific American
JOHN RENNIE, editor in chief
June 2002
Now here: Shame on America! And 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense | Yoism


> 1. Evolution is _only_ a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.
> 
> Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law. *Scientists do Not use the terms that way, however.* According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."
> No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are Not expressing reservations about its truth.
> ...


----------



## LTCArmyRet (Jan 25, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



What surprises me is your feeble arguments.  If we descended from apes, and ALL apes are brown eyed (ie. no recessive gene), how did humans come to have blue eyes? or hazel eyes?  

Cmon, for someone pretending to be so much more intellectually advanced, you must be able to explain how this supports the theory of evolution?


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 25, 2014)

ZenBubba said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > ZenBubba said:
> ...


 

Nonsense.  You were claiming that for evolution to work on cancer cells, they would have to become another species.  That is a ridiculous claim since evolution doesn't work that way, and neither do cancer cells.  Hence my suggestion that you don't know what you are talking about. As I've already pointed out, many cancers are caused by viruses, while many others have genetic causes, both of which involve evolution (i.e., natural selection).


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 25, 2014)

LTCArmyRet said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > LTCArmyRet said:
> ...


 
As if there is any dissent necessary with regard to the theory of evolution.   Let me give you some advice.  Before you plop down an alleged dissenting argument, learn something about the subject beforehand.  You won't do that, though, because that is not why you are here.


----------



## LTCArmyRet (Jan 25, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> ZenBubba said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Evolution doesn't work that way?  

ev·o·lu·tion
[ èvv&#601; l&#63507;sh'n ]


1.theory of development from earlier forms: the theoretical process by which all species develop from earlier forms of life

I won't just suggest, I will assert that I'm certain you don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 25, 2014)

LTCArmyRet said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > LTCArmyRet said:
> ...


LTCArmyRet's posts are Blindingly Ignorant.
And not only Ignorant in knowledge but Logic-challenged/an idiot.

It's already been explained to you that we have Common Ancestors as other primates, didn't turn into humans from monkeys/apes.
*As to Blue Eyes? 
So Flukking what? 
Humans/proto-humans did start with only Brown eyes I imagine. Look at Africa where we started .. still. 
But different Environmental factors for different migrations Selected for different eye, skin, and Hair color.
That would be CONSISTENT with/IS evolution!*
What an Idiot 'deduction' you tried to drool up.
Blindingly Stupid.

but even allowing for instant evo or no subsequent evo...
*Lemurs can also have Blue Eyes.*
If you had half a brain you could look up the truth. But that would Pork your god/dog.
https://www.google.com/search?q=blu...4&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8

What an idiot you are.
Every post a 70 IQ Goofy _non sequitur_
(you didn't/couldn't answer my last above either)
`


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 25, 2014)

LTCArmyRet said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > LTCArmyRet said:
> ...


 
One Common Ancestor Behind Blue Eyes | LiveScience



> People with blue eyes have a single, common ancestor, according to new research.
> A team of scientists has tracked down a genetic mutation that leads to blue eyes. The mutation occurred between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago. Before then, there were no blue eyes.


 
More at the link.

Any other questions you care to ask?  Do you have any questions about the research referenced in the OP? Any at all?


----------



## LTCArmyRet (Jan 25, 2014)

abu afak said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



And you can show proof where it all started in Africa?  So now we evolved from lemurs, not apes?  Make up your mind.


----------



## LTCArmyRet (Jan 25, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Yeah, have you found the fossils that explain the transformation from ape to man?


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 25, 2014)

LTCArmyRet said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > ZenBubba said:
> ...


 
Let me guess.  You were homeschooled.  You have my sympathy.

No, evolution doesn't work that way.  In the same way that evolution does NOT produce a dog from a cat, cancer cannot produce a friggin worm.  Cancer-causing viruses can evolve, however, as can the human beings that get cancer via genetic mutation.  Clue, Einstein.  Cancer is not a species of anything.  It is a disease of the reproductive system of cells.  As such, it can only change into some other form of cancer, or into a more virulent form, not a worm, or a dog, or even Miss Piggy.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 25, 2014)

LTCArmyRet said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > LTCArmyRet said:
> ...


No you 60 IQ DOPE.
We evolved from COMMON Ancestors, not necessarily from any particular extant specie.
You haven't answered EITHER of my posts in this string.
The first one refuting your moronic claim about theory and 'true'. 

You Moron, one sentence does NOT answer the post you quoted nor make up for your Idiotic assumption ("refutation of evolution'" that backfired 100%) that Blue Eyes (or white skin or Blond hair, for that matter) can't be a Later Evolution (and confirmation thereof) is some humans.
*
You're really Too Stupid to debate, merely useful though for holding the Godist Neanderthals here up for Ridicule.*

`


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 25, 2014)

LTCArmyRet said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > LTCArmyRet said:
> ...


 
It's like talking to an 8 year old. Does your mommy really let you use her computer this late at night?







Please note how Lemurs are related to humans and every other primate.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 25, 2014)

LTCArmyRet said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > LTCArmyRet said:
> ...


 
There are hundreds.  You do need a primer, don't you?


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 25, 2014)

Mr. H. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...


 
Gee, another troll.  How quaint.


----------



## LTCArmyRet (Jan 25, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



What part of ALL species don't you understand?  Once again with the insults...... weak, weak minded retorts.  Maybe you need to go back to school and learn what the theory of evolution actually says.


----------



## Politico (Jan 25, 2014)

Wow can't believe this is still going on.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 25, 2014)

LTCArmyRet said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > LTCArmyRet said:
> ...


 

What part of "cancer is not a species" don't you understand?


----------



## LTCArmyRet (Jan 25, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



You have hundreds huh?   Astounding!!   There are hundreds of varying opinions as to which are ape and which are humanoid,  sounds like a lot of room for speculation.


----------



## LTCArmyRet (Jan 25, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Please show where I ever stated that cancer was a species.  Stick to the topic, you sound confused.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Jan 25, 2014)

I'm convinced evolution is true and we evolved from apes. My reason is this thread and how monkey-descendents continue to this day to hurl their poop at one another.


----------



## Politico (Jan 25, 2014)

Turn on a n episode of Jail. Humans still throw plenty of poop.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 25, 2014)

LTCArmyRet said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > LTCArmyRet said:
> ...


 
How many college classes have you taken?  Have you taken any anatomy classes?  Any comparative anatomy?  Any physiology?  Any primatology?  Any physical anthropology?  Any classes in forensics?  Any science classes at all?  I only ask because in order for you to understand anything about human physical evidence, you need a basic understanding of all of those fields.  I do because I have taken all of those and many more, and am, in fact, published.  And so (particularly as your behavior here indicates that I would be wasting my time) I hesitate to bother explaining it to you.  It would be better if you searched for that information yourself, or better yet, take some classes.

I didn't say that I have hundreds.  I said that "there are hundreds".  And while there certainly is room for some speculation, no scientist will publish conclusions without making damned sure he's got the evidence to back it up.  This is particularly true with regard to physical anthropology.


----------



## S.J. (Jan 25, 2014)

Shattering the myths of Darwinism.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Wr-lXLGCxQ]Forbidden Science - Shattering the Myths of Darwin's Theory of Evolution - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## LTCArmyRet (Jan 25, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Pardon me if I take your assertion of being published on the subject with a healthy dose of skepticism.  Of course asking you to provide your name does no good as I too can google an article/book that supports what you've claimed and then say that I'm the author.

You just can't stand the fact that there are those that don't agree with your claims and you can't refute their points of view.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Jan 25, 2014)

Ultimately ya either accept evolution or ya don't. But argueing it with a non-believer is about as fruitful as argueing about the color of the sky. Science is science whether you believe it or not. And the enture human race could not believe and not effect a thing. So let some persist in their ignorance if that's what makes them happy.


----------



## LTCArmyRet (Jan 25, 2014)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Ultimately ya either accept evolution or ya don't. But argueing it with a non-believer is about as fruitful as argueing about the color of the sky. Science is science whether you believe it or not. And the enture human race could not believe and not effect a thing. So let some persist in their ignorance if that's what makes them happy.



It's not that I don't believe in evolution, I just don't believe that it is the singular explanation as to how we came to exist.  There are just too many variables, that even the most ardent evolutionary supporters admit, to account for to believe that there are no other possibilities.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 25, 2014)

LTCArmyRet said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > LTCArmyRet said:
> ...


 
I didn't say that I was published on human evolution.  I said I was published.  I am a geologist and am published in the Journal of Invertebrate Paleontology.  

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Which means, I know a hell of a lot more about this subject than you do.  There is nothing wrong with having a healthy dose of skepticism about any subject.  But there is a huge difference between having a healthy dose of skepticism with regard to something someone says on the internet, and being utterly ignorant, as you are, about the theory of evolution, and about science in general.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 25, 2014)

LTCArmyRet said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > Ultimately ya either accept evolution or ya don't. But argueing it with a non-believer is about as fruitful as argueing about the color of the sky. Science is science whether you believe it or not. And the enture human race could not believe and not effect a thing. So let some persist in their ignorance if that's what makes them happy.
> ...


 
Such as? Can you name a single possibility that explains the facts better than does the theory of evolution? No? Well alrighty then.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 25, 2014)

S.J. said:


> Shattering the myths of Darwinism.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Jan 25, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Cures for disease. For instance:
> 
> Giant leaps of evolution make cancer cells deadly - health - 23 January 2014 - New Scientist
> 
> ...



to prove evolution you need to explain how water + rock + random lightning = life

once you can explain that, it should be easy to explain how a fish jumped out of the water, started breathing air and found a mate.


----------



## S.J. (Jan 25, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Shattering the myths of Darwinism.


You should watch the video, he mentions you.


----------



## S.J. (Jan 25, 2014)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRBHxJBUv_A]MrsGarrisonsClub WE BELIEVE in the theory of evolution - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## LTCArmyRet (Jan 25, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Yeah, I'm sure you're one of authors of that article, sure you are.   And I'm quite sure you do believe that you know a hell of a lot more about this subject that most, doesn't prove you right.


----------



## LTCArmyRet (Jan 25, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...



So you have all the facts, huh?


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 25, 2014)

LTCArmyRet said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > LTCArmyRet said:
> ...


 
You didn't answer my questions.  But then, people like you never do.  Try again.


----------



## Peterf (Jan 25, 2014)

TheOldSchool said:


> I dint avolve from no monkey!!!



True enough.  You and monkeys have common ancestors.

So do I.   That means you and I are related.   Not a welcome thought but one I will have to live with.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 25, 2014)

LTCArmyRet said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > LTCArmyRet said:
> ...


 
There are people here who know who I am.  And they know that I am not in a habit of lying.  And for the record, I'm the third author list on that paper.  So you know who I am.  Who the fuck are you?


----------



## Peterf (Jan 25, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



And in the  longer term - but still short on the evolutionary scale - Homo Sapiens will also become extinct.   Such is the fate of all mammal species, which have a short shelf-life compared to , say , insects.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 25, 2014)

Peterf said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...


 
Primates have been around for 75 million years, so if Homo Sapiens has a short shelf-life, it will likely be self imposed.


----------



## Peterf (Jan 25, 2014)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Ultimately ya either accept evolution or ya don't. But argueing it with a non-believer is about as fruitful as argueing about the color of the sky. Science is science whether you believe it or not. And the enture human race could not believe and not effect a thing. So let some persist in their ignorance if that's what makes them happy.



Fair enough - up to the point where creationists try to have their ignorant  beliefs taught in schools, to the harm of young minds.    I understand this still happens in the US though not, of course, in more enlightened part of the world.


----------



## Peterf (Jan 25, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Primates have been around for that long but not any particular primate species, such as ourselves.    Correct me if I am wrong.

Thanks you orogenicman for your excellent posts on this thread.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 25, 2014)

Peterf said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Peterf said:
> ...


 
But the mold has been around that long (five fingers, fingernails, fingerprints, binocular vision, upright posture, etc)..



			
				Peterf said:
			
		

> Thanks you orogenicman for your excellent posts on this thread.


 
De nada.


----------



## LTCArmyRet (Jan 25, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



There are people here who know who I am as well.  And they know that I'm not in the habit of lying either.  So I just have to take your word?  Is that it?  Yeah right!!  Have fun being big man on camp, no matter how little the camp is.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 25, 2014)

LTCArmyRet said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > LTCArmyRet said:
> ...


 
I'll repeat this one more time, since you appear to not even be aware that you have yet to even discuss the OP.  Is there anything in the OP that you would like to  comment on?  Anything at all?  If not, fuck off.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Jan 25, 2014)

Two Thumbs said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Cures for disease. For instance:
> ...



if evolution is pure fact

Why has almost everything gone extinct?  why not just evolve to the situation?


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 25, 2014)

Two Thumbs said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


 
I don't know how I missed your first post there, but I will address both.

First of all, evolution is not, does not explain the origin of life. However life originated, it evolves.

Secondly, I don't need to explain it for it to be true:






Finally, there are no guarantees in life. You didn't know this? Huh.


----------



## rdean (Jan 25, 2014)

PredFan said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > "If man evolved from monkeys and apes, why do we still have monkeys and apes?"  -- George Carlin
> ...



Ignorant left?  How do ignorant right wingers prove the left is ignorant?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 25, 2014)

"If man evolved from monkeys and apes, why do we still have Rdean?"


----------



## Two Thumbs (Jan 25, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...



separating origin from evolution?  how convenient


evolution is about adapting to your surroundings, if it was fact, we wouldn't have more extinct species than living


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 25, 2014)

Two Thumbs said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...


 
Why is this a problem for you? The theory of evolution was never meant to explain the origin of life. it was meant to explain the diversity of life.  There are separate theories for the origin of life.  One popular theory is the abiogenesis theory.  Another is the panspermia theory.

The reasons why there are more extinct species than living include: 

1) The fact that the Earth is a VERY dangerous place to live;

2) the fact that evolution would not occur if #1 were not true.

3) Evolution weeds out the less fit. If you, as a species, have evolved in a stable environment and have survived in that environment as a species for thousands of years, then a sudden, drastic change in that environment occurs (i.e., a five mile wide asteroid strikes the Yucatan Peninsula), the chances of your survival are greatly diminished.

Finally, you seem to think that evolution is about positive change only. The existence of genetic diseases demonstrates clearly that that notion is not true.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 25, 2014)

Abiogenisis and evolution are two very differant studies. As far as abiogenisis goes, the problem today is the multiplicity of possible paths that life could have originated in. In fact, if one wanted a religious take on abiogenisis, it really appears that the universe was designed to bring forth life.


----------



## Agit8r (Jan 25, 2014)

Well, we all know what "intelligent design" leads to:

"I am also religious, profoundly religious on the inside, and I believe that Providence weighs human beings. Those who do not pass the trials imposed by Providence, who are broken by them, are not destined by Providence for greater things. It is a natural necessity that only the strong remain after this selection."
-- Adolf Hitler; from Munich  Löwenbräukeller (November 8, 1943)


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 26, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Abiogenisis and evolution are two very differant studies. As far as abiogenisis goes, the problem today is the multiplicity of possible paths that life could have originated in. In fact, if one wanted a religious take on abiogenisis, it really appears that the universe was designed to bring forth life.


 
Not, really.  There is no evidence the universe was designed (if it was, it is a stupid design), nor was it designed specifically to bring forth life.  In fact, the vast bulk of the universe is utterly hostile to life.


----------



## LTCArmyRet (Jan 26, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



yet another weak mind response.


----------



## LTCArmyRet (Jan 26, 2014)

Peterf said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Peterf said:
> ...



Have you always been such as ass kisser?


----------



## LTCArmyRet (Jan 26, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...



Don't need to?  So it's a belief you have?  A faith?  So how do you know it's true?  Where's your empirical evidence?


----------



## LTCArmyRet (Jan 26, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I applaud you on your google search capability.


----------



## GISMYS (Jan 26, 2014)

EVOLUTION IS PURE BUNK "science" MICRO YES AS ANIMALS CAN BE BREED FOR SIZE OR COLOR AND SUCH BUT NO HONEY BEE WILL EVER BECOME A COW JUST AS POND SCUM WILL NEVER EVOLVE INTO THE MOST COMPLEX THING IN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE=THER HUMAN BRAIN AND BODY!!!! TRY TO THINK!


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 26, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> EVOLUTION IS PURE BUNK "science" MICRO YES AS ANIMALS CAN BE BREED FOR SIZE OR COLOR AND SUCH BUT NO HONEY BEE WILL EVER BECOME A COW JUST AS POND SCUM WILL NEVER EVOLVE INTO THE MOST COMPLEX THING IN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE=THER HUMAN BRAIN AND BODY!!!! TRY TO THINK!



CAPLOCK is not your friend

God is bunk science

Evolution is a fact


----------



## GISMYS (Jan 26, 2014)

Silly non thinker!!! If evolution were true then a bee could become a cow and pond scum could evolve into man but if you think you would know the human brain and body are far to complex to be just an accident of time and chance!!! Try to think!


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 26, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> Silly non thinker!!! If evolution were true then a bee could become a cow and pond scum could evolve into man but if you think you would know the human brain and body are far to complex to be just an accident of time and chance!!! Try to think!



If evolution were not a fact you would find human bones mixed with those of dinosaurs. You would not find rock strata with only implement forms of life in it with more complex life found in higher strata

Guess what?  There were millions of years in which man did not exist


----------



## GISMYS (Jan 26, 2014)

Any crazy,stupid idea is ok but not creation by god!!! The newest idea,now that science found that life could not just evolve,is that life came to earth from outerspace on comets,rocks,they don't even try to say where or how life started in outerspace or other worlds!!! Lol!


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 26, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> Any crazy,stupid idea is ok but not creation by god!!! The newest idea,now that science found that life could not just evolve,is that life came to earth from outerspace on comets,rocks,they don't even try to say where or how life started in outerspace or other worlds!!! Lol!



There are mountains of scientific evidence supporting the fact that evolution occurs. Fossil evidence, biological and DNA

There is no scientific evidence supporting a theory of God


----------



## abu afak (Jan 26, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> Any crazy,stupid idea is ok but not creation by god!!! The newest idea,now that science found that life could not just evolve, *is that life came to earth from outerspace on comets,rocks,they don't even try to say where or how life started in outerspace or other worlds!!! Lol!*


But saying 'God' came from Outer space/Nowhere and magic-wanded up humans IS credible Looney Tune?
I've seen your Lunatical CAPS-LOCK Ravings on other message boards. What a Nut Bag!
`


----------



## GISMYS (Jan 26, 2014)

Lol!!! You dream!!!! Pond scum evolving to mankind???? Pure bunk for the sin loving god haters! And you??


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 26, 2014)

LTCArmyRet said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...


 
What google search?  Left you speechless, have I?


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 26, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> EVOLUTION IS PURE BUNK "science" MICRO YES AS ANIMALS CAN BE BREED FOR SIZE OR COLOR AND SUCH *BUT NO HONEY BEE WILL EVER BECOME A COW JUST AS POND SCUM WILL NEVER EVOLVE INTO THE MOST COMPLEX THING IN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE=THER HUMAN BRAIN AND BODY*!!!! TRY TO THINK!


 
And that's a GOOD thing, because if that were possible, that would disprove evolution.  But since evolution doesn't make such silly claims, perhaps you should do more than try to think.  Perhaps you should learn what evolution is before you comment on it.


----------



## S.J. (Jan 26, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


Would you two homo sapiens like to be alone?


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 26, 2014)

S.J. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Peterf said:
> ...


 
Are you offering to leave the thread?


----------



## S.J. (Jan 26, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


No, I'm offering to give you a chance to make your case for evolution, which you have not.  Since you claim to be so "educated" on the subject, you should be able to answer the critical questions that your theory is based on.  You can start with explaining where the first creature in the chain came from.  Then you can explain how it became another species.  Then explain why those "evolving" creatures are still around if they "evolved" into something else.  So, instead of attacking everyone who questions your assertions, how about PROVING your assertions?


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 26, 2014)

S.J. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...


 
First of all, do explain how you managed to interpret my response to your post as an attack.  Secondly, your response to my post, if anything was a snide comment on the fact that someone complimented me.  Now, I can only conclude that the fact that I was complimented somehow left you feeling slighted, which can only mean that since you weren't even involved in the discussion, that your ego is much larger than it deserves to be.  Perhaps you could put a lid on those kinds of comments in the future.

Secondly, we are unsure of where the "first" creature came from for the simple fact that the strata where they would be preserved has itself apparently not been preserved.  The Earth is a very old and dynamic planet.  Erosion and plate tectonics have likely destroyed the very oldest life-bearing sediments.  That said, to suggest that there was a "first" creature is to misunderstand not only evolution, but genetics and even organic chemistry.  Evolution of species occurs in populations not in individuals.  So the more correct question is 'where did the first population come from".  And the plain and simply truth is that to date we don't know, and may never know.

But not knowing where the first life came from had no bearing on the fact that life evolves, so I am unclear on why you believe the question to be germane. 

As to how the first life came to be another species, the answer is simple - evolution.  I know you were expecting me to suggest some magical sky daddy was involved in the mix.  Sorry about that.

As to why evolving species are still around if "they evolved into something else", really?  All species evolve.  If all evolving species went extinct every time they evolved then there would be no life on this planet, because the life that they evolved into would itself go extinct.  It is a meaningless question.

And further questions?


----------



## Big Black Dog (Jan 26, 2014)

I am a child of God and I strongly believe that He made me in His image.  I'm pretty sure that my wife evolved from monkeys though...


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 26, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Cures for disease. For instance:
> 
> Giant leaps of evolution make cancer cells deadly - health - 23 January 2014 - New Scientist
> 
> ...



You really have no idea what you are talking about, do you?


----------



## S.J. (Jan 26, 2014)

> First of all, do explain how you managed to interpret my response to your post as an attack.


I didn't.  Read it again.  I said you attack everyone who questions your assertions.



> But not knowing where the first life came from had no bearing on the fact that life evolves, so I am unclear on why you believe the question to be germane.


Sorry, but it IS germane.  You're claiming that the first life form became another, then another, and so on, but you can't explain how it started.  The entire theory is based on life not being created, but evolving, so you should be able to explain how it started.  And you should be able to recreate it in a lab.



> As to how the first life came to be another species, the answer is simple - evolution. I know you were expecting me to suggest some magical sky daddy was involved in the mix. Sorry about that.


That's your answer, "evolution"?  In other words, you don't know.



> As to why evolving species are still around if "they evolved into something else", really? All species evolve. If all evolving species went extinct every time they evolved then there would be no life on this planet, because the life that they evolved into would itself go extinct. It is a meaningless question.


Oh, so a monkey somewhere along the line popped out a human and viola, a new species is born?  I know, I know, "evolution".  So why can't you explain HOW "evolution" changes one species into another?  I know that species evolve WITHIN their own species to a small extent to adapt to different environments, but you have yet to provide any evidence whatsoever that they evolve into different species.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 26, 2014)

S.J. said:


> > First of all, do explain how you managed to interpret my response to your post as an attack.
> 
> 
> I didn't. Read it again. I said you attack everyone who questions your assertions.


 
If that is what you take from this thread, then perhaps you are wasting your time. In which case, why are you here?



			
				orogenicman said:
			
		

> But not knowing where the first life came from had no bearing on the fact that life evolves, so I am unclear on why you believe the question to be germane.





			
				SJ said:
			
		

> Sorry, but it IS germane.


 
No it is not. Keep reading.



			
				SJ said:
			
		

> You're claiming that the first life form became another, then another, and so on, but you can't explain how it started.


 
Notice how your claim uses the singular, not the plural. What part of "populations evolve" do you not understand? How it started is irrelevant to the FACT that life evolves. If you want to discover how life started, you need another theory because evolution, by definition, is only about the origin of species, not the origin of life.



			
				SJ said:
			
		

> The entire theory is based on life not being created, but evolving, so you should be able to explain how it started. And you should be able to recreate it in a lab.


 
No, the entire theory describes the diversity of life, not how it started or where or when it originated.



			
				orogenicman said:
			
		

> As to how the first life came to be another species, the answer is simple - evolution. I know you were expecting me to suggest some magical sky daddy was involved in the mix. Sorry about that.


 


			
				SJ said:
			
		

> That's your answer, "evolution"? In other words, you don't know.


 
Yes that is my answer. No it is not a non-answer. It is THE answer. And I do know. Keep reading.



			
				orogenicman said:
			
		

> As to why evolving species are still around if "they evolved into something else", really? All species evolve. If all evolving species went extinct every time they evolved then there would be no life on this planet, because the life that they evolved into would itself go extinct. It is a meaningless question.


 


			
				SJ said:
			
		

> Oh, so a monkey somewhere along the line popped out a human and viola, a new species is born? I know, I know, "evolution". So why can't you explain HOW "evolution" changes one species into another? I know that species evolve WITHIN their own species to a small extent to adapt to different environments, but you have yet to provide any evidence whatsoever that they evolve into different species.


 
Obviously, you don't know evolution. Because if you did, you would not have repeated this misrepresentation of evolutionary theory. Again, what part of "populations evolve, not individuals" do you not understand?

I can explain how species evolve. You didn't ask it before so I didn't tell you. Species evolve via natural selection.

Look at artificial selection of domestic animals by humans. The mechanism for changing those animals is there naturally, or we would not be able to breed these animals for our own purposes. That mechanism is their genomes. We select animals based on what we desire of them (i.e., gentle nature, speed, taste, etc.), and then breed only those specimens that have the desired characteristics. After repeated breeding, we end up with breeds that only have those characteristics. They breed true. And we've done this only after a relative few generations of selective breeding. Nature does this via natural selection (i.e., the gradual process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of the effect of inherited traits on the differential reproductive success of organisms interacting with their environment) as well, but over a much longer period of time.


----------



## S.J. (Jan 26, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > > First of all, do explain how you managed to interpret my response to your post as an attack.
> ...


Well, I kept reading and I still didn't see any answers that you keep claiming you have.  All I've seen is you telling me I don't understand evolution.  Apparently you don't understand it either because you don't seem to be able to answer any of the questions I just asked.  For example, I'm still waiting for you to show us how species evolve into other species.  And this time, how about something other than "You just don't understand evolution"?


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 26, 2014)

S.J. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...


 
Then apparently you are having trouble with the English language. What part of the below did you not understand?



> Look at artificial selection of domestic animals by humans. The mechanism for changing those animals is there naturally, or we would not be able to breed these animals for our own purposes. That mechanism is their genomes. We select animals based on what we desire of them (i.e., gentle nature, speed, taste, etc.), and then breed only those specimens that have the desired characteristics. After repeated breeding, we end up with breeds that only have those characteristics. They breed true. And we've done this only after a relative few generations of selective breeding. Nature does this via natural selection (i.e., the gradual process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of the effect of inherited traits on the differential reproductive success of organisms interacting with their environment) as well, but over a much longer period of time.


 
Are the words too big? Do you need a dictionary? Perhaps what you really need is a class in basic biology.

But let me ask you a question. If not evolution, then what, in your opinion, better explains the diversity of life we see on this planet? And what evidence do you have to support this 'better' explanation?


----------



## S.J. (Jan 26, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Then apparently you are having trouble with the English language. *What part of the below did you not understand?*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't have a problem understanding it.  You're talking about breeding, or evolution (adaptation) within a species.  If you think that copy and paste statement makes your case of one species morphing into another, then YOU are the one having trouble with the English language.

And you don't win by default.  I don't have to provide a proven explanation for your unproven one to be wrong.  Either you can prove your claim or you can't.  So far, you have failed miserably, and your personal attacks and condescending remarks don't add much to your credibility.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 26, 2014)

S.J. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Then apparently you are having trouble with the English language. *What part of the below did you not understand?*
> ...


 
It is clear that you have tremendous problems understanding it. It isn't about winning or losing. This isn't a popularity contest. Evolution is not a claim. It is a scientifically valid theory backed by over 150 years of compelling evidence compiled by hundreds of thousands of scientists who have dedicated their lives to understanding it and solving its mysteries.

The same processes that allow for artificial selection also allows for natural selection. The primary difference is one of time and the agent of that change, which in this case, is the natural world. You apparently believe that all of that hard won data cannot possibly explain the diversity of life even though you have provided no explanation for your denial. This tells me that you believe that some other theory better explains the diversity of life on Earth. Or perhaps your only reason for posting here is to be contrary.  And you are right. Scientific theories stand or fall on their own merits. Evolution has withstood the test of time despite your misgivings and misunderstandings. So, as I said, if you have some other theory that better explains the diversity of life, I'm all ears, SJ.


----------



## GISMYS (Jan 26, 2014)

THINK!!! TARDS!!! selective breeding CAN ONLY MAKE MINOR CHANGE IN A BREED OF ANIMAL IT  CANNOT CHANGE A RAT INTO A CAT,A HONEY BEE INTO A COW NO MATTER HOW MUCH TIME


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 26, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> THINK!!! TARDS!!! selective breeding CAN ONLY MAKE MINOR CHANGE IN A BREED OF ANIMAL IT CANNOT CHANGE A RAT INTO A CAT,A HONEY BEE INTO A COW NO MATTER HOW MUCH TIME


 
But then, no one has ever said it could, just like no evolutionary scientist has ever said that a rat can change into a cat, a honey bee or a cow, despite you and others being told this over and over again.  I am coming to the conclusion that some of you people have serious nervous system malfunctions that prevents this from sinking in.  And if that is the case, you have my sympathy.


----------



## S.J. (Jan 26, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> It is clear that you have tremendous problems understanding it.


Or maybe it's like Quantum Windbag said, you have no idea what you're talking about.  I would think that a brilliant scientist, such as yourself would be able to answer a few basic questions, but you haven't been able to answer a damn thing, just attack and insult the people who ask them.


----------



## GISMYS (Jan 26, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> gismys said:
> 
> 
> > think!!! Tards!!! Selective breeding can only make minor change in a breed of animal it cannot change a rat into a cat,a honey bee into a cow no matter how much time
> ...



oh!!!! Trace man back to the start of life on earth.  Tell us all about what evolved into what to make mankind!


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 26, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > gismys said:
> ...


 
I can do one better. I can show you:


----------



## GISMYS (Jan 26, 2014)

Roflmao!!! Man's silly ideas are no proof of anything but silly man's ignorance!!!and you???


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 26, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> Roflmao!!! Man's silly ideas are no proof of anything but silly man's ignorance!!!and you???


 
I think the fact that you have nothing to say other than making insults is proof enough of your silly ignorance. Congratulations.

On the other hand, if you really are interested in the subject, watch this:

 
Otherwise, stop wasting my time.


----------



## GISMYS (Jan 26, 2014)

Bottomline=evolution is the religion of god hating sin loving fools!!!


----------



## S.J. (Jan 26, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


Where did the Forest Ape come from?


----------



## GISMYS (Jan 26, 2014)

Roflmao!!! Humans can't breed with chimps or gorilla. Why not?? If they are your uncle??? Roflmao!  When will "all" chimps evolve into humans?


----------



## S.J. (Jan 26, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> Roflmao!!! *Humans can't breed with chimps or gorilla.* Why not?? If they are your uncle??? Roflmao!  When will "all" chimps evolve into humans?


He's saying they just morphed into humans (over many years, of course).


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 26, 2014)

S.J. said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> > Roflmao!!! *Humans can't breed with chimps or gorilla.* Why not?? If they are your uncle??? Roflmao! When will "all" chimps evolve into humans?
> ...


 
Are you a Judeo-Chirstian?  I only ask because of the 9th commandment about bearing false witness and how it relates to your statement above.


----------



## S.J. (Jan 26, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > GISMYS said:
> ...


Okay, how did it happen then, if they didn't breed?


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 26, 2014)

S.J. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...


 
You know, I give you information (such as the diagram above), and you don't even bother to read it or go over it, or even try to understand it. Did you even watch the video I provided in post #150?  No?  So explain to me why I should bother. How old are you, anyway?


----------



## S.J. (Jan 26, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


How, exactly, does that diagram show how the apes became humans?  You didn't answer my other question either, but let's just stick to this one for now.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 26, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Yeah.. I got one.. What about the MECHANISM(S) of evolution?? Adaptation is irrelevent without MUTATION.. Tell us about ACCELERATED mutation.. Like the known experiment that created 14 species of fruit flys in just a matter of days with radiation.. How much has "evolutionary science" discovered about "jumping species" in very SHORT periods of time? You seem to believe that the "theory" has been "settled science" for centuries. Like before we had DNA sequencing, knowledge of radiation mutation, and a map of the genome.. 

This theory has taken more twists and turns than the wooden coaster at DollyWood.. And YET ---- so many folks line up to PRETEND that its all been settled since forever.. 

If evolution can be ACCELERATED beyond Darwin's wildest dreams --- why do you still have a 19th definition of it in your explanations? Ever occur to you that there MAY BE less "missing links" than previously thought because of what we've LEARNED about the MECHANISMS of evolution?

BTW --- for those who want to explore your most ancient ancestral cousins.. There's a GREAT site with an interactive tree of life going across the entire animal kingdom.. 

Life on Earth

That page is a guide to the 1st life on earth..


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 26, 2014)

S.J. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...


 
I have answered all of your questions and you have answered not one of mine.  Until you do, we're done here.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 26, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...


 
What about them?



			
				faccidtenn said:
			
		

> Adaptation is irrelevent without MUTATION.


 
In evolutionary terms, adaptation doesn't occur without a mutation.



> Tell us about ACCELERATED mutation.


 
You brought it up, so I assume you know all about it. So why don't you tell us about it. I'm not your instructor.



			
				flaccitenn said:
			
		

> Like the known experiment that created 14 species of fruit flys in just a matter of days with radiation.. How much has "evolutionary science" discovered about "jumping species" in very SHORT periods of time?


 
I'll answer those questions with questions since that is what you folks are so good at. Does that research disprove evolution, and if so, how, and if so, what other explanation would you promote instead?



			
				flaccidtenn said:
			
		

> You seem to believe that the "theory" has been "settled science" for centuries. Like before we had DNA sequencing, knowledge of radiation mutation, and a map of the genome..


 
Thank you for that amusing straw man.



			
				flaccidtenn said:
			
		

> This theory has taken more twists and turns than the wooden coaster at DollyWood.. And YET ---- so many folks line up to PRETEND that its all been settled since forever..


 
I've never been to Dollywood, so I am sure I wouldn't know if that were true. I myself prefer the roller coasters at Kings Island. 

I would say that I am surprised that you are on the wrong side of so many science discussions, but wait - - - no I am not. 



			
				flacidtenn said:
			
		

> ]If evolution can be ACCELERATED beyond Darwin's wildest dreams --- why do you still have a 19th definition of it in your explanations?


 
Because the definition still applies.



			
				flaccidtenn said:
			
		

> Ever occur to you that there MAY BE less "missing links" than previously thought because of what we've LEARNED about the MECHANISMS of evolution?


 
If by "missing links' you mean "transitional species" as creationists prefer to refer to it, I must tell you that ALL species are transitional. Next.


----------



## S.J. (Jan 26, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


Show me where, exactly, you answered that question.  Then answer the other one.  And the only questions you've asked me is if I have another explanation of diversity to replace your's, and if I'm a Judeo-Christian.  BOTH diversions.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 26, 2014)

S.J. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...


 
There is a process, dude.  You ask a question, and I answer it.  Then I ask a question and you answer it.  Until you decide that you want to participate in the process, there is nothing else to discuss.


----------



## S.J. (Jan 26, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


Ok, answer my first question, and don't dance around it.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 26, 2014)

What part of "*I have answered all of your questions and you have answered not one of mine.* Until you do, we're done here."  did you not understand?


----------



## S.J. (Jan 26, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> What part of "*I have answered all of your questions and you have answered not one of mine.* Until you do, we're done here."  did you not understand?


I understand that you have NOT answered them.  You've sunk to ridiculous comments now, and if you're "done", then stop commenting.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 26, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> What part of "*I have answered all of your questions and you have answered not one of mine.* Until you do, we're done here."  did you not understand?


Welcome to the DISHONEST Hack world of SJ

He can't talk technically on evolution - Pro or anti - at all. He's merely a harassing TROLL on the topic.
He just says 'no' and says he "offered" to post on the topic, but never does.

You've Answered EVERYTHING he Drooled up but he is just an obstinate, in-denial Trolling Turd.
`


----------



## S.J. (Jan 26, 2014)

abu afak said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > What part of "*I have answered all of your questions and you have answered not one of mine.* Until you do, we're done here."  did you not understand?
> ...


Maybe YOU can answer the question then, pus pocket.  How did one species become another?  Answer it or STFU.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 27, 2014)

S.J. said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


So because you're ignorant... it must be god.. right Dufus?

EVERY extant animal has a close ancestor we do have Fossil and other Evidence of.
Most have 99% of the DNA and skeletal structure as that ancestor and other extant relatives.







So even Homo Sapien, creationists most holy/"image of god", was Fairly Gradual, not a humongous change/creation event. 
It all perfectly jibes WITH evolution. 

Additionally/Consistently, We have Anatomical VESTIGAL features/organs, such as tail bone, that has No use other being that Remnant/EVIDENCE of more primitive primate ancestor/mutual ancestors we Evolved From.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2

ALL this was covered, including 'bat evolution' for Crusader Dope  in the string in which you show yourself to be a FRAUD and an asshole troll.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...olution-as-fact-and-theory-4.html#post8112362

You remain a Moron throwing up false challenges when ALL Evidence points to Evolution and NONE to a god.
Every New Science that could make or break it, (Isotopic Dating, DNA analysis, etc) has AFFIRMED evolution.
`


----------



## S.J. (Jan 27, 2014)

abu afak said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...


You mentioned God, I didn't.

You have fossils, oh boy!  That's not proof, stupid.

"It all perfectly jibes WITH evolution".  
You mean it all perfectly jibes with your "theory" (fantasy) of evolution.  Since you haven't proven evolution, that doesn't mean shit.

"We have VESTIGAL features/organs, such as tail bone, that has No use other being that Remnant/EVIDENCE of more primitive primate ancestor/mutual ancestors we Evolved From".
Well gee, I guess our spine has to end somewhere, huh?  That's hardly proof that it's a remnant from a more primitive primate ancestor, is it?

"You remain a Moron throwing up false challenges when ALL Evidence points to Evolution and NONE to a god".
Interesting that instead of proving your claims, you always resort to challenging the existence of God, whom I have yet to mention.  It proves you are unable to make your case scientifically.  You're either too ignorant of your own theory to sell it, or your theory is a crock of shit that is so full of holes you have to constantly resort to changing the subject, hoping no one will notice you haven't made your case.

Now, how about explaining how one species became another (other than just saying "evolution" ad nauseam)?


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 27, 2014)

I've come across assclowns like you before, SJ. When I was taking physical anthropology as an undergraduate in the 1970s, we had a young woman in the class who was an evangelical. She lasted about 10 minutes in the first lecture before she got up and spouted the same asinine nonsense you have here, and ran out of the room. It is a typical response from the perpetually stupid. The real question is why she bothered signing up for the class in the first place.  And the real question here is why you are here, and why I bother with you.


----------



## S.J. (Jan 27, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> I've come across assclowns like you before, SJ.  When I was taking physical anthropology as an undergraduate in the 1970s, we had a young woman in the class who was an evangelical.  She lasted about 10 minutes in the first lecture before she got up and spouted the same asinine nonsense you have here, and ran out of the room.  It is a typical response from the perpetually stupid.  The real question is why she bothered signing up for the class in the first place.


That's a nice story, though not verifiable, but it doesn't address my question.  Why don't you just admit you can't answer it?


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 27, 2014)

S.J. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > I've come across assclowns like you before, SJ. When I was taking physical anthropology as an undergraduate in the 1970s, we had a young woman in the class who was an evangelical. She lasted about 10 minutes in the first lecture before she got up and spouted the same asinine nonsense you have here, and ran out of the room. It is a typical response from the perpetually stupid. The real question is why she bothered signing up for the class in the first place.
> ...


 

You should rename yourself "Mr. Denial", because - damn!


----------



## S.J. (Jan 27, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


Because what, because I don't buy your ridiculous theory, or because you're unable to make a case for it?


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 27, 2014)

S.J. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...


 
You say this as if evolution is something I made up instead of it being the premier scientific theory of our time accepted as fact by the vast majority of the world's scientists. You're a fool, nothing more. Goodbye.


----------



## LTCArmyRet (Jan 27, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Yes, speechless that there is no end to the lengths in which you will offer lies to lend credence to your posts.


----------



## LTCArmyRet (Jan 27, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> > EVOLUTION IS PURE BUNK "science" MICRO YES AS ANIMALS CAN BE BREED FOR SIZE OR COLOR AND SUCH *BUT NO HONEY BEE WILL EVER BECOME A COW JUST AS POND SCUM WILL NEVER EVOLVE INTO THE MOST COMPLEX THING IN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE=THER HUMAN BRAIN AND BODY*!!!! TRY TO THINK!
> ...



Still not tired of using the same lame response, huh?  Holes are poked in you evolution theory and all you can say is "you need to learn what it is before you comment"?  Isn't that the same thing Pelosi said about obamacare?  And look what a pile of shit that has turned out to be.


----------



## S.J. (Jan 27, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


And let the record show that at no time during this thread did you answer any questions asked of you.  All of your responses have been evasive or ad hominem.  You promote this theory, yet you are unable to defend it when asked basic questions about it.  You get an F.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 27, 2014)

And let the record show that the only reason SJ and his posse is here is to derail yet another science thread about evolution. They can't argue the facts (because they have none), nor present an opposing theory (because that would be a terrible admission that they are morally and intellectually bankrupt), so they post page after page of unsupported accusations in order to deflect attention from the fact that they believe that the Flintstones to be a documentary. How pathetic is that?


----------



## S.J. (Jan 27, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> And let the record show that the only reason SJ and his posse is here is to derail yet another science thread about evolution. They can't argue the facts (because they have none), nor present an opposing theory (because that would be a terrible admission that they are morally and intellectually bankrupt), so they post page after page of unsupported accusations in order to deflect attention from the fact that they believe that the Flintstones to be a documentary. How pathetic is that?


You never presented any facts to argue against, you posted claims that can't stand up to scrutiny.  That's why, instead of answering my very basic questions, you charged in with personal attacks that had nothing to do with what you were trying to sell.  And for the third time now, I don't have to present a theory of my own for your's to be flawed.  Either you can back up your claims or you can't.  You claim common ancestors but can't explain how it happens.  It wasn't through breeding, so what was it, magic?  When you can give us an answer to that, other than just repeating the word "evolution", then you might have a little credibility.  Until then, you're just full of shit.  No offense.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 27, 2014)

S.J. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > And let the record show that the only reason SJ and his posse is here is to derail yet another science thread about evolution. They can't argue the facts (because they have none), nor present an opposing theory (because that would be a terrible admission that they are morally and intellectually bankrupt), so they post page after page of unsupported accusations in order to deflect attention from the fact that they believe that the Flintstones to be a documentary. How pathetic is that?
> ...


 
And let the record show that 'lying for Jesus' is their new norm.


----------



## S.J. (Jan 27, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


I see you're posting the same diversionary ad hominem remarks here that you're posting in PC's thread, where you're also getting your ass kicked.  Let the record show that the emperor has no clothes.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 27, 2014)

S.J. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...


 
So you're saying that you sit at your computer in your birthday suit?  Oh my.


----------



## S.J. (Jan 27, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


Please keep talking, as your credibility continues to further deteriorate.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 27, 2014)

All of biology is based on the theory of evolution. What that means is that any cure for illness you might find yourself suffering from, comes from this science that you willfully choose not to believe in or understand. So when you become seriously ill, and there is no doubt that some day you will, are you going to deny yourself treatment for that illness because the science on which it is based, goes against your beliefs? I don't think you will. But that will also make you a hypocrite. An alive hypocrite, but a hypocrite nonetheless.


----------



## westwall (Jan 27, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> All of biology is based on the theory of evolution. What that means is that any cure for illness you might find yourself suffering from, comes from this science that you willfully choose not to believe in or understand. So when you become seriously ill, and there is no doubt that some day you will, are you going to deny yourself treatment for that illness because the science on which it is based, goes against your beliefs? I don't think you will. But that will also make you a hypocrite. An alive hypocrite, but a hypocrite nonetheless.









Typical.  I love the threads you guys come up with "critical", "catastrophic" etc. etc. etc.  The theory of evolution is not "critical".  And biology isn't based on the theory of evolution.
Biology as a science has been around at least since the 5th century BCE.  Alcmaeon of Crotona I think it was, was one of the first major contributors to the science of biology (basically invented zoology), so let your hyperbole take a rest for awhile.

It gets tiresome.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 27, 2014)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > All of biology is based on the theory of evolution. What that means is that any cure for illness you might find yourself suffering from, comes from this science that you willfully choose not to believe in or understand. So when you become seriously ill, and there is no doubt that some day you will, are you going to deny yourself treatment for that illness because the science on which it is based, goes against your beliefs? I don't think you will. But that will also make you a hypocrite. An alive hypocrite, but a hypocrite nonetheless.
> ...


 

And how well has the ideas of Alcmaeon of Crotona stood the test of time?  Yes, her understood human anatomy better than most people of his day, but so what.  He likely killed more animals with his vivisections than he ever cured humans of disease. And if you don't believe that modern biology is entirely based on the theory of evolution, then you don't know anything about biology.


----------



## S.J. (Jan 27, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> All of biology is based on the theory of evolution. What that means is that any cure for illness you might find yourself suffering from, comes from this science that you willfully choose not to believe in or understand. So when you become seriously ill, and there is no doubt that some day you will, are you going to deny yourself treatment for that illness because the science on which it is based, goes against your beliefs? I don't think you will. But that will also make you a hypocrite. An alive hypocrite, but a hypocrite nonetheless.


I never said I don't believe in science, I just don't buy the bullshit you're trying to peddle here.  You shouldn't have such blind faith either because science is only based on what they know at the time.  They've made absolute proclamations many times only to prove themselves wrong later.  And you're wrong about biology.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 27, 2014)

S.J. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > All of biology is based on the theory of evolution. What that means is that any cure for illness you might find yourself suffering from, comes from this science that you willfully choose not to believe in or understand. So when you become seriously ill, and there is no doubt that some day you will, are you going to deny yourself treatment for that illness because the science on which it is based, goes against your beliefs? I don't think you will. But that will also make you a hypocrite. An alive hypocrite, but a hypocrite nonetheless.
> ...


 
You don't believe in the theory of evolution, the most important, and best documented theory in all of science. So don't give me this crap that you believe in science when it is clear that you don't even know what it is all about. My knowledge does not come from blind faith, as yours does, but from decades of research and education in anthropology, geology, biology, chemistry, and physics, and experience in the field. And yours comes from? What? A 2,000+ year old Bedouin holy book?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 27, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



And although you danced around my previous post -- let me slip in here with a rhetorical question that you've already ignored? 

Dont worry about Alcmaeon of Crotona -- How has YOUR theory stood the test of time? 
My previous point was that "evolution" has evolved faster than any evidentiary evidence that we can point to in the Natural World. When you defend "evolution" as this immutable theory from the 1800s, you're ignoring the vast amount of NEW techniques and thoughts that cast SERIOUS doubt on the old explanations. 

Note that I'm not in any way DENYING evolutionary mechanisms, but I find it silly to be constantly staking your honor on something that is a huge moving target. Here's but one example. 



> Atavisms: Medical, Genetic, and Evolutionary Implications | Nenad Tomi? - Academia.edu
> 
> 
> ABSTRACT
> ...



Thus --- BECAUSE the NEW evolution theory on MECHANISMS for mutations looks NOTHING LIKE the old evolution concept of MECHANISMS for evolution --- we're not actually sure that this concept of the tree of life actually grows straight from ROOTS to LEAVES --- or whether it's more of a twisted gnarly tree.. 

I wouldn't even place bets on which came first --- The "tail" or the "tail gene"..  *Would you*? How many species carried a "tail gene" before a species showed up with it activated?


----------



## S.J. (Jan 27, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


Then you should have no problem answering basic questions about the science you claim to know so much about.  Right?


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 27, 2014)

Has the theory of evolution changed since Darwin's time?  Yes.  But then, it is a scientific theory, and as we know (you do know, right?), all scientific theories are subject to change as new discoveries are made.  That doesn't refute them.  On the contrary, it strengthens them.


----------



## westwall (Jan 27, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Has the theory of evolution changed since Darwin's time?  Yes.  But then, it is a scientific theory, and as we know (you do know, right?), all scientific theories are subject to change as new discoveries are made.  That doesn't refute them.  On the contrary, it strengthens them.








It can either strengthen them or render them obsolete (as Darwinian evolution has become), or demonstrate the theory followed the wrong line of reasoning and so is replaced in its entirety by a newer, better theory.

You're almost as absolutist as a theologian...


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 27, 2014)

S.J. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...


 
No, I have no problem answering any question wrt the TOE.  That's not the issue.  The issue is that nothing I can ever present to a hoser such as yourself will be believed because you are too stupid to learn anything.  So there's no point.  My suggestion is for you to take a class.  That way you can waste someone else's time on your own dollar.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 27, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


You're NOT posting a refutation of Evolution.. AT ALL.
You are posting a Mechanism Tweak no larger than those that come up with every other Theory/TRUISM. Gravity too. 

I must congratulate your for your unusual Top/Tech-down attempt at scientific-looking attack, although PoliticalChic tries the same thing daily on a less Baffle-em-with-BS level.
That is.. to Dishonestly say something is untrue/discredited/obsolete by pointing to SEEMING contradictions among those who DO believe in evolution even if they have their own Tweak such as Punctuated equilibrium or atavisms or Dollo's law of irreversibility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

I must also say I find it profoundly disturbing that on this page alone we have TWO mods posting against Evolution (that would be enough of a shock) in the/a science section alongside the board's emptiest numbskulls.
`


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 27, 2014)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Has the theory of evolution changed since Darwin's time? Yes. But then, it is a scientific theory, and as we know (you do know, right?), all scientific theories are subject to change as new discoveries are made. That doesn't refute them. On the contrary, it strengthens them.
> ...


 
No sir, that isn't how science works.  Name a major scientific theory developed over the last 100 years that has been completely discarded.  You can't, because modern scientific theories are expanded upon, not discarded.  Once they get past the hypothesis stage and become a full fledged theory, that's where they stay.  Very few are ever refuted.  I hate to break it to you, oh dufus one, but Darwin's theory, with modifications and improvements via new discoveries, is alive and well.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 27, 2014)

abu afak said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Well thanks Abu for that useful lineup of who's in the thread and their batting scores. Itll save ten bucks on the game program and I can buy a chilidog instead..

I wouldnt call the MOUNTAIN of DNA science --- a minor tweak.  Neither was the realization that a good millenium of cosmic ray showers could equal millions of years of mutations. These are -- as Oroman pointed out--- the evolution of evolution theory.  But many IMPOTANT assumptions of this theory have bit the dust in just our lifetimes.  To the point where we honestly dont know that evolution always produces more advanced, more complex life.  Spent a lot of time looking at bones and not enough time looking for genome clues.

Hope I dont dissappoint you too much that im NOT trying to disprove evolution, only to point out the futility of arguing thats its some kind of immutable "settled science" that has no surprises left in it.  If youre really bummed that im not PoliticalChick,  I can put out the special  WonderWoman signal and fly her in here.


----------



## S.J. (Jan 27, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


Yeah, yeah, I know.  You're just too smart to make your case.  Can't say I didn't give you the chance.


----------



## westwall (Jan 27, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...









Ummmm, actually it is.  They're called "superceded scientific theories" and a modern example (of many) would be Hoyle, Gold, and Bondi's Steady State Theory (circa 1950) of cosmology.

As to Darwin, first it was Darwinian evolution, then it was Neo Darwin and now it is Evo -Devo, so no, Darwin is referenced for tradition, but evolutionary theory has gone way, way beyond Darwin.

I am constantly astounded by how little you actually know about science.  Seeing's how you're a PhD geologist and all that

Figured out what percentage more population India has yet?


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 27, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


 
Evolution doesn't have to produce more complex life.  It only has to produce viable offspring.


----------



## bayoubill (Jan 27, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Why the Theory of Evolution is not only the right answer, why it is a critical answer



stuff happened to get us to where we are today...

some folks think it look only 'bout 6000 years... 'n God was in charge...

other folks think it took 'bout 4.5 billion years... 'n mebbe God was in charge... 'n mebbe he/she/it wasn't...

myself, I don't give a flying fuck 'bout how long it took to get here... I'm just glad to be here... and am thankful to whatever force is responsible for making it happen...


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 28, 2014)

The earth is very old. Can we all agree with this???


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 28, 2014)

Matthew said:


> The earth is very old. Can we all agree with this???



I almost could -- if you weren't so vague !!!


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 28, 2014)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



There are certain sciences that are MUCH WEAKER than others as well. 
As a novice -- I know that Psychiatry has DOZENS of theories that were not only wrong -- but GROSSLY wrong.. 

Darwinian evolution was very useful -- and actually "lucky" considering the level of knowledge that was available at the time..


----------



## abu afak (Jan 28, 2014)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Has the theory of evolution changed since Darwin's time?  Yes.  But then, it is a scientific theory, and as we know (you do know, right?), all scientific theories are subject to change as new discoveries are made.  That doesn't refute them.  On the contrary, it strengthens them.
> ...


That's Ridiculous.
Darwinian Theory is not "obsolete".
Only Mechanism Tweeks have changed.
The Principle is Solid and enduring.

What we have are Closet Creationists and Red State thugs (unable to refute evolution principle) making/trying a new, but still bogus, attack. Obsolescence. 

That would include the other mod who quoted you immediately above, doing the old "Damn with Faint praise" routine. Although calling Darwins' idea/theory "lucky" is perverse.

Again what we have are TWO mods on a non-religious message board's science section, posting against Darwinian evolution in this day and age.
Quite remarkable and disturbing.
No doubt they will be right back to other Consistent conservative/partisan hack positions (Gimmee my gun, Obama sucks, other Anti-scientifica) in between their Neo-tack-attack utterances here.
`


----------



## westwall (Jan 28, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...







Or how about psychology?  My wife is an I.O. psychologist and she will point out ridiculous studies that are _STILL_ being referenced in new work.  She is also particularly scathing in her reviews of sociology.

As she says, "these people don't know how to do decent research, hell they don't know how to do just plain bad research, they're just truly awful!"


----------



## westwall (Jan 28, 2014)

abu afak said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








I suggest you do some research on the subject then.  For the record I am a liberal democrat, agnostic,  and a PhD geologist.  A real one, not like the faux geologist orogenicman.  Funny how you laud Darwin yet ignore Wallace who did more research into the process than Darwin.

You are young I feel, very young.  You remind me of teenagers I've dealt with.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 28, 2014)

westwall said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


That's No answer Clown. 
This board is here to post/debate/discuss evidence, not EMPTILY attempt to pull rank.
You lose.
(and I am not young, but older/smarter/wiser/more succesful than you goofy)

And I might add that similarly.... you two "whoring" (high-fiving with demeaning empty gossip about Darwin) with no meat on the bone is a Discredit to USMB.
Put some meat up and take your dump some place else.

(I feel another flacalteen tech link-dump/Reference/name-drop coming. It won't make Darwin Obsolete either, but it will try to seem like it does. Every time)
`


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 28, 2014)

abu afak said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Am I banished from my favorite forums? This is where I've ALWAYS lived on USMB. I didn't end up on this thread to troll.. You make the general mistake that my remarks have ANYTHING to do with *religious* views. This deep vendetta of yours is not my problem.

Darwin was "lucky". Because to have a theory -- you have to propose a methodology and mechanism for the observation you are making. And "survival and competition" was an adequate start to the methodology. But the vague knowledge of genetics and mutations at that time could say very little about frequencies or types of mutations or the environmental causes of them. So address the issue. Do we now know that the tree of life always grows towards DENSER DNA? Meaning more "complex" life forms? How does the fossil record assess whether a species was carrying genetic POTENTIAL to be a precursor to another?

The major fact that Darwin missed was that MUTATION is not always immediately EXPRESSED.. It may lie dormant for Eons until some enviro trigger activates it. And the tree is subject to review because of what we've learned since Darwin.. In fact -- MOST of the genome is still unknown stuff. So if competition and survival was the only determination -- everything on the planet would have huge teeth and stealth. The real competition is more likely to be DNA flexibility and the POTENTIAL to adapt -- rather than physical features.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 28, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


No, not banished, you're more clever than most.
Just playing a transparent game. (apparent only to someone At least As clever)



			
				flacaltenn said:
			
		

> Darwin was "lucky". Because to have a theory -- you have to propose a methodology and mechanism for the observation you are making. And "survival and competition" was an adequate start to the methodology. But the vague knowledge of genetics and mutations at that time could say very little about frequencies or types of mutations or the environmental causes of them. So address the issue. Do we now know that the tree of life always grows towards DENSER DNA? Meaning more "complex" life forms? How does the fossil record assess whether a species was carrying genetic POTENTIAL to be a precursor to another?


More mechanism. see the bottom of this post for Gould explaining that was Never Claimed By Darwin.



			
				flacaltenn said:
			
		

> The major fact that Darwin missed was that MUTATION is not always immediately EXPRESSED.. It may lie dormant for Eons until some enviro trigger activates it. And the tree is subject to review because of what we've learned since Darwin.. In fact -- MOST of the genome is still unknown stuff. So if competition and survival was the only determination -- everything on the planet would have huge teeth and stealth. The real competition is more likely to be DNA flexibility and the POTENTIAL to adapt -- rather than physical features.


That's NOT Major, it's just more Mechanism.

And since you say you haunt this section I'm Sure you've seen this but Always Ducked it anyway. It was in an LONG Running OP 
http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...n-jay-gould-evolution-as-fact-and-theory.html
and then posted probably another dozen dimes partially in it and elsewhere. It could not have been missed but it wasn't addressed by YOU nor Westfail:



			
				Gould/Darwin said:
			
		

> "....Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very Beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the Mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred.
> *Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory&#8212;natural selection&#8212;to explain the mechanism of evolution. *
> He wrote in The Descent of Man: _"I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations."_..."


Gould, of course, the co-creator of Punctuated equilibrium (another tweak) and/but [STILL] a Darwinist.
`


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 28, 2014)

Abu_Afak:

You're quote above from Darwin only highlights how important science methods and principles were to Darwin.. Too bad we're not seeing that kind of humility in his present day worshippers (and too many current scientists for that matter) .. If you're all jazzed because you've thwarted the religious view of Creation with Darwinism -- Congrats. He agrees his work does that. You're done.

Personally, I want better answers and tools. So I've decided NOT to ignore the 150 years of science SINCE Darwin.. He wouldn't ignore it either..


----------



## emilynghiem (Jan 28, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> > Until the "theory" is proven, it isn't true.
> ...



Evolution and Creation are both going to depend on some faith.
Even if you were to document or film a single species over time
evolving into something more than just a side mutation.
People will still argue over one case vs. another not proving the whole process.

We weren't back in the days of first life created
so that will always depend on interpreting data evidence or explanation from something OTHER than our first hand witnessed perception and experience and memory.

Thus it will always be faith-based.

If we don't agree, it is because of other reasons
besides what evidence or facts we are considering. We are 
not interpreting the data within the same context of our worldviews.

If that framework of reality does not align, no amount of data or arguing is going to change that.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 28, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Cures for disease. For instance:
> 
> Giant leaps of evolution make cancer cells deadly - health - 23 January 2014 - New Scientist
> 
> ...



I re-read the OP to see what started this particular feud.. I couldn't agree more.. Except that Oroman should change his tagline to read --- "CREATIONISTS LOOK --- DNA"

These jumps are likely to be the reason why we've wasted so much time looking for transitional species and "missing links".. In the big timeline of evolution, there wouldn't be much discoverable evidence for periods of MASS macromutation. Especially since, it could be milleniums until these mutations manifest in physical traits.

So we face an interesting philosophical question.. Do periods of intense cosmic radiation or enviro stress from chemical and physical agents count as "acts of God"?? My insurance company might demand that they be classified as such.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 28, 2014)

abu afak said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...





flacaltenn said:


> Abu_Afak:
> 
> You're quote above from Darwin only highlights how important science methods and principles were to Darwin.. Too bad we're not seeing that kind of humility in his present day worshippers (and too many current scientists for that matter) .. If you're all jazzed because you've thwarted the religious view of Creation with Darwinism -- Congrats. He agrees his work does that. You're done.
> 
> Personally, I want better answers and tools. So I've decided NOT to ignore the 150 years of science SINCE Darwin.. He wouldn't ignore it either..


No one would of course Ignore 150 Years of science Since Darwin,
But I have ended your and wetwall's Charade attempting Discredit/Diminish him/His Fact and theory.

It is NOT Obsolete, everything else/ALL the crap we've seen for months from 'Irradiated Fruit Flies' to your post just before you just grudgingly caved, is/Are BS. All the attempts to Diminish Darwin are spurious. *My excerpt above shows he was not only brilliant in the Fact of evolution, but Prescient that future developments/mechanisms would come.*
NONE of which contradict him or make His evolution outmoded.
All the nonsense/Baffle-em-with BS mechanisms you've posted NO more makes him obsolete that SJ Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium: And Gould remained a Darwinist. 
Ouch! That WAS the killer/final nail.

You obviously get your jollies and some popularity from the Red State Numb-Nuts in Dissing Darwin, but now we all see -- when we don't have to deal with Trolls like S.J. or LTC or PC -- who/what prevails in a debate: Darwin's Evolution: Fact and Theory.
and again...
Your attacks (mechanisms) were just a bit better than PoliticalChic's attempt to "refute" Darwin with Gould's P-E TWEAK/MECHANISM even though Gould was a Darwin fan and knew it did No such thing.
Did you ever intervene in PC's Regular outrageous Lie Strings to correct her? Or have you Instead criticized those who have it right/basically right?
What kind of Sick Political game is that?

Now you are left with _'yeah, well, (swallow) Darwin wouldn't ignore the next 150 years'_. No kidding. But he is Not Obsolete.
Game Over.
`


----------



## GISMYS (Jan 28, 2014)

DNA: The Tiny Code That's Toppling Evolution

As scientists explore a new universethe universe inside the cellthey are making startling discoveries of information systems more complex than anything ever devised by humanity's best minds. How did they get there, and what does it mean for the theory of evolution?
DNA: The Tiny Code That's Toppling Evolution - Good News Magazine | United Church of God


----------



## GISMYS (Jan 28, 2014)

Amazing revelations about DNA
As scientists began to decode the human DNA molecule, they found something quite unexpectedan exquisite 'language' composed of some 3 billion genetic letters. "One of the most extraordinary discoveries of the twentieth century," says Dr. Stephen Meyer, director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Wash., "was that DNA actually stores informationthe detailed instructions for assembling proteinsin the form of a four-character digital code" (quoted by Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator, 2004, p. 224). 

It is hard to fathom, but the amount of information in human DNA is roughly equivalent to 12 sets of The Encyclopaedia Britannica an incredible 384 volumes" worth of detailed information that would fill 48 feet of library shelves!

Yet in their actual sizewhich is only two millionths of a millimeter thicka teaspoon of DNA, according to molecular biologist Michael Denton, could contain all the information needed to build the proteins for all the species of organisms that have ever lived on the earth, and "there would still be enough room left for all the information in every book ever written" ( Evolution: A Theory in Crisis , 1996, p. 334).

Who or what could miniaturize such information and place this enormous number of 'letters' in their proper sequence as a genetic instruction manual? Could evolution have gradually come up with a system like this?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 28, 2014)

abu afak said:


> No one would of course Ignore 150 Years of science Since Darwin,
> But I have ended your and wetwall's Charade attempting Discredit/Diminish him/His Fact and theory.
> 
> It is NOT Obsolete, everything else/ALL the crap we've seen for months from 'Irradiated Fruit Flies' to your post just before you just grudgingly caved, is/Are BS. All the attempts to Diminish Darwin are spurious. *MY excerpt above shows he was not only brilliant in the Fact of evolution, but Prescient that future developments would come.*
> ...



Lots of claims of victory there bud -- but it's buried in contradictions and errors.. 
You start off by claiming that "No one would of course Ignore 150 Years of science Since Darwin,"  and immediately go on to call new revelations of science since Darwin -- "BS".

And then after I PRAISED Darwin for his attention to scientific rigor and humility you alter my words to  "Now you are left with _'yeah, well, (swallow) Darwin would ignore the next 150 years'_" --- which is the OPPOSITE of what I said.. 

Really not interested in your personal jihad against Red States, or other posters, or people of faith.. Not even interested in your extreme sensitivities to the history of evolution theory. I just find your motivations to be funny actually. The need to win a political debate by clinging to 150 yr old science. I'm might just be inspired to waste my time defending Michaelangelo against patent infringements !!! 

We're here for different reasons I 'spose. But MOST of these "Darwin" threads are about politics and religion, and I don't learn anything from them.. And neither do you apparently.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 28, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> Amazing revelations about DNA
> As scientists began to decode the human DNA molecule, they found something quite unexpectedan exquisite 'language' composed of some 3 billion genetic letters. "One of the most extraordinary discoveries of the twentieth century," says Dr. Stephen Meyer, director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Wash., "was that DNA actually stores informationthe detailed instructions for assembling proteinsin the form of a four-character digital code" (quoted by Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator, 2004, p. 224).
> 
> It is hard to fathom, but the amount of information in human DNA is roughly equivalent to 12 sets of The Encyclopaedia Britannica an incredible 384 volumes" worth of detailed information that would fill 48 feet of library shelves!
> ...



Yes.. But as Emily said a few posts ago.. It takes a bit of faith to accept that scientific assertion.. Every detail of our existence is a strange and rare event in the history of the universe. The more you understand the vastly overwhelming ALTERNATE outcomes, the more faith it requires.


----------



## westwall (Jan 28, 2014)

abu afak said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...







Now you're beginning to sound like that silly person, trolling blunder.  Whatever, you're a pretty weak poster so I hope you further your education.


----------



## westwall (Jan 28, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> Abu_Afak:
> 
> You're quote above from Darwin only highlights how important science methods and principles were to Darwin.. Too bad we're not seeing that kind of humility in his present day worshippers (and too many current scientists for that matter) .. If you're all jazzed because you've thwarted the religious view of Creation with Darwinism -- Congrats. He agrees his work does that. You're done.
> 
> Personally, I want better answers and tools. So I've decided NOT to ignore the 150 years of science SINCE Darwin.. He wouldn't ignore it either..








That is a constant problem with these "factual posturers", as my wife calls them...they can't imagine that science has progressed beyond their very narrow area.  Talk about religious dogma!


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 28, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> DNA: The Tiny Code That's Toppling Evolution
> 
> As scientists explore a new universethe universe inside the cellthey are making startling discoveries of information systems more complex than anything ever devised by humanity's best minds. How did they get there, and what does it mean for the theory of evolution?
> DNA: The Tiny Code That's Toppling Evolution - Good News Magazine | United Church of God


 
Mario Seiglie?  Really?  Bwahahahahahahahaha!


----------



## S.J. (Jan 28, 2014)

abu afak said:


> You obviously get your jollies and some popularity from the Red State Numb-Nuts in Dissing Darwin, but now we all see -- when we don't have to deal with Trolls like S.J. or LTC or PC -- who/what prevails in a debate: Darwin's Evolution: Fact and Theory.


In other words, if there's no one around to challenge you, you win the debate.  Brilliant.


----------

