who honestly doesn't believe in evolution?

[konradv]

Don't have to be an expert to hold an opinion on any subject. Of course, I can see it is not permissible to tolerate anyone differing from YOUR opinion, so just put me in the death camp with the cool people. We'll enjoy ourselves, sing hymns and pray for your souls after you kill us all.

Oh and you can have reciprocal neg rep every time you pop me with your piddly ass 15 points.

LOL!!! So it's all about rep and being cool? Who's got time to think that kind of loser attitude passes for enlightening debate? I don't believe you see very much at all.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Where does the force of Evolution fit in the Unified field theory?

We have the Electromagnetic force, the strong force, the weak force and the force of gravity. Where does the force of Evolution fit into the matrix?

Is evolution like time, the 4th dimension of our physical world?

What is the quantum particle of evolution?

Continue to clip articles from Wikipedia to enlighten me on the topic

Is evolution a "Force"? If not, what is it?

 

[antagon]

Where does the force of Evolution fit in the Unified field theory?

We have the Electromagnetic force, the strong force, the weak force and the force of gravity. Where does the force of Evolution fit into the matrix?

Is evolution like time, the 4th dimension of our physical world?

What is the quantum particle of evolution?

Continue to clip articles from Wikipedia to enlighten me on the topic

Is evolution a "Force"? If not, what is it?

what could he be thinking? is this from thought at all?

 

[konradv]

Where does the force of Evolution fit in the Unified field theory?

We have the Electromagnetic force, the strong force, the weak force and the force of gravity. Where does the force of Evolution fit into the matrix?

Is evolution like time, the 4th dimension of our physical world?

What is the quantum particle of evolution?

Continue to clip articles from Wikipedia to enlighten me on the topic

Is evolution a "Force"? If not, what is it?

DUUUUUUUUUH!!! A completely seperate theory. After participating in so many evolution threads, you'd think there'd be a little bit of comprehension, unless Frank's true agenda is to be a TROLL!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Where does the force of Evolution fit in the Unified field theory?

We have the Electromagnetic force, the strong force, the weak force and the force of gravity. Where does the force of Evolution fit into the matrix?

Is evolution like time, the 4th dimension of our physical world?

What is the quantum particle of evolution?

Continue to clip articles from Wikipedia to enlighten me on the topic

Is evolution a "Force"? If not, what is it?

what could he be thinking? is this from thought at all?

Maybe evolution is like gravity, we know it's there, we can see it at work, we can even measure it like the peppered moth, but we cannot locate the particle that propagates it through our physical Universe

 

[antagon]

Where does the force of Evolution fit in the Unified field theory?

We have the Electromagnetic force, the strong force, the weak force and the force of gravity. Where does the force of Evolution fit into the matrix?

Is evolution like time, the 4th dimension of our physical world?

What is the quantum particle of evolution?

Continue to clip articles from Wikipedia to enlighten me on the topic

Is evolution a "Force"? If not, what is it?

what could he be thinking? is this from thought at all?

Maybe evolution is like gravity, we know it's there, we can see it at work, we can even measure it like the peppered moth, but we cannot locate the particle that propagates it through our physical Universe

have you considered that genetics propagates evolution, frank? heredity?

 

[Bill Angel]

Pulling articles from Wikipedia does not make anyone smart.

Correct. It's used to support smart arguments in simple language for people such as yourself. If you'd like primary research publications, I'd be happy to share that as well. But my guess is those types of references are above your head.

You let me know how you'd like me to support my claims. I don't mind using Wikipedia as long as people like you can understand it. But really, wikipedia as a supporting source is still better than your supporting source of..... nothing.

The Wiki argument is so lame anyways. If we were talking about academic work, then I'd agree, but it suffices for internet debate.

And if anyone has a problem with the information, they can check out the citations/primary sources.

Here is another fact from Wiki supporting evolution:

"Human embryos have a tail that measures about one-sixth of the size of the embryo itself.As the embryo develops into a fetus, the tail is absorbed by the growing body. The developmental tail is thus a human vestigial structure."
See: Tail - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's hard to envision an "Intelligent Designer" creating a design for an embryo that would possess vestigial structures such as a tail.

But that still leaves open the question of what evolutionary advantage an individual would possess through the elimination of a tail? Why would humanoids with smaller tails (or with no tail) win out in that continuing contest known as "Natural Selection"?

 

[konradv]

Correct. It's used to support smart arguments in simple language for people such as yourself. If you'd like primary research publications, I'd be happy to share that as well. But my guess is those types of references are above your head.

You let me know how you'd like me to support my claims. I don't mind using Wikipedia as long as people like you can understand it. But really, wikipedia as a supporting source is still better than your supporting source of..... nothing.

The Wiki argument is so lame anyways. If we were talking about academic work, then I'd agree, but it suffices for internet debate.

And if anyone has a problem with the information, they can check out the citations/primary sources.

Here is another fact from Wiki supporting evolution:

"Human embryos have a tail that measures about one-sixth of the size of the embryo itself.As the embryo develops into a fetus, the tail is absorbed by the growing body. The developmental tail is thus a human vestigial structure."
See: Tail - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's hard to envision an "Intelligent Designer" creating a design for an embryo that would possess vestigial structures such as a tail.

But that still leaves open the question of what evolutionary advantage an individual would possess through the elimination of a tail? Why would humanoids with smaller tails (or with no tail) win out in that continuing contest known as "Natural Selection"?

Presumably tails would help with balance when one lived in the trees. When wetarted living on the ground a tail was just something else for a predator to grab or an extra appendage that could get injured and infected. Therefore, evolutionary pressure would trend towards those with smaller tails until they were completely elimated, except in vestigal and embryonic forms.

 

[Cecilie1200]

fitz, what is the difference between your ideas of micro and macro evolution? what prevents the changes you accept from diverging to the extent that scientists might call the original specimen a different creature than the evolved?

the challenge for folks like yourself who believe that there are two types of evolution is to show the natural barrier that differentiates them. if i contend that there are two sexes, i could point to their respective genes to substantiate it. what substantiates your idea about micro and macro evolution? where is the evidence for your claimed ceiling on the extent of evolutionary change?

I can't speak for Fitz, but for myself, I can say that I never said that there was any barrier preventing microevolution from becoming macroevolution. And I think you have it backward. It's not OUR job to prove that they are separate and differentiated, it's YOUR job to prove that they aren't. And you haven't, which is one reason I don't currently believe in evolution. The idea that you can say, "See, this happens, so that proves that THAT happens" and I'm supposed to either prove you wrong or believe you is nuts. Prove that you're correct and THEN I'll follow.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Show me the fossil record of change. We've no evidence of organs evolving, or skeletal records changing, gradual or radically.

It doesn't exist.

It might surprise you to learn that soft tissue is not well represented in the fossil record.

Shocking, I know.

no shit?

I never would have known. But soft tissue a structural change does not make.

Apparently, the inability of evidence to exist is supposed to be accepted as evidence.

 

[rightwinger]

Christine O'Donnell does not believe in evolution....but then again she is a witch

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Is evolution a "Force"? If not, what is it?

Things that are not forces:

• car
• elephant
• pancake
• evolution
• Muslims
• computer
• Jupiter
• library

Let me know if you have any other question on things that evolution is NOT, or if you need a dumbed down Wikipedia article to help you. Now it's clear to me that your pathetic drive to disprove a concept you know nothing about is what prompts these silly questions, but perhaps you should first learn what evolution IS before asking what it's NOT. No, just because gravity and evolution share something in common in your mind, being you have no clue about the underlying science, does not mean they are the same thing.

Apparently, the inability of evidence to exist is supposed to be accepted as evidence.

Well, no. This once again is YOUR moronic reasoning. You choose to ignore all evidence, and claim none exists. You claim there is a missing link, but can't point out what it is. Meanwhile the genetic evidence is overwhelming but OH RIGHT that seems to not exist in the vacuum between your ears.

 

[manu1959]

i think evolution is pretty cool.....

at one point there was nothing...then poof...something and then everything....

it just took a looooooooooooooong time...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

what could he be thinking? is this from thought at all?

Maybe evolution is like gravity, we know it's there, we can see it at work, we can even measure it like the peppered moth, but we cannot locate the particle that propagates it through our physical Universe

have you considered that genetics propagates evolution, frank? heredity?

Self awareness propagates "evolution"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Is evolution a "Force"? If not, what is it?

Things that are not forces:

• car
• elephant
• pancake
• evolution
• Muslims
• computer
• Jupiter
• library

Let me know if you have any other question on things that evolution is NOT, or if you need a dumbed down Wikipedia article to help you. Now it's clear to me that your pathetic drive to disprove a concept you know nothing about is what prompts these silly questions, but perhaps you should first learn what evolution IS before asking what it's NOT. No, just because gravity and evolution share something in common in your mind, being you have no clue about the underlying science, does not mean they are the same thing.

Apparently, the inability of evidence to exist is supposed to be accepted as evidence.

Well, no. This once again is YOUR moronic reasoning. You choose to ignore all evidence, and claim none exists. You claim there is a missing link, but can't point out what it is. Meanwhile the genetic evidence is overwhelming but OH RIGHT that seems to not exist in the vacuum between your ears.

I know you're ignorant, try not to get so hysterical about stuff you don't understand, OK? It's not real pleasant to experience

 

[geauxtohell]

It might surprise you to learn that soft tissue is not well represented in the fossil record.

Shocking, I know.

no shit?

I never would have known. But soft tissue a structural change does not make.

Apparently, the inability of evidence to exist is supposed to be accepted as evidence.

Oh you are back?

Did you look at the videos?

 

[geauxtohell]

fitz, what is the difference between your ideas of micro and macro evolution? what prevents the changes you accept from diverging to the extent that scientists might call the original specimen a different creature than the evolved?

the challenge for folks like yourself who believe that there are two types of evolution is to show the natural barrier that differentiates them. if i contend that there are two sexes, i could point to their respective genes to substantiate it. what substantiates your idea about micro and macro evolution? where is the evidence for your claimed ceiling on the extent of evolutionary change?

I can't speak for Fitz, but for myself, I can say that I never said that there was any barrier preventing microevolution from becoming macroevolution. And I think you have it backward. It's not OUR job to prove that they are separate and differentiated, it's YOUR job to prove that they aren't. And you haven't, which is one reason I don't currently believe in evolution. The idea that you can say, "See, this happens, so that proves that THAT happens" and I'm supposed to either prove you wrong or believe you is nuts. Prove that you're correct and THEN I'll follow.

Our job is not to waste time trying to prove things to the deliberately obtuse.

As for micro and macro evolution, that is a just a semantics issue to biologists.

If you guys are claiming that they are two discrete and separate things then that flies in the face of conventional science and the burden of proof is on you.

Here is another video for you to ignore:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ho7GaI2rCwI[/ame]

 

[SmarterThanHick]

I know you're ignorant, try not to get so hysterical about stuff you don't understand, OK? It's not real pleasant to experience

Aw, sounds like you're upset with being proven wrong so many times, you've taken to a completely new tactic?

So once again the things I say are supported by reproducible evidence from legitimate unbiased research, and the things you say are made up by you and supported by.... NOTHING. How's that working out for you as a life skill?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I know you're ignorant, try not to get so hysterical about stuff you don't understand, OK? It's not real pleasant to experience

Aw, sounds like you're upset with being proven wrong so many times, you've taken to a completely new tactic?

So once again the things I say are supported by reproducible evidence from legitimate unbiased research, and the things you say are made up by you and supported by.... NOTHING. How's that working out for you as a life skill?

No, seriously. I don't need you to find stuff on Wikipedia or Evolution Now magazine. That you think Ive "taken a new tact" just shows you've not been paying attention to anything I've posted in this or any other Evolution thread.

You just like to show off your "Superiority" by ranting and raving. You think you're making a point by insulting me and all you're doing is making a point about your own shortcomings.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

No, seriously. I don't need you to find stuff on Wikipedia or Evolution Now magazine. That you think Ive "taken a new tact" just shows you've not been paying attention to anything I've posted in this or any other Evolution thread.

You just like to show off your "Superiority" by ranting and raving. You think you're making a point by insulting me and all you're doing is making a point about your own shortcomings.

Well this is a new track for you. You went from rhetorical questions which showed you have no clue about evolution to giving that up to instead whine about how superior I am and complain about sources, none of which you've actually read.

As I've offered in previous posts, I am happy to show you primary research articles instead of dumbed down Wikipedia articles for you, but let's be honest here: if you're not reading the dumbed down version, you're definitely not going to read the intelligent things. Nonetheless, I can still support my facts with primary unbiased research. RESEARCH. You're still supporting your made up idea with... NOTHING. If you want to talk about "shortcomings", I recommend you look at your own ability to support the things you say.