NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you believe in Evolution (NO DISCUSSION, aside from bumps :D EDIT - and pointing out the problems with the options/question)

It's not really a matter of belief, per se. It's a matter of what the evidence tells us.

True that. "Which do you think is correct?" would have been a better wording.

I can't vote. I belive that evolution is possible but doesn't rule out the existence of god. I also don't know if I believe in god. So where does that put me?

I should have put other in there...

My religion is slightly scientific... I believe that "God" is, in a manner, the universe. The way everything has worked out proves that for some reason, things "perfectly" formed a planet we could survive on... hmmmmm....

Anyway, creationism and evoltion do not conflict. It said God created man... does it say he created them as we know ourselves today? No, it doesn't. I grew up catholic, but I see no problem with evolutionary thinking. In fact, I accept both.

I am Evolution by Natural Selection.

I can't vote. I belive that evolution is possible but doesn't rule out the existence of god. I also don't know if I believe in god. So where does that put me?
Right next to me.

Here's the problem with any of these debates. Belief in god is by necessity a matter of faith. There is no way, no matter what Thomas Aquinas thought, to prove or disprove the existence of god in anything approaching a scientific manner. We can surmise, we can assume, we can reason, but we can't prove, simply because the world of faith and the world of reason don't meet.

Evolution, however, is an observable phenomenon. It's only a theory in the sense that the theory of gravity is a theory--there's really not much question that evolution happens; there's just some question as to how exactly everything works. We haven't figured out all the innerworkings yet, so to speak. But even though we haven't gotten all the details figured out, we have been able to observe enough of the overall process that we can make some educated assumptions. We just can't do that with God.

Which is why the two of them are not mutually exclusive. There's no logical problem with positing the existence of God while simultaneously acknowledging the existence of evolution. They come from two separate universes of thought--one of faith and one of reason.

My religion is slightly scientific... I believe that "God" is, in a manner, the universe. The way everything has worked out proves that for some reason, things "perfectly" formed a planet we could survive on... hmmmmm....

Anyway, creationism and evoltion do not conflict. It said God created man... does it say he created them as we know ourselves today? No, it doesn't. I grew up catholic, but I see no problem with evolutionary thinking. In fact, I accept both.
They dont. Creationism and Abiogenisiss do/can conflict.

Do you believe in Evolution
Sorta like asking me if I believe in the theory (yes, theory) that the earth goes around the sun.
YES.

Abiogenisess (sic)
Umm...it's "abiogenesis". Why did you put a (sic) in there? Did you really intentionally spell it wrongly?

No I was trying to get it right, but I knew I screwed up spelling.

No I was trying to get it right, but I knew I screwed up spelling.
Ahh, because sic is Latin for "so, thus", and means that the word was written that way intentionally. :D

God is a pyramid scheme and evolution is real. 'Nuff said.

I believe reason points to the existence of God or some supernatural force. You may believe in Evolution or Creation, but there is one truth. Now, I ask you this - what makes up the stars? Various gases, correct? Where did these gases come from? If you follow this back, logically, you'll come to find that the answer is 'nothing'. Now, I'd like someone to describe how within the boundaries of science something could possibly come out of nothing with no Divine Intervention. 'Nuff said.

Ahh, because sic is Latin for "so, thus", and means that the word was written that way intentionally. :D

Oh, I thought it was Spelling InCorrect. Should have put SP then..

My religion is slightly scientific... I believe that "God" is, in a manner, the universe. The way everything has worked out proves that for some reason, things "perfectly" formed a planet we could survive on... hmmmmm....

Anyway, creationism and evoltion do not conflict. It said God created man... does it say he created them as we know ourselves today? No, it doesn't. I grew up catholic, but I see no problem with evolutionary thinking. In fact, I accept both.
Wow. Someone like me. Thank God for small mercies.

Seriously, this is a first.

@Damaica- So, would you be close to a Deist perhaps? I'm somewhere between a Deist and (conservative) Christian.

I read in a newspaper here last week a leading British Atheist after 50 years came out and said he believes in God because it is the only logical answer to the creation of the Universe and its complexity. He still doesn't believe in the afterlife and follows the Deist Teachings.

Nope. Evolution is wrong, and it is related to Nazism. And it caused the Columbine shootings.

Nope. Evolution is wrong, and it is related to Nazism. And it caused the Columbine shootings.

Talk about a closed minded person and conspercy theroy nut.

God is a pyramid scheme and evolution is real. 'Nuff said.

agreed:)

Nope. Evolution is wrong, and it is related to Nazism. And it caused the Columbine shootings.

yet another demonstration of the utter impossibility of telling if somebody is making fun of dumb creationists or actually just is one.

Can someone tell me the difference between "macroevolution" and "microevolution"?

Can someone tell me the difference between "macroevolution" and "microevolution"?

microevolution is the amount of evolution that even the craziest, most willfully blind creationist has given up trying to claim is impossible. macroevolution is all other types of evolution.

microevolution is the amount of evolution that even the craziest, most willfully blind creationist has given up trying to claim is impossible. macroevolution is all other types of evolution.

Yeah, and they're too stupid to realise that micro-evolution is macro-evolution, since macro-evolution happens over time through micro-evolution. :rolleyes:

Nope. Evolution is wrong, and it is related to Nazism. And it caused the Columbine shootings.

Cool. I'm a nazi! had no idea! (Better grow a neat little moustache! )

But.
The evolution is more or less proved by scientists. (Creatures evolve even today. Humans too. We're not the same as we were just 100 years ago! )
But, i can't see no reason that Believing in that the world has evolved from micro-organizms to what we are today, interferes in believing in god? (Don't think there are anyone over here in my little corner of the world, who believes in god, but doesn't believe in evolution. And i don't think my whole country is Nazi!)

I do think, however that there are a higher force of some kind out there.. What was before big bang? I really can't see how all of a sudden, a big ball of nothing exploded, and "lookie, we have our very own universe!".

They dont. Creationism and Abiogenisiss do/can conflict.

Of course they do. But certain parts of writing in each religion give way to a possibility of "evolution." I'm not saying its a smooth connection, I'm just saying that there's a little nook in the whole system, and that's where my faith lies.

Right next to me.

Here's the problem with any of these debates. Belief in god is by necessity a matter of faith. There is no way, no matter what Thomas Aquinas thought, to prove or disprove the existence of god in anything approaching a scientific manner. We can surmise, we can assume, we can reason, but we can't prove, simply because the world of faith and the world of reason don't meet.

Evolution, however, is an observable phenomenon. It's only a theory in the sense that the theory of gravity is a theory--there's really not much question that evolution happens; there's just some question as to how exactly everything works. We haven't figured out all the innerworkings yet, so to speak. But even though we haven't gotten all the details figured out, we have been able to observe enough of the overall process that we can make some educated assumptions. We just can't do that with God.

Which is why the two of them are not mutually exclusive. There's no logical problem with positing the existence of God while simultaneously acknowledging the existence of evolution. They come from two separate universes of thought--one of faith and one of reason.

and lo i did fall in love

@Damaica- So, would you be close to a Deist perhaps? I'm somewhere between a Deist and (conservative) Christian.

I read in a newspaper here last week a leading British Atheist after 50 years came out and said he believes in God because it is the only logical answer to the creation of the Universe and its complexity. He still doesn't believe in the afterlife and follows the Deist Teachings.

I think that the higher power people speak of, is a "force" within the universe. Mind you I do not mean like Wiccan, I do not believe that you are supposed to worship the "energies."

It's hard to explain, but basically:
"Things happen for a reason. No. Things happen because if they didn't, this would not exist." Not fate, not destiny, but necessity.

*shrug

If I try to explain this further, I'd have to describe my theory on the 9 dimensions of existence.

Do you believe in Evolution (NO DISCUSSION, aside from bumps :D EDIT - and pointing out the problems with the options/question)


I don't beleive in evolution because it is not a religion. I do not beleive in creation because it is religion. :D Is that fair?

The theory of evolution is like the theory of relativity. We can see it working and it's pretty hard to disprove. We know that variation takes place in a species and that the less well adapted are less likely to pass on their traits than the more adapted, so given that it is impossible for evolution not to take place, if you look at it logically.
I don't think the existence of it has anything to do with some kind of supernatural being. Life is the result of a reaction between substances that can be explained by the laws of physics. The fact that the laws of physics are so that life occures proves nothing. There is an infinite number of potensial realities, so it is impossible for at least one of those realities not to have the right variables for life.
As for the creation of the universe out of nowhwere being unbelievable, saying a god created it is even more ubelievable becuase then the god must have been created out of nowhere. The idea of vastly intelligent and advance being just appearing out of nowhere seems stupid to me. Just another example of how religion likes to convieniently overlook flaws in it's arguements while going crazy over anything that even looks like one in another. Give it up guys, it's getting sad.

The theory of evolution is like the theory of relativity. We can see it working and it's pretty hard to disprove. We know that variation takes place in a species and that the less well adapted are less likely to pass on their traits than the more adapted, so given that it is impossible for evolution not to take place, if you look at it logically.
I don't think the existence of it has anything to do with some kind of supernatural being. Life is the result of a reaction between substances that can be explained by the laws of physics. The fact that the laws of physics are so that life occures proves nothing. There is an infinite number of potensial realities, so it is impossible for at least one of those realities not to have the right variables for life.
As for the creation of the universe out of nowhwere being unbelievable, saying a god created it is even more ubelievable becuase then the god must have been created out of nowhere. The idea of vastly intelligent and advance being just appearing out of nowhere seems stupid to me. Just another example of how religion likes to convieniently overlook flaws in it's arguements while going crazy over anything that even looks like one in another. Give it up guys, it's getting sad.

flame off. The fact that you think YOUR beliefs are right despite the fact that more people believe a religion instead of evolutionism would seem to draw a strange argument against you. I am not necessarily a creationist, but I am realistic, and if you want to call religious people stupid, then I am compelled to ask why the more intelligent people in society ARE in fact religious? It's a rhetorical question, answer it in another thread.

As for your description of Evolution, you are wrong. "Evolution," as defined by science, is a occurance in which, when a certain event occurs, a certain population of a species survives, while the remainder dies. The trait, or gene(s) responsible for the survival is dominant, and therefore passes onto the following generations. Scientifically, Evolution is caused by a gene which is either inherited, or mutated. "Survival of the fittest" is not the basis of evolution, but rather, survival under a circumstance in which one still has a small chance of survival, due to but not restricted to genetics.

I believe reason points to the existence of God or some supernatural force. You may believe in Evolution or Creation, but there is one truth. Now, I ask you this - what makes up the stars? Various gases, correct? Where did these gases come from? If you follow this back, logically, you'll come to find that the answer is 'nothing'. Now, I'd like someone to describe how within the boundaries of science something could possibly come out of nothing with no Divine Intervention. 'Nuff said.

I'm still looking for a scientific answer to my question...

How about feeling that all the evidence points to evolution and a strong possibility of abiogenesis, with the belief that God started and planned the whole thing?

They dont. Creationism and Abiogenisiss do/can conflict.

Creationism and Abiogenesis do conflict, however creation and Abiogenesis do not have to.

I can't vote. I belive that evolution is possible but doesn't rule out the existence of god. I also don't know if I believe in god. So where does that put me?


I'll be chilling right next to you guys.

I'm still looking for a scientific answer to my question...

Actually, you're deductions were a little off. It is believed that those gasses were formed when energy and matter from the time of the creation of the universe caused the stars as we know them today. It is theorized that the "big bang" is the result of a black hole reaching maximum capacity, and thus "exploding" the matter and energy outward. Remember... our galaxy is circling a black hole.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neologica
I believe reason points to the existence of God or some supernatural force. You may believe in Evolution or Creation, but there is one truth. Now, I ask you this - what makes up the stars? Various gases, correct? Where did these gases come from? If you follow this back, logically, you'll come to find that the answer is 'nothing'. Now, I'd like someone to describe how within the boundaries of science something could possibly come out of nothing with no Divine Intervention. 'Nuff said.


I'm still looking for a scientific answer to my question...

The correct answer is "we don't know." There's still plenty that science doesn't know; the "reason" for the big bang (or however the universe started) is one of them, although some quantum-mechanical theories and some facets of string theory give some possibilities.

However, Divine Intervention doesn't answer the question, it just pushes it back one step. How can something come from nothing even WITH divine intervention?

OK..I'm just going to throw this out there and I don't think I'll be back to this thread again, so don't reply to me expecting me to read/answer it. Also, I'm not at all attacking anyone personally, or their genuinely honest beliefs. I am not flaming nor trolling. I know a few of you are probably prejudiced against me already because of my handle (I didn't know that the name of the nation I created in NationStates would be my handle), but I am not at all trying to push my views or beliefs on anyone, I am simply wanting to impart some genuine, non-politically-correct facts that are not taught in the public schools (because of their strong PC bias). I won't say that I am un-biased because I know that anyone who says that is absolutely lying, EVERYONE is biased, but that doesn't mean you can't be objective at the same time. That being said, here is some thoroughly researched truth on evolutionary theory.

First, two different kinds of evolution that are fundamentally different. MICRO-evolution, and MACRO-evolution. Micro-evolution is fact. It is an observable phenomenon that no one (not even the most devoit traditionalist) has ever denied. It is nothing more than minor changes WITHIN a species. For example, the finches that Darwin studied (which is what started his whole theory) is an example of micro-evolution. It was one species of bird that would develop two different types of beeks. The finches on one island where a particular plant grew had a beek that enabled them to drink the nector of that plant effectively, whereas the finches on a different island which had a different kind of plant had beeks that were more condusive to that plant.
Micro-evolution is also what happens with interbreeding animals. You mix a poodle and a terrier and you end up with something different, but it's still a dog.

Macro-evolution is completely different, that is where you have one species (gradually, or sporatically if you add Punctuated Equilibrium) change into a completely different species: fish->lizard->bird, monkey->human, etc. Macro-evolution has NEVER been observed anywhere in recorded history, nor has it been verified by the fosil records. (though there have been a few hoaxes by idiotic scientists who wanted to prove evolution by lying to the world. eg: Lucy, and all the other pre-man hoaxes) There not been any missing links discovered, there are no half-bird half-lizard fosils. There are fosils of dinosaurs, fosils of plants, fosils of animals that we recognize today, and fosils of homo-sapiens. That's it. NO macro-evolution today, NO macro-evolution in recorded history, NO macro-evolution in the fosil record = NO proof that macro-evolution has ever happened or is even possible.

Next up, "survival of the fittest"...I only mention this here because it is often considered to be the "driving force of evolution". But it really isn't, it's only a rule explaining why species go extinct. If something can't survive in it's environment, then it will no longer exist. That doesn't mean you end up with a new (better) species, that means that you end up with FEWER species than you started out with. Survival of the fittest explains why dinosaurs don't exist, not why humans do exist.

And finally we get to the black box, which makes all the stuff that I wrote previously superfluous. The cell. When Darwin wrote his thesis on evolution, medical knowledge was nothing like it is today. Bacteria had just recently been discovered, and microscopes were not powerful enough to see what is inside of a cell. So Darwin was operating on the assumption that cells were simply a mass of protiens and nothing more. Protiens are combinations of amino acids, so he thought that if you just took a bunch of amino acids and put them together in the right situation, protiens would form and come together to make a cell. However, he had no idea how truly complex a single cell actually is. Organelles (tiny organ-like things that operate inside of a cell much like organs inside your body) and DNA were unheard of. Even the simplest cell cannot live without several of these organelles and in the precise arrangement (I mean it wouldn't be a cell at all, not that it would die.) And the organelles aren't a simple mass of protiens either. With all of our technology and understanding, even with the best equipment and teams of the worlds smartest chemists, biologists, etc, we cannot make one single living cell. To expect that some random occurance happened to create a living cell is like expecting a random number sequencer to produce a copy of Windows XP. (Read the book Darwin's Black Box for more info on this.)

Now, I've only just covered the origin of the species and the origin of life. I haven't even touched any of the issues with the origin of Earth or the origin of the universe itself, but I just thoroughly demonstrated how that the theory of evolution is completely UN-scientific. If any of you still think that evolution is fact, than I must commend you on your massive degree of faith. I myself could never beleive in something that has never been seen or heard.

Sincerest best wishes to all of you, creationists and evolutionists alike ;)
RWM

OK..I'm just going to throw this out there and I don't think I'll be back to this thread again, so don't reply to me expecting me to read/answer it.

Ah. So you're stating views, and then not going to bother defending them.


Also, I'm not at all attacking anyone personally, or their genuinely honest beliefs. I am not flaming nor trolling. I know a few of you are probably prejudiced against me already because of my handle (I didn't know that the name of the nation I created in NationStates would be my handle), but I am not at all trying to push my views or beliefs on anyone, I am simply wanting to impart some genuine, non-politically-correct facts that are not taught in the public schools (because of their strong PC bias).

Reading ahead: no, they're not facts. They're opinions, or even worse misunderstandings. They're not taught in public schools because they're not correct, not accepted by the scientific community, and have no evidence supporting them.


I won't say that I am un-biased because I know that anyone who says that is absolutely lying, EVERYONE is biased, but that doesn't mean you can't be objective at the same time. That being said, here is some thoroughly researched truth on evolutionary theory.


First, two different kinds of evolution that are fundamentally different. MICRO-evolution, and MACRO-evolution. Micro-evolution is fact. It is an observable phenomenon that no one (not even the most devoit traditionalist) has ever denied. It is nothing more than minor changes WITHIN a species. For example, the finches that Darwin studied (which is what started his whole theory) is an example of micro-evolution. It was one species of bird that would develop two different types of beeks. The finches on one island where a particular plant grew had a beek that enabled them to drink the nector of that plant effectively, whereas the finches on a different island which had a different kind of plant had beeks that were more condusive to that plant.
Micro-evolution is also what happens with interbreeding animals. You mix a poodle and a terrier and you end up with something different, but it's still a dog.


Ah. You're defining microevolution to be "all the evolution we can observe." On a scale of hundreds or thousands of years, you're not going to get completely different kinds.

We HAVE seen different species to split off from each other to form separate species.

1. New species have arisen in historical times. For example:

* A new species of mosquito, Culex molestus, isolated in London's underground, has speciated from Culex pipiens. [London Times 1998; Byrne and Nichols 1999]

* Helacyton gartleri is the HeLa cell culture, which evolved from a human cervical carcinoma in 1951. The culture grows indefinitely and has become widespread. [Van Valen and Maiorana 1991]

* Several new species of plants have arisen via polyploidy (when the chromosome count multiplies by two or more) [de Wet 1971]. One example is Primula kewensis [Newton and Pellew 1929].


# Incipient speciation, where two subspecies interbreed rarely or with only little success, is common. Here are just a few examples:

* Rhagoletis pomonella, the apple maggot fly, is undergoing sympatric speciation. Its native host in North America is Hawthorn (Crataegus spp.), but in the mid-1800's, a new population formed on introduced domestic apples (Malus pumila). The two races are kept partially isolated by natural selection. [Filchak et al. 2000]

* The mosquito Anopheles gambiae shows incipient speciation between its populations in northwestern and southeastern Africa [Lehmann et al. 2003; Fanello et al. 2003].

* Silverside fish show incipient speciation between marine and estuarine populations [Beheregaray and Sunnucks 2001].

# Ring species show the process of speciation in action. In ring species, the species is distributed more-or-less in a line, such as around the base of a mountain range. Each population is able to breed with its neighboring population, but the populations at the two ends are not able to interbreed. (In a true ring species, those two end populations are adjacent to each other, completing the ring.)

Examples of ring species are:

* the salamander Ensatina, with seven different subspecies on the west coast of the USA. They form a ring around California's Central Valley. At the south end, adjacent subspecies klauberi and eschscholtzi don't interbreed. [Brown n.d.; Wake 1997]

* the greenish warbler (Phylloscopus trochiloides), around the Himalayas. Their behavioral and genetic characteristics change gradually, starting from central Siberia, extending around the Himalayas, and back again, so two forms of the songbird coexist but don't interbreed in that part of their range. [Whitehouse 2001; Irwin et al. 2001]

* the deer mouse (Peromyces maniculatus), with over 50 subspecies in North America.

* many species of birds, including Parus major and P. minor, Halcyon chloris, Zosterops, Lalage, Pernis, the Larus argentatus group, and Phylloscopus trochiloides [Mayr 1942, 182-183]

* the American bee Hoplitis (Alcidamea) producta. [Mayr 1963, 510]

* the subterranean mole rat, Spalax ehrenbergi [Nevo 1999]

# Evidence of speciation occurs in the form of organisms which exist only in environments that didn't exist a few hundreds or thousands of years ago.

* In several Canadian lakes, which originated in the last 10,000 years since the last ice age, stickleback fish have diversified into separate species for shallow and deep water [Schilthuizen 2001, 146-151]

* Cichlids in Lake Malawi and Lake Victoria have diversified into hundreds of species. Lake Malawi in particular originated in the 19th century and has about 200 cichlid species [Schilthuizen 2001, 166-176].

* A Mimulus species adapted for soils high in copper exists only on the tailings of a copper mine that did not exist before 1859 [Macnair 1989].

Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html . References can be found there.

These are cases where a NEW SPECIES has formed/is forming.


Macro-evolution is completely different, that is where you have one species (gradually, or sporatically if you add Punctuated Equilibrium) change into a completely different species: fish->lizard->bird, monkey->human, etc. Macro-evolution has NEVER been observed anywhere in recorded history,

The Nylon-metabolizing bacteria seems to be a classic case of macroevolution.

A bacterium, living in a pond behind a japanese factory, had a beneficial mutation - and now, metabolizes Nylon AND ONLY NYLON. It can no longer get energy from sugars, ONLY FROM NYLON.

That's a drastic change right there. A complete shift in the food that a bacterium can eat - that's macroevolution in a bacterium. It can no longer metabolize carbohydrates, only nylon.

Now, lets look at how long this took. Nylon has been mass-produced since the 1940s. That gives roughly 60 years. Now, how long is the life cycle of a bacterium? ...me not having a detailed education as to this particular bacterium, I'll take an estimate of one day - 24 hours - for one division. That means in the 60 years that Nylon has been around, bacteria that live around nylon have had approximately 21900 generations. It took that long for a major change to occur.

Given an animal with a life cycle of 1 year, it would take 21, 900 years for an equivalent change to occur. This is a blink of an eye on a geologic timescale. But to us, it's eternity. We've only been watching for a couple of hundred years, at most.

NO DUH WE CAN'T SEE ONE HAPPEN!

And note - this is when the bacterium is given a completely new environment to work with to adapt to. Most animals don't have a drastic new environment to adapt to!

Also - animals are more complicated, so it would take more changes for us to see it as "macroevolution." Multiply that 21900 years by another factor. And remember, this is a low estimate based on a 1-year life cycle for an animal.

We can see evolution on the scale of about 100-200 years at about the rate we expect - pretty darn slow. But this is enough to produce the variety we see today.

(Note - calculations are my own, and hence only a very, very rough approximation.)


nor has it been verified by the fosil records. (though there have been a few hoaxes by idiotic scientists who wanted to prove evolution by lying to the world. eg: Lucy, and all the other pre-man hoaxes) There not been any missing links discovered, there are no half-bird half-lizard fosils. There are fosils of dinosaurs, fosils of plants, fosils of animals that we recognize today, and fosils of homo-sapiens. That's it. NO macro-evolution today, NO macro-evolution in recorded history, NO macro-evolution in the fosil record = NO proof that macro-evolution has ever happened or is even possible.

Yes, we have fossil records of evolution.

I'll take a subset - evolution of humans from apes.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html has a chart of five different skulls, dated from different times.

According to evolution, they represent how humans have changed into what we are now.

According to creationists, all of the skulls should fall clearly into the "ape" or "human" category. However, they don't. Different creationists disagree which ones are human and which ones are ape. There are grey areas where nobody is really sure whether a skull is "human" or "ape."

That's exactly what evolution predicts a transitional form should be. Kind of like one, kind of like the other; it might fall into one category if you look at it one way, a different category if you look at it a different way.

Now, looking at other species evolving. Lets take the transitional fossil between lizards and birds, which you claim doesn't exist.

Archaeopteryx.

It posesses several characteristics which are unique to birds.

1) The most obvious are feathers - a distinctive feature of modern birds.

2) Opposable hallux (big toe).

This also is a character of birds and not of dinosaurs. Although opposable big toes are found in other groups, they are not, as far as I am aware, found in dinosaurs. A reversed big toe is found in some dinosaurs however, and the condition is approached in some theropod dinosaurs.

3, 4) Furcula (wishbone) formed of two clavicles fused together in the midline, Pubis elongate and directed backward.

These are characters of birds, but also of some theropod dinosaurs.

...however, Archaeopteryx also posesses distinctive features that mark it as being a reptile and not a bird.

1) It doesn't have a bill. The formation of a bill in birds is independent of jaw formation, and Archaeopteryx clearly does not have a bill.

2) Trunk region vertebra are free.

In modern birds the trunk vertebrae are always fused. In Archaeopteryx, they're not.

3) Cerebral hemispheres elongate, slender and cerebellum is situated behind the mid-brain and doesn't overlap it from behind or press down on it.

This again is a reptilian feature. In birds the cerebral hemispheres are stout, cerebellum is so much enlarged that it spreads forwards over the mid-brain and compresses it downwards. Thus the shape of the brain is not like that of modern birds, but rather an intermediate stage between dinosaurs and birds.

4) Neck attaches to skull from the rear as in dinosaurs not from below as in modern birds.

5) Center of cervical vertebrae have simple concave articular facets.

This is the same as the dinosaur pattern. In birds the vertebrae are different, they have a saddle-shaped surface.

6) Long bony tail with many free vertebrae up to tip (no pygostyle).

Birds have a short tail and the caudal vertebrae are fused to give the pygostyle. Archaeopteryx has a long bony tail.

7) Archaeopteryx had teeth, like many reptiles do but like birds do not.


8) Archaeopteryx had claws on the ends of its wings, three of them on unfused digits. All but one or two modern birds do not have these claws; whereas many reptiles do.

And so on and so forth. A full description of various features that Archaeopteryx shares with reptiles, with birds, or with both, can be found at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html .

It can be seen that Archaeopteryx possesses many more characters which are present in dinosaurs and not in birds, than it does characters which are present in birds but not in dinosaurs. This is why Archae is a true transitional species, because it shares some characters which are diagnostic of one group whilst still retaining characters diagnostic of its ancestral group.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC216_1.html contains links to information about the transition from land animals back to whales.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html - an article that has lists and lists of species that would fall under "transitional fossils."


Next up, "survival of the fittest"...I only mention this here because it is often considered to be the "driving force of evolution". But it really isn't, it's only a rule explaining why species go extinct. If something can't survive in it's environment, then it will no longer exist.

It also explains how a species can change. If more of the less-fit individuals die than the more-fit individuals, and then the more-fit individuals reproduce while the less-fit ones don't, the population as a whole becomes "more fit." This only means "more adapted to reproducing in its environment."


That doesn't mean you end up with a new (better) species,

No, it means you end up with a DIFFERENT or CHANGED species. Which is, in the short term, better than the species it evolved from. This does not mean it is better in the long term, or that it's "better" at all.


that means that you end up with FEWER species than you started out with. Survival of the fittest explains why dinosaurs don't exist, not why humans do exist.

Natural selection is talking about individuals within a species. It is a mechanism for a species changing. A species only dies out if the rate of death is greater than the rate of birth.

The less fit die, the more fit BREED and replace the less-fit. This does not mean a net decrease in the number of individuals, it merely describes which individuals die and which ones reproduce.


And finally we get to the black box, which makes all the stuff that I wrote previously superfluous. The cell. When Darwin wrote his thesis on evolution, medical knowledge was nothing like it is today. Bacteria had just recently been discovered, and microscopes were not powerful enough to see what is inside of a cell. So Darwin was operating on the assumption that cells were simply a mass of protiens and nothing more.

Darwin knew nothing about cells, nor did he care. He was observing macroscopic things and didn't really know how these changes could be done at the cellular level.

Actually, a little-known fact is that Darwin's original qualms with his theory came from the fact that he didn't know how traits would be passed on without diluting. After all, we know that if a tall man marries a short woman, their children will probably be of medium height. He worried that thus beneficial mutations would be "diluted" - that was before genetics, which showed how traits are actually discrete and thus can be passed on.


Protiens are combinations of amino acids, so he thought that if you just took a bunch of amino acids and put them together in the right situation, protiens would form and come together to make a cell.

No, actually, he did not think so. He thought that God created life - he was a fairly devout Christian. He did not know how the first cell appeared, nor did it matter for the theory of Evolution.


However, he had no idea how truly complex a single cell actually is. Organelles (tiny organ-like things that operate inside of a cell much like organs inside your body) and DNA were unheard of. Even the simplest cell cannot live without several of these organelles and in the precise arrangement (I mean it wouldn't be a cell at all, not that it would die.)

And the hypothetical first cell, would have much fewer of them than the modern, highly evolved cells. Actually, the first cells would have no internal membranes, and no internal organelles.


And the organelles aren't a simple mass of protiens either. With all of our technology and understanding, even with the best equipment and teams of the worlds smartest chemists, biologists, etc, we cannot make one single living cell.

Because we don't know how to, and do not have the millions of years to experiment like the Earth did. We've shown that some of the early steps are possible, such as the formation of amino acids.


To expect that some random occurance happened to create a living cell is like expecting a random number sequencer to produce a copy of Windows XP.

But chemistry is not a random sequencer, and Windows XP is not life. Analogies aren't proof of anything. Snowflakes are formed by "random" processes. So are amino acids.

(Read the book Darwin's Black Box for more info on this.)

And you're talking about abiogenesis, which has nothing to do with evolution.

Read http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html for a response to behe's book.

Throughout the book, Behe makes claims that "[such and such] has never been [described, explained] [by evolution, in scientific literature]."

This page http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/publish.html has links to the articles that Behe claims do not exist.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/oct03.html#run is a quick response to behe's book.


Now, I've only just covered the origin of the species and the origin of life. I haven't even touched any of the issues with the origin of Earth or the origin of the universe itself,


Of those four, the only one that is the theory of evolution is the first one, the origin of species. How life originated is irrelevant to the theory of evolution. How the Earth originated is irrelevant to the theory of evolution, as is how the universe originated.


but I just thoroughly demonstrated how that the theory of evolution is completely UN-scientific.

All you've demonstrated is your close-mindedness, since you said you're not going to bother reading responses, and your ignorance since these criticisms are unfounded.


If any of you still think that evolution is fact, than I must commend you on your massive degree of faith. I myself could never beleive in something that has never been seen or heard.

Sincerest best wishes to all of you, creationists and evolutionists alike ;)
RWM

Sincerest wishes to you too, and hopefully you'll climb out of your ignorance at some point in your life.

I myself could never beleive in something that has never been seen or heard.

Neither can anyone with a couple of brain cells. That's why I seem to be labelled an evolutionist, which i don't like, because it seems to be suggesting creationism has some sort of officiality. Which it hasn't, it's a bit of a joke, really.

-snip-
Verily, you are a god among men, Reasonabilityness. I bow before your mighty powers and (obvious) prodigious amounts of free time and motivation. That was a thorough smackdown the likes of which hasn't been seen since the last time one of the Nazis posted about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Verily, you are a god among men, Reasonabilityness. I bow before your mighty powers and (obvious) prodigious amounts of free time and motivation. That was a thorough smackdown the likes of which hasn't been seen since the last time one of the Nazis posted about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

The copious amounts of free time = first week of winter break! ^_^