NationStates Jolt Archive

Evolution! Sounds plausible? Right? Well, How do you explain the origin of such complex organs like the eye? What about the gaps in the fossil record and sheer lack of fossils in the the Precambrain era? It can be mathematically proven that natural selection and chance mutations cannot lead to such biological innovations. Clearly this can be logically explained that some designer - call him God - at certain intervals helped evolution along. Clearly Intelligent Design makes a lot of sense?

Well, Intelligent Design is flat-out wrong and not accepted by credible scientists. If there are two schools of thought one is held by scientsists and the other by religious nut-jobs.

Development of complex organs can be explained because Evolution by natural selection is not by chance. Evolution is a theory of gradual, incremental change, eventually achieving greater complexity. Lets take the eye as an example! An organism eventually develops light sensitive cells. these light sensitive cells, help it notice changing light and therefore when a predator is approaching. Well, it evades the predators long enough to pass its genes to it children who inherit the light sensitive cells. After many generations, as organisms who lack said cells have a lower chance of passing on their genes die out, what we know as the Eye develops. I can also explain the giraffes long necks: only the ones who were able to reach the leaves on the tree were able to pass on their genes. Intelligent Design, in fact, removes the origin of complexity.

Lack of fossils in Precambrian Era? Why would their be?

As for the gaps in the fossil record, do detectives have to account for every second of a crime based on what they found on the scene to prove that it exists? Also scientists use the genetic code to back up evolution.

But what about everyone's good friend Math? Well, do we really have the information to guess the probability of the development of an eye? Also, Evolution, while random mutations do play a part, mostly relies on natural selection.

As a final note, Evolution did not seek to explain the origin of life, but rather to explain the origin of the variety of species on earth. In no way does science produce evidence against God. To quote Martin Nowak, a Harvard proffessor of mathematics, "Science and religion ask different questions."

Evolution, as of now, is totally false. For one, every species branches off into at least 2 different branches as it evolves. Always. That's what scientists say. Now, evidence comes along saying that human evolution might have been a straight line. Several species. No branches. An absolute is proven to be false. Who knows what other "laws" of evolution aren't completely true.

Edit: prepare for a bashing from evolutionists. They often can't deal with the fact that they might be wrong. After all, they demand evidence of god, yet believe in evolution even though it is based on tests that have a slight chance of giving false readings.

Evolution, as of now, is totally false. For one, every species branches off into at least 2 different branches as it evolves. Always. That's what scientists say. Now, evidence comes along saying that human evolution might have been a straight line. Several species. No branches. An absolute is proven to be false. Who knows what other "laws" of evolution aren't completely true.

Who says that? We branched off from Orang-utans, we branched off from gorillas, we branched off from Chimps, we branched off from Neanderthals. There are branches all over the place. We just happen to be youngest shoot on one of those branches.

I suppose now is as good a time as any the whip out the big guns.

Would an evolutionist please explain to me why and how sexual reproduction came about?
It sems to me that an organism would be able to survive MUCH better if it did not require any other organism to participate in the reporoductive process. Furthermore, which evolved first, male or female? The mechanims for each are somewhat different and I'm not sure how one sex could survive until the other sex happened to evolve...

http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.html

There are branches....

We're directly related to Cro-Magnon man, but we're not related to Neandethals at all but rather share a common ancestor.

snip

Mathematically, evolution makes sense too. For example, take the lottery. It's highly unlikely that you will win. Does that mean no one wins? No. People win all the time. Improbable things happen every single day. What people who oppose evolution don't realize is the incredibly massive sample size involved in the ecolution of life on the planet. It's very very hard for a mind to grasp just how long 500 million years is. It's very very hard for a mind to grasp just how many different types of organisms there are. Those two factors combine to create a sample size in the genetic soup that leads to astoundingly improbable things happening.

Would an evolutionist please explain to me why and how sexual reproduction came about?
It sems to me that an organism would be able to survive MUCH better if it did not require any other organism to participate in the reporoductive process. Furthermore, which evolved first, male or female? The mechanims for each are somewhat different and I'm not sure how one sex could survive until the other sex happened to evolve...

I shall point you to the example of the Paramecium, which developed the seemingly pointless ability to trade genetic information with others of its kind via some extremely basic yet also hard to describe process.

Would have likely gone into plant-like reproductive means, where the creature has both 'male' and 'female' systems in itself. Then split into egglaying by one with fertilization by the other. blah blah blah yakkity smakkity.

Would an evolutionist please explain to me why and how sexual reproduction came about?

It is believed to have originated from a way bacteria ensure genetic variation. While it does not produce an organism, it is believed that's what sex is descened from. I dont have a biology textbook on me so I cant look it up right now.

It sems to me that an organism would be able to survive MUCH better if it did not require any other organism to participate in the reporoductive process.

A single disease could wipe out an entire species then. Sexual reporoduction ensures variation, and therefore a better overall survival rate of the species.

Furthermore, which evolved first, male or female? The mechanims for each are somewhat different and I'm not sure how one sex could survive until the other sex happened to evolve...

They would've evolved together, because they are the same species. Many species are able to spontaneously change gender by the way, or maybe some ancient hermaphrodite species eventually would specialize in one gender.


You have to remember evolution occurs over an extremely long period of time. Even the most minute, insignificant changes can eventually develop into something more complex...

I suppose now is as good a time as any the whip out the big guns.

Would an evolutionist please explain to me why and how sexual reproduction came about?
It sems to me that an organism would be able to survive MUCH better if it did not require any other organism to participate in the reporoductive process. Furthermore, which evolved first, male or female? The mechanims for each are somewhat different and I'm not sure how one sex could survive until the other sex happened to evolve...
Not really. For one, asexual reproduction would leave an a life form in danger for too long. Think about having a full grown twin attached to you for 17 years or so, or 9 months if we just want to use gestation.

Also, mixing of genes allows the genic pool to expand, allowing evolution to occure in the first place. It also protects against the whole of the species being wiped out due to one bug.

As to how it developed, look at sperm and egg, it was swapping DNA that slowly got more and more complex as the life forms grew more complex.

Would a creationist please explain to me why and how sexual reproduction came about? Surely a super intelligent god could come up with something better than all that tedious mucking about with sperm and eggs. And children dying from AIDS. What is up with that?

You cited "primitive" examples of sexual reproduction, but I'm more interested in the TRANSITON to sexual reproduction from asxeual.

A sudden thought has occured to me. Intelligent Design is right! How else does one explain the fact that we have not yet evolved to a point where we stop having these threads?

Human reproduction is family oriented. Two parents form an ideal unit for raising young humans and helping tham survive until maturity.

Two parents form an ideal unit for raising young humans and helping tham survive until maturity.

The two parents thing is sort of a modern invention I think. Check out the bible for how many wives some dudes had.

You cited "primitive" examples of sexual reproduction, but I'm more interested in the TRANSITON to sexual reproduction from asxeual.

We didn't just site primitive example of sexual reproduction. It probably originated from the ability to transfer genes among bacteria. Just transfering genes between two creatures is not reproduction, as it doesn't produce anything. This could of later originated into reproduction.

Also perhaps some hermaphrodite creatures developed in such a way that they'd be born with only one gender.

We're getting off topic, here...
if you want to debate the need/history/issues conerning family, do so in another thread.

Evolution, as of now, is totally false. For one, every species branches off into at least 2 different branches as it evolves. Always.

nope, not at all.

That's what scientists say.

No they don't.

Now, evidence comes along saying that human evolution might have been a straight line.

No, the evidence says quite the opposite.

Several species. No branches. An absolute is proven to be false. Who knows what other "laws" of evolution aren't completely true.

please read up on the subject before arguing about it.

Edit: prepare for a bashing from evolutionists. They often can't deal with the fact that they might be wrong.

Scientists are proven to be wrong all the time, they welcome it. That's why they test theories, to eliminate any mistakes they might have made. That's why scientific articles are only accepted if they are repeatable and peer reviewed. That's why a basic concept of science is that nothing is written in stone. Theories change over time as more evidence mounts. Theories are sharpened. Science admits that not everything is known, and the main goal of science is to increase understanding by accepting new information, instead of blocking it out. Is the current theory of evolution 100% correct? Of course not. That's the whole point. The basics or evolution are pretty incontrovertable though, it's merely the details that are lacking.

After all, they demand evidence of god, yet believe in evolution even though it is based on tests that have a slight chance of giving false readings.

Yeah, the tests might have a slight chance of being wrong. That's why they are repeated by others over and over and over again. That's why biologists seek corroboration with geneticists and paleontologists and geologists and physicists. That's why scientists devote their entire life to finding that one bit of evidence that will refine their knowledge. 150 years of testing has proven the basics of evolution. Name one shred of empirical evidence that God exists?

If you want to deny evolution, then go ahead and believe that the Earth is the center of the universe (which the Church killed people for arguing against.) How about that illness is caused by spirits or demons? How about that the Earth is flat? How about that everything is made of a combination of Earth, Wind, Fire and Water? How about that heavier objects fall faster than light ones?

Go ahead, bury your head in the sand and deny evolution simply because it scares you or challenges your beliefs. Science doesn't care. It deals with facts that are as close to accurate as can be known at that time. It's ever changing. Deal with it or be left behind and ridiculed by future generations.

It's quite ironic that people can't accept evolution because they aren't able to adapt.

Threads like these are why the rest of the civilized world thinks the USA is marching proudly into a new dark age.

Evolution, as of now, is totally false.
Ahh so there must be some grand conspiracy to keep it going?


For one, every species branches off into at least 2 different branches as it evolves.

Hmmm I wonder whats the lineage of the duck billed platapus? Or the Coelacanth?

Where did you come up with two by the way?


Always. That's what scientists say. Now, evidence comes along saying that human evolution might have been a straight line.
[\quote]
Ok where is this evidence? Nobody said we were a straight line. Orang's split off, Gorillas split off, chimps split off......

[quote]
Several species. No branches. An absolute is proven to be false.

Several species? Genious Homo has many branches?

Who knows what other "laws" of evolution aren't completely true.

Whoops there is no law of evolution and you haven't disproven anything.


Edit: prepare for a bashing from evolutionists. They often can't deal with the fact that they might be wrong. After all, they demand evidence of god, yet believe in evolution even though it is based on tests that have a slight chance of giving false readings.

Now don't be making things up. Evolutionists argue all the time so the "fear" of being wrong is never part of the equation. It's expected.

Ok repeat after me.

Evolution has never set out to prove or disprove the existence of God. Repeat that about 100 times.

Finally, if false readings are duplicated from different sources, the hypothesis will get tossed.

Back to my reproduction problem:
assuming evoltionary thoery to be correct, at one time, no organism and any genetics-swapping abilities. Then, by random mutation some organism developed ALL the gens necessary to exchange genetic information. with whom did this lone organism share the information if no other organism had the information-swapping gene?
There would be millions (if not billions) of non-swapping organisms, and very very few (if even more than the one) swap-capable organisms. How do you know that the swap-capable(s) would be able to survive...?

Not to mention that a single mutation would not result in an entirely NEW ability. Not to mention that not all mutations are passed on genetically (i.e. a deformed arm in a human). Not to mention that the newly-mutated creature could be killed simply by accident before having a chance to reproduce...

As a religious person, I have a question concerning ID:

ID is put forward as a kind of evolution process that is helped along by god. In other words, God created, then saw that improvements are in order and tinkered a bit so that his creatures could see, for example. And now the question:
What kind of image of god is that? God as the almighty tinkerer? Why didn't he get it right the first time?
I'm very glad that my faith allows me to see and accept the scientific solution without a conflict of faith.

Human reproduction is family oriented. Two parents form an ideal unit for raising young humans and helping tham survive until maturity.

Actually 2 parents is rather ineffective for the spreading of genetic material.

Multiple adults is more efficent then two as in the case of lioness', chimps, etc.

""Intelligent design" is not science. Its proponents have never had an article published on the topic in any peer-reviewed scientific journal. They conduct no experiments that would prove or falsify their hypothesis. Their conjecture makes no useful predictions, nor can it be mathematically modeled. There are no research labs doing ID science."

'Nuff said.

Human reproduction is family oriented. Two parents form an ideal unit for raising young humans and helping tham survive until maturity.
Thats a cultural trait, not a genetic. I'm perfectly sure humans can reproduce without forming a family.
By the way, why can't this fruitless pro-/anti-evolution/-id dicussions just end. People will never agree about this.

Threads like these are why the rest of the civilized world thinks the USA is marching proudly into a new dark age.

We aren't there now? Four states now require ID being taught.....

We aren't there now? Four states now require ID being taught.....

We're not there now. We'll be there when a large enough portion of the population graduates having learned the science of creationism in a public school.

Not too long really. "Generations" occur faster than most people think.

And you know, this ID/Creationist onslaught wouldnt be so prevalent if GW "I'm an idiot" Bush wasn't president.

It's quite ironic that people can't accept evolution because they aren't able to adapt.

I live very near the state of Kansas, that lovely hotbed of creationist lunacy, and around here, we tend to joke that Kansas is welcome to "ban" evolution - we'll keep evolving, and Kansans can stop. :p

Back to my reproduction problem:
assuming evoltionary thoery to be correct, at one time, no organism and any genetics-swapping abilities. Then, by random mutation some organism developed ALL the gens necessary to exchange genetic information.


Well some still don't. Bee's traveling around flowers spread material by visiting seperate flowers.

How did trees spread out? Some have the ability. Others by use of birds (incomming!!!!! ;) ).

Not to mention that a single mutation would not result in an entirely NEW ability. Not to mention that not all mutations are passed on genetically (i.e. a deformed arm in a human). Not to mention that the newly-mutated creature could be killed simply by accident before having a chance to reproduce...

Not at all. Why is it cyclecell only affects a small amount of people?

Why is cystic Fibrosis mainly a caucasian disease?

Evolution! Sounds plausible? Right? Well, How do you explain the origin of such complex organs like the eye? What about the gaps in the fossil record and sheer lack of fossils in the the Precambrain era? It can be mathematically proven that natural selection and chance mutations cannot lead to such biological innovations. Clearly this can be logically explained that some designer - call him God - at certain intervals helped evolution along. Clearly Intelligent Design makes a lot of sense?

Well, Intelligent Design is flat-out wrong and not accepted by credible scientists. If there are two schools of thought one is held by scientsists and the other by religious nut-jobs.

Development of complex organs can be explained because Evolution by natural selection is not by chance. Evolution is a theory of gradual, incremental change, eventually achieving greater complexity. Lets take the eye as an example! An organism eventually develops light sensitive cells. these light sensitive cells, help it notice changing light and therefore when a predator is approaching. Well, it evades the predators long enough to pass its genes to it children who inherit the light sensitive cells. After many generations, as organisms who lack said cells have a lower chance of passing on their genes die out, what we know as the Eye develops. I can also explain the giraffes long necks: only the ones who were able to reach the leaves on the tree were able to pass on their genes. Intelligent Design, in fact, removes the origin of complexity.

Lack of fossils in Precambrian Era? Why would their be?

As for the gaps in the fossil record, do detectives have to account for every second of a crime based on what they found on the scene to prove that it exists? Also scientists use the genetic code to back up evolution.

But what about everyone's good friend Math? Well, do we really have the information to guess the probability of the development of an eye? Also, Evolution, while random mutations do play a part, mostly relies on natural selection.

As a final note, Evolution did not seek to explain the origin of life, but rather to explain the origin of the variety of species on earth. In no way does science produce evidence against God. To quote Martin Nowak, a Harvard proffessor of mathematics, "Science and religion ask different questions."

Yes they do..and your trying to use religion to answer a scientific question.

It works both ways.

Why is it so hard to believe what science can display?

I believe the biggest question for evolutionists is that “How did life start evolving from nothing?”

Now I’m fully aware of the theories, and they are just theories. Now, with the proof of divine acts on Earth what makes God less likely then just random chance?

Do any of these people read? I mean, seriously. If you know so much about science, and you know that all of these "evolutionists" (that's as pathetic an attempt at a slur as using "liberal") are wrong, then why don't you write a research paper that will change the course of history, science, and religion as we know it?
Oh, wait. I guess you're just a bunch of idiotic attention whores who have nothing better to do or contribute to the world other than inane attempts at promoting ignorance.

And please, don't bother posting some wackjob’s work. If it did anything to enlighten the open-minded scientific community, we would have all heard about it by now.

I believe the biggest question for evolutionists is that “How did life start evolving from nothing?”

Now I’m fully aware of the theories, and they are just theories. Now, with the proof of divine acts on Earth what makes God less likely then just random chance?


Im sorry..did you just say "proof of divine acts on earth"?

Can you display this proof for us?

Im sure we'd all love to see it.

I believe the biggest question for evolutionists is that “How did life start evolving from nothing?”

Now I’m fully aware of the theories, and they are just theories.

Just theories? You make it sound like a theory has no value. They are very valuable.

Now, with the proof of divine acts on Earth what makes God less likely then just random chance?
Proof? Ok I will bite. What proof is that? If you can prove God exists then you just ended evolution, converted most athiests and filled every church/mosque/whatever.....

Incidentally, I'm wondering when the I.D. teachings in public schools will be brought up to the Supreme Court: it's a blatant violation of the separation clause.

I believe the biggest question for evolutionists is that “How did life start evolving from nothing?”

Now I’m fully aware of the theories, and they are just theories. Now, with the proof of divine acts on Earth what makes God less likely then just random chance?

What proof of divine acts? Please do tell, because if you have incontrovertalbe proof, then you should publish and become a millionaire.

Also, you make yourself sound very ignorant when you use the phrase "just theories." Would you like to argue against the Theory of Gravity as well? It's just a theory, after all.

Feel free to float away any time you choose.

I believe the biggest question for evolutionists is that “How did life start evolving from nothing?”I believe the question for id-ists (id-lers how are these peple called?) is, why do you think we think life evolved from nothing.

Now I’m fully aware of the theories, and they are just theories. Now, with the proof of divine acts on Earth what makes God less likely then just random chance? You got proof of divine acts? Cool, would you like to show them?

Incidentally, I'm wondering when the I.D. teachings in public schools will be brought up to the Supreme Court: it's a blatant violation of the separation clause.

It probably wont go that far. For one thing by the time it would make it there, the shrub will have the court stacked.

However, the real reason is they made a major effort to "generalize" explanations and not specify christianity. Even though we know that is the guiding force.....

Back to my reproduction problem:
assuming evoltionary thoery to be correct, at one time, no organism and any genetics-swapping abilities. Then, by random mutation some organism developed ALL the gens necessary to exchange genetic information. with whom did this lone organism share the information if no other organism had the information-swapping gene?
It's own descendents, or perhaps the first organism didnt exchange with any other organism, but merely transmitted the ability to it's descendents, who all swapped with each other.

There would be millions (if not billions) of non-swapping organisms, and very very few (if even more than the one) swap-capable organisms. How do you know that the swap-capable(s) would be able to survive...?
why should it not survive? We do not know that the first 'swap-capable' organism did survive long enough to reproduce, but we do know that at some point one such organism did. Once it did, there would then be many more such organisms, all reproducing still more such organisms.

Not to mention that a single mutation would not result in an entirely NEW ability.
Why not?

Not to mention that not all mutations are passed on genetically (i.e. a deformed arm in a human).
If by deformed arm, you are referring to a condition not caused by genes, then obviously it is not something that can be transmitted from parent to off-spring. However we are not discussing a non-genetic mutation, so comparisons to non-genetic conditions (such as a deformed arm) are irrelevent.

Not to mention that the newly-mutated creature could be killed simply by accident before having a chance to reproduce...
Of course it could have, and for all we know the first one was, the first 1000, or furst million, or first however many, or the 1st, 3rd and 9th...whatever....it need not be the first that did manage to survive long enough to reproduce. Just so long as one at some point did. We know that to be the case, because we have observed such organisms, they exist and reproduce now; ergo at some point at least one such organism did survive long enough to reproduce other such organims.

I believe the biggest question for evolutionists is that “How did life start evolving from nothing?”

Now I’m fully aware of the theories, and they are just theories. Now, with the proof of divine acts on Earth what makes God less likely then just random chance?

Oh dear. Where to begin...?

1. Evolution /= abiogenesis. A (perceived) flaw in the available theories of abiogenesis does nothing whatsoever to discredit the theory of evolution, any more than a perceived flaw in the theory of relativity renders gravity invalid. They are separate questions. Understood?

2. Go look up abiogenesis sometime, anyway. The current theories make plenty of sense if you actually investigate them.

3. "Just theories" is a stupid, stupid phrase. There is not something "better" than a theory within the constraints of science. Theories do not graduate to a higher level. Saying "it's just a theory" makes as much sense as saying "she's just the CEO of the company" or "he's just the ruler of the country."

4. Proof? Like what? Please, show me some of this "proof."

5. Whether or not God is more or less likely than random chance has no relevance whatsoever. Nothing in the theory of evolution is incompatible with God. God has nothing to do with evolution, nor indeed with science, since we will never be able to prove or disprove the existence of such a being.

I
We know that to be the case, because we have observed such organisms, they exist and reproduce now; ergo at some point at least one such organism did survive long enough to reproduce other such organims.
Just because we can see them doesn't means they exist. They can be a vicious plot of the devil to destroy our faith. ;)

I believe the biggest question for evolutionists is that “How did life start evolving from nothing?”

Evolution does not comment on the actual origin of life.

And still noone answered my question about the image of god brought forward by ID.

Just because we can see them doesn't means they exist. They can be a vicious plot of the devil to destroy our faith. ;)

The Devil is a mutated angel. :p

Angels reproduce asexually and so are therefore free from original sin. Heaven is also filthy with the spirits of bacteria and other single-cell organisms.

Jesus' specific mutations were lost to humanity since he didn't reproduce.

Would an Creationist/IDist please explain to me why sexual reproduction came about?
It sems to me that an organism would be able to survive MUCH better if it did not require any other organism to participate in the reporoductive process.

Well?

The Devil is a mutated angel. :p

Angels reproduce asexually and so are therefore free from original sin. Heaven is also filthy with the spirits of bacteria and other single-cell organisms.

Jesus' specific mutations were lost to humanity since he didn't reproduce.

You lie! Angels don't have the parts! Didn't you watch Dogma!

You cited "primitive" examples of sexual reproduction, but I'm more interested in the TRANSITON to sexual reproduction from asxeual.

But we can also return the question: why would "god" invent sexual reproduction and then let the pope (who is in close contact whith the guy) say that people should have less sex and even forbid priests etc to have sex?
doesn't make any sense, if everyone would obey them, man would cease to exist.

It's pretty damn hard to prove either theory y'know

All I want to contribute to this topic is that everyone who believes in "intelligent design" and regards evolution as wrong is a dumbass, without exception...go home to the middle ages, creationists!

A sudden thought has occured to me. Intelligent Design is right! How else does one explain the fact that we have not yet evolved to a point where we stop having these threads?

If there was a god in heaven he'd have put a stop to these a long, looong time ago. There are, thus, only two conclusions:

- There is no god.

- God is a sadistic b*****d who we really don't want to get into bed with.

I suppose now is as good a time as any the whip out the big guns.

Would an evolutionist please explain to me why and how sexual reproduction came about?
It sems to me that an organism would be able to survive MUCH better if it did not require any other organism to participate in the reporoductive process. Furthermore, which evolved first, male or female? The mechanims for each are somewhat different and I'm not sure how one sex could survive until the other sex happened to evolve...
Oh that's simple. Females evolved first.
:D
Males can't carry another life in their body. Unless they're a freaking SEAHORSE! There actually is a species of reptiliain/amphibian/fish life (sorry, I don't feel like taking the time to source this right now, but I'm 95% sure I read/saw it somewhere reliable, PI-meaning pre-internet), whereby if there aren't any males who happen to be in the vicinity, then females are somehow able to produce male sex gametes so that the species is able to be perpetuated. Anyway, maybe some biologist can concur this for me.
No I don't think it has anything to do with the standard evolution vs. creation debate. If I did then I would have to say that females are more highly evolved than males, despite all this biblical/divine knowledge garbage that has been promulgated since some burly brute figured out that he has bigger biceps that his sanctimonious mate.
I personally believe in evolutionary creationism *or* creative evolution. In either case, my god is much smarter than your god *or* my god created your science.
So, anyway you slice it, you're probably not very happy with me
:headbang:

Better start reading something decent about the subject, maybe start here:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1853434817/qid=1124786464/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_0_1/026-9030584-4822046

(and leave us alone in the meantime)

qouting one great comic "Ever noticed that people who believe in Creationism look really unevolved?"


After reading this thread, I think that if ever Christianity would go in front of court, my accusation would be not wars and cruelty caused by organized religion, but limiting people common sense.


I mean, there are fundamental christians, who will tell "ID is right, because church tells so". And there will be lazy and people, who wouldn't like to try to think about evolutionary diversity and possibilities, and they say "Somebody created us. We are unique and great". I dislike Christianity, as it tells intelligent people: "Don't use your brains. You see that evolution theory obviously and completely explains all life, including humans, all natural diversity on Earth, but you must believe what church tells." Even if if is unbased, unproved, produced from thin air to counter evolution, with usual Christianity's progress-stopping element. "Earth is the centre of Universe! Burn Copernicus!"

lmao... reading this thread it seems many creationists beleive in what they do simply because they do not understand the science of evolution :p
learn a bit more!

interesting that there's nothing to learn about creationism other than "god did it" :rolleyes: :p


Scientists are proven to be wrong all the time, they welcome it. That's why they test theories, to eliminate any mistakes they might have made. That's why scientific articles are only accepted if they are repeatable and peer reviewed. That's why a basic concept of science is that nothing is written in stone. Theories change over time as more evidence mounts. Theories are sharpened. Science admits that not everything is known, and the main goal of science is to increase understanding by accepting new information, instead of blocking it out. Is the current theory of evolution 100% correct? Of course not. That's the whole point. The basics or evolution are pretty incontrovertable though, it's merely the details that are lacking

*claps this man*

Back to my reproduction problem:
assuming evoltionary thoery to be correct, at one time, no organism and any genetics-swapping abilities. Then, by random mutation some organism developed ALL the gens necessary to exchange genetic information. with whom did this lone organism share the information if no other organism had the information-swapping gene?
There would be millions (if not billions) of non-swapping organisms, and very very few (if even more than the one) swap-capable organisms. How do you know that the swap-capable(s) would be able to survive...?

Not to mention that a single mutation would not result in an entirely NEW ability. Not to mention that not all mutations are passed on genetically (i.e. a deformed arm in a human). Not to mention that the newly-mutated creature could be killed simply by accident before having a chance to reproduce...


what do you mean "ALL the genes to allow genetic information" - its not a process that requires ultra-specific organelles like we have today, particularly not amongst primitive prokaryotic cells. with no nuclear membrane the genetic material was dispersed throughout the cell, meaning all it would take for genetic information to be exchanged is for two cells of this nature to merge. hence, since all organisms (generally single- or few-celled at this point) were all prokaryotic, there would not be this problem of having one, the first, able to transfer its genes but none others to transfer to.

also, viruses work by exchanging genetic information with their host - a very effective mechanism that i'm sure was utilised some time in the beginning of sexual reproduction


and as for that last point, genetic mutations don't have to make any change to the organism whatsoever - a genetic mutation isn't going to intrinsically result in the organism having a new arm for example. there are many codons that do nothing. these "entirely NEW" abilities you speak of are blown out of all proportion... evolution is far more gradual than that. why do you think it took billions of years just to evolve fish?

I believe the biggest question for evolutionists is that “How did life start evolving from nothing?”


there are a number of very coherent theories that can be replicated in the lab envrionment - as close to proveable as science can get

*hopes nobody challenges him to explan this cos its complicated and my head might explode*

You cited "primitive" examples of sexual reproduction, but I'm more interested in the TRANSITON to sexual reproduction from asxeual.

What transition?

Human (and other Eukaryotic) cells continue to reproduce by binary fission (splitting, like cloning), but many species also have a method of recombining genetic traits through exchange of nucleic acids, which in the case of sexual reproduction includes the fusion of two cells from separate individuals to produce a genetically unique organism.

Cell biology provides countless examples of cells and cell-like bodies fusing (such as during various forms of endocytocis through which cells and other foreign bodies are internalised by a cell). Cells and their internal structures are essentially bilipid-layer-bound bubbles that constantly merge and bud. So it is not implausible that at some point two cells of the same species merged to form a viable daughter cell capable of both fission and fusion. If you recognise concepts such as "two heads are better than one", you should recognise that this would have given the organism advantages over its rivals, and therefore that it is quite plausible that this organism would thrive and spread.

If you are asking for someone to describe precisely how this came about, and provide specific evidence such as an mpeg video of the first fusion event, :fluffle: then you are simply being unreasonable. Evolutionists might as well ask you to prove that Eve offered Adam the apple.

After all, videos of sexual reproduction are presumably against the terms of service of this forum.

You must have started this thread as a wind-up! Its just too pathetic for words. I can hardly be bothered to reply to such a blinkered dimwit. Take a reality check you bible bashing numbscull. I bet you are a fully paid up member of the flat earth society too.

You must have started this thread as a wind-up! Its just too pathetic for words. I can hardly be bothered to reply to such a blinkered dimwit. Take a reality check you bible bashing numbscull. I bet you are a fully paid up member of the flat earth society too.
the original post is in favour of evolution... the title is a joke... at least i think so

darn, and I was hoping for a steamy protozoa-on-protozoa sex scene. :mad:

the original post is in favour of evolution... the title is a joke... at least i think so

Obviously. I guess someone could be forgiven for not realising this if they stopped reading two sentences in, otherwise you should learn that "irony" doesn't mean "sort of like iron".

darn, and I was hoping for a steamy protozoa-on-protozoa sex scene. :mad:
You asked for it (http://www.learner.org/vod/vod_window.html?pid=1367) ;)

We aren't there now? Four states now require ID being taught.....
That's frightening. Devolution here we come.

All I want to contribute to this topic is that everyone who believes in "intelligent design" and regards evolution as wrong is a dumbass, without exception...go home to the middle ages, creationists!

Jesus Loves YOU!

But seriously, that wasn't entirely necessary...

That's frightening. Devolution here we come.Luckily, devolution isn't possible :D

Luckily, devolution isn't possible :D

Just like, technically, there's no such thing as deceleration.

THEORY of evolution. LAW of entropy. entropy rules out evolution. all things go from order to chaos. not the other way around. all systems move toward maximum entropy. is a LAW.

Ha ha, nice try. Entropy may be labelled as a law, but like evolution it is an extremely robust theory. And it doesn't contradict evolution at all. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that entropy increases because changes of energy state are not 100% efficient. This only applies to energy, and in no way suggests that all systems must become more disorganised. The universe began as a kind of soup of sub-atomic particles and is definitely in a more complex form now.

Entropy may be a very robust law, but I holds true is almost every single instance where it can be applied. But to say entropy leads to chaos, I wouldn't say that much. It just supports that things can never go back 100%.

Well?

Because, for complicated organisms, genetic variation allowed by sexual reproduction is the only way to ensure that an entire population is not wiped out by one disease/change of environment/etc.

You really should take a basic biology course* before debating this, because not many people who understand biology will be willing to explain the very, very basics to you. It's incredibly frustrating; imagine having to explain to someone the concept of basic addition to someone when they're asking you about triginometry; or having to explain basic grammar to someone who wants to analyse a novel. It's tiresome and annoying.

And seriously. I don't mean that as a snide comment. If you're able to take a high school bio course, you should consider it for the sake of being informed. Either your questions from this forum would be answered directly in the curriculum (if it's as comprehensive as the course here in Vic, Aus is), or else you could get a grasp of the basics and then ask for further claryfication.

If you can't take a yr 12 bio course for whatever reason, you could always just buy the texts, and once you understand the basics, turn to the internet for the more complicated theories.

And really, if you aren't interested in doing this, you should consider dropping this debate. You simple cannot argue evolution without understanding the basics of biology, like the benefits of variation in genes allowed for through sexual reproduction. Understanding of variation is *vital* to understanding of evolution.

THEORY of evolution. LAW of entropy. entropy rules out evolution. all things go from order to chaos. not the other way around. all systems move toward maximum entropy. is a LAW.

I suggest you take biology *and* physics. You've obviously stolen a buzzword from being in these debates too long.

As has been stated (very comprehensively, might I add) in the past posts, the law of entropy doesn't apply to non-closed systems, and only applies to energy, not organisms.

THEORY of evolution. LAW of entropy. entropy rules out evolution. all things go from order to chaos. not the other way around. all systems move toward maximum entropy. is a LAW.

No, just the net result leads towards entropy. If your assertion was correct, then refrigerators would be a physical impossibility.

THEORY of evolution. LAW of entropy. entropy rules out evolution. all things go from order to chaos. not the other way around. all systems move toward maximum entropy. is a LAW.Guess again (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html)

Evolution! Sounds plausible? Right? Well, How do you explain the origin of such complex organs like the eye? What about the gaps in the fossil record and sheer lack of fossils in the the Precambrain era? It can be mathematically proven that natural selection and chance mutations cannot lead to such biological innovations. Clearly this can be logically explained that some designer - call him God - at certain intervals helped evolution along. Clearly Intelligent Design makes a lot of sense?

Well, Intelligent Design is flat-out wrong and not accepted by credible scientists. If there are two schools of thought one is held by scientsists and the other by religious nut-jobs.

Development of complex organs can be explained because Evolution by natural selection is not by chance. Evolution is a theory of gradual, incremental change, eventually achieving greater complexity. Lets take the eye as an example! An organism eventually develops light sensitive cells. these light sensitive cells, help it notice changing light and therefore when a predator is approaching. Well, it evades the predators long enough to pass its genes to it children who inherit the light sensitive cells. After many generations, as organisms who lack said cells have a lower chance of passing on their genes die out, what we know as the Eye develops. I can also explain the giraffes long necks: only the ones who were able to reach the leaves on the tree were able to pass on their genes. Intelligent Design, in fact, removes the origin of complexity.

Lack of fossils in Precambrian Era? Why would their be?

As for the gaps in the fossil record, do detectives have to account for every second of a crime based on what they found on the scene to prove that it exists? Also scientists use the genetic code to back up evolution.

But what about everyone's good friend Math? Well, do we really have the information to guess the probability of the development of an eye? Also, Evolution, while random mutations do play a part, mostly relies on natural selection.

As a final note, Evolution did not seek to explain the origin of life, but rather to explain the origin of the variety of species on earth. In no way does science produce evidence against God. To quote Martin Nowak, a Harvard proffessor of mathematics, "Science and religion ask different questions."

There are so many things wrong with this, I don't even know where to begin. Ugh.

Why do you people even try?

There are so many things wrong with this, I don't even know where to begin. Ugh.

Why do you people even try?Because we humans HATE to admit that which we think is right is wrong. Happens everywhere.

Because we humans HATE to admit that which we think is right is wrong. Happens everywhere.

I don't hate to admit I'm wrong...

...Of course, I don't have to do that very often, see. Nyah!

There are so many things wrong with this, I don't even know where to begin. Ugh.

Why do you people even try?
I know you have to at least understand the theory in order to refute it
I feel somehow dumber for having read this thread

I know you have to at least understand the theory in order to refute it
I feel somehow dumber for having read this thread

Come on. At three, we'll all puke on it together.

1...

2...

Come on. At three, we'll all puke on it together.

1...

2...You're actually going to do something harmful to yourself because someone else fails to realise something? :p

You're actually going to do something harmful to yourself because someone else fails to realise something? :p

Of course! That's my bag, man.

*pukes*

Hey, I totaly understand evolution and I cant really think of anything that can prove it wrong. Some kind of higher being designing everything, to me, sounds like a silly fairy tale.
I am taking GCSE bioligy and so i am in the know.

Human reproduction is family oriented. Two parents form an ideal unit for raising young humans and helping tham survive until maturity.


Really? How then do you explain tigers, among others? They are solitary creatures that reproduce sexually but DO NOT stay in family units.

Additionally, behaviorally, the human family has evolved within the last few hundred years -- from a multigenerational extended family to the all-too-common nuclear family. Surely cutting out grandparents, uncles and aunts from the equation is NOT family oriented?

I don't think your hypothesis holds much water.

Evolution does not comment on the actual origin of life.

And still noone answered my question about the image of god brought forward by ID.


If we accept the postulation that God is perfect and all powerful, then Intelligent Design makes no sense. Why would He need to tinker? He'd make everything perfectly the first time.

I don't think your hypothesis holds much water.Heh, you're only saying that because it's true... :D

If we accept the postulation that God is perfect and all powerful, then Intelligent Design makes no sense. Why would He need to tinker? He'd make everything perfectly the first time.

Though, that would be under the assumption that we, mere humans, would be capable of understanding a perfect and all powerful being and his/her/its motives. If you are truly not willing to throw out the postulate you made, this assumption is a large one.

Oh that's simple. Females evolved first.
:D
Males can't carry another life in their body. Unless they're a freaking SEAHORSE! There actually is a species of reptiliain/amphibian/fish life (sorry, I don't feel like taking the time to source this right now, but I'm 95% sure I read/saw it somewhere reliable, PI-meaning pre-internet), whereby if there aren't any males who happen to be in the vicinity, then females are somehow able to produce male sex gametes so that the species is able to be perpetuated. Anyway, maybe some biologist can concur this for me.
No I don't think it has anything to do with the standard evolution vs. creation debate. If I did then I would have to say that females are more highly evolved than males, despite all this biblical/divine knowledge garbage that has been promulgated since some burly brute figured out that he has bigger biceps that his sanctimonious mate.
I personally believe in evolutionary creationism *or* creative evolution. In either case, my god is much smarter than your god *or* my god created your science.
So, anyway you slice it, you're probably not very happy with me
:headbang:


1) Frogs, and some fish, can switch genders if necessary.
2) The male seahorse does not produce the eggs but rather places the fertilized eggs in a pouch, rather like a Kangaroo.
3) Some fish hold their fertilized eggs in their mouths until the fry hatch, so the seahorse's ability is not particularly odd.
4) As human develop, they all start out being female... it's the hormone production and development of the fetus that later separates the girls from the boys.
5) If you look at other species' fetuses in development, we look rather like them... chickens, etc. An interesting but ultimately unimportant similarity.

Though, that would be under the assumption that we, mere humans, would be capable of understanding a perfect and all powerful being and his/her/its motives. If you are truly not willing to throw out the postulate you made, this assumption is a large one.Well, you could go by the idea that His plans are so perfect that He already had his little landbridge in mind that saved the Jews from the Egyptians when He started the Big Bang, knowing that by starting the universe in a particular way would allow for the proper continental shifts on Earth to form something that, under certain tidal and wind conditions, would open up in the exact moment that a bunch of people being chased by Egyptians in chariots can cross the Red Sea.
Now THAT is some majorly perfect planning...

Though, that would be under the assumption that we, mere humans, would be capable of understanding a perfect and all powerful being and his/her/its motives. If you are truly not willing to throw out the postulate you made, this assumption is a large one.

That IS the premise that folks who believe in the Christian God are working under --that He is perfect and all powerful.

No, just the net result leads towards entropy. If your assertion was correct, then refrigerators would be a physical impossibility.

...he's violently disproved refridgerators at the very least.

That IS the premise that folks who believe in the Christian God are working under --that He is perfect and all powerful.
I believe that. BUT your assertion was that if we believe it is true, why not . . .

I am merely suggesting, that how can we assume that we would understand what this extremely superior being, in reference to us, thinks is best. In comparison, how can a dog understand that we think it is best that he stays inside and doesn't hunt for his food.

To the question of how males and females evolved - there's quite a good account of one theory of the evolution of genders in Richard Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene".

The main universal distinction between the sexes is nothing to do with which gets pregnant and nurtures the offspring (in fish, for instance, fertilisation and development occur outside the parents and neither becomes pregnant). It is that males produce smaller and more numerous gametes than females - i.e. females invest more resources in each egg than do males in each sperm. In some species such as certain fungi, there are no genders, and all gametes are the same - anyone can mate equally with anyone else, and this is isogamy.

In a system of isogamy, both gametes contribute equally in terms of food reserves for the offspring. With sperm and eggs, at the moment of conception the male has contributed much less resources to the offspring than the female - it is the mitochondria and the food reserves in the egg that sustain the foetus until it can develop a direct link to the mother via a placenta.

If the original sexual system was isogamous, there would, due to random mutations in the genes responsible for gamete production, be some individuals that produced slightly larger-than-average gametes and some that produced slightly smaller-than-average gametes. Individuals producing larger gametes would have gained a slight advantage by getting their offspring off to a better start with more resources. However, individuals producing smaller gametes could also benefit by "exploiting" these more "generous" individuals - if they evolved to make more mobile gametes that actively sought out larger gametes, they could ensure that their offspring got sufficient resources without having to contribute those resources themselves. By investing less in each gamete, these individuals could afford to make more and mate more often. So two "strategies" develop, both with advantages in terms of natural selection - the generous strategy, and the exploitative strategy. Once these strategies appeared, individuals with medium-sized gametes would have suffered and been less likely to pass on their genes to many offspring, because they would not enjoy the advantages of either strategy.

The exploitative ones would produce ever smaller and faster gametes (because of the massive selection pressure to ensure that they chase down and fuse with as large a gamete as possible), and the generous ones would have had to make larger and larger gametes to compensate ensure that when they were inevitably chased down by the exploitative gametes there would at least be enough resources to sustain the offspring. While there would be pressure on the generous gametes to lock out exploitative gametes and fuse with other generous ones to avoid being exploited, this would be less than the pressure on the exploitative ones to duck under the pressure, as the latter had more to lose. So the generous gametes became eggs, and the exploitative ones became sperm.

If we accept the postulation that God is perfect and all powerful, then Intelligent Design makes no sense. Why would He need to tinker? He'd make everything perfectly the first time.
Thank you, that is my point exactly. I have no problems to reconcile my faith with the theory of evolution, yet I find the idea of a tinkering god as put forward by ID deeply abhorrent.

Development of complex organs can be explained because Evolution by natural selection is not by chance. Evolution is a theory of gradual, incremental change, eventually achieving greater complexity. Lets take the eye as an example! An organism eventually develops light sensitive cells. these light sensitive cells, help it notice changing light and therefore when a predator is approaching. Well, it evades the predators long enough to pass its genes to it children who inherit the light sensitive cells. After many generations, as organisms who lack said cells have a lower chance of passing on their genes die out, what we know as the Eye develops. I can also explain the giraffes long necks: only the ones who were able to reach the leaves on the tree were able to pass on their genes. Intelligent Design, in fact, removes the origin of complexity.

Would an evolutionist please explain to me why and how sexual reproduction came about?

It is believed to have originated from a way bacteria ensure genetic variation. While it does not produce an organism, it is believed that's what sex is descened from. I dont have a biology textbook on me so I cant look it up right now.

It sems to me that an organism would be able to survive MUCH better if it did not require any other organism to participate in the reporoductive process.

A single disease could wipe out an entire species then. Sexual reporoduction ensures variation, and therefore a better overall survival rate of the species.

Furthermore, which evolved first, male or female? The mechanims for each are somewhat different and I'm not sure how one sex could survive until the other sex happened to evolve...

They would've evolved together, because they are the same species. Many species are able to spontaneously change gender by the way, or maybe some ancient hermaphrodite species eventually would specialize in one gender.


You have to remember evolution occurs over an extremely long period of time. Even the most minute, insignificant changes can eventually develop into something more complex...

(There are more I just wanted to use these two)

Personally, I don't believe in Intelligent Design or our current Evolutionary Theory but I will often entertain either of them for the sake of debate. THIS however, is what really pisses me off about Evolution... not so much the theory itself but more it's supporters.

You see, when someone goes and asks a question of "how" something came about all you have to offer is a few lines of blatant, unadulterated, speculation... a brief imaginative explanation of "how" it "may" have happened that you just thought up on the spot. The most mind blowing thing is that Bashan here literally starts his explanation with "It is believed." I mean come on, what the hell is that?!? I would even be willing to chock it up as your own rhetorical style if it weren't for the fact that what followed it was unbelievably shallow and baseless. I want the origin of life damnit! Not some forumite dude's brief stint of pulling shit randomly from his ass. It just isn't science, it isn’t true, and it really isn’t worth legitimate debate on the subject of Evolution!

First, I didn't read the entire thread, so if someone has already said what I'm going to say, good for them.
That which I did read though stoked a small flame of frustration in me and thus, I'm writing this.
To me, this debate between creation and evolution just showcases how shallow our thinking about this really is.
I believe in evolution. Why? Because I sit here and I think and reflect and it makes logical sense. It certainly affords more answers then the idea that God just created everything--that seems to me like the easy way out.
But if i believe in evolution, do i not believe in God? Please! Though i believe in evolution, I am full to the brim with spirituality and mysticism. Evolution is a system yes? The universe is one vast system yes? Had to have been a designer then...had to have been someone to get the ball rolling.
Okay. So l look at my world as one big chain reaction. Why don't I get to believe that God is part of my everyday life? It's fricking God people!!! Does anyone really understand what that means!
Ugh! I don't have the time to go on one vast tangent; I got better things to do. Read Henri Bergson's Creative Evolution.

I hate to say this to many people, but evolution exists, and be prepared in the next 10 or so years to hear about noticed evolution in the brain functions in humans. Just as an insider in most of the science world, I have heard talks about such research.

Well, you could go by the idea that His plans are so perfect that He already had his little landbridge in mind that saved the Jews from the Egyptians when He started the Big Bang, knowing that by starting the universe in a particular way would allow for the proper continental shifts on Earth to form something that, under certain tidal and wind conditions, would open up in the exact moment that a bunch of people being chased by Egyptians in chariots can cross the Red Sea.
Now THAT is some majorly perfect planning...

If a god was able to plan out all events in the universe like that at the moment of creation, that destroys the notion of free will for humans, so your idea cannot fit within the religions of which that event is a feature. Something like the sea receding would require a very exact set of conditions, which could easily be thrown off. In the same way that chaos theory says a butterfly in Egypt could cause a hurricane in the Carribean, something like whether a human chose to leave a door open or closed or hold his breath for 10 seconds could have a knock-on effect on the weather which would change whether the sea receded. Therefore, (if there is a deity, of course) either humans have free will and god cannot plan things like that from the moment of creation, or our actions and choices are as much controlled by god as everything else in the universe.

I probably just took that comment far more seriously than was intended, but meh.

Lol, you know Creationism is not a valid theory? It is not created according to Scientific Method, so it is not a valid theory against Evolution. There, done. :rolleyes:

If a god was able to plan out all events in the universe like that at the moment of creation, that destroys the notion of free will for humans, so your idea cannot fit within the religions of which that event is a feature. And what, pray tell, do natural occurences like plate tectonics have to do with human decisions?Something like the sea receding would require a very exact set of conditions, which could easily be thrown off. In the same way that chaos theory says a butterfly in Egypt could cause a hurricane in the Carribean, something like whether a human chose to leave a door open or closed or hold his breath for 10 seconds could have a knock-on effect on the weather which would change whether the sea receded. Therefore, (if there is a deity, of course) either humans have free will and god cannot plan things like that from the moment of creation, or our actions and choices are as much controlled by god as everything else in the universe.

I probably just took that comment far more seriously than was intended, but meh.You missed my point. There is no way humans or a butterfly can influence what causes the landbridge of the Red Sea to open. Note that this has little to do with Chaos theory. The butterfly bit is a metaphor. Indeed, there are many things which must be taken into account to allow for something like this to happen, but human intervention is not one of them, so the element of "free will" which cannot be calculated doesn't fit in that well.

You see, when someone goes and asks a question of "how" something came about all you have to offer is a few lines of blatant, unadulterated, speculation... a brief imaginative explanation of "how" it "may" have happened that you just thought up on the spot. The most mind blowing thing is that Bashan here literally starts his explanation with "It is believed." I mean come on, what the hell is that?!? I would even be willing to chock it up as your own rhetorical style if it weren't for the fact that what followed it was unbelievably shallow and baseless. I want the origin of life damnit! Not some forumite dude's brief stint of pulling shit randomly from his ass. It just isn't science, it isn’t true, and it really isn’t worth legitimate debate on the subject of Evolution!

It's perfectly legitimate to begin a scientific explanation with "It is believed". In fact, it's more accurate in any area of science than presenting something as certain - science doesn't purport to offer certainties. Scientists make observations about the world around them, and then, yes, pull an explanation out of their backsides that seems to fit those observations. But the point is that those speculations have to be formed into logical theories which make predictions and are falsifiable. These speculations can be tested, and if found wanted can be refined or abandoned in favour of a speculation more consistent with the evidence. What you end up with is not hard fact, but the speculative explanation which has survived the most testing and thus is the most reasonable to believe is true (until a better explanation comes along, or the explanation fails a test).

Nobody claims to have all the answers. It's unreasonable to expect scientists to look at each and every feature of every organism and immediately offer a comprehensive explanation of its evolution. We don't have a time viewer, and not all organisms or parts of organisms leave lasting records like fossils, so we can't possibly be expected to find direct evidence of the origin of every feature. What do expect us to do if you ask us the origin of life or the first eye, other than speculate on the route most plausible within the scientific principles and explanations that we have already established to be probably true? We don't currently have the time, the technology or the exact knowledge about the chemical and physical conditions in which life emerged to perfectly simulate in the lab abiogenesis as it happened for our group of life forms - and no doubt if scientists tried and succeeded most creationists would simply accuse them of playing god and ignore them. But we can produce plausible speculations which are consistent with our accepted theories of chemistry and physics.

You see, when someone goes and asks a question of "how" something came about all you have to offer is a few lines of blatant, unadulterated, speculation...

To an Evolutionist (a course I'm inclined to follow myself, though I believe in a Deist theory of creation), Genesis, the first chapter of the Bible, is blatant unsupported speculative fiction. At least the Evolutionist line of thinking has factual science to back it up - not necessarily prove it, but at least back it up.

a brief imaginative explanation of "how" it "may" have happened that you just thought up on the spot.

Such as "and on the sixth day, God created man?"


The most mind blowing thing is that Bashan here literally starts his explanation with "It is believed." I mean come on, what the hell is that?!?

Hate to point out the obvious, but by some people in the world, "it is believed" that man fell down to earth fully formed at the click of God's fingers and began to practise grand larceny on a forbidden apple tree. What the hell is THAT?!?


I would even be willing to chock it up as your own rhetorical style if it weren't for the fact that what followed it was unbelievably shallow and baseless. I want the origin of life damnit!

So do we all, but that's no reason to bite the head off of anyone coming up with an explanation. Do you think anyone on the planet, let alone this forum, knows what the origin of life is? All these theories are the best that man can come up with. Like I said, my favoured theory is a Deist one, which supports both intelligent design and evolutionism to some extent. Life was created in it's most basic possible capacity (an amoeba) and the creator wandered off to play frisbee with galaxies or whatever it is that deities do.

Not some forumite dude's brief stint of pulling shit randomly from his ass. It just isn't science, it isn’t true, and it really isn’t worth legitimate debate on the subject of Evolution!

Having not seen the post that appears to have offended you so much I won't argue with what you're saying here, but bear in mind that a lot of people (albeit, myself not being one of them) don't hold science in any regard where evolution or creation is concerned. Just because something isn't science doesn't make it invalid in this particular topic. And how do you know what's true and what isn't?

And what, pray tell, do natural occurences like plate tectonics have to do with human decisions?You missed my point. There is no way humans or a butterfly can influence what causes the landbridge of the Red Sea to open. Note that this has little to do with Chaos theory. The butterfly bit is a metaphor. Indeed, there are many things which must be taken into account to allow for something like this to happen, but human intervention is not one of them, so the element of "free will" which cannot be calculated doesn't fit in that well.

Consider all the centuries and millenia of human existence prior to the claimed crossing of the Red Sea, and the possible cumulative effects of all human choices in that time. Forests being cleared, micro-climates being affected around cultivated or settled lands, even the small movements of rocks etc due to human movements to one place or another, could combine to throw off the perfect conditions required for such an unlikely event as the parting of the Red Sea at a very specific time.

I want the origin of life damnit! Not some forumite dude's brief stint of pulling shit randomly from his ass. It just isn't science, it isn’t true, and it really isn’t worth legitimate debate on the subject of Evolution!

Just to get things straight: although many evolutionary biologists have speculated on it, the origin of life is not part of Evolution Theory. Most evolutionary biologists couldn't care less how life originated: it is the question how life evolves that is the center of the theory.

Consider all the centuries and millenia of human existence prior to the claimed crossing of the Red Sea, and the possible cumulative effects of all human choices in that time. Forests being cleared, micro-climates being affected around cultivated or settled lands, even the small movements of rocks etc due to human movements to one place or another, could combine to throw off the perfect conditions required for such an unlikely event as the parting of the Red Sea at a very specific time.Neither of us is a geological, meteorological, or oceanographical expert capable of telling us how much influence is necessary to completely change the time when wind and tides were right. In my experience though, it takes a bit more than what people back then were capable of to shift such a natural event.

EDIT: And by the way, cumulative is overrated. Nature has its way of correcting small changes. The complete deforestation of a patch of land or the amount of CO2 pumped out into the world today has an effect. Small influences don't really do anything.

A general point...

I had an intense religious up bringing, including no small amount of bible study. I believe in a higher power, I believe there are things beyond our ability to understand.

That said, I am (in all practical terms for this discussion) a scientist.

However, the one ID/Creationist thing really bugs me is this; ID/Creationism is fundamentally founded on the concept of God. While it needn't be (although I believe it almost exclusively is) a christian concept, it does seem to rely heavily on Biblical concepts of creation (and yes, many of these creation myths/stories do predate most cultures and pervade many non-judeo-christian cultures in one form or another).

While I suppose I should provide scriptoral references to really make my point, those who know will see the point regardless.

Ready? Here's my point.

The bible has some /very/ specific things to be said about how people should view God and Jesus. It also has some very specific things to say about proof and those who demand proof that God exists. It also says a whole lot about 'believing' and 'having faith' in Gods plan.
Thus, unless I'm missing something very specific, religion and God in general, is an exercise in faith and belief, not in facts and absolutes. The whole point of the divine plan is that we trust to faith and live our lives without knowing for certain that salvation/eternal life/whatever reward is going to be waiting for us. We're good people not for what we /know/ we will get for our actions, but for what we believe we will receive, and ultimatley because its the right way to live your life.
Thus, no one who truly has faith, no one who belives in God can stand their ground and demand with a certainty that anything divine is /true/. They can believe that is it true, and they may feel with all their heart that the universe can be no other way. But that is also the path of faith... that each of us has to find it on our own. Blind faith in God is one thing, but taking one persons faith and retelling it as /fact/ to another is quite the deceit.
Faith is useless if we do not come by it ourselves.
Anyway, this leaves us with the point that... regardless of what you choose to believe, Faith is not something that can be taught. You may have faith in a God that guided the world into being. But /by design/ faith cannot lead to knowledge. With knowledge their is no faith. If you /know for a fact/ that God exists you have no need of faith. You are not tested every day, you do not have to prove yourself because that knowledge will carry you through your life.
Science, however, (and to paraphrase Newton) growth by standing on the shoulders of giants. No one person can visualise something from start to finish. Science literally /is/ evolution. The fitest theories survive. Faith, is something you have to come to on your own. Yes, someone may guide you into unlocking your faith, but you can't be given faith.

Ok, I admit I've probably meandered alot and not made a clear point. But here it is a succinctly as I can:

ID/Creationism cannot be taught as fact or even philosophy because it is fundamentally grounded in Faith. And faith cannot ever be taught.
There is no harm in teaching the science of evolution, because if someone has faith they will no be blinded by something else they have been taught. They will come to these ideas themselves, they will look for God's part in the growth of this world. Religion has no place on a compulsory curriculum.

Thus, no one who truly has faith, no one who belives in God can stand their ground and demand with a certainty that anything divine is /true/. They can believe that is it true, and they may feel with all their heart that the universe can be no other way. But that is also the path of faith... that each of us has to find it on our own. Blind faith in God is one thing, but taking one persons faith and retelling it as /fact/ to another is quite the deceit.
Faith is useless if we do not come by it ourselves.
Thank you very much for this post. I see it similar. Isn't faith the opposite of knowledge? If I knew god existed (as in had absolute proof) I wouldn't need faith.
So on the one hand I have science which tells me a lot about the working of the world, how things come about etc.
On the other hand I have faith that there is more to life than that which is visible.
So I can believe and still accept the theorie of evolution as the most likely explanation for the development of live (note: not the origin ;) )

To an Evolutionist (a course I'm inclined to follow myself, though I believe in a Deist theory of creation), Genesis, the first chapter of the Bible, is blatant unsupported speculative fiction. At least the Evolutionist line of thinking has factual science to back it up - not necessarily prove it, but at least back it up.

I tend to consider myself more of a Deist then anything else. Personally I put more stock in John 1:1 then Genesis as a whole so I really can't argue with this or the rest of your post for that matter. I'm not a creationist by anything resembling the traditional sense.

So do we all, but that's no reason to bite the head off of anyone coming up with an explanation. Do you think anyone on the planet, let alone this forum, knows what the origin of life is? All these theories are the best that man can come up with. Like I said, my favoured theory is a Deist one, which supports both intelligent design and evolutionism to some extent. Life was created in it's most basic possible capacity (an amoeba) and the creator wandered off to play frisbee with galaxies or whatever it is that deities do.

Personally I consider God and the Universe to be almost interchangeable. In the beginning what we have come to know as Physics, Thermodynamics, Time, Probability and the like (all in someway translatable into Mathematics which, interestingly enough, also must have existed) were already in effect, governing the course of events...

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

And since presumably all the matter that exists existed in the beginning, will exist in the end of the Universe, and will be reused when the Universe begins again...

"The same was in the beginning with God."

"All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

And since life presumably arose from the Universe because of Physics, Thermodynamics, Time, Probability and the like. Some of that life of course became human...

"In him was life; and the life was the light of men."

And so on and so forth. When you think about it, it almost does reconcile Evolution with God as just another facet in his infinite system that we call the Universe. Also, infinity itself is something only God and the Universe can lay claim too.

"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the
Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty."

You cited "primitive" examples of sexual reproduction, but I'm more interested in the TRANSITON to sexual reproduction from asxeual.
There exist several aquatic organisms, like the hydra, that can reproduce asexually by budding as well as sexually. One can easily imagine that asexual reproduction came first, and subsequent mutations allowed for a sexual reproduction to take place and reshuffle the genes in they hydra population.

I believe the biggest question for evolutionists is that “How did life start evolving from nothing?”

Now I’m fully aware of the theories, and they are just theories. Now, with the proof of divine acts on Earth what makes God less likely then just random chance?
Evolution isnt' concerned with how life came from "nothing". Might as well ask an auto mechanic about how the metal for the engine was mined.

"Just theories" displays your ignorance of what a scientific theory actually is. A scinetific theory must fit all the available evidence and must be testable in some manner. You must be able to make predictions based on the theory and see if they prove true. Evolution passes this test, Creationism and ID don't. Therefore Evolution is a scientific theory, ID and creationism are religious doctrines.

Drugs and religion have been walking hand in hand since the dawn of time.

Thank you very much for this post. I see it similar. Isn't faith the opposite of knowledge? If I knew god existed (as in had absolute proof) I wouldn't need faith.
So on the one hand I have science which tells me a lot about the working of the world, how things come about etc.
On the other hand I have faith that there is more to life than that which is visible.
So I can believe and still accept the theorie of evolution as the most likely explanation for the development of live (note: not the origin ;) )

You're welcome Nowoland. It's good to know I'm at least not the only one with these thoughts! ;)

THEORY of evolution. LAW of entropy. entropy rules out evolution. all things go from order to chaos. not the other way around. all systems move toward maximum entropy. is a LAW.
1) There is no law of entropy.
2) I'm assuming you're refering to the second law of thermodynamics.
3) Only ID liers with an agenda to spread their stupidity in the name of god and their brainwashed followers who can't be bothered to crack open a book and look into the subject for themselves beleive that the second law of thermodynamics makes evolution impossible.


Which are you, the liar or the intellectually lazy sheep who follows him?

Now I’m fully aware of the theories, and they are just theories. Now, with the proof of divine acts on Earth what makes God less likely then just random chance?

Wrong. Very, very wrong.

The fact is, we know nothing. Humans have no concrete explanation for anything, we don't even know that gravity exists. Everything we've observed attracts everything else and we assume it will happen every time, but we don't know for a fact.

That is why science uses the word "theory". A theory in science is not a theory in regular usage. A theory in normal conversation is an idea, a speculation. In science, that is called a hypothosis. when a hypothosis is repeatedly tested and proven to be true over and over and there are no examples disproving it, it becomes a theory. A theory is, for all essential purposes, fact. However, scientists understand that the only fact is that nothing is fact (paradox? Just a little), and therefore call it a theory. The instant an example arises disproving a theory, it is thrown out and a new theory is created taking that into account.

These are not "just theories", they are repeatedly proven in tests and there are mounds of evidence to back them up.

And Ekland- that is why that guy started his post with "It is believed" and not "It is known". When scientists believe something, they're more than 99% sure.

I dislike it when people assume the religious are uneducated drug addicted retards all because the church, governed by PEOPLE, made some mistakes. It was run by PEOPLE. PEOPLE made mistakes. PEOPLE still make mistakes. Theists make mistakes. Atheists make mistakes. Einstien was Jewish(omg, he was religious!!! :eek: ) and look how smart and educated people think he was. I know scientists often can't accept that they made mistakes. THEY ARE HUMAN!!! :eek: So please, people, stop this nonsensical bashing of one-another. I meant that a pretty big portion of human evolution is s traight line from one species to another. I never meant all. I saw it on either the science channel or the discovery channel. Maybe it was national geographic. Why would they make something up?

Instead of "evolving" better standards of treating other people, humans have stayed pretty same trampling and smashing each other up. :rolleyes:

I dislike it when people assume the religious are uneducated drug addicted retards all because the church, governed by PEOPLE, made some mistakes. It was run by PEOPLE. PEOPLE made mistakes. PEOPLE still make mistakes. Theists make mistakes. Atheists make mistakes. Einstien was Jewish(omg, he was religious!!! :eek: ) and look how smart and educated people think he was. I know scientists often can't accept that they made mistakes. THEY ARE HUMAN!!! :eek: So please, people, stop this nonsensical bashing of one-another. I meant that a pretty big portion of human evolution is s traight line from one species to another. I never meant all. I saw it on either the science channel or the discovery channel. Maybe it was national geographic. Why would they make something up?
Everyone makes mistakes, but religion doesn't admit to them, while science accepts the new infromation and alters it's model of the world. Science is self correcting, religion threatened to cut off Gallileo's head.

Thankyou for your reply, Ekland - I at least know a lot more about what you were talking about now. :)

Everyone makes mistakes, but religion doesn't admit to them, while science accepts the new infromation and alters it's model of the world. Science is self correcting, religion threatened to cut off Gallileo's head.

So? Science blew away millions of Hiroshimans and Nagasakians. What's your point?

I suppose now is as good a time as any the whip out the big guns.

Would an evolutionist please explain to me why and how sexual reproduction came about?
It sems to me that an organism would be able to survive MUCH better if it did not require any other organism to participate in the reporoductive process. Furthermore, which evolved first, male or female? The mechanims for each are somewhat different and I'm not sure how one sex could survive until the other sex happened to evolve...

Sexual Reproduction was a modification of bacterial plasmid sharing. It ensures genetic diversity so one parasite couldn't kill an entire species. As for Evolution being completely wrong. Evolution is proven fact. We can see it in Petri dishes, we can see it in our own genes as children grow up faster, we can see it in lizards over the span of a few years. What you mean to say is that Darwinism or Natural Selection the mechanism that "controls" Evolution is wrong. You mean to say that Natural selection cannot produce what has been produced.

So? Science blew away millions of Hiroshimans and Nagasakians. What's your point?

And religion has been the root cause that killed millions.

Evolution is completely wrong? How can anyone figure that?

www.talkorigins.org - This is evidence for those naysayers.

And religion has been the root cause that killed millions.

Evolution is completely wrong? How can anyone figure that?

www.talkorigins.org - This is evidence for those naysayers.

One cannot build a theory on refutation of another theory. They must provide valid scientific evidence that their's is also true. Remember, several great scientists went out and tried to disprove smoething, only to come back with more and more proof. They took is just fine. And as someone who knows Christians and is a bit Christian himself, I'd like to apologize on all of our behalves for these kind of fundamentalists. Please understand not all of us are like them. Not all of us contradict the base teachings, not all of us are batshit insane. Most of us are just upstanding individuals who just believe whatever they watn to believe and not force it on others. It is not our place to judge. Nor is it our place to run around forcing our beliefs on others when they clearly don't want it.

A scinetific theory must fit all the available evidence and must be testable in some manner. You must be able to make predictions based on the theory and see if they prove true. Evolution passes this test, Creationism and ID don't. Therefore Evolution is a scientific theory, ID and creationism are religious doctrines.

even worse. they aren't just unfalsifiable religious beliefs. id, young earth creationism, old earth creationism, etc. have all made specific testable claims. or, rather, they say things that can reasonably be extrapolated into testable hypotheses. these hypotheses have all been falsified. those with explicitly religious beliefs just make up some more miracles that aren't mentioned in the bible to cover their failure. but the ones that claim to be scientific - well, if we take them at their word then they are pushing for the inclusion of completely falsified hypotheses into science education. they can be tossed out not on the grounds of religiousness and nonscientific, but on the grounds of just being flat out wrong.

the entire id idea is supposed to be a way to get around the ruling that said teaching creationism in public schools was a violation of the first amendment. i'm sure that they'll just try to come up with something even more generic if id is ruled to violate church and state too. better to stop them here. they claimed that a number of biological systems are irreducibly complex. the prediction of this is that it is impossible for these systems to have formed through an evolutionary pathway. but it turns out that all of those things do have possible evolutionary pathways. some actually observed and some just modelled so far, but in both cases, clearly possible. therefore ic is falsified. the same holds true for other testable id claims.

no need to hide behind the wall of seperation. just pull out the bazooka of scientific falsification and start blasting.

I suppose now is as good a time as any the whip out the big guns.

Would an evolutionist please explain to me why and how sexual reproduction came about?
It sems to me that an organism would be able to survive MUCH better if it did not require any other organism to participate in the reporoductive process. Furthermore, which evolved first, male or female? The mechanims for each are somewhat different and I'm not sure how one sex could survive until the other sex happened to evolve...

Sure, i'll explain it.

The more variations that exist within a species, the more easily that species can adapt. If all organisms reproduced asexually, the only way to produce variation would be random genetic mutations. Sexual reproduction adds another layer pf variation to the gene pool.

With sexual reproduction, a species can not only mutate, but have nearly endless (in humans roughly 6.5 million) different combinations of chromosones betweem two parents.

Thus, the species is more adaptable, making them more fit to their environment, and keeping natural selection flowing.

Once again, you ID supporters prove complete lack of biology education.

So? Science blew away millions of Hiroshimans and Nagasakians. What's your point?

Well, no. Actually, about 150 thousand people died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and an additional tens of thousands died over the ensuing weeks and years from bomb-related illnesses.

I'm not making light of those deaths; as it happens, I personally know a number of people who survived the blast and are alive today to talk about it.

The scientists involved in the project were not of a single mind about the matter - many saw themselves as producing a weapon which they hoped would not be used, but only held up as a threat which might be strong enough to stop the war. Remember, by the time the bomb was dropped, Germany had already surrendered, and many of those scientists saw no need to pursue the project any further.

Many also believed the technology used to develop the bomb should be shared to enhance its peaceful potential.

The bigger question to ask is why politicians felt it was necessary to drop the first bomb, and - having seen the horrible destruction of which it was capable - felt compelled to drop the second one.

The usual arguments about bringing the war to an end and potentially saving millions of lives by avoiding a land invasion of Japan are often brought up. They've not been proven. Or disproven, by many accounts.

And religion has been the root cause that killed millions.

Evolution is completely wrong? How can anyone figure that?

www.talkorigins.org - This is evidence for those naysayers.

"Evolution is completely wrong" was intended to attract people to the thread. The thread starter was actually making his point FOR Evolution.

Thankyou for your reply, Ekland - I at least know a lot more about what you were talking about now.

You're welcome sir, at least we better understand each other. :)

So? Science blew away millions of Hiroshimans and Nagasakians. What's your point?
Nice response. Totally irrelevant to the topic at hand and blatantly wrong to boot.

That is why science uses the word "theory". A theory in science is not a theory in regular usage. A theory in normal conversation is an idea, a speculation. In science, that is called a hypothosis. when a hypothosis is repeatedly tested and proven to be true over and over and there are no examples disproving it, it becomes a theory. A theory is, for all essential purposes, fact. However, scientists understand that the only fact is that nothing is fact (paradox? Just a little), and therefore call it a theory. The instant an example arises disproving a theory, it is thrown out and a new theory is created taking that into account.

These are not "just theories", they are repeatedly proven in tests and there are mounds of evidence to back them up.



Thank you. I was just about to bring that up.


Threory-

1 A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2 The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis.

So? Science blew away millions of Hiroshimans and Nagasakians. What's your point?
Many of the scientists who worked on the Manhattan project, after seeing how strong the bomb was, became strong anti-nuclear advocates.

I dislike it when people assume the religious are uneducated drug addicted retards all because the church, governed by PEOPLE, made some mistakes. It was run by PEOPLE. PEOPLE made mistakes. PEOPLE still make mistakes. Theists make mistakes. Atheists make mistakes. Einstien was Jewish(omg, he was religious!!! :eek: ) and look how smart and educated people think he was. I know scientists often can't accept that they made mistakes. THEY ARE HUMAN!!! :eek: So please, people, stop this nonsensical bashing of one-another. I meant that a pretty big portion of human evolution is s traight line from one species to another. I never meant all. I saw it on either the science channel or the discovery channel. Maybe it was national geographic. Why would they make something up?
Then why does the Catholic Church still claim that the Pope is infallible?

And Jewish is an ethnicity as well as a religion. I'm Jewish, but I'm not religious. Just because Einstein was Jewish doesn't mean he was religious.

Thank you. I was just about to bring that up.


Threory-

1 A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2 The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis.


just to add a little to your defination: a theory can never be proven, only disproven (either mahmatically, experimentally, etc.) whereas a law can be directly proven (mathmateically, you can prove the law of entropy)...remember though, that evolution (macroevolution- the quantum leap from one species to another, rather than microevolution) is still just a theory! as is creationisim. untill either is disproven by one piece of evidence, they will both continue to be just that--theory- all though, there is a general consusenus to accept some theories as law, becasue thay cannot be disproven (ie. theory of relaivity) nor can they actually be proven.......

and yes, even though i am a scientist (chemist and biologist in fact) I still believe in creationisim........blind faith, i guess.. :headbang:

So? Science blew away millions of Hiroshimans and Nagasakians. What's your point?Wrong. Many of the people that worked on the bomb denounced it before it was used. It was politicians and the military that dropped the bomb.

People will often ask can it be proven scientifically, this statement of question is self refuting. The statement ‘can it be proven scientifically is self refuting because the statement ‘can it be proven scientifically’ cannot itself be proven scientifically (empiricism). The statement itself shows that not all things need to be proven “scientifically” to be true, some things are true and we know they are true and they need no empirical data to prove they are true.

There are no sentences in the English language. The statement there are no sentences in English is self refuting, because by saying there are no sentences in English you have just proven there are indeed sentences in the English language.

The statement “I do not exist” is self refuting; by saying that “I do not exist” I have just proven that I do in fact exist.

You people argue and argue and argue but you never gain any ground. Every other post on this forum revolves around disproving Christianity. Listen there is no conclusive evidence for someone to be 100 percent certain on either side, that’s okay an individual need not be a 100 percent certain to know something just 51 percent. But my point is this, there is enough evidence for both sides to be sure they are right and believe in the ideology they choose to believe. For those who don’t want to believe in God there is evidence that will allow them to feel comfortable about their decision and in contrast those who seek God will find evidence to be comfortable with their decision.

It’s all about examining the evidence for yourself and examining the evidence does not mean reading what people on stupid forums say about anything and everything thing under the sun, people on this forum and others don’t know crap about crap and are set in their thinking and nothing you can say is going to change their mind. However what it does mean, is to examine what the best of the best have to say about their side and looking at the hard facts and in the end deciding for yourself what the best explanation of the facts are. Follow the evidence wherever it leads you.

So? Science blew away millions of Hiroshimans and Nagasakians. What's your point?
No science is only a process for analyzing data

Nothing more

The problem here is:
Many creationists here are closed-minded.

Many evolutionists here are closed-minded.

Some evolutionists here are ignorant enough to make false accusations about religion and its followers based on little, if any, evidence.

There are very few truly open-minded people here, like me. I accept the fact that scientists have a point. I just find some things in science as false. Do I have to believe everything someone tells me? I, like many other religious people, don't take the bible too literally. Many close-minded atheists soil the very meaning of atheism by taking the bible too literally and, thereby, making false accusations of ignorance and stupidity among the religious.

Religion and science are not the cause of wars and death. People are. Islam teaches peace and understanding. Many muslims are violating the quran by resorting to terrorism. Christianity teaches peace, love, and understanding. The bible demands that you forgive the sinner and hate the sin. Yet, there are many Christians willing to kill non-Christians. Yes, there are atheist extremists. The problem isn't bad religion. It's bad followers of said religions.

The problem here is:
Many creationists here are closed-minded.

Many evolutionists here are closed-minded.

Some evolutionists here are ignorant enough to make false accusations about religion and its followers based on little, if any, evidence.

There are very few truly open-minded people here, like me. I accept the fact that scientists have a point. I just find some things in science as false. Do I have to believe everything someone tells me? I, like many other religious people, don't take the bible too literally. Many close-minded atheists soil the very meaning of atheism by taking the bible too literally and, thereby, making false accusations of ignorance and stupidity among the religious.

Religion and science are not the cause of wars and death. People are. Islam teaches peace and understanding. Many muslims are violating the quran by resorting to terrorism. Christianity teaches peace, love, and understanding. The bible demands that you forgive the sinner and hate the sin. Yet, there are many Christians willing to kill non-Christians. Yes, there are atheist extremists. The problem isn't bad religion. It's bad followers of said religions.


If you find false conclusions do the research
And submit it for the peer review process

Because if you have proof evolution is false then do something about it and submit a change to the theory

whereas a law can be directly proven (mathmateically, you can prove the law of entropy)

no. scientific laws are generalizations about the universe, based on observation. they do not fall out of the realm of pure mathematics. and while the 'beauty' or 'elegance' of the equations is one thing scientists look for, it is ultimately through comparison to the actual world that we decide what works and what doesn't. but once you start mucking about in the real world, you lose your ability to prove things in the mathematical sense.

laws hold the same proof status as theories

remember though, that evolution (macroevolution- the quantum leap from one species to another, rather than microevolution) is still just a theory! as is creationisim. untill either is disproven by one piece of evidence, they will both continue to be just that--theory

creationism has been thoroughly disproven. every hypothesis generated from the creationist idea has utterly failed to hold up against reality.

all though, there is a general consusenus to accept some theories as law, becasue thay cannot be disproven (ie. theory of relaivity) nor can they actually be proven

general relativity could quite easily have been falsified in any of the countless of tests it has been subjected to. the fact that it hasn't doesn't mean that it is impossible in prinicple.

i am a scientist (chemist and biologist in fact)

i certainly hope not. would you mind telling me where you got your degree from?

You can't prove evolution to be 100% true. There's no way to find out where we came from with 100% accuracy. There's probably no way to see if something's a coincidence or not. There's no way to prove that there is or there isn't a god without you, yourself dying. I won't kill myself. That's how you are supposed to go to that infamous burny place. Now I forgot what I was going to type next.

You can't prove evolution to be 100% true. There's no way to find out where we came from with 100% accuracy. There's probably no way to see if something's a coincidence or not. There's no way to prove that there is or there isn't a god without you, yourself dying. I won't kill myself. That's how you are supposed to go to that infamous burny place. Now I forgot what I was going to type next.
Evolution has nothing to do with origins of life

If you cant even understand that I would not recommend trying the peer review suggestion I made
Not to mention the fact that you prove a theory FALSE not true

That is so basic you wouldn’t have a chance at geting even a glance

I meant where humans came from. That's what I meant by we. There's no way to absolutely prove that we came from species A and not species B. if B is also close to us.

I meant where humans came from. That's what I meant by we. There's no way to absolutely prove that we came from species A and not species B. if B is also close to us.
Depends are you using the scientific or laymen term for "prove"?

Scientific we cant PROVE anything we can just make it LIKLY it is simmilar to law and "beyond a resonable doubt"

So? Science blew away millions of Hiroshimans and Nagasakians. What's your point?
S***! And I thougt humans did this.

Better start reading something decent about the subject, maybe start here:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1853434817/qid=1124786464/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_0_1/026-9030584-4822046

(and leave us alone in the meantime)


Ahhh knowledge EVIL EEEEVILLLLLLLL!!!! Burn the books!

Hmpf. I will have to add that to my never ending list of stuff to read. Thanks.

I know you have to at least understand the theory in order to refute it
I feel somehow dumber for having read this thread


Oh as if we belived you were smart in the first place! :p

Oh as if we belived you were smart in the first place! :p
Lol did not say smart … but more so then now :)

Hehehehe

Think of peter gryphon :)

I believe that. BUT your assertion was that if we believe it is true, why not . . .

I am merely suggesting, that how can we assume that we would understand what this extremely superior being, in reference to us, thinks is best.


AHHHH! It's the dark ages all over again! "Surely brother; it's God will"


In comparison, how can a dog understand that we think it is best that he stays inside and doesn't hunt for his food.

The Dog is a pack animal. He will do what the alpha(hopefully the human has asserted this role) says is right.

The problem here is:
Many creationists here are closed-minded.

Many evolutionists here are closed-minded.

Wrong on both counts.

There are some creationists that try to marry evolution and their beliefs.

Evolutionists are not close-minded as it would get you labeled as a fool if something new was discovered.


Some evolutionists here are ignorant enough to make false accusations about religion and its followers based on little, if any, evidence.

What assertions are that? ID/Creationism/Religion has no place in science because of their practice of taking things on faith and more importantly stop questioning. If there is a designer involved, how do you test for the design or even the existence of the designer?


There are very few truly open-minded people here, like me. I accept the fact that scientists have a point.
Actually if you had damning evidence to disprove evolution, you would find most people change their views.


I just find some things in science as false.


Thinking things are false and proving they are false is different.


Do I have to believe everything someone tells me?


It depends on what you mean. If people tell you something and you don't bother to read/learn what they are talking about and yet judge it?


I, like many other religious people, don't take the bible too literally. Many close-minded atheists soil the very meaning of atheism by taking the bible too literally and, thereby, making false accusations of ignorance and stupidity among the religious.

There are many religious people that take the Bible literally. You have people here that argue levitican laws.....


Religion and science are not the cause of wars and death. People are. Islam teaches peace and understanding. Many muslims are violating the quran by resorting to terrorism. Christianity teaches peace, love, and understanding. The bible demands that you forgive the sinner and hate the sin. Yet, there are many Christians willing to kill non-Christians. Yes, there are atheist extremists. The problem isn't bad religion. It's bad followers of said religions.

Yes people do mess things up. How ever it is usally Religion is behind some of the worst acts of inhumanity as God justified their actions.

Relgious Leaders are still men(some places women). They are not perfect and as such should always be questioned and challenged.

You can't prove evolution to be 100% true. There's no way to find out where we came from with 100% accuracy. There's probably no way to see if something's a coincidence or not.Yeah, but it comes pretty close. "Coincidence" is something you attempt to rule out in a proper scientific inquiry by attempting to get as many "subjects" as possible... Evolution is not only a "coincidence", and if it is, the answer probably isn't written in a book somewhere...There's no way to prove that there is or there isn't a god without you, yourself dying. I won't kill myself. That's how you are supposed to go to that infamous burny place. Now I forgot what I was going to type next.Hence Religion is called "faith" and evolution is called "science"... ;)

Evolution, as of now, is totally false.
You base this on what now?

For one, every species branches off into at least 2 different branches as it evolves. Always. That's what scientists say. Now, evidence comes along saying that human evolution might have been a straight line. Several species. No branches. An absolute is proven to be false.
There is evidence to suggest that it branched off and then one of them died. That would leave one. How does this make evolution"totally false"?

Who knows what other "laws" of evolution aren't completely true.
"Aren't completely true" and "is totally false" are rather different, ne? Also, science always operates by correcting itself. Newton was wrong, but he was damn close, and it was a hell of a lot better than the Church's dogma at the time (inherited from Ptolemy, who lived before Christ... I've never understood it). Einstein improved on Newton, but we still don't have a Unified Field Theory.

Edit: prepare for a bashing from evolutionists.
Lol I suggest you read the thread "what's up with 'evolutionist'?" it explains why calling people "evolutionists" just because they acknowledge science is rather nonsensical. I'll even link you, because I'm just that nice: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=438305&page=1&pp=15

They often can't deal with the fact that they might be wrong. After all, they demand evidence of god,
Yes, because they don't want to believe something with no rational reason for doing so. Some people don't need rational reasons. Some do. Deal.

yet believe in evolution even though it is based on tests that have a slight chance of giving false readings.
All science has a slight chance of giving false readings! The laws of Gravity could be slightly wrong (i.e. very close approximations, but off). However, we have found that in all circumstances that we are able to measure gravity can be predicted by current theory. When and if we find something that doesn't fit, we'll revise the theory. This is how science works. But science flat-out doesn't accept something if there's little or no evidence for it.

Why are you holding Evolution and God to two completely different standards? Or is this whole post a kind of sarcasm that I've never seen before?

I suppose now is as good a time as any the whip out the big guns.
Or at least try to.

Would an evolutionist please explain to me why and how sexual reproduction came about?
It sems to me that an organism would be able to survive MUCH better if it did not require any other organism to participate in the reporoductive process.
Simple. Sexual reproduction has multiple advantages, among them that it provides diversification of DNA (ever seen the effects of inbreeding? imagine if it was only you passed down over and over...) and it also helps along natural selection. We (at least heterosexuals and bisexuals) tend to be attracted to members of the opposite sex who exhibit features that would be advantageous for the child, both in terms of care and protection as well as in terms of making the child genetically for fit for survival. Wide hips and large breasts in women are ideal for birth and nursing, while well-developed musculature (among other things, I'm a straight guy, don't know what all is found attractive) is good for hunting and defending the home. Individuals don't only have to survive to reproduce: they also have to be healthy and have beneficial traits so that they are found attractive.

Furthermore, which evolved first, male or female? The mechanims for each are somewhat different and I'm not sure how one sex could survive until the other sex happened to evolve...
You'd be surprised how similar men and women are if you get right down to it. Testicles and ovaries are very similar in form and function (though admittedly different in other ways). There are two of them, they produce and release sex cells, and they are connected by tubes to where they need to go for conception to take place. The clitoris is remarkably similar in form to the head of a penis (except much smaller). Which evolved first? Neither. They both evolved together, gradually, and the differences between the sexes gradually increased.

At least that's plausible. I'm not an evolutionary scientist (I'd use the proper name, "evolutionist", but you've already hijacked that word...) but I know a bit about it.

A sudden thought has occured to me. Intelligent Design is right! How else does one explain the fact that we have not yet evolved to a point where we stop having these threads?
Lol! <3 <3 <3

Now, evidence comes along saying that human evolution might have been a straight line. Several species. No branches.

bullshit.

http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eeImages/Dating/Human%20Evolution/HE_Main.jpg

and that isn't even going back to the branch with chimpanzees (which itself split further), or gorillas (multisplit again), or orangs, or gibbons, or old world monkeys, or new world monkeys, etc.

snip
I got another picture of evolution

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0301/evolution1.gif

:) hehehhe

:) hehehheHow can something be so wrong and yet so good at the same time? :D

How can something be so wrong and yet so good at the same time? :D
Lol landover baptist a million laughs lol

And if you like that

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news1100/science.html

:)

And if you like that

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news1100/science.html

:)Dang... I thought that the leaves changed color because the clorophyll got drained... shows how wrong I was :D

Dang... I thought that the leaves changed color because the clorophyll got drained... shows how wrong I was :D
"But we don't think that's good enough. It's not called "Science Fiction" for nothing folks. So-called science is just a big pile of secular lies made up solely to take the credit away from God. There is no other way of putting it! They need to stop calling it Biology, Chemistry, Astronomy, and Physics. Do they think that the people of God are going to stand by like idiots and let them rot this country's education system with a mythology spawned by hoofed demons in the fiery caves of Hell?"

lol I think that applies to your "beliefs" :D

Evolution exists, the Bible is the biggest selling work of non-fiction ever seen by the globe. I mean really, some super god comes down and creates people out of clay in his own image?! Or...the alternative, simple organisms grow and mutate (as seen in the womb during preganancy) to eventually become complex organisms over billions of years. Me thinks the evolution theory sounds slightly more plausible.

This thread is over! Never ever, ever start one of these topics again, they are pointless and fruitless, no one wins! And at the end of the day, only a minority care about religion nowadays, they have seen the flaws and seen the 'light' to give it up and do something constructive with their lives!

they have seen the flaws and seen the 'light' to give it up and do something constructive with their lives!

Like hanging around and posting on the General? ;)

no. scientific laws are generalizations about the universe, based on observation. they do not fall out of the realm of pure mathematics. and while the 'beauty' or 'elegance' of the equations is one thing scientists look for, it is ultimately through comparison to the actual world that we decide what works and what doesn't. but once you start mucking about in the real world, you lose your ability to prove things in the mathematical sense.

laws hold the same proof status as theories



creationism has been thoroughly disproven. every hypothesis generated from the creationist idea has utterly failed to hold up against reality.



general relativity could quite easily have been falsified in any of the countless of tests it has been subjected to. the fact that it hasn't doesn't mean that it is impossible in prinicple.



i certainly hope not. would you mind telling me where you got your degree from?

let's clarifiy a few things, shall we? first of all, theories can be held up to the same status of laws, i will agree with you there, BUT they cannot be proven (simple defination of a theory vs. a law) a law has the evidence to SUPPORT the claim whereas a theory has evidence that may support the theory, NOT PROVE it. you CANNOT prove a theory, was the point I was trying to make, only disprove it. there is a slight difference between the two, which actually, can make or break the theory at some point in history, but you must have missed that day in freshman general chemistry.

i am sorry if using the law of entropy which can be mathmaticaly proven confused you as an example. i did not mean to imply that the pure math was a proof enough. I do understand about the complexities in the natural world in which the mathematics simply falls apart, such as in quantum mechanics, where we can no longer explain phenomenon through simple equations. and, things may look great mathematically on paper (let's say cold fusion) but in all practical aspects, there is no way for it to work. (As a side note, I AM NOT saying that cold fusion is, was, or ever will work, please DO NOT take it this way- I wanted to clarify since you seem to have a way of taking what I say the way)


please, i would love to read any scientific literature on the disproven theories of creationisim. primary literature, peer reveiwed journals? anything that directly concludes that creationisim is dubunked.

and lets look at realitivity one more time. as you said, the results could have been falsified, which in theory, could hold true for any scientific experiment, hmmm, maybe the precious evolution experiments could as well have been falsified in every one of their tests. please, next time you would like to insult my scientifc intelligence or thought process, make sure you understand the general ideas rather than directly reading more into it than need be.

I wonder, had I not said that I was a creationist, would you have critiqed every word and example that i have written as harshly. as for being a scientist, yes, i am. i have two advanced degrees in both chemistry and biology. would you like to show me your credientials as well????

let's clarifiy a few things, shall we? first of all, theories can be held up to the same status of laws, i will agree with you there, BUT they cannot be proven (simple defination of a theory vs. a law) a law has the evidence to SUPPORT the claim whereas a theory has evidence that may support the theory, NOT PROVE it. you CANNOT prove a theory, was the point I was trying to make, only disprove it. there is a slight difference between the two, which actually, can make or break the theory at some point in history, but you must have missed that day in freshman general chemistry.


Laws ARE theories you can not PROVE a law anymore then you can a theory ... and there have been "laws" disproved as well they are just seemingly more stable

That is the only difference Laws appear more stable but they are being challenged and have been proven false in the past

Evolution exists, the Bible is the biggest selling work of non-fiction ever seen by the globe. I mean really, some super god comes down and creates people out of clay in his own image?! Or...the alternative, simple organisms grow and mutate (as seen in the womb during preganancy) to eventually become complex organisms over billions of years. Me thinks the evolution theory sounds slightly more plausible.

If you look at the first page it's simple, science and religion ask different questions, that part.

Science asks: How and what.
Religion asks: Who

Infact scientist say there is like a 63% that a 'God' (rather a superior being) exists. Science and religion agree with each other.

Oil for one day burning for eight?! Miracle!? Has science found that one out?

What about Noah's Ark, it said the world was 'flooded', but what was the world? It was the area around the it! Science proves it happened!

Science and religion agree with each other when the questions MATCH. Now religion is very old, and since it was written by Monks and has been translated so many times and in so many revisions the original story has been at the least skewed. Though isn't the most BASIC parts of the Bible true? Before we turned them into songs and child programs and teachings? Before they were ever changed!? Have the people who claimed this happen ever been there?

That's just it. The bible is not a first-person story, it's not a third-person story. Its a collection of beliefs and rumors and information that is held as true along with the original parts. Unless you can say that the writer of the Bible (there wasn't ONE) was with Noah on the ark, with David, with Jesus and with the Jews for 40 years, I THINK the story might be wrong.

When science and religion agree, that is good.

let's clarifiy a few things, shall we? first of all, theories can be held up to the same status of laws, i will agree with you there, BUT they cannot be proven (simple defination of a theory vs. a law) a law has the evidence to SUPPORT the claim whereas a theory has evidence that may support the theory, NOT PROVE it. you CANNOT prove a theory, was the point I was trying to make, only disprove it. there is a slight difference between the two, which actually, can make or break the theory at some point in history, but you must have missed that day in freshman general chemistry.FALSIFIED BY EXPERIMENTATION!!!
Scientific laws are a summary of what we know and can use to predict what will happen in a similar situation and can be falsified by experimentation.
A theory is a hypothesis based on evidence which supports it and can be used to predict what will happen in a similar situation, but cannot be falsified by experimentation because of limitations in capabilities of reproducing such situations.
You cannot prove a law either... but I suppose you must have missed that in the physics class because you were busy not paying attention in chemistry... (I was, they didn't mention the difference)

This may have already been asked. If so, could someone direct me to the post? I'd be grateful.

Richard Dawkins said something along these lines: "There must have been some kind of cumulative selection process that allowed amino acids to assemble in chunks. Perhaps two or three amino acids linked up for some simple purpose and then after a time bumped into some other similar cluster and in doing so 'discovered' some additional improvement."

Now that seems awfully vague to me. Yet this part is absolutly vital because without this selection process for atoms to somehow know or decide which direction they're heading in, the odds are so hugely against simply making a single amino acid as for it to be basically impossible.

I don't disagree with evolution and I think it's the best option out there (I certainly don't believe in creation or ID or anything like that) but it just seems there's a gap that needs a hell of a lot of working out before people can be as certain as they are.

It could just be that I've missed this section of the explanation but all the books I've read about evolution seem to have the same vague explanation at the same point.

It could just be that I've missed this section of the explanation but all the books I've read about evolution seem to have the same vague explanation at the same point.That's because abiogenesis hasn't got much to do with evolution. The occurrence of life has little to do with how life progresses, technically. We don't need to know how the Universe was created to study it, do we?
But you can read about abiogenesis here. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/)

Evolution works (and as its a theory (note that word any religious nuts out there) it can be altered on the basis of new information) this is because it explains the world around us very well

and the original creation of life is actually very easy (I can think of several methods off the top of my head with none of them involving a large bloke with a beard) it just takes time and the correct conditions (all of which existed at the time early life came into existance)

There is a 1 to 1 trillions "chance" o evloution bringing about the eye.
Did you know that the trillobite was the one of the first insects... did you know it also has the most complicated eye EVER.

This may have already been asked. If so, could someone direct me to the post? I'd be grateful.

Richard Dawkins said something along these lines: "There must have been some kind of cumulative selection process that allowed amino acids to assemble in chunks. Perhaps two or three amino acids linked up for some simple purpose and then after a time bumped into some other similar cluster and in doing so 'discovered' some additional improvement."

Now that seems awfully vague to me. Yet this part is absolutly vital because without this selection process for atoms to somehow know or decide which direction they're heading in, the odds are so hugely against simply making a single amino acid as for it to be basically impossible.

I don't disagree with evolution and I think it's the best option out there (I certainly don't believe in creation or ID or anything like that) but it just seems there's a gap that needs a hell of a lot of working out before people can be as certain as they are.

It could just be that I've missed this section of the explanation but all the books I've read about evolution seem to have the same vague explanation at the same point.
so you're asking why the base pairs joined up in the first place, and why they then clumped into groups of 3 in the codon?

well for any base of the 4 specific amino acids to bond with another creates a strong bond and sable molecule that can - and does - chain up like starch. so these amino acids would have paired anyway up due to simple chemistry and the fact that they produce a stable joined molecule. their use as genetic markers would come later - so it is as haphazard or vague as that dude said, but it makes sense because of the chemistry.
at least thats what i would think - i don't know for sure but it makes sense (to me)

as for the amino acids forming in the first place, same kinda thing i guess... stability of certain molecules over others, and strong intramollecular bonds have a lot to answer for :P


edit: yay for electromollecular chemistry... the only bit i ever understood :p

There is a 1 to 1 trillions "chance" o evloution bringing about the eye.
Did you know that the trillobite was the one of the first insects... did you know it also has the most complicated eye EVER.
Hell, a trilobite belongs to the Trilobita and insects are Tracheata. Apart from this: So what?

I'm bush like. There is no such thing as evolution or global warming. Its just lies that those awful "laberals" thought up to try to stop me from gettin my precious "earl". You know evolution does not exist because of God. God told me it doesnt exist. God made me president, of America. What we need to do is worry about fighting "tourism" not this "laberal" lies. These "Toursim" threats have got weapons of mass destructions and a lot of "earl", shit I mean uh uh uhhhh .... , its shortened to W.M.D. because I like the letter W. But I cant remeber why. Tell all these tree huggers to go hug a tree. Cause I'm morally correct.

This may have already been asked. If so, could someone direct me to the post? I'd be grateful.
...
Now that seems awfully vague to me. Yet this part is absolutly vital because without this selection process for atoms to somehow know or decide which direction they're heading in, the odds are so hugely against simply making a single amino acid as for it to be basically impossible. Well, amino acids are simply on a lower energy level than other molecules you can make from the same atoms. Breaking amino acids into it's parts or rearranging
them would take a significant amount of enrgy. Most probably more than you would gain by breaking the atomic bonds.

Hell, a trilobite belongs to the Trilobita and insects are Tracheata. Apart from this: So what?

I think his point deals with the fact that IDers basically say "Look how complicated the eye is; it has to be the work of a designer."

I think his point deals with the fact that IDers basically say "Look how complicated the eye is; it has to be the work of a designer."
They should use human stupidity as an arguement. This can't have devoloped by chance. ;)

There is a 1 to 1 trillions "chance" o evloution bringing about the eye.
Did you know that the trillobite was the one of the first insects... did you know it also has the most complicated eye EVER.
1) A trilobite wasn't an insect
2) I need a link to info about trilobite eyes. I'm not taking your word for it because you made the mistake of calling a trilobite an insect, which indicates some ignorance of biology, and soft tissue doesn't fossilize well, so I doubt we've got trilobite eyes to study.
3) Your odds mean nothing. It happened step by step. Partial "eyes" can be observed in modern animals as light sensitive patches of skin, more developed eyes run the gamut from colorblind eyes that only really notice movement to the fine eyes of a squid or octopus.

There is a 1 to 1 trillions "chance" o evloution bringing about the eye.

That's an interesting claim to try and make, because scientists have produced very plausible computer models, which start with patches of light-sensitive cells and proceed with random alterations (on the condition that these simulated mutations cannot be kept unless they improve the ability of the eye to form an image). These models arrive at various things quite similar to eyes found in reality, via a route which is consistent with the theory of natural selection. What's more, they do it very short timescales, even making conservative assumptions about rates of mutation. For instance, according to New Scientist on 9 April 2005, "Dan-Eric Nilsson of Lund University in Sweden...has calculated that it would take only half a million years for a patch of light-sensitive cells to evolve into a compound eye" - which incidentally is the kind of eye that the Redlichia, a group of trilobites, developed 543 million years ago, making them the first animals known to have developed eyes.

Did you know that the trillobite was the one of the first insects... did you know it also has the most complicated eye EVER.

Ok, I'm not inclined to take your claim of the trilobite's eyes complexity too seriously given your impression that the trilobites were insects. But even if they were the most complex ever, that is not necessarily inconsistent with the theory of natural selection. You see, growing a complex eye and the brain needed to process the information it provides is costly in terms of resources to the animal. Therefore, the kind of eye an animal is likely to evolve is determined by whether it's need for a good eye outweighs the expense of getting one, or whether its genes would be better served by having a poorer eye and "spending" more resources on, for instance, growing bigger muscles to overpower prey, or nurturing its young. If indeed some of the earliest eyes were more complex and effective than those seen today, it would merely indicate that the circumstances placed a stronger selection pressure on those trilobites to develop excellent eyesight than today's circumstances place on most animals.

I suppose now is as good a time as any the whip out the big guns.

Would an evolutionist please explain to me why and how sexual reproduction came about?
It sems to me that an organism would be able to survive MUCH better if it did not require any other organism to participate in the reporoductive process. Furthermore, which evolved first, male or female? The mechanims for each are somewhat different and I'm not sure how one sex could survive until the other sex happened to evolve...
You know, my SciAm mail said something about this just a few minutes ago .... what an interesting coinkydink!

*ahem*

(Interview with David Buller, evolutionary psychologist)
*excerpts*

JRM: Why do you say the evolutionary psychology paradigm is problematic?
DB: There are three foundational claims that it makes. One is that the nature of [evolutionary] adaptation is going to create massive modularity in the mind--separate mental organs functionally specialized for separate tasks. Second, that those modules continue to be adapted to a hunter-gatherer way of life. And third, that these modules are universal and define a universal human nature. I think that all three of those claims are deeply problematic.
If anything the evidence indicates that the great cognitive achievement in human evolution was cortical plasticity, which allows for rapidly adaptive changes to the environment, both across evolutionary time and [across] individual lifetimes. Because of that, we're not quite the Pleistocene relics that Evolutionary Psychology claims. [Regarding universality,] all of the evidence indicates that [behavioral] polymorphisms are much more widespread in all sexually reproducing populations than the idea of a universal human nature would require. So I think the theoretical foundations from which a lot of predictions get made, about what our mate preferences are going to be, or what the psychology of parental care is, are problematic because the theoretical foundation is mistaken.

JRM: Which conclusion of Evolutionary Psychology do you think has most captivated the public?
DB: Probably the issue of mate preferences, this whole idea that males have this ineluctable preference to mate with nubile females, and that females have this ineluctable preference to mate with high status males. As soon as you see those claims you can immediately think of a number of confirming examples of it. The evolutionary psychologist David Buss is very fond of pointing to Hollywood stars and saying, "See, these people illustrate the truth of our claims." But when you look at the broader range of evidence that's out there I think it doesn't really support these claims.
As I point out in one section about male preferences, there's a tendency to focus on older males who reenter the mating market after divorce, and evolutionary psychologists take this to be pretty firmly clinching evidence in favor of their hypothesis. But that neglects over half of older males who remain mated to older women. Look at Paul Newman--a very high status male, but [he] has remained monogamously married to a woman his own age. Those are choices that males make, and you can't just exclude one half of the population from the data against which you're going to test your hypothesis.


My hypothesis is that in most men, the adaptation is a preference for similarly-aged mates--adjusted for sex differences in the ages at which reproductive maturity are reached--rather than an adaptation to prefer nubility. This preference tends to contribute to the selection of a nubile mate because most marrying men are young. The difference between my hypothesis and Evolutionary Psychology's claim can't be seen when looking at the mate choices of young males. It's only when we look at older males that the two hypotheses differ in their predictions. As I argue at some length in chapter five, I think the evidence on the whole favors my hypothesis.

JRM: Do you see any value in Evolutionary Psychology? You mention in the book that it has led to evolutionary hypotheses about jealousy, for example.
DB: It has led to the asking of questions that needed to be asked, so in that regard I think it's been a very positive development. Evolutionary theory has not been applied to the study of humans to quite the extent that it should have been to date. I think looking at an emotion like jealousy from an adaptationist standpoint is very positive. It stimulates lines of research that would not have occurred otherwise. But immediately then the paradigm kicks in with its big theoretical apparatus and says, "Oh, well ok, but if jealousy is an adaptation, then differences in the sexes require differences in modules in the sexes." So then you get the whole account of jealousy that's propounded in the paradigm--the idea that there's an evolved sex difference, where males are sexually jealous and females are emotionally jealous. So while I think the paradigm has been an extremely positive development on the whole, it has tended to prematurely narrow the kinds of hypotheses that are considered about human evolution.
I have not seen in the literature any alternative evolutionary accounts of jealousy. The literature that tends to be critical of that particular hypothesis refers to it as the evolutionary account of jealousy and, in rejecting the particular hypothesis of an evolved sex difference, goes on to reject an evolutionary account of jealousy. I think that's premature. I think jealousy can be an adaptation but it doesn't require that there is an evolved sex differences in the design features of the male and female minds.
I have a colleague in the psychology department, Brad Sagarin, and we have started gathering some data to explore other evolutionary hypotheses [for jealousy], like the one that I articulate in the book. [Editor's note: Called the relationship jeopardy hypothesis, it supposes that men and women have the same evolved capacity to learn to distinguish threats to the relationship from nonthreats.] We're still just gathering data. One thing that we're talking about in the research group is ways of creating jealousy in a laboratory setting. Coming up with a way of doing this that is ethical is not at all that easy. The easy way is to use the same sorts of questionnaire studies that have been used before, but to broaden the questions that you use them to address.


One piece of propaganda that people in the Evolutionary Psychology paradigm have used in support of their approach is [to assert] that throughout the history of psychology, evolutionary thinking has been almost entirely absent. They present themselves as having the courage to ask evolutionary questions about human psychology. Certainly we have evolved, like all other life on the planet, and we should be looking at human psychology from an evolutionary perspective. My disagreement with the Evolutionary Psychology paradigm is with respect to what follows from taking an evolutionary perspective on human behavior and psychology. The paradigm [supposes] that a lot of very specific doctrines immediately begin to follow once you take that perspective, and I don't think that's true. It's much more wide open.

JRM: What are other examples of proposed evolutionary explanations for human behavior that fall outside the paradigm?
DB: Some of the examples I discuss in the book are Barbara Smuts and David Gubernick's mating effort hypothesis concerning the evolution of marriage, and Kristen Hawkes's "grandmother hypothesis" for the evolution of menopause. In my opinion, these are terrific examples of work in evolutionary psychology, as opposed to Evolutionary Psychology. One significant difference between this work and the Evolutionary Psychology paradigm is that it isn't driven by an underlying "Grand Unified Theory" about the nature and evolution of the human mind. The good work to date, I think, has tended to be piecemeal, focused only on narrow aspects of human life history and decision-making.
..
JRM: Another recent book, The Case of the Female Orgasm, by biologist and philosopher of science Elisabeth Lloyd, examines the evidence for various adaptive explanations of female orgasms, and concludes that it has no evolutionary function. Do you think she's right?

DB: I haven't read the book yet. However, I've read her earlier work on female orgasm, I've seen her give a couple of talks on her research, and I've discussed her work with her briefly. I'm not completely convinced that Lloyd is right that female orgasm has no evolutionary function, although my mind could change once I read the whole book. She presupposes that male orgasm has a direct reproductive function--namely, to inseminate. But this conflates ejaculation and orgasm. Insemination is the function of ejaculation. Ejaculation and orgasm are actually distinct phenomena subserved by separate and dissociable physiological mechanisms. Ejaculation is all that's necessary for the function of insemination. So there's a problem about male orgasm: Why has it evolved? Clearly, the mechanisms subserving the sensation of orgasm are the evolutionary latecomers. So at some point in our evolutionary history, well before the emergence of Homo sapiens, there may have been non-orgasmic ejaculators and orgasmic ejaculators. Given where we've arrived, clearly the latter outreproduced the former. One possible reason is that orgasms drove the orgasmic ejaculators to have sex more often in order to induce the pleasurable sensation. The common early developmental pathway of males and females would have endowed females with the mechanisms for orgasm as well, as Lloyd herself shows, following [evolutionary psychologist] Donald Symons. Once so endowed, orgasm could have performed the same motivational role in women. In that case, in both sexes, orgasm would be an adaptation for a higher frequency of sex--hence, presumably, a higher rate of offspring production relative to our ancestors without the pleasurable sensation of orgasm. Of course, this is highly speculative, and--to repeat--I haven't made my way through all of Lloyd's arguments. But at first glance, I'm skeptical.
..
JRM: At the end of the book you spend a chapter arguing that there is no universal human nature. Can you explain what you mean?
DB: I go by what others have used the term to mean. If by human nature all you mean is whatever humans do, then absolutely there's a human nature, and an evolutionary perspective on human beings will inform us about human nature. But traditionally the concept of human nature has [been] a much more theoretically loaded concept, which is that there are certain things that it's normal for humans to be, and that constitute human nature. The concept of human nature [therefore] only refers to a partial subset of all of the manifest diversity that we view among human beings. And I think that notion has no foundation in evolutionary theory. That notion is in fact a vestige of 19th-century natural theology.
A truly evolutionary view of our species recognizes that variation is not some noise in the system, but is the system itself. And so in an important sense there's no such thing as the human mind, which an evolutionary perspective on will illuminate us about, but rather there are a variety of different kinds of minds out there, all of which have evolved, and in many cases the variety of kinds of minds are maintained by frequency dependent selection. In the nontrivial sense, there's simply no such thing as human nature if you take evolutionary theory seriously. What's common at one particular time in the [evolutionary] process won't necessarily be common at a different time in the process within the same species.

The theory of evolution is undoubtedly flawed and incomplete, but thats why it is just a theory. Pointing out a flaw in it doesnt mean that evolution itself is not true. They say (although this problem may have been solved by now) that technically bumble bees shouldnt be able to fly. Bub obviously they can. This doesnt mean that everything else we know about flight is wrong, it just means there are still things to be understood.

And how does a lack of fossils disprove evolution? It seems to me that if a species exists, and there are no fossils of it, then there was a time when it didnt exist, so it must have evolved. Unless god periodically updates the earth, like windows. Actually how come no creationists/ID supporters ever suggest staggered placement of species? Its a stupid idea obviously, but it seems a necessity for their arguement.

There is a 1 to 1 trillions "chance" o evloution bringing about the eye.
Did you know that the trillobite was the one of the first insects... did you know it also has the most complicated eye EVER.
You really need to look things up more. I found this information under the first listing when I googled it:

"How did schizochroal eyes evolve?
All early trilobites (Cambrian), had holochroal eyes and it would seem hard to evolve the distinctive phacopid schizochroal eye from this form. The answer is thought to lie in ontogenetic (developmental) processes on an evolutionary time scale. Paedomorphosis is the retention of ancestral juvenile characteristics into adulthood in the descendent. Paedomorphosis can occur three ways: Progenesis (early sexual maturation in an otherwise juvenile body), Neoteny (reduced rate of morphological development), and Post-displacement (delayed growth of certain structures relative to others). The development of schizochroal eyes in phacopid trilobites is a good example of post-displacement paedomorphosis. The eyes of immature holochroal Cambrian trilobites were basically miniature schizochroal eyes. In Phacopida, these were retained, via delayed growth of these immature structures (post-displacement), into the adult form. "
http://www.trilobites.info/eyes.htm
"The animals were not able to see as we see but rather appreciated the world in a thousand fragments of light, as if the brain were a pointillist with a palette of prisms. The eyes may have permitted comprehension of the world in the same fashion as the similar compound eyes of living arthropods. Apposition eyes do not form complete images of their surroundings (some other arthropod eyes have lenses arranged in such a way that they are able to collaborate and produce a single, complex image)."
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_8_109/ai_65913175
It speaks to enormous selective pressure that must have been exerted in trilobite evolution that such a vision system would have been already well-develped in the Cambrian, and and then further refined as the Paleozoic proceeded. This is even more astonishing given that nature does not create genes from an intelligence derived blue print - rather it can only tinker with existing diversity in the genome and the occasional new ingredients provided by random mutation and sexual mixing.
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Evolution/TrilobiteArmsRace.htm
Sorry to harp on things like this. I'm bored and waiting for a train home.

Back to my reproduction problem:
assuming evoltionary thoery to be correct, at one time, no organism and any genetics-swapping abilities. Then, by random mutation some organism developed ALL the gens necessary to exchange genetic information. with whom did this lone organism share the information if no other organism had the information-swapping gene?
There would be millions (if not billions) of non-swapping organisms, and very very few (if even more than the one) swap-capable organisms. How do you know that the swap-capable(s) would be able to survive...?

Not to mention that a single mutation would not result in an entirely NEW ability. Not to mention that not all mutations are passed on genetically (i.e. a deformed arm in a human). Not to mention that the newly-mutated creature could be killed simply by accident before having a chance to reproduce...
The 'gene' (it's a plasmid actually) that allows for sex in certain types of bacteria is a dominant one. A copy of it is made, along with the entire genome (or rather, an attempt is made to copy it all, as it is notoriously bad at copying), and sent over to the 'female', or the bacteria lacking the plasmid. That plasmid integrates itself into the genome and the female is now male (that or it is still 'female' and becomes male when the plasmid leaves the genome proper and becomes a plasmid again). It's quite neat really. You can read up on it in any good biology text, I'm going on memory so the details might be a bit off.

The theory of evolution is undoubtedly flawed and incomplete, but thats why it is just a theory. Pointing out a flaw in it doesnt mean that evolution itself is not true. They say (although this problem may have been solved by now) that technically bumble bees shouldnt be able to fly. Bub obviously they can. This doesnt mean that everything else we know about flight is wrong, it just means there are still things to be understood.

And how does a lack of fossils disprove evolution? It seems to me that if a species exists, and there are no fossils of it, then there was a time when it didnt exist, so it must have evolved. Unless god periodically updates the earth, like windows. Actually how come no creationists/ID supporters ever suggest staggered placement of species? Its a stupid idea obviously, but it seems a necessity for their arguement.
I believe the "bumblebees can't fly" statement was made by a drunken biologist in a bar...

They should use human stupidity as an arguement. This can't have devoloped by chance. ;)
On the other hand, could human intelligence have developed by chance?

On the other hand, could human intelligence have developed by chance?
Yes.

Yes.

No. Intelligence grows out of effort, not by chance.

No. Intelligence grows out of effort, not by chance.

You're confusing knowledge with intelligence.

You're confusing knowledge with intelligence.
Bleh. I have a feeling I am too. :D

You're confusing knowledge with intelligence.

Eh, I would have to argue that knowledge grows with experience, while intelligence is grown by effort. Intelligence, being that which one can think and rationalize, must be trained into existance. Knowledge comes from reading, observing, and the like.

Okay. Let me put it this way. If "intelligence" 智慧 was evolved, why and how did it do it?

Okay. Let me put it this way. If "intelligence" 智慧 was evolved, why and how did it do it?

The why is easy, it's one of the most successful survival adaptations ever. The how is very complex, and is best found by studying the articles of people who specialize in the evolution of hominids.

Have you heard of the magical thing called "google"?

excellent book to read-- Darwin's Black Box :eek:

excellent book to read-- Darwin's Black Box :eek:
Roasted so many times...

Roasted so many times...
I know ... I am wishing to find a copy myself it is geting cold in here and I could use some fire material

Evolution rocks, I would make a serious point, but I am whammed, I will do so later.

The ONLY argument against evolution is humanity, go on, look at the general public....SURELY that load of idiots cant be the result of billions of years of evolution?

you CANNOT prove a theory, was the point I was trying to make, only disprove it.

and if that was what you had said, then there would be no issue. but you said that this made theories different from laws, because laws are proven. that is trivially false. laws cannot be proven for precisely the same reason that theories can't; they are formed on the basis of induction and we have no way of knowing if our inductions are and always will be right.

i am sorry if using the law of entropy which can be mathmaticaly proven confused you as an example. i did not mean to imply that the pure math was a proof enough.

it didn't confuse me. it struck me as a bad example. the second law of thermodynamics wasn't derived mathematically from first prinicples, nor is it the only possible way the universe could operate. it was arrived at empirically, and could just as well be dismissed tomorrow by new evidence.

please, i would love to read any scientific literature on the disproven theories of creationisim. primary literature, peer reveiwed journals? anything that directly concludes that creationisim is dubunked.

which creationism are we talking about? don't want to waste time running down peer-reviewed articles about the age of the earth just to be rebutted by "i'm not a yec". or chasing down the papers about the evolutionary history and variability of blood clotting only to be told that you think michael behe is an idiot.

and lets look at realitivity one more time. as you said, the results could have been falsified, which in theory, could hold true for any scientific experiment, hmmm, maybe the precious evolution experiments could as well have been falsified in every one of their tests. please, next time you would like to insult my scientifc intelligence or thought process, make sure you understand the general ideas rather than directly reading more into it than need be.

whiskey tango foxtrot?

what does that have to do with anything? yup, scietific theories are falsifiable. yup, that includes evolution and general relativity. did you not say that the theory of relativity can't be disproven?

I wonder, had I not said that I was a creationist, would you have critiqed every word and example that i have written as harshly. as for being a scientist, yes, i am. i have two advanced degrees in both chemistry and biology. would you like to show me your credientials as well????

i spend a rather inordinate amount of time asking tough questions to people that are nominally on my side. i believe that people should use terms properly and not get the basic facts wrong, whether we are on the same side or opposing ones. you being a creationist just makes it more fun to point out.

i never claimed any credentials. and you haven't shown me any of your own. anybody can say they have a bio degree. or that they are the queen of england, for that matter. on the internet, all we have to go by are the words you type. and i find it seriously hard to believe that somebody claiming advanced knowledge in biology would ever admit to holding a stupid empirically false belief like creationism. nor would they ever say that something is "still just a theory" and mean that to be anything other than the highest of praise. likewise, i'd have trouble accepting somebody claiming to be the queen of england while they posted anti-monarchism rants.

i spend a rather inordinate amount of time asking tough questions to people that are nominally on my side. i believe that people should use terms properly and not get the basic facts wrong, whether we are on the same side or opposing ones. you being a creationist just makes it more fun to point out.

i never claimed any credentials. and you haven't shown me any of your own. anybody can say they have a bio degree. or that they are the queen of england, for that matter. on the internet, all we have to go by are the words you type. and i find it seriously hard to believe that somebody claiming advanced knowledge in biology would ever admit to holding a stupid empirically false belief like creationism. nor would they ever say that something is "still just a theory" and mean that to be anything other than the highest of praise. likewise, i'd have trouble accepting somebody claiming to be the queen of england while they posted anti-monarchism rants.

true, very true. yes, i do have advanced knowledge in biology, and again, like you had pointed out- these are just words in the great wide void of the internet where I could be anyone or anything-, but I also have faith, whether its blind faith or just a stupid empirically false ideal that i cling to. i didn't mean to insinuate that calling something a theory was the highest praise-- what i meant, what I originally set out to say was that both evolution and creationisim, whether young earth theory or old earth theory, are still just that, theories. nothing is yet set in stone....as for being a biologist and still beleiving in creationisim- it does not seem plausible that in the years of evolution something as complex, something as intricate as a fully functioning, thinking human being could come into being. too much to go wrong, to much chance. the odds of everything coming together without forming grotesque mutations seems to be too much

THEORY of evolution. LAW of entropy. entropy rules out evolution. all things go from order to chaos. not the other way around. all systems move toward maximum entropy. is a LAW.
The Universe as a whole. Not necessarily a subset of it. We eat food, and turn it into tissues and organs. That goes against "entropy". However, it's local, and on average, entropy is increasing.

Also, entropy is a scientific law, meaning it's subject to the same limitations as the rest of Science. If you won't accept Science, you can't accept Entropy.

Also, things like snowflakes and crystals--low-entropy objects if ever there were--come about from high-entropy systems--liquid water and mineral deposits.

I dislike it when people assume the religious are uneducated drug addicted retards all because the church, governed by PEOPLE, made some mistakes. It was run by PEOPLE. PEOPLE made mistakes. PEOPLE still make mistakes. Theists make mistakes. Atheists make mistakes. Einstien was Jewish(omg, he was religious!!! :eek: ) and look how smart and educated people think he was. I know scientists often can't accept that they made mistakes. THEY ARE HUMAN!!! :eek: So please, people, stop this nonsensical bashing of one-another. I meant that a pretty big portion of human evolution is s traight line from one species to another. I never meant all. I saw it on either the science channel or the discovery channel. Maybe it was national geographic. Why would they make something up?

I can't speak for everyone (and there are some fanatical anti-religionists on these boards to be sure... I rather enjoy laughing at the fanatical anti-fanatics, actually) but I know for me, that's not what I think at all. And I think most people on the Evolution "side" (if you can call it that) would agree. I'm not saying that religious people are stupid. I'm just saying that people who misrepresent scientific ideas to try to disprove anything that they see as threatening to their faith (whether or not this perceived threat is justified) are either stupid or ignorant or both. People who think that creationism or ID should be taught AS SCIENCE, NOT RELIGION, in classrooms. People who think that they know all about science from what they looked up online on fundamentalist websites. People who think they know all about different faiths from the stereotypes they've been fed from the pulpit and from their own parents. People who refuse to believe science, while typing on their computer and listening to their ipod. You get the picture. Not people like you.

So? Science blew away millions of Hiroshimans and Nagasakians. What's your point?
Actually, that was Truman. Science gave him the ability.

Also, many more lives would have been lost in an invasion (on both sides, not just the US).

Einstein urged against the use of the bomb (his theories were meant to be purely theoretical) and it haunted him for the rest of his life.

Science did it?

Evolution! Sounds plausible? Right? Well, How do you explain the origin of such complex organs like the eye? What about the gaps in the fossil record and sheer lack of fossils in the the Precambrain era? It can be mathematically proven that natural selection and chance mutations cannot lead to such biological innovations. Clearly this can be logically explained that some designer - call him God - at certain intervals helped evolution along. Clearly Intelligent Design makes a lot of sense?

Well, Intelligent Design is flat-out wrong and not accepted by credible scientists. If there are two schools of thought one is held by scientsists and the other by religious nut-jobs.

Development of complex organs can be explained because Evolution by natural selection is not by chance. Evolution is a theory of gradual, incremental change, eventually achieving greater complexity. Lets take the eye as an example! An organism eventually develops light sensitive cells. these light sensitive cells, help it notice changing light and therefore when a predator is approaching. Well, it evades the predators long enough to pass its genes to it children who inherit the light sensitive cells. After many generations, as organisms who lack said cells have a lower chance of passing on their genes die out, what we know as the Eye develops. I can also explain the giraffes long necks: only the ones who were able to reach the leaves on the tree were able to pass on their genes. Intelligent Design, in fact, removes the origin of complexity.

Lack of fossils in Precambrian Era? Why would their be?

As for the gaps in the fossil record, do detectives have to account for every second of a crime based on what they found on the scene to prove that it exists? Also scientists use the genetic code to back up evolution.

But what about everyone's good friend Math? Well, do we really have the information to guess the probability of the development of an eye? Also, Evolution, while random mutations do play a part, mostly relies on natural selection.

As a final note, Evolution did not seek to explain the origin of life, but rather to explain the origin of the variety of species on earth. In no way does science produce evidence against God. To quote Martin Nowak, a Harvard proffessor of mathematics, "Science and religion ask different questions."


Man oh man. How many of these idiotic threads are there going to be? Can someone tell me how the idea that a single writing that speaks of an "all knowing and all powerful" being creating the world out of sheer will could in any way, shape, or form be MORE beleivable than multitudinous writings containing observable facts? How is this pure fantasy surviving in the modern era. YOU ARE ALL BACKWARD MORONS!!!

Edit: When I say idiotic I mean to say that there will invariably be at least two christo-fascist jerk-offs on every one of these threads who will scream to no end about how their version of god created it all, and how evolution is evil.

It can be mathematically proven that natural selection and chance mutations cannot lead to such biological innovations

I'm glad you have faith in mathematics, but I have a problem with you claiming that there is a mathematical proof in regards to evolution. I find it very amusing that you mistake a very low probability for a proof. I also very much doubt the practical application of that probability. It is difficualt to actually say (in regards to evolution) that the probability in question is even correct. There are just to many practical variables that mathematicians don't take into account when calculating the probability.

Well i am a Christian, and as a Christian i believe in god. I go to church every sunday and wear a cross aound my neck. You can probaly see where this is going. Yup your right i believe God created all life. I believe that human life was created on the sixth day. As stated in the NIV Study Bible 10th anniversary addition at Genisis chapter1 verses 26-27 "Then God said, "let us make man in our image, in our likeness and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground. God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them. Now that to me is pretty straight forward other life such as birds fish were created on the fifth day As stated in Genisis 1:20-23 "And god said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth and sky." So God created the great creatures of the sea every living and moving thing with the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And god saw that it was good. God blessed them and said, "be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the sead, and let the birds increase on the earth." And there was evening and there was morning-The fifth day." Also made on the sixth day stated in Genesis 1:25 "And god said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, Creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, The live stock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. God saw that it was good.

So thats what i say so to put this in a nut shell evolution is false e everything was created as it is. NOT THROUGH EVOLUTION!!!!

But i am not saying that evolution is evil just it's wrong i am not a crazy nut job as some of u like so think but i have much faith in Christianity so dont call me a crazy christian cause im not calling all of u evil sinners that will surely burn in hell so dont judge me cause im a christian

I'm going to have the sense to post only one post on this thread, but I have to put in something.

Probability is evolutions biggest flaw, and really not just evolution, but everything that leads up to it and after. I would honestly say that the odds of the entire universe exploding with the big bang or whatever origin of the universe you people believe in how the earth and our solar system was formed, just happened to create a planet that happened to have just the right kind of distance away from a star to keep it warm but not burn it up and be able to sustain life, just happened to have enough of a correct atmosphere to be life-sustaining, just happened to have the essential degree of tilt in its position from the sun so not to have other problems that would not allow life to exist, and then on top of that have all the ingredients necessary to have life somehow create itself and multiply instead of dieing in what were probably harsh conditions considering there was nothing but water and land and the atmosphere. Somehow life just appeared. Hmm, I personally didn't think it was in the scientific method to just guess at a question like how did life begin and then just accept it as fact as many of you all have. We haven't figured out what combination of chemicals or what situation might have caused life to appear, and extensive research in chemistry and biology haven't come up with any tangible credible theories. If you think about it, a planet covered with nothing but gases in the atmosphere, water and land, no organic material of any kind, because there was no life at all, and somehow life appeared. How many different chemicals get thrown together at the same time when in nature with no external factors such as any kind of organism, and then for just the right chemicals to be thrown together to create life, and sustain it without that small single-celled organism dieing. And then that life-form multiplies, and then eventually evolves into other types of beings.

Then there are other things. There are creatures that are complicated enough in design that it would be very far fetched to say that they just simply evolved from lesser beings. As an example, a woodpecker has several very distinct features that would be really hard to just happen by random chance and the woodpecker to survive and become what they are today. A woodpecker has a very strong beak for one, so that it can withstand the blows that it takes when the bird is digging into a tree. It also has a very solid skull so that the skull doesn't just crush itself in the first time a woodpecker tries to dig into a tree. Another handy little feature that they have is that their tongue, which I forget all the details of, is different in such a way as to be very much specialized in pulling things out of a hole in bark, like worms or whatever they eat. There were other examples also, but just this one creature being very unique and complicated in itself makes evolution seem inadequate to answer all questions about life around us.

Probability in humans: I'm quoting this from a book I have. (the numbers with smaller numbers after them, the smaller ones are supposed to be superscript, but either you can't superscript them, or I don't know how, sorry.)

"Let's say you had a cup with twenty dice, each labeled with a letter of the alphabet (a, b, c, etc.), and you wanted to roll the dice and have them come out in alphabetical order. The chance of this occurring is 1 in 2.4 x 1018!1 And that is for only twenty things to occur in order. We have 206 bones in our body; how long would they take to appear in order? For 200 things to occur in order, the probability is 1 in 10375. Mathematicians say that anything over 1050 is absolutely impossible."

Mathematics actually does point out that evolution is highly improbable to have occurred. The design of human beings is just much too complicated to have been done by chance. If 1050 is impossible, then 10375 is extremely impossible.

The way I see it, it takes less faith to believe that God created the world by intelligent-design, whether it was through evolution or 6 day creation, than how much faith it takes to believe in evolution springing life from absolutely nothing, and evolving into beings as complicated as ourselves. God is a more likely answer. And I haven't even mentioned things such as the fossil record, and many other things that do not prove evolution as correct.

I've had my say on this subject, have fun with it, I'm sure many of you won't care (if you read this at all), and maybe some of you will open your eyes to other possibilities. I can't and won't say that there isn't some really amazing chance that evolution is true, but if it were even proven to be true, I believe that it would have to have been by some really amazing miracle of God for evolution to have happened, because the odds of mathematics and logic are against it.

The problem with many people is that they don't ever give a chance to the possibility that there might just be a God who created this universe rather than just random chance. I have given a chance to the theory of evolution, and it hasn't shown me anything credible. And you know, maybe some creationists don't do a very good job at explaining why they believe in intelligent design rather than evolution, but then, I haven't seen any good evidence or reasoning in this thread to prove evolution true either, so apparently you all aren't representing your beliefs very well either.

Here are a couple of links for creation evidence:
http://www.drcarlbaugh.org/
http://www.creationevidence.org/

I haven't thoroughly looked through them, but what I've seen is very good.

Later,

So thats what i say so to put this in a nut shell evolution is false e everything was created as it is. NOT THROUGH EVOLUTION!!!!

Wowwwwwww.

So what's the purpose for a two headed snake?

How about white alligators?

How about a duck billed platypus(sp?).

How about the mudpuppy, the ceoclanth, the African Lungfish.....


So how have you invalidated evolution?

Man oh man. How many of these idiotic threads are there going to be? Can someone tell me how the idea that a single writing that speaks of an "all knowing and all powerful" being creating the world out of sheer will could in any way, shape, or form be MORE beleivable than multitudinous writings containing observable facts? How is this pure fantasy surviving in the modern era. YOU ARE ALL BACKWARD MORONS!!!

Edit: When I say idiotic I mean to say that there will invariably be at least two christo-fascist jerk-offs on every one of these threads who will scream to no end about how their version of god created it all, and how evolution is evil.
So a theory or idea should be judge on how easy it is to believe using current accepted knowledge? The theory of evolution is a good one but it does not disprove the creationsit or disprove God exists. It is not a truth so does not eliminate any of the multiple other posibilities. It just presents the most satisfactory current solution to the origin of species (satisfactory to some I correct myself).
I like the theory but think it stange that people have such a fanatical, near religious furvour towards it that any challenge to it is greated with shouts of BAckwards Morons!

Wowwwwwww.

So what's the purpose for a two headed snake?

How about white alligators?

How about a duck billed platypus(sp?).

How about the mudpuppy, the ceoclanth, the African Lungfish.....


So how have you invalidated evolution?Not that I'm a creationist but some of the creature you mention fit into the system well and perform the function of food or predator, or some other function in the whole Ghian world. As to two headed snakes, wow! Wonder! makes you think! could be it's function.
And it is every ones job to try and disprove a theory, by doing so and failing goes to strengthen the theory.

I'm going to have the sense to post only one post on this thread, but I have to put in something.

Probability is evolutions biggest flaw, and really not just evolution, but everything that leads up to it and after. I would honestly say that the odds of the entire universe exploding with the big bang or whatever origin of the universe you people believe in how the earth and our solar system was formed, just happened to create a planet that happened to have just the right kind of distance away from a star to keep it warm but not burn it up and be able to sustain life, just happened to have enough of a correct atmosphere to be life-
Start with nothing, wait long enough and everything will happen.

To cave men a modern car would look so complex it would have to be made by a devine being.

In World War 2 when cargo aircraft were flying over pacific islands many of the primal natives developed the idea that these planes were huge bird gods.

There are many imaginative situations when technology and structure astounds us, and for some so much so to the point that they believe it is magic or work of a higher being.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. ~Arthur C. Clarke

It is these type of thoughts that sloq progress and fuel ignorance.

Just because something appears complex now does not mean that it is the creation of a devine being, as human technologies have evolved, it is possible to see that biology haveing several hundred million years to perfect itself would have come to an outcome we see now.

Understanting the world around us is part of our purpose, complexity is no evidence of the existance of a god because complexity is realative to the technological context of the time.


at least thats my answer to intelligent design, bassically i talk about how just because something appears complex and improbable, always according to our context as i so nicely point out with my ww2 example, it does not mean that it is beyond our understadnind NOR that it is the work of a high being.....


Everything involved with life happens in tiny steps. It takes millions and millions moreso billions of years for chemicals to interact and create evermore complex patters, then it just so happens that the ones that can best deal with the stresses of their environment survive, grow more complex and mutate. simple.

Examples like eyes and sexual reproduction have their individual answers from evolution and i agree with them, but the trith is, no matter what the argument, no matter what example is given by those trying to tear down intelligence and logic can always be explained by chance. The average life span of bacteria is only a few minutes to hours, they reproduce many times faster, and have massive variation because of mistakes made in reproduction, given a few billion years its easy to see that evolution is the answer.

To cave men a modern car would look so complex it would have to be made by a devine being.

In World War 2 when cargo aircraft were flying over pacific islands many of the primal natives developed the idea that these planes were huge bird gods.

There are many imaginative situations when technology and structure astounds us, and for some so much so to the point that they believe it is magic or work of a higher being.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. ~Arthur C. Clarke

It is these type of thoughts that sloq progress and fuel ignorance.

Just because something appears complex now does not mean that it is the creation of a devine being, as human technologies have evolved, it is possible to see that biology haveing several hundred million years to perfect itself would have come to an outcome we see now.

Understanting the world around us is part of our purpose, complexity is no evidence of the existance of a god because complexity is realative to the technological context of the time.


at least thats my answer to intelligent design, bassically i talk about how just because something appears complex and improbable, always according to our context as i so nicely point out with my ww2 example, it does not mean that it is beyond our understadnind NOR that it is the work of a high being.....


Everything involved with life happens in tiny steps. It takes millions and millions moreso billions of years for chemicals to interact and create evermore complex patters, then it just so happens that the ones that can best deal with the stresses of their environment survive, grow more complex and mutate. simple.

Examples like eyes and sexual reproduction have their individual answers from evolution and i agree with them, but the trith is, no matter what the argument, no matter what example is given by those trying to tear down intelligence and logic can always be explained by chance. The average life span of bacteria is only a few minutes to hours, they reproduce many times faster, and have massive variation because of mistakes made in reproduction, given a few billion years its easy to see that evolution is the answer.
Yep great, well thought out and eloquently put. However it does not preclude or disprove creation or intelligent design, it is for most a more plausable explanation.
As I said evolution is a good theory and works for me, but it still has many holes and still only explains the changes in species and development, not how they initially came toexist or how matter was created. and the throeries that explain these matters are riddled with holes and disputed by the scientific communities.

I'm going to have the sense to post only one post on this thread, but I have to put in something.

*snip*
Hmm, I personally didn't think it was in the scientific method to just guess at a question like how did life begin and then just accept it as fact as many of you all have.

Actually the scientifc method is tool to work a hypothesis.

A theory is just that. An attempt to explain something. You haven't presented anything to disprove it.


We haven't figured out what combination of chemicals or what situation might have caused life to appear, and extensive research in chemistry and biology haven't come up with any tangible credible theories.

And that invalidates it? With that logic, we can declare black holes to be figments of an LSD trip because we don't know how they work. The sun is really a lightbuld since we don't have definitive proof to how it works. But we have theories that make sense.....


If you think about it, a planet covered with nothing but gases in the atmosphere, water and land, no organic material of any kind, because there was no life at all, and somehow life appeared. How many different chemicals get thrown together at the same time when in nature with no external factors such as any kind of organism, and then for just the right chemicals to be thrown together to create life, and sustain it without that small single-celled organism dieing. And then that life-form multiplies, and then eventually evolves into other types of beings.

And this is wrong how?


Then there are other things. There are creatures that are complicated enough in design that it would be very far fetched to say that they just simply evolved from lesser beings. As an example, a woodpecker has several very distinct features that would be really hard to just happen by random chance and the woodpecker to survive and become what they are today. A woodpecker has a very strong beak for one, so that it can withstand the blows that it takes when the bird is digging into a tree. It also has a very solid skull so that the skull doesn't just crush itself in the first time a woodpecker tries to dig into a tree. Another handy little feature that they have is that their tongue, which I forget all the details of, is different in such a way as to be very much specialized in pulling things out of a hole in bark, like worms or whatever they eat. There were other examples also, but just this one creature being very unique and complicated in itself makes evolution seem inadequate to answer all questions about life around us.

Sounds like evolution to me. It filled a nitch....


Probability in humans: I'm quoting this from a book I have. (the numbers with smaller numbers after them, the smaller ones are supposed to be superscript, but either you can't superscript them, or I don't know how, sorry.)

"Let's say you had a cup with twenty dice, each labeled with a letter of the alphabet (a, b, c, etc.), and you wanted to roll the dice and have them come out in alphabetical order. The chance of this occurring is 1 in 2.4 x 1018!1 And that is for only twenty things to occur in order. We have 206 bones in our body; how long would they take to appear in order? For 200 things to occur in order, the probability is 1 in 10375. Mathematicians say that anything over 1050 is absolutely impossible."

Mathematics actually does point out that evolution is highly improbable to have occurred. The design of human beings is just much too complicated to have been done by chance. If 1050 is impossible, then 10375 is extremely impossible.


Hey it's Hoyle! Isn't it? Sorry but thats been tossed out.

Wan't to talk about the similarities between chimps and humans?


The way I see it, it takes less faith to believe that God created the world by intelligent-design, whether it was through evolution or 6 day creation, than how much faith it takes to believe in evolution springing life from absolutely nothing, and evolving into beings as complicated as ourselves. God is a more likely answer. And I haven't even mentioned things such as the fossil record, and many other things that do not prove evolution as correct.

Ahh another one. Or are you a puppet nation for somebody that argues like this.

Ok read this slowly.

Evolution has never set out to prove or disprove the existence of God.

Repeat 100 times.

So far you haven't offered a "silver bullet" to kill evolutional theory.


I've had my say on this subject, have fun with it, I'm sure many of you won't care (if you read this at all), and maybe some of you will open your eyes to other possibilities. I can't and won't say that there isn't some really amazing chance that evolution is true, but if it were even proven to be true, I believe that it would have to have been by some really amazing miracle of God for evolution to have happened, because the odds of mathematics and logic are against it.

Mathmatics can't define evolution. Sorry but it can't.

You can't test for God so the question is not asked.

Again.

Evolution has never set out to prove or disprove the existence of God.

Repeat 100 times.


The problem with many people is that they don't ever give a chance to the possibility that there might just be a God who created this universe rather than just random chance.


Evolution has never set out to prove or disprove the existence of God.

Repeat 100 times.


I have given a chance to the theory of evolution, and it hasn't shown me anything credible.

Actually I don't think you have. Your comments seem more like you have read comments from creationist sites.


And you know, maybe some creationists don't do a very good job at explaining why they believe in intelligent design rather than evolution, but then, I haven't seen any good evidence or reasoning in this thread to prove evolution true either, so apparently you all aren't representing your beliefs very well either.

Ahh the evolution is a religion analogy. :rolleyes:

The IDers don't present a good argument. They basically argue we need to be in the science classroom so debate will happen and things can get sorted out.


Here are a couple of links for creation evidence:
http://www.drcarlbaugh.org/
http://www.creationevidence.org/

I haven't thoroughly looked through them, but what I've seen is very good.

Later,

Actually they are pretty weak.

Homo Habalis was a neandertal? :rolleyes: Just call him the Runt Neandertal.

Man lived with the dinosaur? :rolleyes:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html

Also, He has a PhD in Education. Impressive but considering his claims, it should be in biology, archeology, anthropology,......

I'm going to have the sense to post only one post on this thread, but I have to put in something.

Probability is evolutions biggest flaw, and really not just evolution, but everything that leads up to it and after. I would honestly say that the odds of the entire universe exploding with the big bang or whatever origin of the universe you people believe in how the earth and our solar system was formed, just happened to create a planet that happened to have just the right kind of distance away from a star to keep it warm but not burn it up and be able to sustain life, just happened to have enough of a correct atmosphere to be life-sustaining, just happened to have the essential degree of tilt in its position from the sun so not to have other problems that would not allow life to exist, and then on top of that have all the ingredients necessary to have life somehow create itself and multiply instead of dieing in what were probably harsh conditions considering there was nothing but water and land and the atmosphere. Somehow life just appeared. Hmm, I personally didn't think it was in the scientific method to just guess at a question like how did life begin and then just accept it as fact as many of you all have. We haven't figured out what combination of chemicals or what situation might have caused life to appear, and extensive research in chemistry and biology haven't come up with any tangible credible theories. If you think about it, a planet covered with nothing but gases in the atmosphere, water and land, no organic material of any kind, because there was no life at all, and somehow life appeared. How many different chemicals get thrown together at the same time when in nature with no external factors such as any kind of organism, and then for just the right chemicals to be thrown together to create life, and sustain it without that small single-celled organism dieing. And then that life-form multiplies, and then eventually evolves into other types of beings.

Then there are other things. There are creatures that are complicated enough in design that it would be very far fetched to say that they just simply evolved from lesser beings. As an example, a woodpecker has several very distinct features that would be really hard to just happen by random chance and the woodpecker to survive and become what they are today. A woodpecker has a very strong beak for one, so that it can withstand the blows that it takes when the bird is digging into a tree. It also has a very solid skull so that the skull doesn't just crush itself in the first time a woodpecker tries to dig into a tree. Another handy little feature that they have is that their tongue, which I forget all the details of, is different in such a way as to be very much specialized in pulling things out of a hole in bark, like worms or whatever they eat. There were other examples also, but just this one creature being very unique and complicated in itself makes evolution seem inadequate to answer all questions about life around us.

Probability in humans: I'm quoting this from a book I have. (the numbers with smaller numbers after them, the smaller ones are supposed to be superscript, but either you can't superscript them, or I don't know how, sorry.)

"Let's say you had a cup with twenty dice, each labeled with a letter of the alphabet (a, b, c, etc.), and you wanted to roll the dice and have them come out in alphabetical order. The chance of this occurring is 1 in 2.4 x 1018!1 And that is for only twenty things to occur in order. We have 206 bones in our body; how long would they take to appear in order? For 200 things to occur in order, the probability is 1 in 10375. Mathematicians say that anything over 1050 is absolutely impossible."

Mathematics actually does point out that evolution is highly improbable to have occurred. The design of human beings is just much too complicated to have been done by chance. If 1050 is impossible, then 10375 is extremely impossible.

The way I see it, it takes less faith to believe that God created the world by intelligent-design, whether it was through evolution or 6 day creation, than how much faith it takes to believe in evolution springing life from absolutely nothing, and evolving into beings as complicated as ourselves. God is a more likely answer. And I haven't even mentioned things such as the fossil record, and many other things that do not prove evolution as correct.

I've had my say on this subject, have fun with it, I'm sure many of you won't care (if you read this at all), and maybe some of you will open your eyes to other possibilities. I can't and won't say that there isn't some really amazing chance that evolution is true, but if it were even proven to be true, I believe that it would have to have been by some really amazing miracle of God for evolution to have happened, because the odds of mathematics and logic are against it.

The problem with many people is that they don't ever give a chance to the possibility that there might just be a God who created this universe rather than just random chance. I have given a chance to the theory of evolution, and it hasn't shown me anything credible. And you know, maybe some creationists don't do a very good job at explaining why they believe in intelligent design rather than evolution, but then, I haven't seen any good evidence or reasoning in this thread to prove evolution true either, so apparently you all aren't representing your beliefs very well either.

Here are a couple of links for creation evidence:
http://www.drcarlbaugh.org/
http://www.creationevidence.org/

I haven't thoroughly looked through them, but what I've seen is very good.

Later,

I'll try to address a few of your points here.

1. First, you've slipped into the (very common) error of assuming that the theory of evolution has anything to do with the origins of the universe. It doesn't. Whatever you may think of the Big Bang theory and of the current theories of abiogenesis, even if they were all totally and completely wrong, that still wouldn't in any way invalidate the theory of evolution.

2. Second, addressing your probability issue - the thing with probability is that, given infinite time and/or infinite chances, pretty much anything can happen. It is very, very unlikely that if you pick up a penny right now and flip it, it will come up heads 25 times in a row. However, if you flipped ten million pennies ten million times, the odds that at some point one of them will come up heads 25 times in a row become much, much better. There are a LOT of planets in the universe. The odds that any specific one of them would have the conditions necessary for life are pretty poor, but the odds that any of them would have the conditions necessary for life are quite good.

In the same way, many people seem to fall into the fallacy of thinking that life had to come from non-life on the first try or not at all. It only had to succeed once - it doesn't matter at all whether that success came upon the first interaction of molecules on this planet or the 9.9*10^1000th such interaction, as long as it happened - and the odds of something useful happening, given billions of years in which to do so, aren't bad at all.

3. Your woodpecker example, I'm afraid, is much better evidence for evolution and natural selection than against it. Woodpeckers are supremely well-adapted to their odd little niche. Imagine for a moment that you are a bird in an envronment where there is little food available except for bugs hiding under bark. The less long and pointy your beak, the less food you're going to be able to access, and the more likely you are to starve to death before mating and producing offspring. Thus, the population would gradually shift in the direction of increasingly pointy-beaked birds, and the stubby-beaks would eventually cease to be - leaving a species of birds with oddly pointy beaks, unlike any birds which evolved in environments with loads of non-hidden food. This is entirely the opposite of "random chance," a concept which has little to do with evolution as we know it.

4. Incidentally, it should be noted that evolution is not, as you suggest, a process of deriving superior species from inferior ones. Evolution has no direction or goal. A woodpecker is not "superior" to, for example, a robin - it's just better at surviving in one particular ecological niche, just as the robin is better at surviving within its own niche. Environments change, and organisms must necessarily change alongside them.

5. This bears repeating - evolution /= random chance. At all. Without meaning to be patronizing here, I honestly suggest finding a basic biology textbook and reading it if there is any confusion over this point.

6. And one last thing which too many people seem to ignore - unless you're an absolute Biblical literalist and YEC, the idea of a Creator God and evolution are not incompatible. Understanding and accepting evolution as as much of a scientific fact as, say, gravity (which it is) does not make you an athiest or anything remotely close to it. Evolution has diddly-squat to do with religion, and the fact that it persistantly becomes a religious issue drives me nuts. You can believe in God and in Darwin at the same time without either of them vanishing in a puff of logic - I promise! :)

Not that I'm a creationist but some of the creature you mention fit into the system well and perform the function of food or predator, or some other function in the whole Ghian world. As to two headed snakes, wow! Wonder! makes you think! could be it's function.
And it is every ones job to try and disprove a theory, by doing so and failing goes to strengthen the theory.

Well that is a tad simplistic to say that were designed to be food.

In the matter of the two-headed snake, the keeper I questioned said it is an odity and they rarely survive in the wild. If they were "designed" then there would be more of them.

The same for the white aligator that I saw. The person that traveled with it(they were found in Lousiana) said it's an uncommon mutation and they do not survive in the wild.

So to the matters at hand, the problem is the fact ID simply explains things as "God designed it that way" Faith based arguements = bad science.

A general point...

I had an intense religious up bringing, including no small amount of bible study. I believe in a higher power, I believe there are things beyond our ability to understand.

That said, I am (in all practical terms for this discussion) a scientist.

However, the one ID/Creationist thing really bugs me is this; ID/Creationism is fundamentally founded on the concept of God. While it needn't be (although I believe it almost exclusively is) a christian concept, it does seem to rely heavily on Biblical concepts of creation (and yes, many of these creation myths/stories do predate most cultures and pervade many non-judeo-christian cultures in one form or another).

While I suppose I should provide scriptoral references to really make my point, those who know will see the point regardless.

Ready? Here's my point.

The bible has some /very/ specific things to be said about how people should view God and Jesus. It also has some very specific things to say about proof and those who demand proof that God exists. It also says a whole lot about 'believing' and 'having faith' in Gods plan.
Thus, unless I'm missing something very specific, religion and God in general, is an exercise in faith and belief, not in facts and absolutes. The whole point of the divine plan is that we trust to faith and live our lives without knowing for certain that salvation/eternal life/whatever reward is going to be waiting for us. We're good people not for what we /know/ we will get for our actions, but for what we believe we will receive, and ultimatley because its the right way to live your life.
Thus, no one who truly has faith, no one who belives in God can stand their ground and demand with a certainty that anything divine is /true/. They can believe that is it true, and they may feel with all their heart that the universe can be no other way. But that is also the path of faith... that each of us has to find it on our own. Blind faith in God is one thing, but taking one persons faith and retelling it as /fact/ to another is quite the deceit.
Faith is useless if we do not come by it ourselves.
Anyway, this leaves us with the point that... regardless of what you choose to believe, Faith is not something that can be taught. You may have faith in a God that guided the world into being. But /by design/ faith cannot lead to knowledge. With knowledge their is no faith. If you /know for a fact/ that God exists you have no need of faith. You are not tested every day, you do not have to prove yourself because that knowledge will carry you through your life.
Science, however, (and to paraphrase Newton) growth by standing on the shoulders of giants. No one person can visualise something from start to finish. Science literally /is/ evolution. The fitest theories survive. Faith, is something you have to come to on your own. Yes, someone may guide you into unlocking your faith, but you can't be given faith.

Ok, I admit I've probably meandered alot and not made a clear point. But here it is a succinctly as I can:

ID/Creationism cannot be taught as fact or even philosophy because it is fundamentally grounded in Faith. And faith cannot ever be taught.
There is no harm in teaching the science of evolution, because if someone has faith they will no be blinded by something else they have been taught. They will come to these ideas themselves, they will look for God's part in the growth of this world. Religion has no place on a compulsory curriculum.

Very well said.

Originally Posted by Avika
Edit: prepare for a bashing from evolutionists. They often can't deal with the fact that they might be wrong. After all, they demand evidence of god, yet believe in evolution even though it is based on tests that have a slight chance of giving false readings.

Those who believe in creationism (GOD) can not deal with the fact that there is nothing beyond death. Once your dead your dead.

Just because there is no definitve proof of evolution does not mean it does not exist, and let me guess you believe earth is still flat?

I am so glad I am out of school now so I do not have to have this ID shit shoved down my throat.

Originally Posted by Gymoor II The Return
The Devil is a mutated angel.
GOD fucked up again.

too much shit to wade through I'm done.

Well that is a tad simplistic to say that were designed to be food.

In the matter of the two-headed snake, the keeper I questioned said it is an odity and they rarely survive in the wild. If they were "designed" then there would be more of them.

The same for the white aligator that I saw. The person that traveled with it(they were found in Lousiana) said it's an uncommon mutation and they do not survive in the wild.

So to the matters at hand, the problem is the fact ID simply explains things as "God designed it that way" Faith based arguements = bad science.
No this just indicates you don't understand the reason, not that there is none. Is this not the basis of scientific argument, that there is a rational explaination that we do not yet understand?
I agree that creationist who argue that at point A there is nothing and point B we have all we have today cannot explain all the evidence that current science provides for evolution (at least not to my satisfaction). However there is a lot of ground between the two extremes.
As with evolution, the fact that a person does not have the knowledge or the words to expalin it to some one else does not make the theory invalid. And if God exists and he expalined how he created everything is it an unreasonable thought that to convey the message it was simlified?
As I say I am not a creationist but do not feel the need to validate my ideas by trashing thiers.
If there is a divine being, then how could we possibly understand what 'his' thoughts are and how his mind works, unless we have some huge superiority complex?
So I'll stick with evolution for now but with an eye and ear out for any other theory that suits the facts better.

Those who believe in creationism (GOD) can not deal with the fact that there is nothing beyond death. Once your dead your dead.

Just because there is no definitve proof of evolution does not mean it does not exist, and let me guess you believe earth is still flat?

I am so glad I am out of school now so I do not have to have this ID shit shoved down my throat.


GOD fucked up again.

too much shit to wade through I'm done.
Just because there is no definite proof of life after death it does not mean it does not exist. Or do your ideas not work in the reverse?
And you know that the devil was a mistake? There was no design there?
Funny how you can know so much and say others know so little.

No this just indicates you don't understand the reason, not that there is none. Is this not the basis of scientific argument, that there is a rational explaination that we do not yet understand?
I agree that creationist who argue that at point A there is nothing and point B we have all we have today cannot explain all the evidence that current science provides for evolution (at least not to my satisfaction). However there is a lot of ground between the two extremes.

Ok maybe it's just late for me but I don't think we are arguing the same thing.

No credible scientist will claim he knows everything or that everything is known.

If you are seeking the truth then don't look at science. It doesn't define the truth. It only attempts to explain.


As with evolution, the fact that a person does not have the knowledge or the words to expalin it to some one else does not make the theory invalid.

True. But when the evidence is based on taking things on faith, that does make it invalid.


And if God exists and he expalined how he created everything is it an unreasonable thought that to convey the message it was simlified?
As I say I am not a creationist but do not feel the need to validate my ideas by trashing thiers.


Ahhh you are not in the science field. Scientists trash each other all the time.

If you offer a theory, there will be 100 of them screaming "What the hell are you talking about? Such garbage means you must of gotten your degree from *insert hated school*" :D


If there is a divine being, then how could we possibly understand what 'his' thoughts are and how his mind works, unless we have some huge superiority complex?
So I'll stick with evolution for now but with an eye and ear out for any other theory that suits the facts better.

A divine being is excluded for the simple reason of how do you test for him?

Evolution has never set out to prove or disprove the existence of God.

Evolution hasn't defined creation. That is something else.

Evolution isn't perfect and no "credible" scientist would suggest it is. Even people that defend it argue over aspects of it.

[alot of stuff about probability]

And here's the problem with this whole line of attack on evolution. We exist. The world exists. The universe exists. So the *actual* probability is 1. And mathematician who tells you otherwise is probably not really a mathematician or not thought about it. Probability tells you the likelyhood of somthing happening, but once it *has* happened the probability resolves itself to 1.

The high probabilty arguement doesnt work as even if you excepted there was a designer who created everything in the world, why did he choose the designs he chose?

Just because there is no definite proof of life after death it does not mean it does not exist. Or do your ideas not work in the reverse?

Actually they do.

However, since you can't test that it's existence, that question is philisophical and well it doesn't have anything to do with evolution.

Ok maybe it's just late for me but I don't think we are arguing the same thing.

No credible scientist will claim he knows everything or that everything is known.

If you are seeking the truth then don't look at science. It doesn't define the truth. It only attempts to explain.


True. But when the evidence is based on taking things on faith, that does make it invalid.



Ahhh you are not in the science field. Scientists trash each other all the time.

If you offer a theory, there will be 100 of them screaming "What the hell are you talking about? Such garbage means you must of gotten your degree from *insert hated school*" :D



A divine being is excluded for the simple reason of how do you test for him?

Evolution has never set out to prove or disprove the existence of God.

Evolution hasn't defined creation. That is something else.

Evolution isn't perfect and no "credible" scientist would suggest it is. Even people that defend it argue over aspects of it.
I agree with all you say, I only argue against those that state evolution is a good idea so all others must be wrong.
Because we can't test for something or detect it does not mean it does not exist, hence many of the questionable sub atomic particles we have names for.

And here's the problem with this whole line of attack on evolution. We exist. The world exists. The universe exists. So the *actual* probability is 1. And mathematician who tells you otherwise is probably not really a mathematician or not thought about it. Probability tells you the likelyhood of somthing happening, but once it *has* happened the probability resolves itself to 1.

The high probabilty arguement doesnt work as even if you excepted there was a designer who created everything in the world, why did he choose the designs he chose?
No. It is not. It does not define, explain or touch on how that probability came to pass.

Actually they do.

However, since you can't test that it's existence, that question is philisophical and well it doesn't have anything to do with evolution.

You're right it doesn't have anything to do with evolution. But it's not true that it doesn't exist because you can't test its existence. Existence is objective. Testing existence is subjective.

I agree with all you say, I only argue against those that state evolution is a good idea so all others must be wrong.
Because we can't test for something or detect it does not mean it does not exist, hence many of the questionable sub atomic particles we have names for.

Ahh but there was evidence to suggest something is there.

For example, Rutherford's experiment with alpha particles and gold foil led to the discovery of the protons. From his experiements, He theorised atoms were made up of a cloud of electrons surrounding a very small positive nucleus.

We take it on faith there is a divine creator, we can't prove it and there isn't a test to offer evidence something is there.

You're right it doesn't have anything to do with evolution. But it's not true that it doesn't exist because you can't test its existence. Existence is objective. Testing existence is subjective.

Ahh but you have to understand that science doesn't deal in truth. It deals with explanation.

Since you can't test, it doesn't mean it doesn exist. It doesn't mean it exists. It's a question that is not asked in science. It's asked in Religion.

Again evolution has never set out to prove or disprove the existence of God.

Ahh but you have to understand that science doesn't deal in truth. It deals with explanation.

Since you can't test, it doesn't mean it doesn exist. It doesn't mean it exists. It's a question that is not asked in science. It's asked in Religion.

Again evolution has never set out to prove or disprove the existence of God.

That's true. That is why I never take either science nor religion as a supreme form of knowledge. Neither of them explains everything.

.

"Let's say you had a cup with twenty dice, each labeled with a letter of the alphabet (a, b, c, etc.), and you wanted to roll the dice and have them come out in alphabetical order. The chance of this occurring is 1 in 2.4 x 1018!1 And that is for only twenty things to occur in order. We have 206 bones in our body; how long would they take to appear in order? For 200 things to occur in order, the probability is 1 in 10375. Mathematicians say that anything over 1050 is absolutely impossible."

Mathematics actually does point out that evolution is highly improbable to have occurred. The design of human beings is just much too complicated to have been done by chance. If 1050 is impossible, then 10375 is extremely impossible.



The bones in our body were not somehow existent and rearanged from generation to generation until they were placed in the right order. To make it simple, early ancestors of us only possed a chorda. During the following generatons, this structure calcified and a spine was formed, making the chorda superfluous. The whole rest of bones was most probably developed later, but by having a kind of basic anatomy, additional bones won't develop wholy randomly but by the dictate of this anatomy. ( Don't know to express it better)

The bones in our body were not somehow existent and rearanged from generation to generation until they were placed in the right order. To make it simple, early ancestors of us only possed a chorda. During the following generatons, this structure calcified and a spine was formed, making the chorda superfluous. The whole rest of bones was most probably developed later, but by having a kind of basic anatomy, additional bones won't develop wholy randomly but by the dictate of this anatomy. ( Don't know to express it better)

Yeah, bones are an excellent example to support evolution. When you look at bones all over the animal kingdom they have the same basic structure, distorted into a huge number of variations. Some animals have vestigial bones that they have no use for. This is exactly what you would expect if all animals diverged from a single beginning, but would be a ridiculous way to design such a varied range of animals whole.

The bones in our body were not somehow existent and rearanged from generation to generation until they were placed in the right order. To make it simple, early ancestors of us only possed a chorda. During the following generatons, this structure calcified and a spine was formed, making the chorda superfluous. The whole rest of bones was most probably developed later, but by having a kind of basic anatomy, additional bones won't develop wholy randomly but by the dictate of this anatomy. ( Don't know to express it better)

You've answered the question "how". Can you answer the question "why"? I mean, things live perfectly without bone structures. Why did bone structures evolve? Which evolved first? Bones or muscles? Because they are both very dependent on each other. Without muscles bones wouldn't be able to stand, but without bones muscles wouldn't be able to move.

Yeah, bones are an excellent example to support evolution. When you look at bones all over the animal kingdom they have the same basic structure, distorted into a huge number of variations. Some animals have vestigial bones that they have no use for. This is exactly what you would expect if all animals diverged from a single beginning, but would be a ridiculous way to design such a varied range of animals whole.
No if you were designing something and found it worked you may keep to the same basic design. Then throw in the odd experiment, snails, jelly fish etc.
Yes it does support evolution but it can be twisted to support design also.

Yeah, bones are an excellent example to support evolution. When you look at bones all over the animal kingdom they have the same basic structure, distorted into a huge number of variations. Some animals have vestigial bones that they have no use for. This is exactly what you would expect if all animals diverged from a single beginning, but would be a ridiculous way to design such a varied range of animals whole.

No. If we are all designed by the same creator the designs would be similar, no? Also the same beginning, but of a different sort.

I'll also bring my argument from the other thread in:

How can human desire have evolved? Evolution is about survival, but a lot of our current desires aren't about survival, for example, spreading butter and jam on bread to make them tastier.

No if you were designing something and found it worked you may keep to the same basic design. Then throw in the odd experiment, snails, jelly fish etc.
Yes it does support evolution but it can be twisted to support design also.

But vestigial bones? Dolphins (or at least some dolphins, I'm not exactly sure) still have small stubs of bone where a hind leg would have been, which is very definitely providing no benefit at all. It's actually a slight disadvantage, as the bodies resources are wasted on growing them. From the point of view of a designer, this would be incompetant, while from the point of view of evolution, these bones are a small enough disadvantage not to disappear completely.

I'll also bring my argument from the other thread in:

How can human desire have evolved? Evolution is about survival, but a lot of our current desires aren't about survival, for example, spreading butter and jam on bread to make them tastier.

Because tasty things in nature tend to be more nutritious (compare fruit and mud). So the human-predecessors whose senses, by evolutionary mishap, make more nutritious things seem tastier eat more of them and survive more, outlasting those whose senses lead them to eat crap. Therefore nowadays we go after the pleasant experience of the taste alone.

Because tasty things in nature tend to be more nutritious (compare fruit and mud). So the human-predecessors whose senses, by evolutionary mishap, make more nutritious things seem tastier eat more of them and survive more, outlasting those whose senses lead them to eat crap.

So what's the difference between your idea of Creationism and Evolution in that sense that "things just banged into existence"?

But vestigial bones? Dolphins (or at least some dolphins, I'm not exactly sure) still have small stubs of bone where a hind leg would have been, which is very definitely providing no benefit at all. It's actually a slight disadvantage, as the bodies resources are wasted on growing them. From the point of view of a designer, this would be incompetant, while from the point of view of evolution, these bones are a small enough disadvantage not to disappear completely.
Only if the point of design was to produce a perfect creature.
Only playing devils' advocate here mind you.

So what's the difference between your idea of Creationism and Evolution in that sense that "things just banged into existence"?

I don't follow. In evolution it took millions and millions of years for these things to develop.

But vestigial bones? Dolphins (or at least some dolphins, I'm not exactly sure) still have small stubs of bone where a hind leg would have been, which is very definitely providing no benefit at all. It's actually a slight disadvantage, as the bodies resources are wasted on growing them. From the point of view of a designer, this would be incompetant, while from the point of view of evolution, these bones are a small enough disadvantage not to disappear completely.

In other words, the vestigial bones should have disappeared by now, according to evolution, because they are "slight disadvantages". But no. For every generation of dolphins the vestigial bones exist, and for the dolphins that don't, we call them "abnormal", and they usually are more disadvantaged than other dolphins that have the vestigial bones.

Coming to think of it, we call organisms with mutated genes "abnormal", even if they have another arm (which usually inhibits their movement further). Anyway, to evolutionists, what's "normal"? How do we classify organisms if every generation is different than the previous one?

In other words, the vestigial bones should have disappeared by now, according to evolution, because they are "slight disadvantages". But no. For every generation of dolphins the vestigial bones exist, and for the dolphins that don't, we call them "abnormal", and they usually are more disadvantaged than other dolphins that have the vestigial bones.

Evolution hasn't finished working yet. The vestigial bones will probably get even smaller over generations and eventually disappear. But it takes a very long time.
And let's not get too buried in semantics while we're here.

It's quite ironic that people can't accept evolution because they aren't able to adapt.

Thank you, the ultra conservativism of the creationists are what held the world back and devolved solciety into the dark ages, and the same again is happening because it challenges you and your faith rather than us godless science believers (apart from a few string theorist extremeists) I am all for the growth of the species both genetically and intellectually, have a search on my posts in another creationist thread and you can read up on my witnessed evolution and the rather pointless arguments that questioned it.

mutate and survive peoples.

I'll also bring my argument from the other thread in:

How can human desire have evolved? Evolution is about survival, but a lot of our current desires aren't about survival, for example, spreading butter and jam on bread to make them tastier.

Evolution is often about by-products, or 'unintended' results. While nothing is intentional in evolutionary theory, often a feature evolves because of one type of pressure and turns out to provide a different benefit. I'd give an example if I knew where my textbook was...

I see almost evry aspect of modern human existence as a by-product of us evolving complex brains. At first it might have just helped communication, hunting and simple social structures, but we have developed culture and a lot of attributes that have nothing to do with evolution.

To put it quite simply:

There is too much circumstantial evidence to deny Evolution entirely, even though there are a few gaps in the theory, like any scientific theory. Not too long ago, electronics was an inexact science. Now then, what are you looking at and using right now???

Religious "Fundamentalists" (as in, "Extremists") need to stop looking with such a narrow literal definition towards Scripture. When Darwin's book was printed, churches everywhere organized book-burnings of Darwin's work. The only other mass book-burning I know of was also caused by another narrow-minded and somewhat misled people in the 1930s...

What he said ^

Evolution hasn't finished working yet. The vestigial bones will probably get even smaller over generations and eventually disappear. But it takes a very long time.
And let's not get too buried in semantics while we're here.

In other words, it can't be proven?

It's not semantics. It's the reality.

Evolution is often about by-products, or 'unintended' results. While nothing is intentional in evolutionary theory, often a feature evolves because of one type of pressure and turns out to provide a different benefit. I'd give an example if I knew where my textbook was...

I see almost evry aspect of modern human existence as a by-product of us evolving complex brains. At first it might have just helped communication, hunting and simple social structures, but we have developed culture and a lot of attributes that have nothing to do with evolution.

And just the right by-products for us to enjoy our life immensely. How many by-products would that take? And how exact and specific? By-products can be detrimental too. What happened to them?

Thank you, the ultra conservativism of the creationists are what held the world back and devolved solciety into the dark ages, and the same again is happening because it challenges you and your faith rather than us godless science believers (apart from a few string theorist extremeists) I am all for the growth of the species both genetically and intellectually, have a search on my posts in another creationist thread and you can read up on my witnessed evolution and the rather pointless arguments that questioned it.

mutate and survive peoples.

How old are you? You saw the ape turn into a human?

In other words, it can't be proven?

Oh, so it's like your supposed God and his creationism then?

I'll also bring my argument from the other thread in:

How can human desire have evolved? Evolution is about survival, but a lot of our current desires aren't about survival, for example, spreading butter and jam on bread to make them tastier.

(Also imported from the other thread)

Export this back to your "caveman" scenario. Is it simply coincidential that cooked foods are both tastier and safer to eat?

I direct you to http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopics/cooking/:

Cooked food is easier to digest, safer to store, and was the most effective way of introducing complex proteins into early human's diet. This was a crucial constituent for fuelling Homo sapiens' growing mental power, with modern humans finally emerging 100,000 years ago.

So is it just coincidential that healthy foods mostly taste good and unhealthy foods taste bad?

The problem is that the definitions of "healthy" and "unhealthy" food has changed with our society. Unfortunately, society changes much faster than human nature, which means that our bodies are still programmed with prehistoric standards. A long time ago, foods with high energy values, i.e. high in sugar and fat, were preferential because the supply of food was limited; you never knew when your next meal would come along. That nature still remains today.

However, in our society where food is abundent, a constant supply of foods containing high amounts of energy has thrown off the natural process. We still enjoy sugary treats and fatty burgers with fries because we're programmed to do so, but it's not good for us because there's so much of it.

You can't mix up cause and effect; food is not delicious for our enjoyment's sake. We perceive food as tasty because we need it to survive.

Oh, so it's like your supposed God and his creationism then?

Sort of, but in a difference sense. God, apart from being the Creator of the Universe, is also my God, which means that He has been proven for me. Evolution doesn't overlap into the "personal experience" category, so it can't be proven solidly (i.e. nobody can reproduce the beginning of life with evolution) by either empirical evidence or personal experience.

And just the right by-products for us to enjoy our life immensely. How many by-products would that take? And how exact and specific? By-products can be detrimental too. What happened to them?

There's the huge range of mental illnesses and neurological problems that can impede our quality of life. Having such a complx brain makes us more vulnerable to these.

Our culture is a big by-product, and has positive and negative aspects. We've developed methods of killing each other far too fast to evolve inhibitions against actually using them, while in nature conflict between powerful predators is often mostly noise with little violence. I think we're better off with intelligence and culture but there are many downsides.

Sort of, but in a difference sense. God, apart from being the Creator of the Universe, is also my God, which means that He has been proven for me. Evolution doesn't overlap into the "personal experience" category, so it can't be proven solidly (i.e. nobody can reproduce the beginning of life with evolution) by either empirical evidence or personal experience.

Repeat after me: Evolution does not even try to explain the beginning of life. Evolution explains the diversification of life after it started. At least understand the basics of something before you try to argue about it.

This has been stated several times by several people, and your inability to grasp it kinda weakens your position.

Sort of, but in a difference sense. God, apart from being the Creator of the Universe, is also my God, which means that He has been proven for me. Evolution doesn't overlap into the "personal experience" category, so it can't be proven solidly (i.e. nobody can reproduce the beginning of life with evolution) by either empirical evidence or personal experience.

Look mate, what you personally BELIEVE is totally irrelevant. It's not any proof in any sense at all. I could believe in invisible smurfs and that still wouldn't make it true. Besides, mentally retarded (sorry if that is a politically incorrect word) people believe loads of stuff, like they're the messiah, meatballs on wheels or any other stupid thing...still doesn't make it true does it? And if we're going to make anything any person believes is true really true then it's going to be a whacky world we live in.

You go on and believe in your God and stuff but don't be a rude bastard and disregard evolution, which I myself BELIEVE in. By your own standards that is enough to make it true. Besides, emipirical evidence isn't interesting is it? After all you have zero in that department when it comes to your god.

I've been reading this thread for a few days now, and one thing that stands out is how the creationists ask the questions, get replys and then disappear before or dodge questions address to them. There is no talk about how points made have affected their beliefs. They provide evidense for ID or creationism, and then forget it when it is turned against them. Most mysterious.

Repeat after me: Evolution does not even try to explain the beginning of life. Evolution explains the diversification of life after it started. At least understand the basics of something before you try to argue about it.

This has been stated several times by several people, and your inability to grasp it kinda weakens your position.

You need to incorporate everything into explaining anything. It's called "taking account into". If the beginning of life was as the Bible stated it then evolution wouldn't even become a topic. If it is true what you say then why is there such a fierce debate between Evolution and Creation? You need to look at the wider picture when discussing Evolution and Creation. It is why it is such a fierce and, really, fun debate.

Evolution! Sounds plausible? Right? Well, How do you explain the origin of such complex organs like the eye? What about the gaps in the fossil record and sheer lack of fossils in the the Precambrain era? It can be mathematically proven that natural selection and chance mutations cannot lead to such biological innovations. Clearly this can be logically explained that some designer - call him God - at certain intervals helped evolution along. Clearly Intelligent Design makes a lot of sense?

Well, Intelligent Design is flat-out wrong and not accepted by credible scientists. If there are two schools of thought one is held by scientsists and the other by religious nut-jobs.

Development of complex organs can be explained because Evolution by natural selection is not by chance. Evolution is a theory of gradual, incremental change, eventually achieving greater complexity. Lets take the eye as an example! An organism eventually develops light sensitive cells. these light sensitive cells, help it notice changing light and therefore when a predator is approaching. Well, it evades the predators long enough to pass its genes to it children who inherit the light sensitive cells. After many generations, as organisms who lack said cells have a lower chance of passing on their genes die out, what we know as the Eye develops. I can also explain the giraffes long necks: only the ones who were able to reach the leaves on the tree were able to pass on their genes. Intelligent Design, in fact, removes the origin of complexity.

Lack of fossils in Precambrian Era? Why would their be?

As for the gaps in the fossil record, do detectives have to account for every second of a crime based on what they found on the scene to prove that it exists? Also scientists use the genetic code to back up evolution.

But what about everyone's good friend Math? Well, do we really have the information to guess the probability of the development of an eye? Also, Evolution, while random mutations do play a part, mostly relies on natural selection.

As a final note, Evolution did not seek to explain the origin of life, but rather to explain the origin of the variety of species on earth. In no way does science produce evidence against God. To quote Martin Nowak, a Harvard proffessor of mathematics, "Science and religion ask different questions."

If you knew anything about probability, you would know that in "almost" infinite time (thousands of millions of years), anything can happen, no matter what.

Besides, there's much more evidence for evolution than for "intelligent design". Intelligent design is just a way to make things lazy. "I don't know what happened, so SOMEONE must have done it ;)!". Putz.

"As for the gaps in the fossil record", you think THAT is proof AGAINST evolution? The only thing that proves is that several paths of evolution could have been taken. Why does the whole scientific community accept evolution anyway? Are they nut-jobs that just want to contradict god?


"In no way does science produce evidence against God", you don't need science, asshole, you need logic. Maybe he created the singularity and he is out of the bounds of logic, but assuming he isn't:

"God doesn't exist, PROOF:

God exists: Therefore (by definition), God is good and God is perfect. God is everything and everything is god. Then, everything is good, and everything is perfect.


Breviary:

Humans body isn't "intelligently designed" and therefore it isn't perfect. Neither many animals. If we're perfect, how come we make so many mistakes? And animals too? Or how come plants can't even move? There are many imperfections. Then:


Some things are not perfect. But some things are not perfect and everything is perfect is a contradiction. Therefore, god isn't good or god isn't perfect. But that contradicts his existence, therefore, GOD DOESN'T EXIST".

Moron.

You've answered the question "how". Can you answer the question "why"?It's the sole purpose of nature science to ask "how". The question "why" is for philosophy and theology. Also two fine sciences, if they stuck to their subject. I mean, things live perfectly without bone structures. Why did bone structures evolve? There is no purpose of evolution. Which evolved first? Bones or muscles? Muscles. Primitive animals, like plathelmintes, posses muscles but no bones. Because they are both very dependent on each other. Without muscles bones wouldn't be able to stand, but without bones muscles wouldn't be able to move. Clearly no. See above. To ad to your confusion. Muscles need some kind of skeletton, but not nessessarly bones.

How old are you? You saw the ape turn into a human?

Gosh did I see a singular speciation event, no I didn't se the evolution of a primates into other forms, but I have evolved basic yeasts into specialised yeasts for fermenting certain worts for making very tasty by products. which have properties to other yeasts,

so what we have is aadapt and survive for cells that need to exist within a specific set of conditions, which is why I have a Brown ale yeast a pale yeast and a Stout yeasts,

now if you start saying did you evolve the yeast from {insert name of quickly googled non autotrophic plant here} te answer is no, I Designed my yeast strains by selective harvesting and biological mucking around with acidity etc, as such I now have some very specialised cells.

being highly speialised a failure in the colony can be quite catastrophic and can result in me chucking 9 gallons of disgusting liquid away instead of having a firkin of decent ale.

ha ha hahahahah ha ha haa ha ha heheheh

You crazy guys kill me!!