NationStates Jolt Archive

I challenge anyone to post ANY scientific evidence for evolution.

I only have 2 rules:

1) Please, no fossil "evidence." You see, fossils cannont be considered evidence as the only fact that is known about it is ... that it died. You don't know if it had any offspring, and by the way, why would you think that a bone in the dirt could do something that animals today cannot do?

2) Please present no "evidences" that have been previously proven incorrect. I.e., the scientific "belief" that the human embryo retains gill slits. Earnst Haeckel-pardon me if I misspelled his name-Proposed this and faked a set of drawings in the early 1860's. Five years after initially proposing this, his OWN university convicted him of fraud. And he-during his trial-admitted commiting fraud.

Other than that, I will be on tomorrow to respond to any posts.

Define the theory of evolution in at least 75 words. If your definition is accurate, I will respond. If you cut and paste from someone else, please include a summary of the main points so that I know you have read and understand it.

I'll debate your sorry ass, but only if you're worth twenty minutes of my time to write an argument.

--snip--

I'm sorry, the other 500 threads on this topic aren't enough for you? The fact is that f you don't accept evolution now, then you never will, no matter how overwhelming the evidence. Therefore, you are doomed to be wrong forever.

Especially since you clearly didn't post this thread in order to be enlightened. Are you really curious about Evolution, are are you merely just waiting to spring your "surprise!" evidence against it, none of which is scientific and all of which is easily refuted, as it has been dozens of time before?

Guess what, the evidence you're holding in reserve is all crap and we've all seen it before. Don't waste your time.

What will you be arguing next, that the world is flat? That evolution doesn't explain the Big Bang? That the sun orbits around the Earth?

Evolution is an established scientific theory. The only things yet to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt are the minute details. The problem isn't with Evolution, it's with you. Since the problem is with you, then the scientific evidence we present will fail to have any effect.

Move along people, nothing to see here.

Just for convenience sake, here's a forum search on "evolution."

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/search.php?searchid=380194

If this is about promoting intelligent design there is only one question that needs to be asked: Is God falsifiable?

Of course we know the answer is no, thus proving the point that ID is not science, it is creationism repackaged with pseudoscientific words. I agree with the poster before, describe evolution in 75 words.

I challenge anyone to post ANY scientific evidence for evolution.

I only have 2 rules:

1) Please, no fossil "evidence." You see, fossils cannont be considered evidence as the only fact that is known about it is ... that it died. You don't know if it had any offspring, and by the way, why would you think that a bone in the dirt could do something that animals today cannot do?

2) Please present no "evidences" that have been previously proven incorrect. I.e., the scientific "belief" that the human embryo retains gill slits. Earnst Haeckel-pardon me if I misspelled his name-Proposed this and faked a set of drawings in the early 1860's. Five years after initially proposing this, his OWN university convicted him of fraud. And he-during his trial-admitted commiting fraud.

Other than that, I will be on tomorrow to respond to any posts.

Tomorrow won't cut it in NationStates. Posting when you aren't around to answer within 5 hours is sniping, here, since there are so many posters and so few pages.

1: Ignoring this for now.
2: Thank you for pointing out the #1 fact why science is the best answer for determining the truth: the "error-correcting machenery" to qoute Dr. Sagan, is already in place in the system, and it works constantly to root out falsehoods. How many false claims of scientists have been refuted by other scientists, compared to all the other refutations of false claims? Five years after initially proposing this, his OWN university convicted him of fraud. Contrast this to the consepts of blasphemy and heresy in your precious "opposing theory".

I'm sorry, the other 500 threads on this topic aren't enough for you? The fact is that f you don't accept evolution now, then you never will, no matter how overwhelming the evidence. Therefore, you are doomed to be wrong forever.

Especially since you clearly didn't post this thread in order to be enlightened. Are you really curious about Evolution, are are you merely just waiting to spring your "surprise!" evidence against it, none of which is scientific and all of which is easily refuted, as it has been dozens of time before?

Guess what, the evidence you're holding in reserve is all crap and we've all seen it before. Don't waste your time.

What will you be arguing next, that the world is flat? That evolution doesn't explain the Big Bang? That the sun orbits around the Earth?

Evolution is an established scientific theory. The only things yet to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt are the minute details. The problem isn't with Evolution, it's with you. Since the problem is with you, then the scientific evidence we present will fail to have any effect.

Move along people, nothing to see here.

Just for convenience sake, here's a forum search on "evolution."

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/search.php?searchid=380194




50-billion assumptions, no answers? :confused:

Honestly, I don’t know why people care if somebody else is a creationist or an evolutionist. How does it adversely effect an evolutionist if I believe that the Earth is a little over 6,000 years old? I know it doesn’t effect me that evolutionists believe it’s 4.5-4.6 Billion years old.

Tomorrow won't cut it in NationStates. Posting when you aren't around to answer within 5 hours is sniping, here, since there are so many posters and so few pages.

1: Ignoring this for now.
2: Thank you for pointing out the #1 fact why science is the best answer for determining the truth: the "error-correcting machenery" to qoute Dr. Sagan, is already in place in the system, and it works constantly to root out falsehoods. How many false claims of scientists have been refuted by other scientists, compared to all the other refutations of false claims? Five years after initially proposing this, his OWN university convicted him of fraud. Contrast this to the consepts of blasphemy and heresy in your precious "opposing theory".





Judging by your hateful reaction, it's almost as if you view evolution as a god ;) It seems you have much in common with Christians, eh? :p

I challenge anyone to post ANY scientific evidence for evolution.

I can only suggest that you do not know what evidence means...
have a handy hint (free of charge) - evidence and proof are not synomonous.

50-billion assumptions, no answers? :confused:

The answers have all been given, and I supplied easy access to them. You've been around for all the evolution threads, why the hell do you need to see the same irrefutable evidence again only to dismiss it? What's the point? The only way you'll believe in evolution is if God himself came up to you and says, "yeah, I used evolution. It's true. Why the hell didn't you look at all the evidence I provided in the world?"

Honestly, I don’t know why people care if somebody else is a creationist or an evolutionist. How does it adversely effect an evolutionist if I believe that the Earth is a little over 6,000 years old? I know it doesn’t effect me that evolutionists believe it’s 4.5-4.6 Billion years old.



I honestly don't know, nor do I care, but it's funny how worked up people can get over it :D

Judging by your hateful reaction, it's almost as if you view evolution as a god ;) It seems you have much in common with Christians, eh? :p

Are you going to make an arguement now?

Honestly, I don’t know why people care if somebody else is a creationist or an evolutionist. How does it adversely effect an evolutionist if I believe that the Earth is a little over 6,000 years old? I know it doesn’t effect me that evolutionists believe it’s 4.5-4.6 Billion years old.It doesn't matter...that is until you start to try and change public policy in education or mess with current research and developments in present day science.

I don't think anyone cares if you're a creationist, in fact I think most people believe God (or a supreme being) started the process and evolution is the mechanism. The issue really is that creationists are trying to mess with things like biology classes and other aspects of science, and that will seriously hinder us if they have their way.

I could care less if someone is a diehard YEC, just don't try to impose your ideology on me. If a person has an issue with evolution, then they have a problem with the scientific method and every other theory from gravity, cell theory, relativity, etc.

I honestly don't know, nor do I care, but it's funny how worked up people can get over it :D

If you didn't care, you wouldn't have read past the opening post. The fact that you are still here demonstrates that you care.

Are you going to make an arguement now?



No, I'm not a theologian, nor am I a scientist. I suggest we all shut up and let the professionals do the debating, as our knowledge is very limited compared to theirs :D

Judging by your hateful reaction, it's almost as if you view evolution as a god ;) It seems you have much in common with Christians, eh? :p

Ah, to those who reject evolution, evidence and logic are hateful. I begin to understand. :p

Judging by your hateful reaction, it's almost as if you view evolution as a god ;) It seems you have much in common with Christians, eh? :p

Judging by your trollish reaching, it's almost as you really need some guy to come along and show you just what you've been missing.

By the way, are you ever going to answer my point about why no-sex-til-marriage is an out-moded law in the strain of Leviticus et al?

If you didn't care, you wouldn't have read past the opening post. The fact that you are still here demonstrates that you care.



I just wanted to watch the inevitable rabid hatred from the evolution side. It's as if they were personally punished by the Spanish Inquisition :rolleyes:
Seriously, they do it more than the creationists, and they don't even have a god to defend :confused:

Judging by your hateful reaction, it's almost as if you view evolution as a god ;) It seems you have much in common with Christians, eh? :p
Ok, you got me bemused. I thought you followed Christ who taught love instead of hate, and that your own posts were so seemingly hateful (and utterly lacking in love), because you lacked the ability to realise how hateful your posts make you appear, now I'm wondering if its because you actually have an entirely novel definition of hate, known only to yourself.

Unlike so many of your posts, I see no evidence of hatred in the post you are referring to as hateful... :confused:

No, I'm not a theologian, nor am I a scientist. I suggest we all shut up and let the professionals do the debating, as our knowledge is very limited compared to theirs :D

Nice to hear you say that. Since all the professional scientists agree that evolution is a valid theory, why do you still reject it? It's really that simple.

I honestly don't know, nor do I care, but it's funny how worked up people can get over it :D
I suppose if goading people on in a nonviolent way is how you get your jollies, proceed.
I could care less if someone is a diehard YEC, just don't try to impose your ideology on me. If a person has an issue with evolution, then they have a problem with the scientific method and every other theory from gravity, cell theory, relativity, etc.
I actually do have a problem with the scientific understanding of gravity (Don’t ask, I don’t feel like explaining it right now). I guess Peter Griffon was right when he said “That’s because Christians don’t believe in Gravity.” :p
I wouldn’t ever want to remove evolution from school, though. It is incredibly easy to fake your way through. :D

On a serious note, those that reject evolution (99.9% of them) also reject the scientific method.

Judging by your trollish reaching, it's almost as you really need some guy to come along and show you just what you've been missing.

By the way, are you ever going to answer my point about why no-sex-til-marriage is an out-moded law in the strain of Leviticus et al?



1. You must have a strange definition of trolling then lol.

2. a). Irrelevant
b). What are you talking about? It's stated througout the Bible, but this
isn't even a biblical debate. Here *hands you some popcorn* sit back
and enjoy the show!

Judging by your hateful reaction, it's almost as if you view evolution as a god ;) It seems you have much in common with Christians, eh? :p

No not really, I doubt ignorance is something Feil strives to achive.

Ok, you got me bemused. I thought you followed Christ who taught love instead of hate, and that your own posts were so seemingly hateful (and utterly lacking in love), because you lacked the ability to realise how hateful your posts make you appear, now I'm wondering if its because you actually have an entirely novel definition of hate, known only to yourself.

Unlike so many of your posts, I see no evidence of hatred in the post you are referring to as hateful... :confused:



Ok, that first paragraph needs rewording.

No not really, I doubt ignorance is something Feil strives to achive.



Thanks for proving my point about the pro-evolution side. Hateful and sarcastic through and through.

I just wanted to watch the inevitable rabid hatred from the evolution side. It's as if they were personally punished by the Spanish Inquisition :rolleyes:
Seriously, they do it more than the creationists, and they don't even have a god to defend :confused:

We're not hateful. We just get annoyed when our irrefutable evidence is ignored, and then another stupid thread starts and the same goddam things are said, only to be ignored.

Thanks for proving my point about the pro-evolution side. Hateful and sarcastic through and through.

And your comments are oh-so sunny, my sexy little virgin. :D

by the way, the evolution search is here again.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/search.php?searchid=380194

here it is again

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/search.php?searchid=380194

and again

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/search.php?searchid=380194

one more time, the same exact thing.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/search.php?searchid=380194

how about everyone read all the evolution threads contained therein and report back with any questions?

No More Posts Till Everyone Has Done This, Please

Thanks for proving my point about the pro-evolution side. Hateful and sarcastic through and through.

That's ok sweety.

Ignorant people tend to view others as hateful when their ignorance is pointed out to them.

And your comments are oh-so sunny, my sexy little virgin. :D
*dies laughing*

Nice to hear you say that. Since all the professional scientists agree that evolution is a valid theory, why do you still reject it? It's really that simple.



Everytime I comment in these threads, someone presumes I reject evolution. I hereby propose a theory for this forum: That which is stated or presumed once will inevitably occur again once a certain time has elapsed.

And your comments are oh-so sunny, my sexy little virgin. :D

My dear man you are a twisted individual! ;)

1. You must have a strange definition of trolling then lol.

2. a). Irrelevant
b). What are you talking about? It's stated througout the Bible, but this
isn't even a biblical debate. Here *hands you some popcorn* sit back
and enjoy the show!

Oh, you're gunna be puttin' on a show for me now?

Ain't that sweet. Send it to me in e-mail, I have to go to sleep, concert tomorrow.

That's ok sweety.

Ignorant people tend to view others as hateful when their ignorance is pointed out to them.



Prophecy more, o thou omniscient one :rolleyes:

We're not hateful. We just get annoyed when our irrefutable evidence is ignored, and then another stupid thread starts and the same goddam things are said, only to be ignored.
maybe there's a reason that your "irrefutable" evidence is ignored.

Everytime I comment in these threads, someone presumes I reject evolution. I hereby propose a theory for this forum: That which is stated or presumed once will inevitably occur again once a certain time has elapsed.

Well present arguments rather then judgements and you might find a discussion will happen.

Come on Neo, you can talk without Judging! Do it! You know you can.

maybe there's a reason that your "irrefutable" evidence is ignored.

Ok as in what for example?

I just wanted to watch the inevitable rabid hatred from the evolution side. It's as if they were personally punished by the Spanish Inquisition :rolleyes:
Seriously, they do it more than the creationists, and they don't even have a god to defend :confused:

Let's play a little game.

Imagine you lived in a town where you and about 35% of the population understood that the solar system was heliocentric, and that the universe was composed of trillions of quadrillions of stars, all in galaxies and clusters and arms, on for billions of light years. You have studied closely the findings of the antigeocentrists, and have a reasonable understanding of the theory of universal gravitation, the facts and observations and data, and the scientific method. Looking at the information you have accumulated, you can draw (with the benefit of hindsight) roughly the same conclusions as the antigeocentrists before you did.

Imagine that the rest of the population of that town believed in the Aristotlian model of the universe with the Earth at the center.

"IT'S SO OBVIOUS!" you want to scream. "The universe is so huge, so amazingly comlex! Break out of your stupid little cocoon and experience the wonder of discovery! There is a wealth of knowledge, waiting for the act of reaching out and taking it!"

But they don't--can't--listen. They know that the universe is geocentric. It's so obvious to them. The earth is underneath, it doens't move; the sun and stars and planets and moons and satelites move above it.

So, you try to reason with them. You provide evidence--the retrograde motion of Mars, the phases of the moon, the way that certain distant bodies are ever-so-slightly out of place at winter sulstice as at summer sulstice.

But you find, after debate and debate and debate, that there is no penetrating their wall of ignorance.
---

That is why we are angry.

We're not hateful. We just get annoyed when our irrefutable evidence is ignored, and then another stupid thread starts and the same goddam things are said, only to be ignored.



Both sides are guilty of ignoring evidence and disregarding refutations of evidence in this debate. I wish they all would come to realize that.

That is why we are angry.

That, and Neo here really needs to get layed, and we're kind of bothered she's having so much trouble accepting it.

maybe there's a reason that your "irrefutable" evidence is ignored.

It's not the evidences fault, since it's been reviewed and confirmed and revised and sharpened for 150 years. It's the people that simply refuse to look at, absorb or comprehend it.

Sorry. It's realy that simple.

Once again, here's the search that should contain all the evolution threads:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/search.php?searchid=380194

Please no more posts till everyone has reviewed at least 3 of these threads.

Let's play a little game.

Imagine you lived in a town where you and about 35% of the population understood that the solar system was heliocentric, and that the universe was composed of trillions of quadrillions of stars, all in galaxies and clusters and arms, on for billions of light years. You have studied closely the findings of the antigeocentrists, and have a reasonable understanding of the theory of universal gravitation, the facts and observations and data, and the scientific method. Looking at the information you have accumulated, you can draw (with the benefit of hindsight) roughly the same conclusions as the antigeocentrists before you did.

Imagine that the rest of the population of that town believed in the Aristotlian model of the universe with the Earth at the center.

"IT'S SO OBVIOUS!" you want to scream. "The universe is so huge, so amazingly comlex! Break out of your stupid little cocoon and experience the wonder of discovery! There is a wealth of knowledge, waiting for the act of reaching out and taking it!"

But they don't--can't--listen. They know that the universe is geocentric. It's so obvious to them. The earth is underneath, it doens't move; the sun and stars and planets and moons and satelites move above it.

So, you try to reason with them. You provide evidence--the retrograde motion of Mars, the phases of the moon, the way that certain distant bodies are ever-so-slightly out of place at winter sulstice as at summer sulstice.

But you find, after debate and debate and debate, that there is no penetrating their wall of ignorance.
---

That is why we are angry.



Does your god command you to enlighten the others as to your theory of universal workings? If not, then why do you care? Why does their ignorance infuriate you? If so, then I understand.

Both sides are guilty of ignoring evidence and disregarding refutations of evidence in this debate. I wish they all would come to realize that.

Ok you have my ear(I want it back) what evidence have I ignored and what have I disregarded.

Well all of us for that matter.

I'm waiting.....

Both sides are guilty of ignoring evidence and disregarding refutations of evidence in this debate. I wish they all would come to realize that.

Name one piece of evidence against evolution that has been ignored.

on a planet that is primarily populated by sentient beings who are able to think freely on their own, there will always be ignorance, which is simply one person's opinion against another's. if not, then for instance, why would a child who was raised devoutly christian convert to atheism later in life?

in conclusion, you're all stupid. shut up.

Well present arguments rather then judgements and you might find a discussion will happen.

Come on Neo, you can talk without Judging! Do it! You know you can.



Who was it that said "Sarcasm is the lowest form of humor?"

Ok, that first paragraph needs rewording.
Why?

It is perfectly legible with very little effort, although it is true that it is missing one comma, surely you can work your way around that. If not the comma comes after the word Christ...

If you really want to be picky, some might suggest that inserting a break (via a semi-colon) might be appropriate between 'appear' and 'now'. None the less I do not see this minnor punctuation ommisions as fatal to the legibility of the text.

Does your god command you to enlighten the others as to your theory of universal workings? If not, then why do you care? Why does their ignorance infuriate you? If so, then I understand.

Is it "evolutionists" who primarily bring uo these goddam threads?

Does your god command you to enlighten the others as to your theory of universal workings? If not, then why do you care? Why does their ignorance infuriate you? If so, then I understand.

And people have the gall to accuse athiests of a-morality?!

Who was it that said "Sarcasm is the lowest form of humor?"

Someone being sarcastic?

Why?

It is perfectly legible with very little effort, although it is true that it is missing one comma, surely you can work your way around that. If not the comma comes after the word Christ...

If you really want to be picky, some might suggest that inserting a break (via ;) might be appropriate between 'appear' and 'now'. None the less I do not see this minnor punctuation ommisions as fatal to the legibility of the text.



*puts on her English-teacher glasses*


It is called redundancy, and I'm going to take off 5 points for it. You used the word "hate" too repetitively, and superfluity is a big no-no!


Granted, I have made that mistake myself a few times, but I try not to do so anymore since it is annoying to others.

And people have the gall to accuse athiests of a-morality?!



As many atheists are amoral, I tried seeing it from their point of view :p

Prophecy more, o thou omniscient one :rolleyes:
Who was it that said "Sarcasm is the lowest form of humor?"

Not sure, do you think it was the same omnipotent being who deemed hypocrisy a sin? :rolleyes:

Is it "evolutionists" who primarily bring uo these goddam threads?



I haven't kept a tally, but nearly every ID thread was by an "evolutionist."

Not sure, do you think it was the same omnipotent being who deemed hypocrisy a sin? :rolleyes:



We're all hypocritical to a degree, however it only becomes sinful on moral issues :)

on a planet that is primarily populated by sentient beings who are able to think freely on their own, there will always be ignorance, which is simply one person's opinion against another's. if not, then for instance, why would a child who was raised devoutly christian convert to atheism later in life?

in conclusion, you're all stupid. shut up.

Actually ignorance in this matter is casting judgement on something you know nothing about.

:eek: you said I was stupid. WAHHHHHHHHH!

*puts on her English-teacher glasses*


It is called redundancy, and I'm going to take off 5 points for it. You used the word "hate" too repetitively, and superfluity is a big no-no!


Granted, I have made that mistake myself a few times, but I try not to do so anymore since it is annoying to others.
That has to be the most grammar-nazi thing I have witnessed on this forum.

I haven't kept a tally, but nearly every ID thread was by an "evolutionist."

You still haven't answered our questions.

You still haven't answered our questions.



What questions?

Everytime I comment in these threads, someone presumes I reject evolution. I hereby propose a theory for this forum: That which is stated or presumed once will inevitably occur again once a certain time has elapsed.

The periods in which rapid adaptation occurred always followed mass extinctions to allow organsims or to adapt to new uninhabitied environments. This goes without exception aside from the Cambrian marine explosion when land was previously uninhabited by even plants.

To sit down and say well it will only take time for it to occurr again is being wayyy too simplistic. There is far too much competition for one thing. It will happen again, unfortunately humans definitely won't be around to see it.

Let's make a bet. Let's both sit and wait. You for a new species to evolve and me for the second coming (assuming there was a first).

*puts on her English-teacher glasses*


It is called redundancy, and I'm going to take off 5 points for it. You used the word "hate" too repetitively, and superfluity is a big no-no!


Granted, I have made that mistake myself a few times, but I try not to do so anymore since it is annoying to others.
Ah so I was correct in my initial appraisal, you did have no trouble understanding the text, and commented not because you of legibility issues, but simply for the fun of criticising another human being.

The periods in which rapid adaptation occurred always followed mass extinctions to allow organsims or to adapt to new uninhabitied environments. This goes without exception aside from the Cambrian marine explosion when land was previously uninhabited by even plants.

To sit down and say well it will only take time for it to occurr again is being wayyy too simplistic. There is far too much competition for one thing. It will happen again, unfortunately humans definitely won't be around to see it.

Let's make a bet. Let's both sit and wait. You for a new species to evolve and me for the second coming (assuming there was a first).




Ok, but I'll need a larger bucket of popcorn >.>

What questions?

Well my sexy little virgin! :D

You said:
Both sides are guilty of ignoring evidence and disregarding refutations of evidence in this debate. I wish they all would come to realize that.


I said:
Ok you have my ear(I want it back) what evidence have I ignored and what have I disregarded.

Well all of us for that matter.

I'm waiting.....

Gymoor said:

Name one piece of evidence against evolution that has been ignored.
__________________

Ah so I was correct in my initial appraisal, you did have no trouble understanding the text, and commented not because you of legibility issues, but simply for the fun of criticising another human being.



Actually, I didn't even read it. I just glossed over it after you started using the same word many times o'er. It was slightly illegible, although I could have easily studied it for a moment and grasped the concept, but isn't it the duty of the original poster to display it in a context conducive to my ADD?

Well my sexy little virgin! :D

You said:
Both sides are guilty of ignoring evidence and disregarding refutations of evidence in this debate. I wish they all would come to realize that.


I said:
Ok you have my ear(I want it back) what evidence have I ignored and what have I disregarded.

Well all of us for that matter.

I'm waiting.....

Gymoor said:

Name one piece of evidence against evolution that has been ignored.
__________________




1. Heickel's embryos discredited

2. Archaeopteryx feather-fabrication

3. I forgot this one :(




Anyways, I really want to stay out of a debate on this topic, since, frankly, I stink at it. Just post your responses and I'll do my best to accept them without replying, unless I see something blatantly fallacious.

1. Heickel's embryos discredited

2. Archaeopteryx feather-fabrication

3. I forgot this one :(

Anyways, I really want to stay out of a debate on this topic, since, frankly, I stink at it. Just post your responses and I'll do my best to accept them without replying, unless I see something blatantly fallacious.

1) It must be late because I am drawing a blank.

2) Fabrication? How?

I am happy to do so (i have two examples available) but first, please provide some evidence for creationism without using a religious text (including the bible, torah, qua'rah etc)


I challenge anyone to post ANY scientific evidence for evolution.

I only have 2 rules:

1) Please, no fossil "evidence." You see, fossils cannont be considered evidence as the only fact that is known about it is ... that it died. You don't know if it had any offspring, and by the way, why would you think that a bone in the dirt could do something that animals today cannot do?

2) Please present no "evidences" that have been previously proven incorrect. I.e., the scientific "belief" that the human embryo retains gill slits. Earnst Haeckel-pardon me if I misspelled his name-Proposed this and faked a set of drawings in the early 1860's. Five years after initially proposing this, his OWN university convicted him of fraud. And he-during his trial-admitted commiting fraud.

Other than that, I will be on tomorrow to respond to any posts.

1. Heickel's embryos discredited

2. Archaeopteryx feather-fabrication

3. I forgot this one :(




Anyways, I really want to stay out of a debate on this topic, since, frankly, I stink at it. Just post your responses and I'll do my best to accept them without replying, unless I see something blatantly fallacious.
1. The fact that the literal form of recapitulation theory is rejected by modern biologists has sometimes been used as an argument against evolution by creationists. The argument is: "Haeckel's theory was presented as supporting evidence for evolution, Haeckel's theory is wrong, therefore evolution has less support". This argument is not only an oversimplification but misleading because modern biology does recognize numerous connections between ontogeny and phylogeny, explains them using evolutionary theory without recourse to Haeckel's specific views, and considers them as supporting evidence for that theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontogeny_recapitulates_phylogeny

2. It is likely that feathers evolved from a conical shaped tubercle rather than a plate-like structure. Although the morphology of the presumably most primitive feather is unknown, minimal conditions for its production include the cellular capacity to synthesize feather proteins (=phi-keratin) which provides the molecular phenotype, and a follicular mechanism for production and assembly of molecular and gross structure. Once the minimal structural element, presumably recognizable as a barb, existed, a variety of phenotypes followed rapidly. A tubercular growth center of appropriate size could produce a simple barb-like element, with cortex and medulla. This might be recognized externally as a bristle, but need never existed as a separate morphological unit. Rather, if individual placodes gave rise to multiple barb ridges that fused proximally, a structure resembling natal down would have resulted. Subsequent differentiation is controlled by the follicular symmetry, and the feather shape is regulated by barb length. Barb length is directly related to growth period. As feathers appear to grow at roughly similar, size independent rates, shape is determined by individual barb growth periods. The simple fusion of individual proto-barbs would produce a morphology identifiable as natal down. Although this might be the simplest feather structure, others could emerge quickly, perhaps simultaneously, a consequence of the same redundant processing. Once the machinery existed, broad phenotypic plasticity was possible. I constructed a feather phylogram based on these conditions, the fossil record, and ontogeny. I organized the subsequent changes in morphology by perceived complexity. The changes are simply individual responses to similar processes that might be time (when in ontogeny) and space (where on body) dependent.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3746/is_200009/ai_n8911015

3. I don't know either.

I am happy to do so (i have two examples available) but first, please provide some evidence for creationism without using a religious text (including the bible, torah, qua'rah etc)

Uggghhh here comes that uber retarded ID stuff.

Does your god command you to enlighten the others as to your theory of universal workings? If not, then why do you care? Why does their ignorance infuriate you? If so, then I understand.
Oh heck, another misunderstanding. I thought you were unaware of, or disagreed with God's desire for others to be enlightened. Certainly your conduct and means of communicating with others leads me to believe that enlightening other people is for you secondary to enjoying the self righteous certainity that you are chosen and they are hell-bound. Do you actually believe for even one moment that you method of engaging non-Christians will result in a single convert? :confused:

Perhaps you have misrepresented yourself; your comments and posts lead me to believe that you really get off on believing heaps of people will end up in hell. To me it really seems that you enjoy the notion that you are good with God and thus better than the poor hell-bound plebs. If this is not the case, then in light of God's desire that you enlighten (rather than drive away) others, you might want to reconsider your general demeanor and conduct.

Actually, I didn't even read it. I just glossed over it after you started using the same word many times o'er. It was slightly illegible, although I could have easily studied it for a moment and grasped the concept, but isn't it the duty of the original poster to display it in a context conducive to my ADD?
No it is not my duty to display in a context more conducive to your ADD, most especially given the number of times you have personally cut and pasted long texts not conducive to other people's ADD. Really if you could read and understand the texts you cut and paste, then my short paragraph should not be too much problem. It's easier reading than the bible, and you seem quite insistent that you have a decent enough understanding of that to preach to others.
Whyever do you expect people to make allowances and give special consideration to your ADD, when you seem to make no such allowances for my dyslexia? Personally I dont think the legibility of my posts is below an acceptable standard even without taking my condition into account, and frankly I note your ADD doesnt stop you comprehending what you want to comprehend.

Oh heck, another misunderstanding. I thought you were unaware of, or disagreed with God's desire for others to be enlightened. Certainly your conduct and means of communicating with others leads me to believe that enlightening other people is for you secondary to enjoying the self righteous certainity that you are chosen and they are hell-bound. Do you actually believe for even one moment that you method of engaging non-Christians will result in a single convert? :confused:

Perhaps you have misrepresented yourself; your comments and posts lead me to believe that you really get off on believing heaps of people will end up in hell. To me it really seems that you enjoy the notion that you are good with God and thus better than the poor hell-bound plebs. If this is not the case, then in light of God's desire that you enlighten (rather than drive away) others, you might want to reconsider your general demeanor and conduct.
I’ve pretty much said this to her before. It doesn’t work.

no... no ID from me... i dont like it, and i dont want to ever hear about it - i therefore dont even really participate in threads that say it is stupid...

Uggghhh here comes that uber retarded ID stuff.
Now there’s something I can’t stand. How am I supposed to fake my way through that? I’ve got this evolution thing down. Now they want to make me learn more stuff I don’t believe?

Oh heck, another misunderstanding. I thought you were unaware of, or disagreed with God's desire for others to be enlightened. Certainly your conduct and means of communicating with others leads me to believe that enlightening other people is for you secondary to enjoying the self righteous certainity that you are chosen and they are hell-bound. Do you actually believe for even one moment that you method of engaging non-Christians will result in a single convert? :confused:

Perhaps you have misrepresented yourself; your comments and posts lead me to believe that you really get off on believing heaps of people will end up in hell. To me it really seems that you enjoy the notion that you are good with God and thus better than the poor hell-bound plebs. If this is not the case, then in light of God's desire that you enlighten (rather than drive away) others, you might want to reconsider your general demeanor and conduct.



I've made mistakes, but in general, that is false. If you wish to interpret my posts in such a manner (even though the Church has, for years, taken a firm stance on issues of morality as God commanded), then it is your decision to do so, however it's wrong. God is love, but God is also just and it would be deceptive and sinful to say He accepts everyone who doesn't choose to repent and try to avoid evil. I never once said that I am inherently "better" than anyone else because of my relationship with God.

Oh heck, another misunderstanding. I thought you were unaware of, or disagreed with God's desire for others to be enlightened. Certainly your conduct and means of communicating with others leads me to believe that enlightening other people is for you secondary to enjoying the self righteous certainity that you are chosen and they are hell-bound. Do you actually believe for even one moment that you method of engaging non-Christians will result in a single convert? :confused:

Perhaps you have misrepresented yourself; your comments and posts lead me to believe that you really get off on believing heaps of people will end up in hell. To me it really seems that you enjoy the notion that you are good with God and thus better than the poor hell-bound plebs. If this is not the case, then in light of God's desire that you enlighten (rather than drive away) others, you might want to reconsider your general demeanor and conduct.


No it is not my duty to display in a context more conducive to your ADD, most especially given the number of times you have personally cut and pasted long texts not conducive to other people's ADD. Really if you could read and understand the texts you cut and paste, then my short paragraph should not be too much problem. It's easier reading than the bible, and you seem quite insistent that you have a decent enough understanding of that to preach to others.
Whyever do you expect people to make allowances and give special consideration to your ADD, when you seem to make no such allowances for my dyslexia? Personally I dont think the legibility of my posts is below an acceptable standard even without taking my condition into account, and frankly I note your ADD doesnt stop you comprehending what you want to comprehend.



I have no issue reading articles and excerpts that are clear and precise. The problem arises when grammatical errors, such as redundancy, are introduced. Is it so much trouble to simply edit your post and make it more comprehendable at first-glance as opposed to going off into this long tangent on textual mistakes?

I've made mistakes, but in general, that is false. If you wish to interpret my posts in such a manner (even though the Church has, for years, taken a firm stance on issues of morality as God commanded), then it is your decision to do so, however it's wrong. God is love, but God is also just and it would be deceptive and sinful to say He accepts everyone who doesn't choose to repent and try to avoid evil. I never once said that I am inherently "better" than anyone else because of my relationship with God.
No it is not false. I can assure you that the impression you give to others is exactly as I describe it. Either you take your duty to enlighten others seriously or you do not. People have told you that you make christianity appear very unattractive. I have heard christian people talk about their disapproval of homosexuality without coming across as though they are very pleased that others are going to hell while they are not. It is entirely possible to present such disapproval without making christianity as though it is about 'you're going to hell and I am not...nah nah nah nah nah'.

You have been informed of how your comments make is appear as though you have less charity in your heart, than Scrooge McDuck. If you take your God's desire for you to enlighten others at all seriously, you will address this issue. If you reject peoples' honestly formed opinions about the level of disrepute you constantly bring apon your religion and your God, then clearly you dont take God's desire half as seriously as you take your own desire to go 'nah nah nah, you're going to hell'.

I've had many Christians explain many things to me, and none have struck me as being as uncharitible and unconcerned for their fellows than do you. Most atheists I know are more Christ-like than conduct makes you appear. I honestly cannot avoid thinking that you do not care about other people, that your belief in God is based on the opportunity to feel superior to others, and that you actually do enjoy the prospect of seeing those who do not believe the same things you do, burn in hell. If this is a true description of how you feel, then carry on, if it is not an accurate description of how you feel, then do something about how you make yourself appear. According to your own interpretation of your Christian duty, you owe it to God to at least put some effort into not appearing like a self-righteous bigot, who is pleased by the knowledge that others will burn in hell.

Now there’s something I can’t stand. How am I supposed to fake my way through that? I’ve got this evolution thing down. Now they want to make me learn more stuff I don’t believe?


Actually, that's the problem. A theory is a tool. It is not to be "believed" in. You accept it or not and use it acccordingly. The problem with ID and creationism is... that it doesn't work (scientifically).

I have no issue reading articles and excerpts that are clear and precise. The problem arises when grammatical errors, such as redundancy, are introduced. Is it so much trouble to simply edit your post and make it more comprehendable at first-glance as opposed to going off into this long tangent on textual mistakes?
If you can make your way through the bible and understand my text would not present any difficulty.
Why should I take the trouble to make my text first-glance comprehensible to you? The text is perfectly understandable, I think it was the content and not the style that upset you. If you find hate and hateful writen less than half a dozen times each confusing or difficult to follow, it must have taken you years to comprehend all the 'begats'. If it's good enough for God's word to include redundancy, who am I that my views should be better represented than the allmighty?
As I suggested I dont think my postings are below standard legibility wise. I've seen you comprehend and respond to posts far less legible. I think you are being dishonest. You didnt like the content and so took a dig at the representation. It is this kind of pettiness that makes you appear more concerned with self-righteousness and looking correct, than you are with righteousness and truth.

No it is not false. I can assure you that the impression you give to others is exactly as I describe it. Either you take your duty to enlighten others seriously or you do not. People have told you that you make christianity appear very unattractive. I have heard christian people talk about their disapproval of homosexuality without coming across as though they are very pleased that others are going to hell while they are not. It is entirely possible to present such disapproval without making christianity as though it is about 'you're going to hell and I am not...nah nah nah nah nah'.

You have been informed of how your comments make is appear as though you have less charity in your heart, than Scrooge McDuck. If you take your God's desire for you to enlighten others at all seriously, you will address this issue. If you reject peoples' honestly formed opinions about the level of disrepute you constantly bring apon your religion and your God, then clearly you dont take God's desire half as seriously as you take your own desire to go 'nah nah nah, you're going to hell'.

I've had many Christians explain many things to me, and none have struck me as being as uncharitible and unconcerned for their fellows than do you. Most atheists I know are more Christ-like than conduct makes you appear. I honestly cannot avoid thinking that you do not care about other people, that your belief in God is based on the opportunity to feel superior to others, and that you actually do enjoy the prospect of seeing those who do not believe the same things you do, burn in hell. If this is a true description of how you feel, then carry on, if it is not an accurate description of how you feel, then do something about how you make yourself appear. According to your own interpretation of your Christian duty, you owe it to God to at least put some effort into not appearing like a self-righteous bigot, who is pleased by the knowledge that others will burn in hell.



I've explained many times that I have nothing personal against homosexuals, nor do I want them to end up in hell. Therefore, your post is full of lies. I was going to address each paragraph at a time, then I realized they all basically said the same thing, but I'll restrain myself from playing grammar-nazi again. Or perhaps you would like to provide irrefutable evidence of me stating that I hate homosexuals and want them all to sizzle? Because I'd looooove to see that :rolleyes:

If you can make your way through the bible and understand my text would not present any difficulty.
Why should I take the trouble to make my text first-glance comprehensible to you? The text is perfectly understandable, I think it was the content and not the style that upset you. If you find hate and hateful writen less than half a dozen times each confusing or difficult to follow, it must have taken you years to comprehend all the 'begats'. If it's good enough for God's word to include redundancy, who am I that my views should be better represented than the allmighty?
As I suggested I dont think my postings are below standard legibility wise. I've seen you comprehend and respond to posts far less legible. I think you are being dishonest. You didnt like the content and so took a dig at the representation. It is this kind of pettiness that makes you appear more concerned with self-righteousness and looking correct, than you are with righteousness and truth.


I tended to skip the begat parts, unless I'm studying the geneology of Christ. Here is what your post seemed akin to: "the haters that hate the hating hatred of hating haters hated the hate."

I've explained many times that I have nothing personal against homosexuals, nor do I want them to end up in hell. Therefore, your post is full of lies. I was going to address each paragraph at a time, then I realized they all basically said the same thing, but I'll restrain myself from playing grammar-nazi again. Or perhaps you would like to provide irrefutable evidence of me stating that I hate homosexuals and want them all to sizzle? Because I'd looooove to see that :rolleyes:

Well if belief and opinion have much to do with another your just desserts would seem to provide an implicit proof. ;)

1. Heickel's embryos discredited

2. Archaeopteryx feather-fabrication

3. I forgot this one :(


How does this disprove evolution though? This isn't evidence against evolution. These are (taking your claim at face value,) 2 pieces of faulty evidence. You discard faulty evidence. The million other bits of evidence still remain though.

An astronomer once falsified or made a mistake about evidence for a planet
inside the orbit of Mercury. Does that mean Astronomy and Astrophysics are no longer valid fields of study? No, because other Astronomers reviewed his work and said, "moron, that's a sun spot!"

The fact that Piltdown man was a fraud doesn't mean that Australopithecus is. Again, science corrected itself, discarded the faulty evidence, and moved on.

So I repeat, do you have any evidence against evolution. Evidence that says organisms don't evolve.

I've explained many times that I have nothing personal against homosexuals, nor do I want them to end up in hell. Therefore, your post is full of lies. I was going to address each paragraph at a time, then I realized they all basically said the same thing, but I'll restrain myself from playing grammar-nazi again. Or perhaps you would like to provide irrefutable evidence of me stating that I hate homosexuals and want them all to sizzle? Because I'd looooove to see that :rolleyes:
Why would I present proof of something I have not stated? I did not say that you hate homosexuals. I pointed out that you method of communicating your views about God and related issues makes you appear to be pleased rather than concerned that other people are (according to your understanding) going to burn in hell.

Well if belief and opinion have much to do with another your just desserts would seem to provide an implicit proof. ;)



Not necessarily, consider: If a man commits a murder, he is worthy of death. Does this mean that I want him dead? It would certainly be "his just desserts" if he were to be executed, however I do not wish that upon him.

Why would I present proof of something I have not stated? I did not say that you hate homosexuals. I pointed out that you method of communicating your views about God and related issues makes you appear to be pleased rather than concerned that other people are (according to your understanding) going to burn in hell.



It may appear that way to the heathen eye, however it is not the way I myself actually do think. In the modern day, to imply that someone will go to hell unless they repent of their sins seems to indicate that the person saying so wants the individual in question to go there. However, I am not Jonah. I do not preach to the world, then sit back and hope they get annihilated by refusing to accept the teachings.

Not necessarily, consider: If a man commits a murder, he is worthy of death. Does this mean that I want him dead? It would certainly be "his just desserts" if he were to be executed, however I do not wish that upon him.

Maybe not specifically 'death' but still very judgemental.

So what is it? 20 to life, 5 years, parole, probation, ostracisation, treatment, or eternal damnation?

1) It must be late because I am drawing a blank.

2) Fabrication? How?

It doesn't matter. Even if true, that's not evidence against evolution, all it is is a couple pieces of evidence that can be discarded as no longer proof for evolution.

Take this example. A man is accused of murder. They have his and the victim's DNA, both of which match blood at the scene of the crime. THe accused's DNA is under the victim's fingernails and is fresh. They have a witness' account that they fought before in a location other than the crime scene. Another witness saw them both near the scene of the crime at near the victim's time of death. The murder weapon has the accused's fingerprints on it in blood. A fiber on the victim's clothing matches the shirt the accused was wearing.

Subsequently, the fiber was found not to be a match. Oh, I guess the accused should go free, right?

Now, if there was conclusive evidence that the accused wasn't there, then that would be a different story. Also, evolution is proven a whole lot more conclusively than my above story is.

Guess what, this is a regular occurence in science. People find evidence all the time, and then someone finds a conclusive error. The evidence is tossed out...but of course everything else isn't.

So, anyway, does anyone have any evidence that suggests another process besides evolution occured?

Maybe not specifically 'death' but still very judgemental.

So what is it? 20 to life, 5 years, parole, probation, ostracisation, treatment, or eternal damnation?



Whatever the law prescribes, it's not my decision.

It may appear that way to the heathen eye, however it is not the way I myself actually do think.
How is this relevent? Who was it God wanted you to enlighten? Who's eyes matter when one is trying to enlighten the heathens? You either are trying to enlighten (in which case, the way your comments appear to the heathens is of the utmost importance) or you are getting off on your self-important belief that you are not going to hell, but they are. There is only two reasons to present God's word. For the benefit of God and those you are presenting the words to (in which case it matters how your words appear to others), or for your own benefit (aka getting your jollies by being 'holier than thou'). If its the earlier, then take my advice and seriously think about how you are presenting yourself. If its the latter, I dont know why you are still arguing about it....as I've said, carry on.

In the modern day, to imply that someone will go to hell unless they repent of their sins seems to indicate that the person saying so wants the individual in question to go there. However, I am not Jonah. I do not preach to the world, then sit back and hope they get annihilated by refusing to accept the teachings.
What nonesense. You either wish to enlighten others with your words, or are getting off on being self righteous (which requires that there be someone to feel righteous in comparison). Many christians can put their views about homosexuality forward in a way that makes them appear to have compassion for those they believe are harming themselves. If you cannot, and you really care about enlightening others (rather than getting off on your own sense of self-importance), you will preaching about homosexuality to those far more skilled than yourself, rather than risk making the task of getting God's word to these people, harder than it already is.

Whatever the law prescribes, it's not my decision.

Right, it's the politics.

I thought we came up with the answer to this already: nobody knows.

I thought we came up with the answer to this already: nobody knows.

True, to a given value of "know". Due to the nature of science we don't "know" that the theory of gravity is true, but that's no reason to go jumping out of a plane.

Not necessarily, consider: If a man commits a murder, he is worthy of death. Does this mean that I want him dead? It would certainly be "his just desserts" if he were to be executed, however I do not wish that upon him.
Hell, no! Nobody is worthy death even if he commited the most hideous crime. Society surly has to be protected from this individual, but nobody deserves death. I know it's offtopic, but I had the urging need to state this.

I know I asked that before, but no answers were provided to me. I'm aware that among the people believing in ID, different ideas about the age of the earth exist. I'd love to know in which the ID believers in that thread believe in.

I challenge anyone to post ANY scientific evidence for evolution.

I only have 2 rules:

1) Please, no fossil "evidence." You see, fossils cannont be considered evidence as the only fact that is known about it is ... that it died. You don't know if it had any offspring, and by the way, why would you think that a bone in the dirt could do something that animals today cannot do?

2) Please present no "evidences" that have been previously proven incorrect. I.e., the scientific "belief" that the human embryo retains gill slits. Earnst Haeckel-pardon me if I misspelled his name-Proposed this and faked a set of drawings in the early 1860's. Five years after initially proposing this, his OWN university convicted him of fraud. And he-during his trial-admitted commiting fraud.

Other than that, I will be on tomorrow to respond to any posts.

your rules are stupid.

firstly, fossil evidence tells us all sorts of things beyond mere existence and death of an organism. it tells us the basic structure of their body plans and parts. it allows us to compare fossils to each other and to modern life to determine what structures are shared between what groups. it tells us how long ago certain things lived and the order that things appeared in the history of earth. and if you organize them according to structure they form a nice nested hierarchy... just like modern life. and in fact, they fit into the same nested hierarchy that modern life does. also, fossils evidence tells us about how things lived, what the environment they lived in was like, what they ate, how they died, etc. oh, and they also just so happen to show us the various steps in some amazing evolutionary transitions.

i guess i can see why you'd like to rule this line of evidence out. it is far too damaging to your case. poor baby.

secondly, you didn't even correctly identify what was wrong with haeckel's work. all vertebrate embryos do have what are popularly known as 'gill slits'. the technical term is pharyngeal or branchial arches, and in the vertebrates that have gills they are where the gills form. what you meant to say (or, rather, would have said if you actually knew something about the subject and weren't just puking up some idiotic creationist crap) is that the idea the 'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny' is wrong and shouldn't be used. and no one would disagree. but the fundamental similarities of vertebrate embryos actually does count as a rather powerful line of evidence for common descent.

but hey, i can make the argument without recourse to either fossils or embryology. where would you like to start? how about the nested hierarchy of life? and the trivially true ideas of descent with modification and natural selection? your call.

There's absolutely no point in responding to this thread unless you find it entertaining to mock creationists. The fact is that evolution has as much evidence behind it as the fact that the earth is not flat. Creationists and "ID" proponents are ideologically driven and will ALWAYS ignore the evidence presented and use both lies and old, disproven data to back their claims. It's like trying to debate with a noisy, angry chimp, and that's evidence for evolution.

Hell, no! Nobody is worthy of death even if he commited the most hideous crime. Society surely has to be protected from this individual, but nobody deserves death. I know it's offtopic, but I had the urging need to state this.

I heartily disagree, especially the sentence there that I italicized. If a person kills another person, they are deserving of death. Their life became forfeit when they decided to take another.

However, a very wise old man once said, "Many who live deserve death, and many who die deserve life. Can you give it to them?" I don't carry out the executions, but I can't say I'm sorry to see a murderer die. No tears here.

1. Heickel's embryos discredited

2. Archaeopteryx feather-fabrication

1. has been handled elsewhere.

2. i assume you are refering to the allegation that the feathers on the archaey are fraudulent. in addition to this requiring a 100+ year conspiracy and high levels of evidence tampering in such a way as to fool everybody but a couple creationists, the entire argument is such crap that i'm surprised anybody even went to the trouble of blowing it to pieces in any level of detail. but they did (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/forgery.html).

and i swear we went over this before. ah yes (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=432963&page=1&pp=15&highlight=Archaeopteryx), so we have (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=435340&page=4&pp=15&highlight=Archaeopteryx). does jesus like it when you persist in lying after having the excuse of ignorance removed from you?

There's absolutely no point in responding to this thread unless you find it entertaining to mock creationists.

shhh, they might stop responding to me if they find out.

I challenge anyone to post ANY scientific evidence for evolution.
Well, before we can argue against you, you'd best give us your definition of 'evolution'. Are you outright rejecting the claim that traits are inherited and fitter individuals survive? Or are you merely rejecting the idea that natural selection can lead to speciation?

I will start in advance with natural selection, as that would seem to be the natural place to start.
We know that genes are passed on to offspring, right?
And we know that genes represent traits, correct?

Well, here is a situation where natural selection is self-evidently true, unless I made mistakes.
Let's imagine that there are two types of ants, ants with a big head, and ants with a small head. Let's also imagine that the gene for big heads is dominant, and therefore around 3/4 of the ants have big heads, and 1/4 have small heads.
Now, let's imagine that a species of mouse moves in to the area that eats ants. But it doesn't have very good vision, so it finds it much easier to spot and consume big-headed ants. Let's imagine that many of these mice move in, cover the whole area, and eat many ants.
The result of this would be that big-headed ants would be in the minority, and small-headed ants would be in the majority, since it would be more likely for two small-headed ants to breed together than for any ant to breed with a large-headed ant.
(Yes, I know that in real life all ants don't breed, but this is merely for use as an example.)

How about another example?
There is an island out in the ocean. On this island, there is only 1 species of tree. It has a long flower.
Now imagine that a flock of birds flies over from the mainland. Most of them have short beaks, but some of them have longer beaks.
When they try to drink nectar from the flowers, only the birds with the longer beaks can reach it. The shorter-beaked birds die off, leaving the longer-beaked birds alone on the island. They breed, and we end up with very many birds with long beaks, and none with short beaks.

THese are rather simplistic examples, and possibly flawed, but they are meant to demonstrate that natural selection can and does happen all the time.

No, I'm not a theologian, nor am I a scientist. I suggest we all shut up and let the professionals do the debating, as our knowledge is very limited compared to theirs :D

Says who?

Yours might be, perhaps... others among us may have actually researched some of these issues...

I just wanted to watch the inevitable rabid hatred from the evolution side. It's as if they were personally punished by the Spanish Inquisition :rolleyes:
Seriously, they do it more than the creationists, and they don't even have a god to defend :confused:

Perspective is a wonderful thing.

Try being an Atheist in North-East Georgia for a while, then get back to me.

2. Archaeopteryx feather-fabrication

What part of "Thou shalt not lie" don't you understand?

The above message has been brought to you by YHWH. YHWH is a subsidary of Heaven Inc.

maybe there's a reason that your "irrefutable" evidence is ignored.

I'd guess it is ignored, because that's easier than 'refuting' it....

I just wanted to watch the inevitable rabid hatred from the evolution side. It's as if they were personally punished by the Spanish Inquisition :rolleyes:
Seriously, they do it more than the creationists, and they don't even have a god to defend :confused:
Show me some of this "inevitable rabid hatred". I haven't seen the evolution-supporters saying "I hate all Christians!" or "Creationists should die!" I have seen plenty of scientific argument, but rather little by way of hatred. Is there something I am missing?

Show me some of this "inevitable rabid hatred". I haven't seen the evolution-supporters saying "I hate all Christians!" or "Creationists should die!" I have seen plenty of scientific argument, but rather little by way of hatred.

Do you simply wish to snipe at evolution-supporters without addressing thier points?
Well, there's post 95 above.

As many atheists are amoral, I tried seeing it from their point of view :p

Put up, or shut up.

You constantly make such snide comments... well, now you are being called on it:

Where is your 'evidence' that shows a correlation between Atheism and 'morality'?

Well, there's post 95 above.
That may count, I won't claim either way.

Let me clarify on what I meant by my earlier comment:
The way I read Neo Rogolia's comment, it sounded as though she were saying that most evolution-supporters resorted to hatred.

If this is not what you meant, Neo Rogolia, then ignore my earlier questions, and I am sorry for assuming you meant to just snipe at others.

If the way I read your comment was the way you meant it, then the question still stands. Where is all the hatred? A few people acting hateful doesn't count for much if you are accusing most evolutionists of being hateful.

I've explained many times that I have nothing personal against homosexuals, nor do I want them to end up in hell. Therefore, your post is full of lies. I was going to address each paragraph at a time, then I realized they all basically said the same thing, but I'll restrain myself from playing grammar-nazi again. Or perhaps you would like to provide irrefutable evidence of me stating that I hate homosexuals and want them all to sizzle? Because I'd looooove to see that :rolleyes:

Sorry - I couldn't resist:

" I hate homosexuals and want them all to sizzle... Because I'd looooove to see that..."

And your comments are oh-so sunny, my sexy little virgin. :D Well we agree on one thing, virgins are sexy. :)
Wait… I think I agree with you on evolution too.

I do entertain some notions leaning towards ID - systems like the double-circulatory system, which really can't grow in "steps", but has to be all or none.
NOT a creationist though!

Well we agree on one thing, virgins are sexy. :)
Wait… I think I agree with you on evolution too.

I do entertain some notions leaning towards ID - systems like the double-circulatory system, which really can't grow in "steps", but has to be all or none.
NOT a creationist though!

Well, would you be open to proof, or at least a very plausible explanation as to how the circulatory system developed?

I'm also not saying that, ultimately, there wasn't a creator. By definition, that fact can't be proven or disproven. My only problem is when people reject solid evidence which can be proven in favor of something that has no actual proof.

Imagine you have a couch. It's a blue couch.

Then someone, perhaps a friend, comes by and says your couch is red. Well, at first you'd think they're joking. They bring it up agian. This time you correct them. They disagree. Joke's not funny anymore, you think.

"Fine," you tell them, "what's your proof that my couch is red?"

"Well, I have this book written by several people, half of which was written 2000 years ago and half of which was written before that. It indicates that your couch is red."

"Look for yourself, my couch is blue."

"No, it's not"

"Aaaarrrgh"

"What proof do you have that your couch is blue?"

"Well, if you'd just look at the couch, you'd see it's blue"

"No its not. Some people in the past have tried to say that their couch is blue, and they turned out to be wrong."

"But they have nothing to do with my couch!"

"Yes they do."

"Aaaaaarrrrrgh!"

"I'm sorry, but there's nothing you can say to make me believe your couch is blue."

"Just get the hell out."

"Ah, the typical response I'd expect from a blue-couchist."

Now, evolution might not be as easy to determine as the color of a couch, and in fact, you might have the exact shade of blue wrong, thinking it's cobalt when it's actually misty slate (or whatever,) but the evidence for evolution is just as clear if you actually look at it.

Well, would you be open to proof, or at least a very plausible explanation as to how the circulatory system developed?

I'm also not saying that, ultimately, there wasn't a creator. By definition, that fact can't be proven or disproven. My only problem is when people reject solid evidence which can be proven in favor of something that has no actual proof. I would be open to an explanation. I actually took this example from my GCSE revision guide, it's a better example than my previous "venus fly trap" one. But I'd be open to an explanation.

I would be open to an explanation. I actually took this example from my GCSE revision guide, it's a better example than my previous "venus fly trap" one. But I'd be open to an explanation.

Well, here's a start:

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html

There is, of course, lots of material on the internet available on the subject. Just type in "circulatory system" and "Evolution" into google and you'll be treated to a plethora of articles on both ID and Evolution. By a casual glancing at the material available, it's clear that the evolution articles deal directly with and refute the assertions of the ID articles, while the ID articles fail address those refutations. Instead, the ID articles continue to repeat their original refuted assertions.

Still, both sides are freely available, so feel free to come to your own conclusions.

Well, there's post 95 above.

what in that (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9526955&postcount=95) could possibly be counted as 'rabid hatred'?

I know I asked that before, but no answers were provided to me. I'm aware that among the people believing in ID, different ideas about the age of the earth exist. I'd love to know in which the ID believers in that thread believe in.
C'mon, please answer it, please.

C'mon, please answer it, please.

Earth was created 24 seconds after i wrote this and submitted it. It was all done by God setting everything in motion as it is. All our memories are false and he planted heaps of evidence around us to make it look like the universe has taken care of itself by following natural laws. But really it was God and he is clever and wrote this post for me but then implanted all our memories so that i really think i wrote this.

If this is about promoting intelligent design there is only one question that needs to be asked: Is God falsifiable?

Of course we know the answer is no, thus proving the point that ID is not science, it is creationism repackaged with pseudoscientific words. I agree with the poster before, describe evolution in 75 words.
THANK YOU. I've been arguing that the unfalsifiability of god renders the whole question baseless for more than two years on these forums. Glad to see someone else understands the rules of scientific inquiry.

Oh yeah, and my sig basically tells you where I stand.

THANK YOU. I've been arguing that the unfalsifiability of god renders the whole question baseless for more than two years on these forums. Glad to see someone else understands the rules of scientific inquiry.

Oh yeah, and my sig basically tells you where I stand.

ID'ers and Creationists never address this issue. Never. You can't scientifically test for God. Period.

Well, there's post 95 above.

Hey..!! :D

Wills..!! Howdy..!!

This is the REAL Iakeo,... good to see you've got scads of posts in this
cesspool of "insanity".

..and Grave..! DUDE..!!? :D

Anyway,.. to the topic at hand...

God can do whatever the heck it wants, and (by definition) no one could tell
the difference, as it would seem perfectly natural (as that is the salient
characteristic of God) whatever God did or did not do.

So,.. is it easier to "prove" that evolution exists to someone who will not
accept evolution as existable, or to "prove" that God exists to someone who
will not accept that God can exist..?

Which is the harder path..?


-The REAL Iakeo :)

God can do whatever the heck it wants, and (by definition) no one could tell
the difference, as it would seem perfectly natural (as that is the salient
characteristic of God) whatever God did or did not do.

So,.. is it easier to "prove" that evolution exists to someone who will not
accept evolution as existable, or to "prove" that God exists to someone who
will not accept that God can exist..?

Which is the harder path..?
Hoy, Iakeo... Oekai! Are you unbanned?

I said nice things about you while you were gone. :D

I would say it's as easy to prove either of those as it is to prove that divination is not about fortune telling to someone who earnestly wants to believe it is, either because they very much want to believe it or they very much want to disbelieve it.

oy!

Hoy, Iakeo... Oekai! Are you unbanned?

I said nice things about you while you were gone. :D

I would say it's as easy to prove either of those as it is to prove that divination is not about fortune telling to someone who earnestly wants to believe it is, either because they very much want to believe it or they very much want to disbelieve it.

oy!

Unbanned? As Oekai I am, until I'm not for being too "conversationally
expressive" again. Hae ae ae...

Thanks for the kind words in my defense. I was a major pain-o-the-backside
to the fascist pigs that USED to run this place who were not at all interested
in good healthy robust energetic discourse, but only mealy mouth so-
called "debate".

Though I'm sure the powers that be here now are MUCH more appropriate
and level headed. :D

On your comments about my comments: Yes,.. it's amazing how so many
things are EXACTLY THE SAME DIFFICULTY, such as you've enumerated.

Though I suspect that that is because they are all REALLY *EXACTLY* the
same thing, thus the same difficulty in doing.

The crux is: Belief doesn't need to be "verified" with ANY condition that it
doesn't include to remain belief. Belief does not live in the realm of science,
and is not subject to it's laws.

Why do people INSIST on applying the laws of one realm to the inhabitants of
other realms?

I chalk it up to inexperience, adolescence (LOTS of adolescence around
here), and premature cognitive closure.

..but what do I know...? :)


-The REAL Iakeo

<snip>

It's because many people see these two realms, as you put it, to be incompatible, and thus feel the need to defend the realm they think of as their own and attack the other realm. And when your realm is attacked, you feel the need to counterattack. And it keeps going and going and going...

This was all basically started when the creationist "realm" decided to apply their laws to the evolutionist "realm" by trying to introduce ID to the science classroom as an alternate theory to evolution, claiming it to be equally as valid or even more so. What do you expect us evolutionists to do?

it is illogical to say that the existance of God, or lack thereof, directly correlates to evolution of mankind as we know it today. it is also quite ignorant to completely disregard evolution as a whole when we have proof of it in our daily lives not to mention fossil records and dna/gene analysis. evolution is all around us, only a fool would attempt to deny this, but the real debate starts at how did man actually originate into the bipedal, concious being he is today? we have fossil records, but we do not have the origination point, therefore we cannot draw a line to our current tier because we do not have both endpoints of the lineage. therefore, it is impossible to ever say for sure what the exact origin of man is until we can trace it back to the very first step. this is why some people believe in creationism, because there is lack of proof telling otherwise. if there was factual information regarding our origins in detail, then creationists would have no reason to even think in that manner, but when there is an unknown all types of rationales will emerge to satisfy the prediciment in whatever means are most logical for each. the problem with creationism is that it causes man to disregard the entire subject of searching for his origins, for simply saying he just came to be is a solution that requires no further research. those who believe in evolution (from apes or a seperate, unknown species) are allowing mankind to continue to learn about his past for the very concept of evolution encourages research and formation of new knowledge bases. from a viewpoint concerning effeciency and production, adopting the creationism mentality is one that would allow zero development versus the evolution mentality which allows infinite development. if one accepts the scientific principle that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, then one must agree that energy can only change forms. and if one will accept the principle of e=mc^2, then one must agree that this energy can change from one matter to another matter to another - in essence one object forming a new object, forming a new object... if the very prinicple of all tangible materials says that anything in existance must have come from something else before it, this flows exatcly with the idea of evolution - one species changing into another and so on. to me, evolution is the only logical way humans have come to be the way that they are today, it would just require far too many exceptions in many other proven sciences for creationism to work, which would mean that if creationism worked then most other things would not. thus, i find it more appealing to go in the direction that builds off the base of knowledge we already have, not the direction that requires denying all other science man has worked so hard to understand just to satisfy some silly belief that we must have come from nothing because we dont know what it is at this time.

Earth was created 24 seconds after i wrote this and submitted it. It was all done by God setting everything in motion as it is. All our memories are false and he planted heaps of evidence around us to make it look like the universe has taken care of itself by following natural laws. But really it was God and he is clever and wrote this post for me but then implanted all our memories so that i really think i wrote this.This explanation is more sound than any I heard by an real IDler. Sadly your are the onlyone who answered me. Can't take ID to serious if the ID believers can't answer me that simple question. :(

it is illogical to say that the existance of God, or lack thereof, directly correlates to evolution of mankind as we know it today...
*whew* Good thing nobody said that.

Earth was created 24 seconds after i wrote this and submitted it. It was all done by God setting everything in motion as it is.
This explanation is more sound than any I heard by an real IDler. Sadly your are the onlyone who answered me. Can't take ID to serious if the ID believers can't answer me that simple question. :(
What I want to know is.... why the enormous time delay? (24 seconds, not from the IDers)

Why do people INSIST on applying the laws of one realm to the inhabitants of
other realms?
Because of truth. They are told one or the other is truth, and not knowing themselves what truth is, they seek it in that thing with all their heart. Some other people do know what truth is, and think they find it in that thing, so it cannot be in the other. Still others maintain they do not know truth at all. Thoser are the fence-sitters! ;)

Truth matters dispite belief.

the problem with creationism is that it causes man to disregard the entire subject of searching for his origins, for simply saying he just came to be is a solution that requires no further research. those who believe in evolution (from apes or a seperate, unknown species) are allowing mankind to continue to learn about his past for the very concept of evolution encourages research and formation of new knowledge bases. from a viewpoint concerning effeciency and production, adopting the creationism mentality is one that would allow zero development versus the evolution mentality which allows infinite development.
This is a reason why I also do not buy into Creationism (though godly creation itself be a good thing). It ignores science by saying, "Pooh, pooh!"

Hey..!! :D

Wills..!! Howdy..!!

This is the REAL Iakeo,... good to see you've got scads of posts in this
cesspool of "insanity".

..and Grave..! DUDE..!!? :D

Anyway,.. to the topic at hand...

God can do whatever the heck it wants, and (by definition) no one could tell
the difference, as it would seem perfectly natural (as that is the salient
characteristic of God) whatever God did or did not do.

So,.. is it easier to "prove" that evolution exists to someone who will not
accept evolution as existable, or to "prove" that God exists to someone who
will not accept that God can exist..?

Which is the harder path..?


-The REAL Iakeo :)

"It is" good to see you, my friend. :)

I challenge anyone to post ANY scientific evidence for evolution.

I only have 2 rules:

1) Please, no fossil "evidence." You see, fossils cannont be considered evidence as the only fact that is known about it is ... that it died. You don't know if it had any offspring, and by the way, why would you think that a bone in the dirt could do something that animals today cannot do?

2) Please present no "evidences" that have been previously proven incorrect. I.e., the scientific "belief" that the human embryo retains gill slits. Earnst Haeckel-pardon me if I misspelled his name-Proposed this and faked a set of drawings in the early 1860's. Five years after initially proposing this, his OWN university convicted him of fraud. And he-during his trial-admitted commiting fraud.

Other than that, I will be on tomorrow to respond to any posts.


Okay...fossil evidence can be proved to have offspring, can be dated, will tell you what conditions were like in the time of the fossilized remain(s), and even a single bone can give evidence of articulation type, size, genus if not species, and various other facts.

Why exactly can we not use it since everything you said a fossil can't do it in fact can?

well if you got evidence heres an easy way to make 250,000 dollars:
www.drdino.com
hell tell you whether it is or not evidence or "proof".

well if you got evidence heres an easy way to make 250,000 dollars:
www.drdino.com
hell tell you whether it is or not evidence or "proof".
1. The contest is unwinnable. He basically asks you to create an entire universe in order to win.
2. He doesn't even know what evolution is.
3. He doesn't even have the $250,000 anymore.

Also, as I noted in a debate with you earlier, Hovind is a lying fraud.

Because of truth. They are told one or the other is truth, and not knowing themselves what truth is, they seek it in that thing with all their heart. Some other people do know what truth is, and think they find it in that thing, so it cannot be in the other. Still others maintain they do not know truth at all. Thoser are the fence-sitters! ;)

Truth matters dispite belief.

There's a name for those who know that they don't know what the truth is:

They're called Scientists.

Define the theory of evolution in at least 75 words. If your definition is accurate, I will respond. If you cut and paste from someone else, please include a summary of the main points so that I know you have read and understand it.

I'll debate your sorry ass, but only if you're worth twenty minutes of my time to write an argument.

Since I have yet to dsicuss this with any IDer or Creationist who actually knew what the theory of evolution is, I'm in agreement with Feil.

This all is so silly... the only "evidence" of creation is what is written in books by people thousands of years ago when people didn't understand the world or have much scientific theories. For evolution, there is fossil evidence, and biological evidence, to indicate that species branched off of each other through subtle mutations, or through inefficient organisms dying off, leaving the strongest to survive. Fossils can be carbon dated, and fossils can be analyzed to even see what the creature ate. Stride data can be collected to see how fast it would move, and the whole body can be reconstructed on the same lines that forensic detectives recreate faces from skulls. Personally, I don't think evolution negates that a higher being may or may not exist, but it negates the crap in the religious texts held by the majority of the monotheistic religions.

Heavily religious people won't be convinced by any evidence to the contrary of their written scriptures, no matter what that evidence may be.

well if you got evidence heres an easy way to make 250,000 dollars:
www.drdino.com
hell tell you whether it is or not evidence or "proof".

Hovind is a fraud. Many of his claims like the moon dust and NASA were disproved a looong time ago and yet he repeats them.

He is a huckster and at that he knows what he is doing.


It's just a talking point for the ignorant that listen to him.

If you want to be taken seriously by the evolution supporters, I would not quote him in your arguements.

Any body want a good laugh? From the dear dr dino a responce to an article from scientifc american that "offended" him.

http://www.drdino.com/seeArticle.php?artid=72

I especially like his comments from:

SA:
For decades, we published articles in every issue that endorsed the ideas of Charles Darwin and his cronies. True, the theory of common descent through natural selection has been called the unifying c oncept for all of biology…

DD:
Who cares that the theory of evolution has been called, “the unifying concept for all of biology.” The theory of evolution has also been called one of the dumbest ideas in the history of man and science. The fact that some people are very dedicated to this theory to the point of revering Charles Darwin above all others, has nothing to do with the validity of the theory itself.

SA:
…and one of the greatest scientific ideas of all time…

DD:
Who cares if some people think it is the greatest scientific idea of all time. Nearly all polls show the majority of America (somewhere between 55 and 60%) does not believe it is a legitimate idea, and think there’s probably nothing scientific about it. It’s also interesting here that the writers never define what they mean by “Evolution”. They need to watch my video number four where we show the six different meanings of the word “evolution”. Only number six (microevolution) is actually scientific – the first five are religious. This is explained in further detail on our website.

Any body want a good laugh? From the dear dr dino a responce to an article from scientifc american that "offended" him.

http://www.drdino.com/seeArticle.php?artid=72

I especially like his comments from:

SA:
For decades, we published articles in every issue that endorsed the ideas of Charles Darwin and his cronies. True, the theory of common descent through natural selection has been called the unifying c oncept for all of biology…

DD:
Who cares that the theory of evolution has been called, “the unifying concept for all of biology.” The theory of evolution has also been called one of the dumbest ideas in the history of man and science. The fact that some people are very dedicated to this theory to the point of revering Charles Darwin above all others, has nothing to do with the validity of the theory itself.

SA:
…and one of the greatest scientific ideas of all time…

DD:
Who cares if some people think it is the greatest scientific idea of all time. Nearly all polls show the majority of America (somewhere between 55 and 60%) does not believe it is a legitimate idea, and think there’s probably nothing scientific about it. It’s also interesting here that the writers never define what they mean by “Evolution”. They need to watch my video number four where we show the six different meanings of the word “evolution”. Only number six (microevolution) is actually scientific – the first five are religious. This is explained in further detail on our website.
That's the April Fools issue of SA, right?

Yeah. I got a good laugh at it.

Honestly, I don’t know why people care if somebody else is a creationist or an evolutionist. How does it adversely effect an evolutionist if I believe that the Earth is a little over 6,000 years old?

I don't care what you believe.

I do care if you think that should be taught to public school children as a "theory" that competes with evolution.

That's the April Fools issue of SA, right?

BINGO! :D

I guess he didn't read the date or he never reads them as they have been doing such things for awhile. :D

BINGO! :D

I guess he didn't read the date or he never reads them as they have been doing such things for awhile. :D

How can we trust "Dr. Dino" on anything when he doesn't recognize sarcasm so thick it makes Roseanne look like a waif?

Life is constantly mutating/changing. Old species die out, new species are created. We know that many species are different than they used to be. For example, human beings are taller. Evolution is basically just saying that this changing has been happening for millions of years, and, if God created everything perfectly in the first place, why would things need to change?

Second - humans DO have the remnants of tail bones from when we were monkeys. We don't have tails anymore though. Why would we have the leftover parts of a tail if there was no reason, other than once having had them?

Third - we know how quickly carbon-13 decays into carbon-12. This is verifiable experimentally. We have found organic material that, by measuring the amount of carbon 13 compared to carbon 12, we can mathematically compute how old the organic material is. There are other elements that decay and can be used to date rocks billions of years old. Either god made those rocks to SEEM like they were billions of years old purposely, or they really are that old.

*sniped*
Second - humans DO have the remnants of tail bones from when we were monkeys. We don't have tails anymore though. Why would we have the leftover parts of a tail if there was no reason, other than once having had them?
*sniped*

Plus the clavicle makes only sense for a tree-dwelling creature, plus the color-vision makes most sense for a fruit-eating forrest creature, plus our proteins are higly analog to chimp proteins (lysozyme is fo example identical), plus, plus, plus ... But I guess this are all no proofs for people who simply don't want to understand (and who are afraid of telling me how old they think the earth is)

The origional poster is obviously a troll, who I guess normally operates under another name. To make a post like this his/her first post ever and then vanish looks a bit suspicoius.

I do like how this time the debate decended into name calling and flaming within a couple of posts rather than the usual fun of several pages heated debate that usually preceeds the descent.

Going to the idea that humans once had tails. If humans had no use for tails, for some unfathomable reason, then the tail won't disappear, would it? It would only disappear if the tail was disadvantageous (open to definition) to survival.

Going to the idea that humans once had tails. If humans had no use for tails, for some unfathomable reason, then the tail won't disappear, would it? It would only disappear if the tail was disadvantageous (open to definition) to survival. Which is why I get mildly irritated when people say that humans will lose their body hair. Natural selection means that the ones which are disadvantaged do not spread their genes… and unless hairy people (read: Arabs and Russians) are at a disadvantage, that won't happen.

Going to the idea that humans once had tails. If humans had no use for tails, for some unfathomable reason, then the tail won't disappear, would it? It would only disappear if the tail was disadvantageous (open to definition) to survival.No. You got no great knowledge about evolution, don't you? The neutral evolution theory states that every trait which is neutral or slightly disadvantageous can be lost. Plus, a tail is disadvantageous, when it's not needed, because it costs energy to grow one.

Which is why I get mildly irritated when people say that humans will lose their body hair. Natural selection means that the ones which are disadvantaged do not spread their genes… and unless hairy people (read: Arabs and Russians) are at a disadvantage, that won't happen. Again, no. Today body hair is a neurtral trait. As I stated above, neutral evolution theory shows that every neutral trait can get lost or not. It's stochastics.

BTW: Liskeinland and Dragons Bay, how old believe you guys is earth and the universe?

Again, no. Today body hair is a neurtral trait. As I stated above, neutral evolution theory shows that every neutral trait can get lost or not. It's stochastics. Yes, it's possible it will get lost, but not because it's no longer needed. That won't be the reason.

Honestly, I don’t know why people care if somebody else is a creationist or an evolutionist. How does it adversely effect an evolutionist if I believe that the Earth is a little over 6,000 years old? I know it doesn’t effect me that evolutionists believe it’s 4.5-4.6 Billion years old.

A fair question.

Science--and the rest of human knowledge--doesn't exist in a vacuum. The quality of your own life depends in large part on what other people believe.

Let's look at the EVIDENCE (to jerk the chain of Shalloo for starting this thread)--

The dominant belief of western civilization for most of the past millenium was Christianity. Only in the past couple of centuries has greater faith been placed in science.

In practical terms, we're better off.

Let's presume you contracted an infectious disease in the year 1350. You might have resorted to folk medicine, or you might have had the priest pray for you and try to exorcise the demon that you beleived caused your illness. You probably died.

Nowadays, most infections are quickly cured with antibiotics--the product of the scientific method. And when new infectious micro-organisms EVOLVE :eek: then our knowledge of genetics makes it easier than ever to make a new antibiotic.

Without the whole of biological science--which includes an understanding of genetics, evolution, and physiology--we're left back in the days when the "four humours" were blamed for all human maladies, physical and psychological, and blood-letting was used counterproductively as a cure for lots of ills.

SUMMARY: Care about knowledge, drop the old superstitions, and enjoy the prosperity; or be content with ignorance and privation. Is that so hard a choice? Yes, maybe for a closed-minded bigot :headbang:

Yes, it's possible it will get lost, but not because it's no longer needed. That won't be the reason.
If there is any reason for this to happen, than it's a stochastic. What else reason should that be?

How much 'evidence' do you need? Our DNA is 98% similar to that of a chimpanzee. We have observed evolution in Gypsy Moths in England when they changed color to keep themselves camoflauge. We have a pattern of skeletal remains that clearly show an evolutionary history.

I think that the burden of truth remains with your religion. Prove to me that something else created man. Your bible has as many holes as swiss cheese. In case you were not aware, there are TWO accounts of human origins in the bible.

A fair question.

Science--and the rest of human knowledge--doesn't exist in a vacuum. The quality of your own life depends in large part on what other people believe.

Let's look at the EVIDENCE (to jerk the chain of Shalloo for starting this thread)--

The dominant belief of western civilization for most of the past millenium was Christianity. Only in the past couple of centuries has greater faith been placed in science.

In practical terms, we're better off.

Let's presume you contracted an infectious disease in the year 1350. You might have resorted to folk medicine, or you might have had the priest pray for you and try to exorcise the demon that you beleived caused your illness. You probably died.

Nowadays, most infections are quickly cured with antibiotics--the product of the scientific method. And when new infectious micro-organisms EVOLVE :eek: then our knowledge of genetics makes it easier than ever to make a new antibiotic.

Without the whole of biological science--which includes an understanding of genetics, evolution, and physiology--we're left back in the days when the "four humours" were blamed for all human maladies, physical and psychological, and blood-letting was used counterproductively as a cure for lots of ills.

SUMMARY: Care about knowledge, drop the old superstitions, and enjoy the prosperity; or be content with ignorance and privation. Is that so hard a choice? Yes, maybe for a closed-minded bigot
Pot... meet kettle...

There is no direct connection between superstition and closed-minded bigotry, as I think your conclusion adequately demonstrates.

Going to the idea that humans once had tails. If humans had no use for tails, for some unfathomable reason, then the tail won't disappear, would it? It would only disappear if the tail was disadvantageous (open to definition) to survival.

A tail IS a disadvantage, if you do not need it - since it presents an added extraneous body part, to use up resources, but - also - because a tail can be quite an easy target for a predator.

Going to the idea that humans once had tails. If humans had no use for tails, for some unfathomable reason, then the tail won't disappear, would it? It would only disappear if the tail was disadvantageous (open to definition) to survival.

It was disadvantageous. As Homo Erectus became more mobile, those with tails were hindered as the tail made them bend forward and therefore not flee as fast from large predators. Those without the tail could walk more upright and therefore flee faster. Hence, the FITTEST SURVIVED. Awfully Darwinistic sounding really.

Oh and to add something I've seen in other posts....THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN EVOLUTIONIST.

Oh and to add something I've seen in other posts....THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN EVOLUTIONIST.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=evolutionist Look at the second entry.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=evolutionist Look at the second entry.

Now why would they do that? That serves to legitimize Creationism. Although I must say I like the first definition. One skilled in evolutions. Ah yes, the failability of dictionary.com.

Now why would they do that? That serves to legitimize Creationism. Although I must say I like the first definition. One skilled in evolutions. Ah yes, the failability of dictionary.com.

Meriam-Webster, American Heritage, and an online medical resource... hardly what I would call the foundations of the dictionary world...

Now - if the OED carries the same definition, I might accept it.

Earth was created 24 seconds after i wrote this and submitted it. It was all done by God setting everything in motion as it is. All our memories are false and he planted heaps of evidence around us to make it look like the universe has taken care of itself by following natural laws. But really it was God and he is clever and wrote this post for me but then implanted all our memories so that i really think i wrote this.

This explanation is more sound than any I heard by an real IDler. Sadly your are the onlyone who answered me. Can't take ID to serious if the ID believers can't answer me that simple question.

What I want to know is.... why the enormous time delay? (24 seconds, not from the IDers)

Sorry about the delayed reply.

But the 24 second time delay is totally obvious. You see, according to my holy text after God created all of mankind and had them suspended in stasis, ready to be animated, he then created Guiness. It took God 24 seconds (24 being the holy number) to create all the Guiness in the world and then drink one. Once my Holy Scripture is published you will see if for the truth. In later parts of the scriptures it confirms that the earlier things in the scriptures are true after all. It all makes perfect sense.

And you'll all be surprised what God REALLY thinks about poly-cotton blends and eating bananas on wednesdays. ;)

Sorry about the delayed reply.

But the 24 second time delay is totally obvious. You see, according to my holy text after God created all of mankind and had them suspended in stasis, ready to be animated, he then created Guiness. It took God 24 seconds (24 being the holy number) to create all the Guiness in the world and then drink one. Once my Holy Scripture is published you will see if for the truth. In later parts of the scriptures it confirms that the earlier things in the scriptures are true after all. It all makes perfect sense.

And you'll all be surprised what God REALLY thinks about poly-cotton blends and eating bananas on wednesdays. ;)
I know it's forbidden to wear clothes made of different fabrics but bananas?

It was disadvantageous. As Homo Erectus became more mobile, those with tails were hindered as the tail made them bend forward and therefore not flee as fast from large predators. Those without the tail could walk more upright and therefore flee faster. Hence, the FITTEST SURVIVED. Awfully Darwinistic sounding really.

slight problem. we lost our tails quite a bit earlier than h. erectus. the last common ancestor of all of the modern apes didn't have a tail, and that was some 23 million years ago.


http://www.evolutionnyc.com/ImgUpload/P_878393_939977.jpg
chimpanzee


http://www.evolutionnyc.com/ImgUpload/P_72033_961775.jpg
gorilla


http://www.boneclones.com/images/sc-002_web-md.jpg
orangutan


http://www.skullsunlimited.com/graphics/gibbon.jpg
gibbon

Meriam-Webster, American Heritage, and an online medical resource... hardly what I would call the foundations of the dictionary world...

Now - if the OED carries the same definition, I might accept it.

So is the first definition for Creationist one who is skilled in creation?

Now - if the OED carries the same definition, I might accept it.

it might, if only because creationists keep using it in published works. i'll go check

So is the first definition for Creationist one who is skilled in creation?

It's not the first definition I would give.... :)

I know it's forbidden to wear clothes made of different fabrics but bananas?

i was surprised too. But upon close examination it would appear that God created many tropical fruits on a day he deemed as Wednesday. Time did not techinally exist at this point, but God being God he saw fit that he could do whatever he wanted and called it wednesday anyway. Thus wednesdays are meant to be a day held over for abstinence towards many fruit. "Henceforth thou shalt respect tasty fruits through abstaining on the day of their creation". Thus was it written and thus was it so.

Having been wednesday for 2 hours where i am, i am now in perilous temptation by the pineapple in my fridge. Pray for me brothers and sisters.

it might, if only because creationists keep using it in published works. i'll go check

yeah, it shows up in my copy of the new shorter oed. includes the 'one skilled in evolutions' definition too.

slight problem. we lost our tails quite a bit earlier than h. erectus. the last common ancestor of all of the modern apes didn't have a tail, and that was some 23 million years ago.


http://www.evolutionnyc.com/ImgUpload/P_878393_939977.jpg
chimpanzee


http://www.evolutionnyc.com/ImgUpload/P_72033_961775.jpg
gorilla


http://www.boneclones.com/images/sc-002_web-md.jpg
orangutan


http://www.skullsunlimited.com/graphics/gibbon.jpg
gibbon
I think it got lost because it was a neutral trait. Great apes didn't use it for climbing so it had the chance to get lost. It's all about stochastics as I told before.

Now why would they do that? That serves to legitimize Creationism. Although I must say I like the first definition. One skilled in evolutions. Ah yes, the failability of dictionary.com.
Because it's the American Heritage Dictionary, self-proclaimed to include all useages and contexts of words common in the United States of America.

yeah, it shows up in my copy of the new shorter oed. includes the 'one skilled in evolutions' definition too.

If the OED has it, I guess we'll have to start accepting it as 'real'.

Etymologically, one would assume an 'evolutionist' is one that practises evolving...

i was surprised too. But upon close examination it would appear that God created many tropical fruits on a day he deemed as Wednesday. Time did not techinally exist at this point, but God being God he saw fit that he could do whatever he wanted and called it wednesday anyway. Thus wednesdays are meant to be a day held over for abstinence towards many fruit. "Henceforth thou shalt respect tasty fruits through abstaining on the day of their creation". Thus was it written and thus was it so.

Having been wednesday for 2 hours where i am, i am now in perilous temptation by the pineapple in my fridge. Pray for me brothers and sisters.
Good to have still tuesday over here *munches a tasty, fresh plum*

Now why would they do that? That serves to legitimize Creationism. Although I must say I like the first definition. One skilled in evolutions. Ah yes, the failability of dictionary.com.

It doesn't actually say one skilled in evolutions. It just says "a student of or adherent to a theory of evolution."

I don't use the word evolutionist with a negative connotation, by the way; I just see it as a more convenient way to say "one who supports or believes in the theory of evolution." I see myself as an evolutionist in that regard.

Good to have still tuesday over here *munches a tasty, fresh plum*

*cries* you mock me with your tuesday liberties. I'm sure there must be something in my holy book i can use to justify smiting you.

*cries* you mock me with your tuesday liberties. I'm sure there must be something in my holy book i can use to justify smiting you.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's including plums.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's including plums.

Very true. But only if you're living by the OLD holy constitution. After the great cleansing by the prophet Mike Patton (of 'Faith No More' fame) all the old rules were cast aside to usher in the new era. Now we are actually encouraged to smite all those opposed to our holy views. It says so right here *lazily waves hand across pages on illedgible text*. To paraphrase it was something along the lines of "screw thine old rules. Thou shalt now kick some ass to all those that shalt not do what i goddamn say. And eat fruit only when we should".

Yes that'll do. *coughs*

Very true. But only if you're living by the OLD holy constitution. After the great cleansing by the prophet Mike Patton (of 'Faith No More' fame) all the old rules were cast aside to usher in the new era. Now we are actually encouraged to smite all those opposed to our holy views. It says so right here *lazily waves hand across pages on illedgible text*. To paraphrase it was something along the lines of "screw thine old rules. Thou shalt now kick some ass to all those that shalt not do what i goddamn say. And eat fruit only when we should".

Yes that'll do. *coughs*
S***! :eek:

Here is a site for you to look over Another argument in the evolution-creation controversy (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/)

Strange how so many of these evolution vs creationism threads tend to follow the same generalised pattern

Original post
Initial good humoured posturing of opposition and support.
Serious debate
Flaming and Trolling
Frustrated Rants
Arguing over etymology and semantics
Absurd satire and parody
Slow and painful death

Here is some proof of evolution. Evolution observed.

Insects that develop a resistance to pesticides.
Bacteria that develop a resistance to antibiotics. Super bugs.

Here is some proof of evolution. Evolution observed.

Insects that develop a resistance to pesticides.
Bacteria that develop a resistance to antibiotics. Super bugs.

Creationists would define that as adaptation or 'microevolution'. Its a solid and valid point, but no matter how much we state its validity they will still say it doesnt count. We need to show them a slug giving birth to a porpoise before they'll belive us.

wikipedia - evolution is "the process by which populations of organisms acquire and pass on novel traits from generation to generation."

The resistance qualifies under that definition quite nicely. But since it isnt as dramatic as a new set of limbs sprouting i have a feeling that, sadly, most creationists will simply dismiss it

But a lifeform changing so that it can survive something that had once been able to kill it is dramatic.

Suppose humans developed a resistance to gamma radiation. Would that not be dramatic?

But a lifeform changing so that it can survive something that had once been able to kill it is dramatic.

Suppose humans developed a resistance to gamma radiation. Would that not be dramatic?

No. It would be evolution. Only those that developed a resistance to gamma radiation would survive.

No. It would be evolution. Only those that developed a resistance to gamma radiation would survive.

That is what I am saying, but is it enough proof for creationists. If it is then the Superbugs should be dramatic enough proof for evolution to be true.

But a lifeform changing so that it can survive something that had once been able to kill it is dramatic.

Suppose humans developed a resistance to gamma radiation. Would that not be dramatic?

Absolutely. It would be an incredibly dramatic development.

But because you cant SEE a bacteria resisting an antibiotic, and you couldnt see that someone who was sitting around quite happily was being blasted by gamma radiation. Creationists would quite easily ignore it and say it wasn't real or wasn't relevant. However, they are most likely the same people who use the "Just because you cant see God, doesnt mean he's not real" argument.

Go figure.

Creationists want absolute mathematical quality proof of evolution from us. Mere evidence will never do. It doesnt matter how much we present them with evidence, they will just claim that is isnt proof. And they will then go on to point at previous evidence that was false or innaccurate while they ignore the rest of the mountain of evidence that is valid.

Showing them a guy saying "i just shot him" while holding a smoking gun looking down at a bloody body at his feet with a point-blank gunshot to the head wont be enough for them because we cant actually show them the gunshot occuring.

Just my cynical view of course.

EDIT:
I am of course assuming what a creationist would think. If this counts as trolling in anyway its not intentional. It would please me greatly if some creationist could prove me wrong. But if they did then they probably wouldnt be a creationist anymore.

is anyone else amazed that with the lame first post by a guy who never bothered to come back this thread has lasted so long?

It is impossible for Evolution not to happen. If there is a good gene it will be more likely to be passed on. After time everything (or most of it) in a speices will have that trait. It can't logicly happen any other way.

BTW. Where the hell is the creationists proof of "GOD"? The bible? LOL

Originally Posted by The Jovian Moons
It is impossible for Evolution not to happen. If there is a good gene it will be more likely to be passed on. After time everything (or most of it) in a speices will have that trait. It can't logicly happen any other way.

You only need to look it up on the web. There are far more facts in favor of evolution than creationism(0).

The book "Is There a Creator Who Cares About You?" put out by the jehovah's witness/watchtower organisation is a book dedicated to proving God. A JW i work with gave me a copy to read. It was really quite amusing until all the flaws in its logic, its misrepresentations of science, and its conclusions based on totally irrelevant information all started to really p*** me off.

is anyone else amazed that with the lame first post by a guy who never bothered to come back this thread has lasted so long?

what can i say, people like making fun of creationists.

though i'm getting bored with them now. i want to make fun of mormons for a change.

Don't Mormons practise polygamy?

Have any of you seen the South Park episode about morons, I mean Mormons?
It was very funny.

Time for me to go to bed.

Don't Mormons practise polygamy?If they want to avoid excommunication they don't. And if they don't want to avoid excommunication... well, then, they're not Mormons. So the short answer to your question is "No."

Don't Mormons practise polygamy?

unofficially. its one of the few good things about them really.

unofficially. its one of the few good things about them really.
Should we go on about the bad?

I dated a Mormon once, before we were 18. Damn they're strict about underage relationships.

I dated a Mormon once, before we were 18. Damn they're strict about underage relationships.

oh man, all of their social norms are just a bit off. a friend of mine in idaho wouldn't let her parents know her address for fear that they would send round the mormon nagging squad to make her rejoin the church.

but what i really find great about mormonism is that the entire thing is centered around a few demonstratably false ideas about the history of the americas, made up by a guy who at best was just fucking with people.

Well sorry i took so long on a thread i'm sure a few expected me on earlier ....

*ahem*

Distribution and evolution of the Anopheles punctulatus group (Diptera:
Culicidae) in Australia and Papua New Guinea.

Beebe NW, Cooper RD.

Molecular Parasitology Unit, University of Technology, Westbourne Street,
Gore Hill, 2065, Sydney, NSW, Australia. nigel.beebe@uts.edu.au

The members of the Anopheles punctulatus group are major vectors of malaria
and Bancroftian filariasis in the southwest Pacific region. The group is
comprised of 12 cryptic species that require DNA-based tools for species
identification. From 1984 to 1998 surveys were carried out in northern
Australia, Papua New Guinea and on islands in the southwest Pacific to determine the distribution of the A. punctulatus group. The results of these
surveys have now been completed and have generated distribution data from
more than 1500 localities through this region. Within this region several
climatic and geographical barriers were identified that restricted species
distribution and gene flow between geographic populations. This information
was further assessed in light of a molecular phylogeny derived from the
ssrDNA (18S). Subsequently, hypotheses have been generated on the evolution
and distribution of the group so that future field and laboratory studies
may be approached more systematically. This study suggested that the ability
for widespread dispersal was found to have appeared independently in species
that show niche-specific habitat preference (Anopheles farauti s.s. and A.
punctulatus) and conversely in species that showed diversity in their larval
habitat (Anopheles farauti 2). Adaptation to the monsoonal climate of
northern Australia and southwest Papua New Guinea was found to have appeared
independently in A. farauti s.s., A. farauti 2 and Anopheles farauti 3.
Shared or synapomorphic characters were identified as saltwater tolerance
(A. farauti s.s. and Anopheles farauti 7) and elevational affinities above
1500 m (Anopheles farauti 5, Anopheles farauti 6 and A. farauti 2).
--

That one above meets it. It's current. No need for fossils.

and ....

*ahem*

First Upright Walker Found
ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia, Mar.5, 2005


(AP) A team of U.S. and Ethiopian scientists has discovered the fossilized
remains of what they believe is humankind's first walking ancestor, a
hominid that lived in the wooded grasslands of the Horn of Africa nearly 4
million years ago.

The bones were discovered in February at a new site called Mille, in the
northeastern Afar region of Ethiopia, said Bruce Latimer, director of the
Cleveland Museum of Natural History in Ohio. They are estimated to be 3.8-4
million years old.

The fossils include a complete tibia from the lower part of the leg, parts
of a thighbone, ribs, vertebrae, a collarbone, pelvis and a complete
shoulder blade, or scapula. There also is an anklebone, which, with the
tibia, proves the creature walked upright, said Latimer, co-leader of the
team that discovered the fossils.

The bones are the latest in a growing collection of early human fragments
that help explain the evolutionary history of man.

"Right now we can say this is the world's oldest bipedal (an animal walking
on two feet) and what makes this significant is because what makes us human is walking upright," Latimer said. "This new discovery will give us a
picture of how walking upright occurred."

The findings have not been reviewed by outside scientists or published in a
scientific journal.

Leslie Aiello, an anthropologist and head of the Graduate School at
University College in London said, however, that the new finds could be
significant.

"It sounds like a significant find, ... particularly if they have a partial
skeleton because it allows you to speculate on biomechanics," Aiello, who
was not part of the discovery team, told The Associated Press by telephone
from Britain.

Paleontologists previously discovered in Ethiopia the remains of
Ardipithecus ramidus, a transitional creature with significant ape
characteristics dating as far back as 4.5 million years. There is some
dispute over whether it walked upright on two legs, Latimer and Aiello said.

Scientists know little about A. ramidus. A few skeletal fragments suggest it
was even smaller than Australopithecus afarensis, the 3.2 million-year-old
species widely known by the nearly complete "Lucy" fossil, which measures
about 4 feet tall.

Scientists are yet to classify the new find, which they believe falls
between A. ramidus and A. afarensis. The fossils would help "join the dots"
between the two hominids, said Yohannes Haile-Selassie, an Ethiopian
scientist and curator at the Cleveland Museum of Natural History as well a
co-leader of the discovery team.
"This discovery will tell us much about how our 4-million-year-old ancestors
walked, how tall they were and what they looked like," he said. "It opens
the door on a poorly known time period and (the fossils) are important in
that they will help us understand the early phases of human evolution before
Lucy."

The specimen is the only the fourth partial skeleton ever to be discovered
that is older than 3 million years. It was found after two months of
excavation at Mille, 37 miles from the famous Lucy discovery.


"It is a once in a lifetime find," Latimer said.

--------------

And one more... very current. ....

*ahem*

Footprints to Fill
Flat feet and doubts about makers of the Laetoli tracks
By Kate Wong

It is one of the most evocative traces of humanity's ancestors ever found, a trail of footprints pressed into new fallen volcanic ash some 3.6 million years ago in what is now Laetoli, Tanzania. Discovered in 1978 by a team headed by Mary Leakey, the Laetoli footprints led to the stunning revelation that humans walked upright well before they made stone tools or evolved large brains. They also engendered controversy: scientists have debated everything from how many individuals made the prints to how best to protect them for posterity. Experts have generally come to agree, however, that the tracks probably belong to members of the species Australopithecus afarensis, the hominid most famously represented by the Lucy fossil. Now new research is calling even that conclusion into question.
The case for A. afarensis as the Laetoli trailblazer hinges on the fact that fossils of the species are known from the site and that the only available reconstruction of what this hominid's foot looked like is compatible with the morphology evident in the footprints. But in a presentation given at the American Association of Physical Anthropologists meeting in April, William E. H. Harcourt-Smith of the American Museum of Natural History and Charles E. Hilton of Western Michigan University took issue with the latter assertion.
The prints show that whoever made them had a humanlike foot arch, and the reconstructed A. afarensis foot exhibits just such an arch. So far, so good. The problem, Harcourt-Smith and Hilton say, is that the reconstruction is actually based on a patchwork of bones from 3.2-million-year-old afarensis and 1.8-million-year-old Homo habilis. And one of the bones used to determine whether the foot was in fact arched--the so-called navicular--is from H. habilis, not A. afarensis.
To get a toehold on the Laetoli problem, the researchers first compared the gaits of modern humans walking on sand with two sets of the fossil tracks. This analysis confirmed that the ancient footprints were left by individuals who had a striding bipedal gait very much like that of people today. The team then scrutinized naviculars of A. afarensis, H. habilis, chimpanzees and gorillas. The dimensions of the H. habilis navicular fell within the modern human range. In contrast, the A. afarensis bone resembled that of the flat-footed apes, making it improbable that its foot had an arch like our own. As such, the researchers report, A. afarensis almost certainly did not walk like us or, by extension, like the hominids at Laetoli. But according to bipedalism expert C. Owen Lovejoy of Kent State University, other features of the australopithecine foot, such as a big toe that lines up with, rather than opposes, the other toes, indicate that it did have an arch. Even if it did not, Lovejoy contends, that would not mean A. afarensis was incapable of humanlike walking. "Lots of modern humans are flat-footed," he observes. "They are more prone to injury, because they lack the energy-absorptive capacities of the arch, but they walk in a perfectly normal way." For their part, Harcourt-Smith and Hilton note that a new reconstruction of the A. afarensis foot built exclusively from A. afarensis remains is needed to confirm these preliminary findings. As for identifying the real culprit, if A. afarensis did not make the prints, that would put the poorly known A. anamensis in the running. But just as likely, speculates Harcourt-Smith, an as yet undiscovered species left the prints. That is to say, consider the world's oldest whodunit an unsolved mystery.
---------

That last article is a brilliant example of how science is self-correcting.

That last article is a brilliant example of how science is self-correcting.
Sadly, it'll result in a surge of "OGM!!!1 LUCY wsa a chmip!!!1!!!1 EVolTuton si wRogn!!1!" posts.

Sadly, it'll result in a surge of "OGM!!!1 LUCY wsa a chmip!!!1!!!1 EVolTuton si wRogn!!1!" posts.

Probably won't even have that much cognitive impact...

That last article is a brilliant example of how science is self-correcting.
I thought it pertinent ....

As also ....

*ahem*

Little fire ant males are clones
Researchers identify first ant species in which both males and females have reverted to asexuality

Detailed genetic analyses of little fire ant Wasmannia auropunctata colonies have revealed an unexpected mode of reproduction by males. The findings, published this week in Nature, show that males within a colony are genetically identical, implying that they are produced clonally. Effectively, male and female fire ants are two separate genetic lineages whose only sexually produced diploid progeny are sterile workers, the study authors suggest.
Denis Fournier, from Université Libre de Bruxelles in Belgium, and colleagues studied the DNA of queens, workers, males, and their sperm from 34 little ant nests in French Guiana. They expected to find a typical haplodiploidy genetic system, but instead discovered that queens possessed only maternally derived DNA, and males possessed only paternally derived DNA.
"If males are potentially in an evolutionary dead end, as is true in the little fire ant where workers are sterile and all queens are clonally produced, they do not have a means to transmit their genes to the next generation," said Fournier. Queens produce gynes (reproductively competent females) clonally, a strategy that denies males the opportunity to pass on their genes. Males are still required, however, in the production of workers, upon which a queen's own reproductive success depends even though males themselves gain nothing.
The males' response has been to evolve their own means of clonal reproduction, Fournier and colleagues say. They propose that at some stage after fertilization, maternal genetic material is lost and a haploid male offspring, encoded solely by the sperm's DNA, develops. "We could think of the males as a separate, parasitic species that uses host eggs for its own reproduction," said Fournier.
"The reality with natural history is that if you look close enough, you find remarkable patterns," commented Greg Hurst, at University College London. This well-known ant species was previously thought to have a "classic bee-ant system of genetics," in which diploid females exist alongside maternally derived haploid males. But the "fascinating bit of natural history" uncovered by Fournier and colleagues tells a more complex story, in which males and females both reproduce asexually and have thus separated into distinct genetic lineages.
"In essence, the male-female interaction in this species has become like an obligate symbiosis—the females need the males for worker production and the males need the females as a vehicle for producing eggs," said Hurst, who was not involved with the study. "But both have genetic integrity."
This unusual genetic system owes its rarity to "two improbable [evolutionary] steps," according to Rice University's David Queller, author of an accompanying News and Views piece. First, females provided the selective impetus for males to reproduce clonally by ceasing production of males. Second, males became able to parasitize queen's eggs and use them to produce clonal sons.
However, there are costs to clonality. Asexually reproducing species are vulnerable to the long-term accumulation of deleterious mutations, a process known as Muller's ratchet, Queller told The Scientist. The little fire ant could have mitigated these effects to some extent through the sexual reproduction of diploid workers, which by virtue of their increased genetic heterogenity are less susceptible to disease and parasites.
For the hundred or so species of social insects for which the data already exist, this is the only known case in which both males and females have reverted to asexuality, Queller said. It could be "more common than we think," he said, but remains hidden because of the effort required to carry out the conclusive genetic analysis.

......................
So, anyone punched up anopheles yet?
As an obvious *surprise*, i have more .... :eek:

Oh yeah, almost missed this one.....

(No ahem, throat's already cleared!!!!)

Men Aren't Going Extinct
Robert Langreth, 08.31.05, 5:00 PM ET

NEW YORK - Good news for men: The male sex chromosome isn't going extinct anytime soon. Researchers have found, contrary to the popular notion, that the male Y chromosome is not gradually decaying away.

In recent years, researchers have theorized that the male sex chromosome is heading for extinction over the next few million years. Unlike other chromosomes, the Y chromosome has no partner with which to swap genes when one gets damaged. The Y contains a wimpy 27 genes (versus 1,000 or so for the X chromosome), and has shed the vast majority of its genes since it diverged from ancestor chromosomes roughly 300 million years ago. It has been likened to a genetic wasteland.

But now researchers at the MIT-affiliated Whitehead Institute have compared the human Y chromosome to the chimpanzee counterpart, searching for genes that men may have lost or degraded since humankind diverged from chimps six million years ago. To their relief, they found not a single gene has been lost in that long period, indicating that the Y isn't falling after all.

By contrast, the researchers found that the chimpanzee male chromosome has lost five genes over the last six million years, which may be due to chimps' promiscuous sexual habits, the researchers theorized. Men have one X and one Y chromosome, while women have two X chromosomes.

"Somehow this idea...that the Y chromosome is headed for extinction...has achieved tremendous market penetration," says Whitehead geneticist David Page, the senior author of the study. "But despite all the doomsday scenarios, it actually looks like the Y is sailing along quite nicely. It has established a new lifestyle with fewer genes. Our species has a long to-do list, but I think we can cross this problem off the list. You can sleep a little better now."

The sex chromosome work is being published this week in the British journal Nature as part of a package of articles on the sequencing of the chimpanzee genome.

In several other articles, researchers from the University of Washington and elsewhere searched for key genetic differences that could help explain what makes us human. Overall, the researchers found that human and chimps were 98.8% genetically identical, with a mere 35 million chemical letters that differ between the chimp and human books of life. By another measure, searching through larger sections of DNA for whole sentences that are copied or deleted, the researchers found a slightly larger 2.7% variation between the two species.

"The chimp data allows us to provide a comprehensive catalog of all the variations between chimp and human," says University of Washington geneticist Evan Eichler. This data will help to narrow down to the minority of changes crucial to our human-ness.

Still, after all this work, researchers are only at the very earliest stages of figuring out why we are so much smarter than monkeys.

"The original idea was by comparing [chimps' genes]with the human genome we would discover why we write poetry or become reporters. Sadly today we can say almost nothing about that topic that we couldn't say before the chimp genome was done," says Whitehead Institute's Page. "We genomicists can pile up the DNA letters very quickly but are very primitive readers of the text. It is an overstatement to say we can read it at the first grade level."

The chimpanzee genome data provides another possible tool for companies mining gene data for key disease causing genes and genetic variations, although the mouse genome and other model systems such as tiny roundworms are likely to remain mainstays for this sort of work.

Companies known for their gene work include Celera Genomics Group and Human Genome Sciences (nasdaq: HGSI - news - people ). Big drug companies, including Merck (nyse: MRK - news - people ) and Pfizer (nyse: PFE - news - people ) and GlaxoSmithKline (nyse: GSK - news - people ) have also invested heavily in newfangled gene research over the years.
-----------------------------

I challenge anyone to post ANY scientific evidence for evolution.

I only have 2 rules:

1) Please, no fossil "evidence." You see, fossils cannont be considered evidence as the only fact that is known about it is ... that it died. You don't know if it had any offspring, and by the way, why would you think that a bone in the dirt could do something that animals today cannot do?

2) Please present no "evidences" that have been previously proven incorrect. I.e., the scientific "belief" that the human embryo retains gill slits. Earnst Haeckel-pardon me if I misspelled his name-Proposed this and faked a set of drawings in the early 1860's. Five years after initially proposing this, his OWN university convicted him of fraud. And he-during his trial-admitted commiting fraud.

Other than that, I will be on tomorrow to respond to any posts.

"Fossils" are part of the evidence, not the end all be all of it. Part of the system categorized fossiles, dates those fossils (most common method is potasium-argon radiometric dating), and look for coorelation in the fossil evidence, placement of fossils in the history.... And the presentation of the final result.

Another method, which you discounted, is viewing the development of fetal forms as they develop.... The Human fetus is a prime example. While the fetus does not retain "gill-slits" it does retain the cartlidge support for those slits (which eventually devlope into the laryx); as well as a tail (which at one point has "fins")... And the categorization of the genome over time, seeing redundant elements, and genetic comparison between species.... Any two humans share about 99.9% of the same genetic material..... Chimpanzees share between 95 and 96% of the same genetic material with humans.... Another form is comparing mitochondrial DNA (the mitochondria are organelles found inside the cells; they mutate much more rapidly, and are only passed by the females of species).... Drifts in the mtDNA indicate levels of inter-relation between those species ... And also comparitive study of relative relation...

Finally: a quiz.... I am going to give you three images of from the womb.... Only one of these is human..... the other is a pig and a chimpanzee... You must correctly identify each one....

Image1
http://www.geocities.com/tekcomputers/image1.jpg
A)Chimpanzee
B)Human
C)Pig


Image2
http://www.geocities.com/tekcomputers/image2.jpg
A)Chimpanzee
B)Human
C)Pig


Image3
http://www.geocities.com/tekcomputers/image3.jpg
A)Chimpanzee
B)Human
C)Pig

It's because many people see these two realms, as you put it, to be incompatible, and thus feel the need to defend the realm they think of as their own and attack the other realm. And when your realm is attacked, you feel the need to counterattack. And it keeps going and going and going...

This was all basically started when the creationist "realm" decided to apply their laws to the evolutionist "realm" by trying to introduce ID to the science classroom as an alternate theory to evolution, claiming it to be equally as valid or even more so. What do you expect us evolutionists to do?

Laugh at them. :)

Seriously,.. laugh at them.

They can claim what they like,.. but THEY need to prove their propositions,
not "you" (the evolutionists).

You forget what your job is, and allow them to control the situation. It's the
classic head-fake.

Remember,.. a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich.

Don't become the (pissed-off and defensive) ham sandwich. Become the
(actual and oblivious) ham sandwich, which couldn't care less about the
machinations of "the grand jury of idiots", commonly known as
the "creationist/ID folk".

(( By the way, I personally am a christian who believes that God created the
universe in the way that we will discover, as best we can while we still exist,
by actually observing it. Evolution is one of those observations that we've
noticed at this stage in our observing. Creationism/ID is the tactic of the
impatient hyper-rationalist religious person to "short-circuit" what God is
showing us of his creation and instead imposing a man-made pile of
nonsense. That's just a plain old rude [and silly] thing to do to
your "teacher", and in this case, creator. :) ))

-The REAL Iakeo

Laugh at them. :)

Seriously,.. laugh at them.

They can claim what they like,.. but THEY need to prove their propositions,
not "you" (the evolutionists).

You forget what your job is, and allow them to control the situation. It's the
classic head-fake.

Remember,.. a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich.

Don't become the (pissed-off and defensive) ham sandwich. Become the
(actual and oblivious) ham sandwich, which couldn't care less about the
machinations of "the grand jury of idiots", commonly known as
the "creationist/ID folk".

(( By the way, I personally am a christian who believes that God created the
universe in the way that we will discover, as best we can while we still exist,
by actually observing it. Evolution is one of those observations that we've
noticed at this stage in our observing. Creationism/ID is the tactic of the
impatient hyper-rationalist religious person to "short-circuit" what God is
showing us of his creation and instead imposing a man-made pile of
nonsense. That's just a plain old rude [and silly] thing to do to
your "teacher", and in this case, creator. :) ))

-The REAL Iakeo


Exactly. If you want to blow the IDers out of the water, don't debate them laugh at how ridiculous they are and then mention to your friends how absurd they are. If all the intelligent people point and laugh or just ignore them, they wil go away.

Originally Posted by Oekai
Why do people INSIST on applying the laws of one realm to the inhabitants of
other realms?

Because of truth. They are told one or the other is truth, and not knowing themselves what truth is, they seek it in that thing with all their heart. Some other people do know what truth is, and think they find it in that thing, so it cannot be in the other. Still others maintain they do not know truth at all. Thoser are the fence-sitters! ;)

Truth matters dispite belief.

Once again,.. I whip out my "indoeuropean roots" dictionary, and:

Truth: derived from "deru", meaning "to be firm, solid, steadfast."

So,.. if something that you "think might be the truth", due to the "convincing
of others", is not "verifiably FIRM SOLID and/or STEADFAST", should it be
described as "truth"..?

My nowhere-near-humble opinion,.. NO..!!

Perhaps a TRUE use (definition) of the word TRUTH would solve this little
problem.

..and the "problem" circles around and up it's own backside, again,.. as usual.

..and hello old friend and tormentor, ye olde oroborous.


-The REAL Iakeo

Originally Posted by Oekai
Laugh at them.

Seriously,.. laugh at them.

They can claim what they like,.. but THEY need to prove their propositions,
not "you" (the evolutionists).

You forget what your job is, and allow them to control the situation. It's the
classic head-fake.

Remember,.. a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich.

Don't become the (pissed-off and defensive) ham sandwich. Become the
(actual and oblivious) ham sandwich, which couldn't care less about the
machinations of "the grand jury of idiots", commonly known as
the "creationist/ID folk".

(( By the way, I personally am a christian who believes that God created the
universe in the way that we will discover, as best we can while we still exist,
by actually observing it. Evolution is one of those observations that we've
noticed at this stage in our observing. Creationism/ID is the tactic of the
impatient hyper-rationalist religious person to "short-circuit" what God is
showing us of his creation and instead imposing a man-made pile of
nonsense. That's just a plain old rude [and silly] thing to do to
your "teacher", and in this case, creator. ))

-The REAL Iakeo


Exactly. If you want to blow the IDers out of the water, don't debate them laugh at how ridiculous they are and then mention to your friends how absurd they are. If all the intelligent people point and laugh or just ignore them, they wil go away.

BINGO..!!

Finally,.. another kindred spirit..!!

Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you..!! :D


-The REAL Iakeo

BINGO..!!

Finally,.. another kindred spirit..!!

Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you..!! :D


-The REAL Iakeo

Well that is the whole reason why the NSF refused to attend the debates in Ohio and Indiana. Their reply was..."Are you serious?"

There's a name for those who know that they don't know what the truth is:

They're called Scientists.

That's true. But it's not an exclusive definition.

I say that HONEST scientists know they don't know the whole truth. Yet
they know that there IS a whole truth.

I also say the HONEST *people*, including religious people, know that they
don't know the whole truth. Yet they also know that there IS a whole truth.

And the only REAL truth, IS the whole truth, and that truth is God, which is
otherwise undefinable and utterly nonsensical.


-The REAL Iakeo

I challenge anyone to post ANY scientific evidence for evolution.

I only have 2 rules:

1) Please, no fossil "evidence." You see, fossils cannont be considered evidence as the only fact that is known about it is ... that it died. You don't know if it had any offspring, and by the way, why would you think that a bone in the dirt could do something that animals today cannot do?

2) Please present no "evidences" that have been previously proven incorrect. I.e., the scientific "belief" that the human embryo retains gill slits. Earnst Haeckel-pardon me if I misspelled his name-Proposed this and faked a set of drawings in the early 1860's. Five years after initially proposing this, his OWN university convicted him of fraud. And he-during his trial-admitted commiting fraud.

Other than that, I will be on tomorrow to respond to any posts.OK, pal. Here you go:

If humans share ancestry with other primates, then we should expect to see remnants of that common ancestry in our genes. For example, fur or tails. According to current evolutionary theory, the ancestors of humans lost their tails about 25 million years ago, when apes (tail-less primates) diverged from monkeys (tailed primates). It takes a heckuva long time of evolutionary build-up to construct a fully-functioning limb like a monkey's tail. But it takes only a slight change in the DNA to remove it. So the question is: do you and I still have a large chunk of the genetic blueprint for a tail in our genes after 25 million years?

You know I am going to tell you the answer is yes.

Not only do you have the genes for a tail--you had a tail in the first few weeks after your conception in your mother's womb. Look at the following two embryos.

embryo image (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v469/apostateabe/cathumanemb.jpg)

As titled, the one on the left is your cat. The one on the right is you. You had the same kind of tail your cat did. The difference is that your cat kept the tail and you didn't.

If you are tempted to hit the "reply" button to post a counter against the long-discredited embryology, then hold on and keep listening, because this is only the beginning of the smoking-gun evidence, and this isn't about embryology either. I am not talking about gill slits. It is a well-known medical fact that embryos have tails, so don't be a dumbass.

In a very small segment of the human population, mutations cause the genetic blueprint of the tail to be completed enough so that the embryos keep the same thing your cat keeps, and some babies are born with tails. I know that sounds unbelievable, but check this out:

* Virtual Hospital, Persistence of the Tail (http://www.vh.org/adult/provider/anatomy/AnatomicVariants/SkeletalSystem/Images/19.html). Pay close attention to the comparison of the tail in extended and contracted positions (http://www.vh.org/adult/provider/anatomy/AnatomicVariants/SkeletalSystem/Images/19A.jpg).
* A collection of images from VisualEvolution.com (http://www.visual-evolution.com/tails.htm) and AetherOnline.com (http://www.aetheronline.com/mario/Eye-Openers/tails_in_humans.htm).
* 'Reincarnation of a Hindu God' as reported by Ananova.com (http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_492558.html) and the Chandigarh Newsline (http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=6697).

Indian baby with tail (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v469/apostateabe/india_babytail410x500.jpg)

Outrageous, isn't it?

There are over 100 cases of human tails (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Display&dopt=pubmed_pubmed&from_uid=7430236) in medical literature. Many tails contain little more than skin and fat. But there are still plenty which contain:

--> grooved muscle (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6373560&dopt=Abstract)
--> blood vessels
--> nerves
--> fat
--> skin
--> hair (http://in.news.yahoo.com/040724/139/2f4jy.html)
--> cartilage (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=867121)

Dr. Douglas Theobald of TalkOrigins.org (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex2) even shows an x-ray (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/tail.jpg) of a six-year-old child's tail with three bones of the vertebral column. He cites Bar-Maor et al. 1980 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7430236&dopt=Abstract), and he asserts that "in this same study, the surgeons reported two other cases of an atavistic human tail, one with three tail vertebrae, one with five."

Young-Earth creationists say:

Cases of babies with "tails" surface occasionally. A paper in The New England Journal of Medicine in 1982 by Dr. Fred Ledley was titled "Evolution and the Human Tail."

But these "tails" are not real tails. They don't have any bones in them and don't have a nerve cord either. Do they have anything to do with the idea that humans and monkeys may be related? Not in the slightest. They are just skin and fatty tissue, and can easily be cut off.--Creation Tips (http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/babytail.html)

I say:

The criticism is directed almost exclusively against Dr. Ledley's paper, which gave only an example of a "pseudo-tail." This narrow counter-argument started with Duane Gish (http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-117.htm) in 1983, and it reproduced itself all over the creationist network ever since, with little adaptation to the reality that there are plenty of examples of true human tails with more than just fatty tissue and skin.

Human tails are typically referred to as "atavisms" in medical literature, meaning evolutionary throwbacks. But there is at least one evolutionary biologist who disregards this line of evidence, and she is quoted by young-Earth creationists. She is Dr. Eugenie Scott:

Actually, that’s [human tails] not an evolutionary issue at all ... It’s a matter of developmental biology; it’s a matter of what happens when that sperm fertilized that egg, and that egg grew into a baby, and that baby was born. I couldn’t give you the exact precise biochemical explanation but probably at some point where the genes instructing how many vertebrae to lay down in that vertebral column duplicated itself a couple extra times, by mistake. It was a faulty transmission of information, so to speak. And this particular individual just ended up getting a few extra vertebral segments. And this doesn’t happen very frequently, but, you know there are glitches in the genetic material that produce things like this, just as there are glitches in the genetic material that produce people with six fingers. But if somebody was born with six fingers, you don’t think 'Oh no! That takes us all the way back to Acanthostega', with the earliest amphibians some of them had six fingers. It’s not really an evolutionary issue.

She spoke of a "few extra vertebral segments," but it isn't as simple as that. These pictures (http://www.vh.org/adult/provider/anatomy/AnatomicVariants/SkeletalSystem/Images/19.html) show expanding and contracting muscles in the tail. If it were only a few extra duplicated vertebral segments, you or I certainly wouldn't expect it to look like, move around and function like a natural tail. On the other hand, there are no reported cases of sixth fingers that can move independently of the other fingers, at least none that I could find (madsci.org (http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/aug97/867386214.An.r.html)).

Strangely, there are no pictures of babies born with:

--> wings
--> antennae
--> beaks
--> hooves
--> gills
--> long fangs

That is because primates don't have those things.

An ERV is an endogenous retrovirus, meaning "virus of the past inside the genes." More specifically, it is a "fingerprint" left on a cell's genome after a virus invades the nucleus of a cell and scars the DNA. If the host of the ERV is a sex cell (e.g. sperm or egg) that is used in the host organism's fertilization and reproduction, then every cell in the organism's offspring will have the same ERV in every cell of the body, and the ERV will be passed down consistently from generation to generation.

Two organisms who share the same ERV in identical gene locations must also share the same ancestry. They must be, for example, father and son, brother and sister, uncle and nephew, grandfather and grandson, cousins, second cousins, third cousins, or etc.

Now look at the following diagram published by genetic scientists.

diagram A:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/retrovirus.gif
Source: Lebedev et al. via Douglas Theobald.

Each arrow represents an ERV insertion in identical gene locations of various primates. There are three ERVs shared exclusively among humans. There are two ERVs shared exclusively among humans, chimps, and gorillas. There are two ERVs among humans, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans. Three among all said primates and gibbons. Two ERVs among all primates originating in the continents among Asia. And lastly, two ERVs are shared exclusively among all primates of the world.

The ERVs weave a family tree connecting humans and apes that is identical to the family tree long-declared by evolutionary scientists.

diagram B:

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/mind_gap1.gif
Source: Richard Dawkins, The Great Ape Project (http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1993gaps_in_the_mind.shtml)

What do young-earth creationists have to say about this?

Young-earth creationists say:

...it is an unprovable theological assertion that God would not place the same nonfunctional sequences at the same locus in separate species. He may have a purpose for doing so that is beyond our present understanding [...], not all ERVs are nonfunctional. Some are transcriptionally active, and studies have revealed ERV protein expression in humans. We simply do not know all that ERVs (or other transposons) may be doing in an organism or what roles they may have played in the past.
--Ashby L. Camp of TrueOrigin.org (http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1e.asp#pred21).

I say:

ERVs probably do not serve any function useful to an intelligent designer, but it doesn't matter if they do. It wouldn't explain why ERVs are shared in a pattern that matches evolutionary predictions exactly. More importantly, ERVs, by definition, are the marks left by viruses. If instead God put the marks in the genes, then it is strange that he would make them resemble ERVs so closely.

Young-earth creationists say:

There are [too] many times that a retrovirus should be found in common species and it is not. For example, the RAV-O is found in Red Junglefowl and they expected to find it in Green Junglefowl and they did not find it there. [[study cited] (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?holding=npg&cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=225036&dopt=Abstract)
--JohnR7 of Christian Forums (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=13568232#poststop).

I say:

A few studies of shared ERVs among organisms (like the Junglefowl study) are rare examples of "horizontal transfer" of gene lines. It happens when a piece of DNA latches on to a virus, the virus travels to another organism, and the foreign DNA incorporates itself into the new genes. So why does this phenomenon not destroy my argument? Because horizontal transfers do not explain identical locations of gene lines. When an ERV horizontally transfers from one genome to another, it does not usually land in the same location as before. But the ERVs described in diagram A are in "identical chromosomal locations" (as cited by Douglas Theobald).

Young-earth creationists say:

...some ERVs (and other transposons) also exhibit an insertion bias. Perhaps this is another remnant of a more finely tuned system. Sverdlov writes: "...There were identified ‘hot spots’ containing integration sites used up to 280 times more frequently than predicted mathematically..."
--Ashby L. Camp of TrueOrigin.org (http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1e.asp#pred21).

I say:

This argument has slight relevance only if we assume horizontal transfer (described above), because insertion biases would explain only identical locations, not identical ERV sequences. But the amount of insertion bias described in the study by Sverdlov isn't nearly enough to accomodate the idea of special creation. If we assume special creation and the insertion bias is as cited in the study, then we would still not expect each arrow in diagram A to represent "identical chromosomal locations." And even if the insertion biases were 100% predictable, we would not see a family-tree structure in diagram A. We would instead see lines connecting organisms merely by geography.

CONCLUSION:

Your mind may deny it, but the DNA of your entire body contains a smoking gun. Monkeys are closer cousins than you may realize or have the courage to admit.

OK, pal. Here you go:

If humans share ancestry with other primates, then we should expect to see remnants of that common ancestry in our genes. For example, fur or tails. According to current evolutionary theory, the ancestors of humans lost their tails about 25 million years ago, when apes (tail-less primates) diverged from monkeys (tailed primates). It takes a heckuva long time of evolutionary build-up to construct a fully-functioning limb like a monkey's tail. But it takes only a slight change in the DNA to remove it. So the question is: do you and I still have a large chunk of the genetic blueprint for a tail in our genes after 25 million years?

You know I am going to tell you the answer is yes.

Not only do you have the genes for a tail--you had a tail in the first few weeks after your conception in your mother's womb. Look at the following two embryos.

embryo image (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v469/apostateabe/cathumanemb.jpg)

As titled, the one on the left is your cat. The one on the right is you. You had the same kind of tail your cat did. The difference is that your cat kept the tail and you didn't.

If you are tempted to hit the "reply" button to post a counter against the long-discredited embryology, then hold on and keep listening, because this is only the beginning of the smoking-gun evidence, and this isn't about embryology either. I am not talking about gill slits. It is a well-known medical fact that embryos have tails, so don't be a dumbass.

In a very small segment of the human population, mutations cause the genetic blueprint of the tail to be completed enough so that the embryos keep the same thing your cat keeps, and some babies are born with tails. I know that sounds unbelievable, but check this out:

* Virtual Hospital, Persistence of the Tail (http://www.vh.org/adult/provider/anatomy/AnatomicVariants/SkeletalSystem/Images/19.html). Pay close attention to the comparison of the tail in extended and contracted positions (http://www.vh.org/adult/provider/anatomy/AnatomicVariants/SkeletalSystem/Images/19A.jpg).
* A collection of images from VisualEvolution.com (http://www.visual-evolution.com/tails.htm) and AetherOnline.com (http://www.aetheronline.com/mario/Eye-Openers/tails_in_humans.htm).
* 'Reincarnation of a Hindu God' as reported by Ananova.com (http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_492558.html) and the Chandigarh Newsline (http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=6697).

Indian baby with tail (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v469/apostateabe/india_babytail410x500.jpg)

Outrageous, isn't it?

There are over 100 cases of human tails (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Display&dopt=pubmed_pubmed&from_uid=7430236) in medical literature. Many tails contain little more than skin and fat. But there are still plenty which contain:

--> grooved muscle (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6373560&dopt=Abstract)
--> blood vessels
--> nerves
--> fat
--> skin
--> hair (http://in.news.yahoo.com/040724/139/2f4jy.html)
--> cartilage (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=867121)

Dr. Douglas Theobald of TalkOrigins.org (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex2) even shows an x-ray (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/tail.jpg) of a six-year-old child's tail with three bones of the vertebral column. He cites Bar-Maor et al. 1980 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7430236&dopt=Abstract), and he asserts that "in this same study, the surgeons reported two other cases of an atavistic human tail, one with three tail vertebrae, one with five."

Young-Earth creationists say:

--Creation Tips (http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/babytail.html)

I say:

The criticism is directed almost exclusively against Dr. Ledley's paper, which gave only an example of a "pseudo-tail." This narrow counter-argument started with Duane Gish (http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-117.htm) in 1983, and it reproduced itself all over the creationist network ever since, with little adaptation to the reality that there are plenty of examples of true human tails with more than just fatty tissue and skin.

Human tails are typically referred to as "atavisms" in medical literature, meaning evolutionary throwbacks. But there is at least one evolutionary biologist who disregards this line of evidence, and she is quoted by young-Earth creationists. She is Dr. Eugenie Scott:



She spoke of a "few extra vertebral segments," but it isn't as simple as that. These pictures (http://www.vh.org/adult/provider/anatomy/AnatomicVariants/SkeletalSystem/Images/19.html) show expanding and contracting muscles in the tail. If it were only a few extra duplicated vertebral segments, you or I certainly wouldn't expect it to look like, move around and function like a natural tail. On the other hand, there are no reported cases of sixth fingers that can move independently of the other fingers, at least none that I could find (madsci.org (http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/aug97/867386214.An.r.html)).

Strangely, there are no pictures of babies born with:

--> wings
--> antennae
--> beaks
--> hooves
--> gills
--> long fangs

That is because primates don't have those things.


Wow...you are on fire. That in short, was awesome.

Hey, Best First Post Award to Underage Hotties! Do it!

I have one more line of evidence for you, Shalloo, but it involves fossils, so that breaks the rules. Now, in return, I want you to provide a theory for how you think life got here. But I have only one rule: it can't involve magic. Magic can explain absolutely anything. And propositions of magic always seem to turn out wrong in the end.

Laugh at them. :)

Seriously,.. laugh at them.

They can claim what they like,.. but THEY need to prove their propositions,
not "you" (the evolutionists).

You forget what your job is, and allow them to control the situation. It's the
classic head-fake.

Remember,.. a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich.

Don't become the (pissed-off and defensive) ham sandwich. Become the
(actual and oblivious) ham sandwich, which couldn't care less about the
machinations of "the grand jury of idiots", commonly known as
the "creationist/ID folk".

(( By the way, I personally am a christian who believes that God created the
universe in the way that we will discover, as best we can while we still exist,
by actually observing it. Evolution is one of those observations that we've
noticed at this stage in our observing. Creationism/ID is the tactic of the
impatient hyper-rationalist religious person to "short-circuit" what God is
showing us of his creation and instead imposing a man-made pile of
nonsense. That's just a plain old rude [and silly] thing to do to
your "teacher", and in this case, creator. :) ))

-The REAL Iakeo

See - this is the difference between good science (i.e. when it is done right), and the bulk of theology... and why I will always err on the side of the scientific...

Science ADMITS that it doesn't know everything... and that, just maybe, we never will.

The bulk of theology seems to be about having the answers NOW, and yet, theology has no unified answers, just a lot of conflicting explanations, that vary from faith to faith.

Me - I'm just more willing to trust the guy who says "I really don't know", when you ask him a question, than the guy who believes himself infallible.

I challenge anyone to post ANY scientific evidence for evolution.

I only have 2 rules:

1) Please, no fossil "evidence." You see, fossils cannont be considered evidence as the only fact that is known about it is ... that it died. You don't know if it had any offspring, and by the way, why would you think that a bone in the dirt could do something that animals today cannot do?

2) Please present no "evidences" that have been previously proven incorrect. I.e., the scientific "belief" that the human embryo retains gill slits. Earnst Haeckel-pardon me if I misspelled his name-Proposed this and faked a set of drawings in the early 1860's. Five years after initially proposing this, his OWN university convicted him of fraud. And he-during his trial-admitted commiting fraud.

Other than that, I will be on tomorrow to respond to any posts.

Here you go:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=418178

Take your time reading through the posts.

I have one more line of evidence for you, Shalloo, but it involves fossils, so that breaks the rules. Now, in return, I want you to provide a theory for how you think life got here. But I have only one rule: it can't involve magic. Magic can explain absolutely anything. And propositions of magic always seem to turn out wrong in the end.

Underage Hotties rules. :) Welcome to NS, my friend.

Underage Hotties rules. :) Welcome to NS, my friend.
Second!!!!!!

Can i get a *witness* "YAAAA"

I wrote those up for any forum thread where creationists ask for evidence of evolution. I wouldn't have written them just for Shalloo. The arguments originated with TalkOrigins.org's "29+ Evidences of Macroevolution" article, but it is too lengthy and long-winded for the average creationist. If anyone wants to plagiarize what I wrote, go ahead.

Underage Hotties rules. :) Welcome to NS, my friend.
Thirded. Still reading, but this is pretty damn brilliant :)

I wrote those up for any forum thread where creationists ask for evidence of evolution. I wouldn't have written them just for Shalloo. The arguments originated with TalkOrigins.org's "29+ Evidences of Macroevolution" article, but it is too lengthy and long-winded for the average creationist. If anyone wants to plagiarize what I wrote, go ahead.
Thanks! There painfully needs to be more posters like yourself.
*bows*

See - this is the difference between good science (i.e. when it is done right), and the bulk of theology... and why I will always err on the side of the scientific...

Science ADMITS that it doesn't know everything... and that, just maybe, we never will.

The bulk of theology seems to be about having the answers NOW, and yet, theology has no unified answers, just a lot of conflicting explanations, that vary from faith to faith.

I don't know much about anything, including theology,.. but "my" theology
says to me, "There IS an explanation to everything, and you could find it
given enough time and resources,.. but regardless of whether you know very
much NOW, the universe IS knowable and explainable, and simply KNOWING
THAT is the singular quality we call faith."

People of faith only KNOW one thing with certainty,.. and that is that there is
a reason for everything, whether we presently know the reason or not.

Actually,.. that sounds very much like the position of science to me..! :)

You can take your educated (or not) guesses, but until god tells you you're
on the right track, don't get too comfortable with what you THINK you know.
It could prove very dangerous (though possibly really REALLY exciting!) to
build airplanes out of cotton-candy.


Me - I'm just more willing to trust the guy who says "I really don't know", when you ask him a question, than the guy who believes himself infallible.

If someone's ONLY response to any question is, "I really don't know", they
certainly are not to be trusted. (( Or more properly, they are to be
completely trusted to be untrustworthy to help in any way whatsoever. ))

And neither is the idiot who holds absolute certainty yet can't persuade me
that he knows what the hell he's talking about.

So,.. I tend to like to hang around with folks who are willing to show me how
what they believe actually works in the world, with a smile.

I think Grave is one of those folks.

Are YOU one of those folks, all you silly goofballs out there..!? :D


-The REAL Iakeo

I don't know much about anything, including theology,.. but "my" theology
says to me, "There IS an explanation to everything, and you could find it
given enough time and resources,.. but regardless of whether you know very
much NOW, the universe IS knowable and explainable, and simply KNOWING
THAT is the singular quality we call faith."

People of faith only KNOW one thing with certainty,.. and that is that there is
a reason for everything, whether we presently know the reason or not.

Actually,.. that sounds very much like the position of science to me..! :)

You can take your educated (or not) guesses, but until god tells you you're
on the right track, don't get too comfortable with what you THINK you know.
It could prove very dangerous (though possibly really REALLY exciting!) to
build airplanes out of cotton-candy.



If someone's ONLY response to any question is, "I really don't know", they
certainly are not to be trusted. (( Or more properly, they are to be
completely trusted to be untrustworthy to help in any way whatsoever. ))

And neither is the idiot who holds absolute certainty yet can't persuade me
that he knows what the hell he's talking about.

So,.. I tend to like to hang around with folks who are willing to show me how
what they believe actually works in the world, with a smile.

I think Grave is one of those folks.

Are YOU one of those folks, all you silly goofballs out there..!? :D


-The REAL Iakeo

I have nothing to add other than that this is a great post and that you are a gentleman and a scholar, although is completely disagree with you.

An ERV is an endogenous retrovirus, meaning "virus of the past inside the genes." More specifically, it is a "fingerprint" left on a cell's genome after a virus invades the nucleus of a cell and scars the DNA. If the host of the ERV is a sex cell (e.g. sperm or egg) that is used in the host organism's fertilization and reproduction, then every cell in the organism's offspring will have the same ERV in every cell of the body, and the ERV will be passed down consistently from generation to generation.... <snip>

CONCLUSION:

Your mind may deny it, but the DNA of your entire body contains a smoking gun. Monkeys are closer cousins than you may realize or have the courage to admit.

By describing WHAT you observe, and not being overly "hubritic" (the act of
exhibiting hubris? ouch), you leave it to me to fit your (hopefully) honest
observations into my world-view (belief system).

If I don't have much of a framework to integrate your observations into, then
your observations are only moderately interesting, but of no use whatsoever
to me. (Except perhaps to spur me to enlarge my belief-framework because
this area of interest sounds interesting.)

If I have a stake in imposing my own beliefs on God's creation, then I will
actively try to force-fit your observations into my belief system such that I
prove my point (at least to myself).

I thank you for your HARD work in making such magnificent observations.

If the goal of those observations is to unearth the magnificence of god's
creation, for it's own sake (pure science) or to help DO something practical,
then I count you as an ally in finding god.

If your goal is to disprove god, then you've done the precise opposite, for me
at least. (( Which I don't think is your goal at all. :) ))

If your goal is to impose your own human and limited beliefs on god's creation
by "sticking up for him" and fighting tooth and nail to justify your
(pathological) NEED to bash honest observation if it seems to contradict your
belief, then your a malicious fool, and certainly not my ally in finding god.


-The REAL Iakeo

Originally Posted by Oekai
I don't know much about anything, including theology,.. but "my" theology
says to me, "There IS an explanation to everything, and you could find it
given enough time and resources,.. but regardless of whether you know very
much NOW, the universe IS knowable and explainable, and simply KNOWING
THAT is the singular quality we call faith."

People of faith only KNOW one thing with certainty,.. and that is that there is
a reason for everything, whether we presently know the reason or not.

Actually,.. that sounds very much like the position of science to me..!

You can take your educated (or not) guesses, but until god tells you you're
on the right track, don't get too comfortable with what you THINK you know.
It could prove very dangerous (though possibly really REALLY exciting!) to
build airplanes out of cotton-candy.

If someone's ONLY response to any question is, "I really don't know", they
certainly are not to be trusted. (( Or more properly, they are to be
completely trusted to be untrustworthy to help in any way whatsoever. ))

And neither is the idiot who holds absolute certainty yet can't persuade me
that he knows what the hell he's talking about.

So,.. I tend to like to hang around with folks who are willing to show me how
what they believe actually works in the world, with a smile.

I think Grave is one of those folks.

Are YOU one of those folks, all you silly goofballs out there..!?


-The REAL Iakeo

I have nothing to add other than that this is a great post and that you are a gentleman and a scholar, although is completely disagree with you.

What do you disagree with, specifically..!? :)

My weird definition of "faith"?
That the universe IS knowable?
That god (however you want to define that) created creation?
That the goal of science is observing the universe for fun and profit?
That cotton-candy aircraft are PROBABLY not a good idea (though tasty!)?

Please illucidate your objections..!! :D


-The REAL Iakeo

Stop acting like children.

In all fairness, if a god exists, and wants me to pray to him, he can bloody ask me himself.

-snip-

The thing is, Science only tries to explain natural phenomena. God doesn't enter into the equation at all. If you believe in God, fine, but that should never alter your ability to absorb observable truths.

As far as the benefits evolution has lead us towards, the whole field of genetics has benefitted from the pursuit of evolutionary evidence. Advances that improve crops, cure disease and help answer ecological questions have resulted.

What advances has ID ever helped come to fruition? What does it predict? How do we benefit by understanding ID?

ok this is a copy from here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1559743,00.html

cause they are better at it (and more qualified) than me...
It sounds so reasonable, doesn't it? Such a modest proposal. Why not teach "both sides" and let the children decide for themselves? As President Bush said, "You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes." At first hearing, everything about the phrase "both sides" warms the hearts of educators like ourselves.

One of us spent years as an Oxford tutor and it was his habit to choose controversial topics for the students' weekly essays. They were required to go to the library, read about both sides of an argument, give a fair account of both, and then come to a balanced judgment in their essay. The call for balance, by the way, was always tempered by the maxim, "When two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly half way between. It is possible for one side simply to be wrong."

As teachers, both of us have found that asking our students to analyse controversies is of enormous value to their education. What is wrong, then, with teaching both sides of the alleged controversy between evolution and creationism or "intelligent design" (ID)? And, by the way, don't be fooled by the disingenuous euphemism. There is nothing new about ID. It is simply creationism camouflaged with a new name to slip (with some success, thanks to loads of tax-free money and slick public-relations professionals) under the radar of the US Constitution's mandate for separation between church and state.

Why, then, would two lifelong educators and passionate advocates of the "both sides" style of teaching join with essentially all biologists in making an exception of the alleged controversy between creation and evolution? What is wrong with the apparently sweet reasonableness of "it is only fair to teach both sides"? The answer is simple. This is not a scientific controversy at all. And it is a time-wasting distraction because evolutionary science, perhaps more than any other major science, is bountifully endowed with genuine controversy.

Among the controversies that students of evolution commonly face, these are genuinely challenging and of great educational value: neutralism versus selectionism in molecular evolution; adaptationism; group selection; punctuated equilibrium; cladism; "evo-devo"; the "Cambrian Explosion"; mass extinctions; interspecies competition; sympatric speciation; sexual selection; the evolution of sex itself; evolutionary psychology; Darwinian medicine and so on. The point is that all these controversies, and many more, provide fodder for fascinating and lively argument, not just in essays but for student discussions late at night.

Intelligent design is not an argument of the same character as these controversies. It is not a scientific argument at all, but a religious one. It might be worth discussing in a class on the history of ideas, in a philosophy class on popular logical fallacies, or in a comparative religion class on origin myths from around the world. But it no more belongs in a biology class than alchemy belongs in a chemistry class, phlogiston in a physics class or the stork theory in a sex education class. In those cases, the demand for equal time for "both theories" would be ludicrous. Similarly, in a class on 20th-century European history, who would demand equal time for the theory that the Holocaust never happened?

So, why are we so sure that intelligent design is not a real scientific theory, worthy of "both sides" treatment? Isn't that just our personal opinion? It is an opinion shared by the vast majority of professional biologists, but of course science does not proceed by majority vote among scientists. Why isn't creationism (or its incarnation as intelligent design) just another scientific controversy, as worthy of scientific debate as the dozen essay topics we listed above? Here's why.

If ID really were a scientific theory, positive evidence for it, gathered through research, would fill peer-reviewed scientific journals. This doesn't happen. It isn't that editors refuse to publish ID research. There simply isn't any ID research to publish. Its advocates bypass normal scientific due process by appealing directly to the non-scientific public and - with great shrewdness - to the government officials they elect.

The argument the ID advocates put, such as it is, is always of the same character. Never do they offer positive evidence in favour of intelligent design. All we ever get is a list of alleged deficiencies in evolution. We are told of "gaps" in the fossil record. Or organs are stated, by fiat and without supporting evidence, to be "irreducibly complex": too complex to have evolved by natural selection.

In all cases there is a hidden (actually they scarcely even bother to hide it) "default" assumption that if Theory A has some difficulty in explaining Phenomenon X, we must automatically prefer Theory B without even asking whether Theory B (creationism in this case) is any better at explaining it. Note how unbalanced this is, and how it gives the lie to the apparent reasonableness of "let's teach both sides". One side is required to produce evidence, every step of the way. The other side is never required to produce one iota of evidence, but is deemed to have won automatically, the moment the first side encounters a difficulty - the sort of difficulty that all sciences encounter every day, and go to work to solve, with relish.

What, after all, is a gap in the fossil record? It is simply the absence of a fossil which would otherwise have documented a particular evolutionary transition. The gap means that we lack a complete cinematic record of every step in the evolutionary process. But how incredibly presumptuous to demand a complete record, given that only a minuscule proportion of deaths result in a fossil anyway.

The equivalent evidential demand of creationism would be a complete cinematic record of God's behaviour on the day that he went to work on, say, the mammalian ear bones or the bacterial flagellum - the small, hair-like organ that propels mobile bacteria. Not even the most ardent advocate of intelligent design claims that any such divine videotape will ever become available.

Biologists, on the other hand, can confidently claim the equivalent "cinematic" sequence of fossils for a very large number of evolutionary transitions. Not all, but very many, including our own descent from the bipedal ape Australopithecus. And - far more telling - not a single authentic fossil has ever been found in the "wrong" place in the evolutionary sequence. Such an anachronistic fossil, if one were ever unearthed, would blow evolution out of the water.

As the great biologist J B S Haldane growled, when asked what might disprove evolution: "Fossil rabbits in the pre-Cambrian." Evolution, like all good theories, makes itself vulnerable to disproof. Needless to say, it has always come through with flying colours.

Similarly, the claim that something - say the bacterial flagellum - is too complex to have evolved by natural selection is alleged, by a lamentably common but false syllogism, to support the "rival" intelligent design theory by default. This kind of default reasoning leaves completely open the possibility that, if the bacterial flagellum is too complex to have evolved, it might also be too complex to have been created. And indeed, a moment's thought shows that any God capable of creating a bacterial flagellum (to say nothing of a universe) would have to be a far more complex, and therefore statistically improbable, entity than the bacterial flagellum (or universe) itself - even more in need of an explanation than the object he is alleged to have created.

If complex organisms demand an explanation, so does a complex designer. And it's no solution to raise the theologian's plea that God (or the Intelligent Designer) is simply immune to the normal demands of scientific explanation. To do so would be to shoot yourself in the foot. You cannot have it both ways. Either ID belongs in the science classroom, in which case it must submit to the discipline required of a scientific hypothesis. Or it does not, in which case get it out of the science classroom and send it back into the church, where it belongs.

In fact, the bacterial flagellum is certainly not too complex to have evolved, nor is any other living structure that has ever been carefully studied. Biologists have located plausible series of intermediates, using ingredients to be found elsewhere in living systems. But even if some particular case were found for which biologists could offer no ready explanation, the important point is that the "default" logic of the creationists remains thoroughly rotten.

There is no evidence in favour of intelligent design: only alleged gaps in the completeness of the evolutionary account, coupled with the "default" fallacy we have identified. And, while it is inevitably true that there are incompletenesses in evolutionary science, the positive evidence for the fact of evolution is truly massive, made up of hundreds of thousands of mutually corroborating observations. These come from areas such as geology, paleontology, comparative anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, ethology, biogeography, embryology and - increasingly nowadays - molecular genetics.

The weight of the evidence has become so heavy that opposition to the fact of evolution is laughable to all who are acquainted with even a fraction of the published data. Evolution is a fact: as much a fact as plate tectonics or the heliocentric solar system.

Why, finally, does it matter whether these issues are discussed in science classes? There is a case for saying that it doesn't - that biologists shouldn't get so hot under the collar. Perhaps we should just accept the popular demand that we teach ID as well as evolution in science classes. It would, after all, take only about 10 minutes to exhaust the case for ID, then we could get back to teaching real science and genuine controversy.

Tempting as this is, a serious worry remains. The seductive "let's teach the controversy" language still conveys the false, and highly pernicious, idea that there really are two sides. This would distract students from the genuinely important and interesting controversies that enliven evolutionary discourse. Worse, it would hand creationism the only victory it realistically aspires to. Without needing to make a single good point in any argument, it would have won the right for a form of supernaturalism to be recognised as an authentic part of science. And that would be the end of science education in America.

Arguments worth having ...

The "Cambrian Explosion"

Although the fossil record shows that the first multicellular animals lived about 640m years ago, the diversity of species was low until about 530m years ago. At that time there was a sudden explosion of many diverse marine species, including the first appearance of molluscs, arthropods, echinoderms and vertebrates. "Sudden" here is used in the geological sense; the "explosion" occurred over a period of 10m to 30m years, which is, after all, comparable to the time taken to evolve most of the great radiations of mammals. This rapid diversification raises fascinating questions; explanations include the evolution of organisms with hard parts (which aid fossilisation), the evolutionary "discovery" of eyes, and the development of new genes that allowed parts of organisms to evolve independently.

The evolutionary basis of human behaviour

The field of evolutionary psychology (once called "sociobiology") maintains that many universal traits of human behaviour (especially sexual behaviour), as well as differences between individuals and between ethnic groups, have a genetic basis. These traits and differences are said to have evolved in our ancestors via natural selection. There is much controversy about these claims, largely because it is hard to reconstruct the evolutionary forces that acted on our ancestors, and it is unethical to do genetic experiments on modern humans.

Sexual versus natural selection

Although evolutionists agree that adaptations invariably result from natural selection, there are many traits, such as the elaborate plumage of male birds and size differences between the sexes in many species, that are better explained by "sexual selection": selection based on members of one sex (usually females) preferring to mate with members of the other sex that show certain desirable traits. Evolutionists debate how many features of animals have resulted from sexual as opposed to natural selection; some, like Darwin himself, feel that many physical features differentiating human "races" resulted from sexual selection.

The target of natural selection

Evolutionists agree that natural selection usually acts on genes in organisms - individuals carrying genes that give them a reproductive or survival advantage over others will leave more descendants, gradually changing the genetic composition of a species. This is called "individual selection". But some evolutionists have proposed that selection can act at higher levels as well: on populations (group selection), or even on species themselves (species selection). The relative importance of individual versus these higher order forms of selection is a topic of lively debate.

Natural selection versus genetic drift

Natural selection is a process that leads to the replacement of one gene by another in a predictable way. But there is also a "random" evolutionary process called genetic drift, which is the genetic equivalent of coin-tossing. Genetic drift leads to unpredictable changes in the frequencies of genes that don't make much difference to the adaptation of their carriers, and can cause evolution by changing the genetic composition of populations. Many features of DNA are said to have evolved by genetic drift. Evolutionary geneticists disagree about the importance of selection versus drift in explaining features of organisms and their DNA. All evolutionists agree that genetic drift can't explain adaptive evolution. But not all evolution is adaptive.

Further reading

www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc
User-friendly guide to evolution

www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/jacNR.pdf
Critique of Intelligent Design movement, published in New Republic

Climbing Mount Improbable
Richard Dawkins (illustrations by Lalla Ward), Penguin 1997

Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design
Barbara C Forrest and Paul R Gross, Oxford University Press, 2003

· Richard Dawkins is Charles Simonyi professor of the public understanding of science at Oxford University, and Jerry Coyne is a professor in the department of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago

In answer to the original question: milo green bug and common cold

The thing is, Science only tries to explain natural phenomena. God doesn't enter into the equation at all. If you believe in God, fine, but that should never alter your ability to absorb observable truths.

That IS "worshipping" god, to me..!

Observing and integrating what we see into our belief system (and altering
those beliefs to conform to our observation of god's creation [ie. the
universe]) is what I call "worshipping god". Period.


As far as the benefits evolution has lead us towards, the whole field of genetics has benefitted from the pursuit of evolutionary evidence. Advances that improve crops, cure disease and help answer ecological questions have resulted.

What advances has ID ever helped come to fruition? What does it predict? How do we benefit by understanding ID?

Other than as an exercise in "making the facts fit the theory", and the
subsequent amusing and highly entertaining sci-fi literature produced from it,
not much at all.

..well,.. it's also an interesting thing to converse about, and a fun way to talk
about "other" subjects of REAL value. :D

-The REAL Iakeo

Stop acting like children.

In all fairness, if a god exists, and wants me to pray to him, he can bloody ask me himself.

How is anyone acting like a child?

God doesn't want your prayers, unless you have some issue for which prayer
would be useful to you. God just wants you to pay attention. That's all.

You seem to think that a requirement for believing in god is that you must
somehow sacrifice something (praying, giving up your time, etc) to "pay god
off" for some reason. (( Either to get god to "give you something" or "keep
badness away from you". ))

Your limited view of god (as the big humanoid in the sky that pulls all the
levers of the world personally) guarantees that you, as a rational person,
MUST disbelieve in such a "being".

..then you throw out ANY concept of god with the bath water.

When (not if) you decouple your concept of god from that juvenile fantasy,
and "open up" your view of the world to include the concept of the universe
as a knowable, manipulable, usually beneign and generous place,.. then you'll
laugh at the sudden blindingly obvious truth that god not only exists, but
can't not exist.

Til then, keep observing the universe with as critical an eye as possible, and
learn everything you can about everything.

God loves it when you pay attention and check out his wares. :)

-The REAL Iakeo

I don't know much about anything, including theology,.. but "my" theology
says to me, "There IS an explanation to everything, and you could find it
given enough time and resources,.. but regardless of whether you know very
much NOW, the universe IS knowable and explainable, and simply KNOWING
THAT is the singular quality we call faith."

People of faith only KNOW one thing with certainty,.. and that is that there is
a reason for everything, whether we presently know the reason or not.

Actually,.. that sounds very much like the position of science to me..! :)

You can take your educated (or not) guesses, but until god tells you you're
on the right track, don't get too comfortable with what you THINK you know.
It could prove very dangerous (though possibly really REALLY exciting!) to
build airplanes out of cotton-candy.

If someone's ONLY response to any question is, "I really don't know", they
certainly are not to be trusted. (( Or more properly, they are to be
completely trusted to be untrustworthy to help in any way whatsoever. ))

And neither is the idiot who holds absolute certainty yet can't persuade me
that he knows what the hell he's talking about.

So,.. I tend to like to hang around with folks who are willing to show me how
what they believe actually works in the world, with a smile.

I think Grave is one of those folks.

Are YOU one of those folks, all you silly goofballs out there..!? :D

-The REAL Iakeo

The approach I take with my daughter is the "show [her] how
what they believe actually works in the world, with a smile" approach.

My daughter is from a Southern Baptist family - with all the baggage that brings. She often asks me questions -about history, about science, about where we came from, etc. It really isn't THAT hard for me to tell her that there are different opinions on some questions (and even explain to her AS MANY of those opinions as I can), and then tell her which idea I think sounds most logical - and WHY I think that.

The approach I take with my daughter is the "show [her] how what they believe actually works in the world, with a smile" approach.

My daughter is from a Southern Baptist family - with all the baggage that brings. She often asks me questions -about history, about science, about where we came from, etc. It really isn't THAT hard for me to tell her that there are different opinions on some questions (and even explain to her AS MANY of those opinions as I can), and then tell her which idea I think sounds most logical - and WHY I think that.

You are a wise and wonder-producing Pop to your little one, I think..!!

(( I don't KNOW that of course... :) ))

(( But,.. I do know it's POSSIBLE, which confirms my faith that god has, or at
least CAN, create great Dad's such as you seem to be. ))

(( Now,.. did god just CREATE [>POOF< out of thin air] the great Dad that is
you? Heck no..! That wouldn't be NEARLY as interesting or as much fun for
everyone concerned! ))

(( Thank god that god makes us work-for-it..!! I'm not fond of boredom. ))

Hae ae ae ae.... :D

-The REAL Iakeo

You are a wise and wonder-producing Pop to your little one, I think..!!

(( I don't KNOW that of course... :) ))

(( But,.. I do know it's POSSIBLE, which confirms my faith that god has, or at
least CAN, create great Dad's such as you seem to be. ))

(( Now,.. did god just CREATE [>POOF< out of thin air] the great Dad that is
you? Heck no..! That wouldn't be NEARLY as interesting or as much fun for
everyone concerned! ))

(( Thank god that god makes us work-for-it..!! I'm not fond of boredom. ))

Hae ae ae ae.... :D

-The REAL Iakeo

Why, thank you, my friend. :)

Personally - I LIKE the idea of a God who makes us 'work for it'... who doesn't take easy ways out.

Why is it so common to envision a super powerful entity, with an existence that spans from negative-eternity to positive eternity....... and then insist he does EVERYTHING in 6000 years, and by messing in the mud?

Me - I prefer something magnificent.... like billions of years of work, through tools as arcane as evolution.... just sounds less 'Play-doh', and more "I AM". ("It is"?)

By describing WHAT you observe, and not being overly "hubritic" (the act of
exhibiting hubris? ouch), you leave it to me to fit your (hopefully) honest
observations into my world-view (belief system).

If I don't have much of a framework to integrate your observations into, then
your observations are only moderately interesting, but of no use whatsoever
to me. (Except perhaps to spur me to enlarge my belief-framework because
this area of interest sounds interesting.)

If I have a stake in imposing my own beliefs on God's creation, then I will
actively try to force-fit your observations into my belief system such that I
prove my point (at least to myself).

I thank you for your HARD work in making such magnificent observations.

If the goal of those observations is to unearth the magnificence of god's
creation, for it's own sake (pure science) or to help DO something practical,
then I count you as an ally in finding god.

If your goal is to disprove god, then you've done the precise opposite, for me
at least. (( Which I don't think is your goal at all. :) ))

If your goal is to impose your own human and limited beliefs on god's creation
by "sticking up for him" and fighting tooth and nail to justify your
(pathological) NEED to bash honest observation if it seems to contradict your
belief, then your a malicious fool, and certainly not my ally in finding god.

-The REAL IakeoOK, I'm not sure what you mean, but I am glad I can be of some service. Don't count me as an ally in finding god, though. You won't find him/her/them. There is no god. I would much rather that you gave up looking for god. Wear some atheist glasses for a week or more, and then see for yourself how much more sense the world makes through the lens of a naturalistic atheist.

OK, I'm not sure what you mean, but I am glad I can be of some service. Don't count me as an ally in finding god, though. You won't find him/her/them. There is no god. I would much rather that you gave up looking for god. Wear some atheist glasses for a week or more, and then see for yourself how much more sense the world makes through the lens of a naturalistic atheist.
Well... Depending on how radical you are, you could surely call Oekai an atheist. He doesn't believe in a personalized god, so strictly speaking, he's just as much an atheist as you or me.

And he can count me in any day. I'm not looking for god, but I'm looking in the same place as he is, and if I happen to find god there, I'll let him know. Like you though, Underage Hotties, I'm quite certain there's no god to be found. I'd be dumbstruck if the universe had any kind of motivation...