NationStates Jolt Archive

Stolen from a post on todays comments at http://userfrienly.org

The only debate on Intelligent Design that is worthy of its subject

Moderator: We're here today to debate the hot new topic, evolution
versus Intelligent Des---

(Scientist pulls out baseball bat.)

Moderator: Hey, what are you doing?

(Scientist breaks Intelligent Design advocate's kneecap.)

Intelligent Design advocate: YEAAARRRRGGGHHHH! YOU BROKE MY KNEECAP!

Scientist: Perhaps it only appears that I broke your kneecap.
Certainly, all the evidence points to the hypothesis I broke your
kneecap. For example, your kneecap is broken; it appears to be a fresh
wound; and I am holding a baseball bat, which is spattered with your
blood. However, a mere preponderance of evidence doesn't mean
anything. Perhaps your kneecap was designed that way. Certainly, there
are some features of the current situation that are inexplicable
according to the "naturalistic" explanation you have just advanced,
such as the exact contours of the excruciating pain that you are
experiencing right now.

Intelligent Design advocate: AAAAH! THE PAIN!

Scientist: Frankly, I personally find it completely implausible that
the random actions of a scientist such as myself could cause pain of
this particular kind. I have no precise explanation for why I find
this hypothesis implausible --- it just is. Your knee must have been
designed that way!

Intelligent Design advocate: YOU KNOW YOU DID IT!

Scientist: I surely do not. How can we know anything for certain?
Frankly, I think we should expose people to all points of view.
Furthermore, you should really re-examine whether your hypothesis is
scientific at all: the breaking of your kneecap happened in the past,
so we can't rewind and run it over again, like a laboratory
experiment. Even if we could, it wouldn't prove that I broke your
kneecap the previous time. Plus, let's not even get into the fact that
the entire universe might have just popped into existence right before
I said this sentence, with all the evidence of my alleged
kneecap-breaking already pre-formed.

Intelligent Design advocate: That's a load of bulls*** sophistry! Get
me a doctor and a lawyer, not necessarily in that order, and we'll see
how that plays in court!

Scientist (turning to audience): And so we see, ladies and gentlemen,
when push comes to shove, advocates of Intelligent Design do not
actually believe any of the arguments that they profess to believe.
When it comes to matters that hit home, they prefer evidence, the
scientific method, testable hypotheses, and naturalistic explanations.
In fact, they strongly privilege naturalistic explanations over
supernatural hocus-pocus or metaphysical wankery. It is only within
the reality-distortion field of their ideological crusade that they
give credence to the flimsy, ridiculous arguments which we so commonly
see on display. I must confess, it kind of felt good, for once, to be
the one spouting free-form bullshit; it's so terribly easy and
relaxing, compared to marshaling rigorous arguments backed up by
empirical evidence. But I fear that if I were to continue, then it
would be habit-forming, and bad for my soul. Therefore, I bid you
adieu.

Gold!

Awwww... isn't that cute?












BUT IT'S WRONG!!


Seriously. Good for a larf, but that's about it.

Oh and the macro evolution that is currently accepted makes absolutely no sense.

Oh and the macro evolution that is currently accepted makes absolutely no sense.
It does, but that is irrelevant.

Oh and the macro evolution that is currently accepted makes absolutely no sense. Here we go again!

Oh, bravo! Not only does he get to turn their own BS against them, he gets to get to the chase and break their kneecap! This is every biologist's dream!

Ah, don't you just love it when people say you're wrong without backing anything up at all? I issue to you, good sir/madam, the same challenge I issue to all ID proponents: What is this great, gaping hole in the theory of evolution that demonstrates so clearly that it must be wrong. I've been studying evolution and creatures related to it for 10 years in my spare time, and I've yet to see any holes.

Irreducible complexity doesn't work. First of all, many of the things labelled infinitely complex actually can be reduced- the evolution of the eye is fairly simple, and the once-irreducible method of blood clotting has been shot down by the presence in whales of a simpler molecule used for clotting blood. In addition, irreducible complexity assumes that a given part or process must always have been intended for its current purpose, which simply isn't true: for example, feathers first served to keep the dinosaurs that wore them warm, and didn't evolve into a method of flying until much later.

I'm afraid you're going to have to come up with something better.

Oh, bravo! Not only does he get to turn their own BS against them, he gets to get to the chase and break their kneecap! This is every biologist's dream!

I'm not a biologist, but as far as violent fantasies go quote "Gold!"

Oh and the macro evolution that is currently accepted makes absolutely no sense.

Perhaps you should set your sights lower, if big bad science is too hard for you. Understanding the rules of Chutes and Ladders, maybe?

Oh and the macro evolution that is currently accepted makes absolutely no sense.
....wait a second... yes it does... it makes perfect sense, just because it doesnt have a God thrown into the story to make it simple does not mean it does not make sense. I assume that you atleast believe in micro evolution, then why is it so hard to jump to the idea of macro evolution?

If a whole bunch of little changes are made they will add up to a larger change which would be macro evolution... one day you will understand...:(

*Creationist jumps up on stage from the audience and punches evolutionist in the nose*

Evolutionist: OW! BY NOTHE! YOU BROKE BY NOTHE!

Creationist: To come to the conclusion that the current state of your nose is the result of my actions is the result of outdated and unscientific ideas. It assumes that they only possible way for your nose to be broken is for an intelligent being to have caused it to be that way.

Evolutionist: WHAT? You think that by broken nothe ith not the rethult of your acthionth?

Creationist: Obviously, your nose became broken via purely naturalistic causes. I propose that the atoms making up your nose randomly rearranged to form a broken nose. The odds against this happening are astronomical, but it is the only rational conclusion, because it is the only conclusion that does not presuppose an intelligent nose breaker.

Evolutionist: That’th a load of crap

Creationist [turning to audience]: Isn’t it strange that when witnessing something as simple as a broken nose evolutionists jump to the conclusion that an intelligent being must be responsible for it, but when witnessing something as vast and complex as the universe they are perfectly willing to accept the idea that it came about by chance? [turns back to evolutionist] Anyway, sorry about your nose. I only did it to prove a point, and it seemed fair since you had done the same thing to my colleague, but now I’m starting to feel kind of guilty about it, so what say I get you some medical help and then we continue this debate in a less violent manner?

Evolutionist: Otay.

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

Man. Writing something like that is way easier than actually discussing facts and stuff. I should have thought of that sooner. Debate’s going to be a lot more fun now that we can just make up fictional discussions and put words in the mouths of anyone we like. Thank's Krakatao!

Creationist: Obviously, your nose became broken via purely naturalistic causes. I propose that the atoms making up your nose randomly rearranged to form a broken nose. The odds against this happening are astronomical, but it is the only rational conclusion, because it is the only conclusion that does not presuppose an intelligent nose breaker.

Evolutionist: That’th a load of crap

Creationist [turning to audience]: Isn’t it strange that when witnessing something as simple as a broken nose evolutionists jump to the conclusion that an intelligent being must be responsible for it, but when witnessing something as vast and complex as the universe they are perfectly willing to accept the idea that it came about by chance?

Evolutionist: (interupting creationist) You are assuming that in positing the premise 'you broke my nose' that I am positing some intelligent designer in the breaking of my nose. I've never suggested anything of the kind and in fact believe that in suggesting it was you who broke my nose, I have already excluded intelligence as a characteristic of the cause....

DISCLAIMER:
(the above veiws are the views of a fictional broken nosed scientist engaged in an argument with a percieved adversary and do not necessarly reflect the views of the author);)

Man. Writing something like that is way easier than actually discussing facts and stuff. I should have thought of that sooner. Debate’s going to be a lot more fun now that we can just make up fictional discussions and put words in the mouths of anyone we like. Thank's Krakatao!

Humor, meet Spartiala. Spartiala, humor.

I think you two would make a great pair if you were to get acquainted with each other, sit down, have some tea, get married, have kids.

Ah, but in that case, there is evidence for an intelligent nose-breaker: Direct observation. If one took the time and energy, one could also probably determine precisely how the knuckles of the Creationist's hand broke the nose. Care to provide similar evidence for creationism?

A good resource for this debate: Wikipedia's article on Intelligent Design (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design). One example I find particularly telling is the determination that there is a 90% chance of a universe like ours emerging randomly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design#Fine-tuned_universe). Hardly evidence that an intelligent being must have designed it thus.

Again, I'm quite willing to hear any arguments or facts from the creationist/ID supporting members of the forums. Just be prepared for me to apply a full-force rebuttal.

*Considers both sides*
Spartiala is more humurous, and therefore wins.
This means that ID is correct, and all you Evolutionists will just have to piss off, up until such time you can find a better guy to write your jokes.
I mean, the broken nose actually uses the Evolutionary argument with only one subtle flaw (that the lights should have gone out immediatly in between after the creationist got on stage, and then come back on after the nose is broken) whereas the Biologist was apparently using some new kind of ID. After all, if you assume that the Universe (which your existence didn't predate) required intelligence to change, then your knee would certainly require an intelligence to manipulate.

*Considers both sides*
Spartiala is more humurous, and therefore wins.
This means that ID is correct, and all you Evolutionists will just have to piss off, up until such time you can find a better guy to write your jokes.
I mean, the broken nose actually uses the Evolutionary argument with only one subtle flaw (that the lights should have gone out immediatly in between after the creationist got on stage, and then come back on after the nose is broken) whereas the Biologist was apparently using some new kind of ID. After all, if you assume that the Universe (which your existence didn't predate) required intelligence to change, then your knee would certainly require an intelligence to manipulate.

Thanks man!

Your suggestion about killing the lights just before the creationist jumps on stage is perfect. The first paragraph of my story should now read:

The lights in the room suddenly go off. There is a sound of scuffling follow by a faint cracking noise. The lights turn on again to reveal Ken Hamm (creationist extraordinaire) standing on stage rubbing his knuckles and the evolutionist with his hands covering the spot on his face where his nose once was. Jonathan Sarfati is standing at the bank of light switches at the back of the room, eyes gleaming in anticipation.

Pure gold. I lol'd.

*Considers both sides*
Spartiala is more humurous, and therefore wins.
This means that ID is correct, and all you Evolutionists will just have to piss off, up until such time you can find a better guy to write your jokes.
I mean, the broken nose actually uses the Evolutionary argument with only one subtle flaw (that the lights should have gone out immediatly in between after the creationist got on stage, and then come back on after the nose is broken) whereas the Biologist was apparently using some new kind of ID. After all, if you assume that the Universe (which your existence didn't predate) required intelligence to change, then your knee would certainly require an intelligence to manipulate.

Mmmhmmm, being completely derivative is funnier....suuuuuuuuuuure.

Also, in order for Spartiala's analogy to be correct, there would have to be absolutely no evidence whatsoever of an "intelligent puncher" (I swear I've seen a porno by that name.) Therefore no bruised or abraded knuckles. No blood on the Creationist's hand. Nothing whatsoever. Nada. Zilch. Null.

Because no one ever has found proof of an intelligent designer.

Also, no one claims the universe or evolution is completely random.

Sigh, if only people who believed in a higher power actually tried to look with wide and wondering eyes at the universe as it is, they would be closer to understanding the creator....if there is one. Instead they look to the words of people who thought whales were fish and that people could be turned into pillars of salt. Mmm, fish and salt. Now I'm in the mood for fish & chips.

*Bunch of derivative BS which really isn't funny*
Real. Effing. Lame.

Mmmhmmm, being completely derivative is funnier....suuuuuuuuuuure.
Except for the fact that the scientist's argument makes no sense in light of the claim of ID. ID says that an immediate intelligent force was required to start all this, an asshole with a baseball bat is an immediate intelligent force.
Also, in order for Spartiala's analogy to be correct, there would have to be absolutely no evidence whatsoever of an "intelligent puncher" (I swear I've seen a porno by that name.) Therefore no bruised or abraded knuckles. No blood on the Creationist's hand. Nothing whatsoever. Nada. Zilch. Null.
I think it was Intelligent Pounder, but still, if the lights go out as the Creationist gets on the stage, and don't come on until the blood is gone (my suggested improvement) then you have, again, failed at NS.
Also, no one claims the universe or evolution is completely random.
Then you believe in Magical Evolution Pixies? We're either random or the result of ID.
Sigh, if only people who believed in a higher power actually tried to look with wide and wondering eyes at the universe as it is, they would be closer to understanding the creator....if there is one. Instead they look to the words of people who thought whales were fish and that people could be turned into pillars of salt. Mmm, fish and salt. Now I'm in the mood for fish & chips.
I don't believe in either side, I really just don't care.
As far as I am concerned, Evolution debate is of no importance, whatsoever, and largely breaks down to people arguing which sides pixe dust is stronger/makes more sense.

Now that would be a good debate.

Now that would be a good debate.
The best debate would be one where all members of both sides could be brought to a giant theatre to settle the issue once and for all. Evolutionist's and Bible Thumpers would come from world over, and then I could release the Mustard Gas and those of us concerned with the present and future could get on with our lives.

The best debate would be one where all members of both sides could be brought to a giant theatre to settle the issue once and for all. Evolutionist's and Bible Thumpers would come from world over, and then I could release the Mustard Gas and those of us concerned with the present and future could get on with our lives.

Only if attendance were voluntary, and the fatal nature of attendance obvious to those with intelligence. It is my hypothesis that more bible thumpers would find their demise than would scientists.

Only if attendance were voluntary, and the fatal nature of attendance obvious to those with intelligence. It is my hypothesis that more bible thumpers would find their demise than would scientists.
No, the fatal nature must not be visibile, because then we would get no one except a bunch of loser goths to lazy to get their own damned Mustard Gas. However, the voluntary part is right, but the scientist part is wrong. People who specialize in finding Pixie Dust are the worst sort, at least Bible Thumpers are fighting the defensive and have stubborness on their side.

Oh and the macro evolution that is currently accepted makes absolutely no sense.

To you....

However, to most people with even the most limited understanding of the subject it makes perfect sense.

Then you believe in Magical Evolution Pixies? We're either random or the result of ID.

False dichotomy. What even IS 'random?' Random doesn't really exist, at least on an atomic or above level. It's just the name we give when there are too many variables to determine the probability of something. Like, a dice rolling. Obviously the dice is effected by the spin of the one who rolls it, air friction and currents, temperature, minute variations in the physical surface etc etc. But no one can in a gambling situation calculate all that, so we just consider it "random."

Anyway, back to evolution. It's a recursive process, it feeds back onto itself to create the results; mutation may be effectively random, but evolution itself isn't or else it wouldn't work.

.
As far as I am concerned, Evolution debate is of no importance, whatsoever, and largely breaks down to people arguing which sides pixe dust is stronger/makes more sense.

I guess if I didn't understand either side I'd dismiss both as "pixie dust" too.

I guess if I didn't understand either side I'd dismiss both as "pixie dust" too.
It isn't a matter of not understanding, it is a matter of not caring.
Especially since, among most people I have seen, the argument isn't about whether things evolved, but about whether or not God guided the evolution. (Unless I am using a different definition of ID, in which case I'm going to have to find myself in bed with Biology and feel all dirty)
So, one side says that the ball started rolling down the slope because it was kicked, and the other side says that a gust of wind knocked it down.
To which I must reply, does it really matter? We're rolling downhill and almost certainly towards something unpleasant, so what does it matter how we started rolling?

Very funny.

Now can anyone explain to me why it is that creationists seem to be arguing that evolution is random? It isn't. It's highly logical and follows patterns in fact, i.e. survival of the fittest.

Very funny.

Now can anyone explain to me why it is that creationists seem to be arguing that evolution is random? It isn't. It's highly logical and follows patterns in fact, i.e. survival of the fittest.
First, you explain to me why people who are smart enough to put their lab coats on forwards and right side out (trust me, its harder then you think) really feel the need to continue devoting effort to figuring out how we got here. I'm sure that Discovery could find other things to print articles about, and Bible Thumpers could get into a tizz just as efficiently about something else.

First, you explain to me why people who are smart enough to put their lab coats on forwards and right side out (trust me, its harder then you think) really feel the need to continue devoting effort to figuring out how we got here. I'm sure that Discovery could find other things to print articles about, and Bible Thumpers could get into a tizz just as efficiently about something else.
Because humans, like their primate ancestors, are naturally inquisitive.

Because humans, like their primate ancestors, are naturally inquisitive.
(And that is a good thing? Thaddeuos Ogg IV, who discovered that Tar Pits aren't just like swimming pools, might just disagree)
Then why can't they inquisite about something useful. Like Robot Butlers, or the cure to cancer?

First, you explain to me why people who are smart enough to put their lab coats on forwards and right side out (trust me, its harder then you think) really feel the need to continue devoting effort to figuring out how we got here. I'm sure that Discovery could find other things to print articles about, and Bible Thumpers could get into a tizz just as efficiently about something else.
I am 'smart enough' to put on a lab coat, though I can't do much else in the lab, but to your question I can't answer any better than inherent stupidity, or inherent curiosity. Scientists always like to find out things 'just because we can'. As long as they get funding they never stop. The only reason to continue giving them funding is that Darwinism is marginally useful, because it is a viable alternative to creationism, and to prevent it from being forgotten we must keep some researchers on it.

(And that is a good thing? Thaddeuos Ogg IV, who discovered that Tar Pits aren't just like swimming pools, might just disagree)
Then why can't they inquisite about something useful. Like Robot Butlers, or the cure to cancer?
Some do. It just is a matter of what you happen to get interested in when you start in science.

I am 'smart enough' to put on a lab coat, though I can't do much else in the lab, but to your question I can't answer any better than inherent stupidity, or inherent curiosity. Scientists always like to find out things 'just because we can'. As long as they get funding they never stop. The only reason to continue giving them funding is that Darwinism is marginally useful, because it is a viable alternative to creationism, and to prevent it from being forgotten we must keep some researchers on it.

Why is it necessary to have a state sponsored alternative to creationism?

Because having secular explanations keep people from giving me crap about my atheism. Having the state sponsor creationism is a rather blatant example of the formation of an official religion, which invites all sorts of potential abuse.

Studying evolution is useful. Figuring out what happened and how gives us insight on what may have happened on other planets, thereby letting us potentially estimate the chances of other intellignet life in the universe, which would just be a useful thing to know; it also has potential in allowing us to seed planets with life in preperation for colonization. In addition, evolutionary thought and patterns have and will be used in a variety of purposes, including the analyzation of the economy and use in various computer systems.

Finally, if we give up all intellectual pursuits, then life becomes just plain bloody boring. I think that humanity should learn as much as possible about everything, including natural history.

Because having secular explanations keep people from giving me crap about my atheism.
If you quit giving theists crap about their theisms you might get a cease fire agreement out of the thing. Further, Evolution just makes Christians more inwardly drawn and defensive, which makes them less likely to change and more likely to give people crap as a pre-emptive defensive measure.
Studying evolution is useful. Figuring out what happened and how gives us insight on what may have happened on other planets, thereby letting us potentially estimate the chances of other intellignet life in the universe, which would just be a useful thing to know;
But going to other planets would also help us determine if their is life on other planets.
it also has potential in allowing us to seed planets with life in preperation for colonization.
Maybe, but we aren't even ready to maintain a moon base yet. Anyway, I never said that we should abandon biology, just shift our focus onto more forward oriented and useful biology.
In addition, evolutionary thought and patterns have and will be used in a variety of purposes, including the analyzation of the economy and use in various computer systems.
Of course, now it all makes sense. By charting the exact point where the common ancestor of monkeys and mankind came from, we will all gain a +10 on our rolls vs. Stock Market Crash!
Finally, if we give up all intellectual pursuits, then life becomes just plain bloody boring. I think that humanity should learn as much as possible about everything, including natural history.
Maybe, but there are much greater things that people should learn about then Evolution vs Creationism. Money and Time are limited resources, and so I don't think that they should be spent on pursuits of minimal application.

Because humans, like their primate ancestors, are naturally inquisitive.

Inquisitive? Or too god damn nosy for our own good? I'm more inclined to believe the latter.

... so, first we randomly pop out of a bang in the universe, and then develop over time against all odds into the beings that we are?
o_o how come my dog doesn't do my algebra FOR me, then. because they've totally had the same amount of time to morp-... evolve.
plus.
i cannot honestly look outside and see the trees and the flowers, see the sunsets and everything in this whole world, the great diversity of it all and think that it all came from an explosion. how did we get the atmosphere from that? and the oxygen? and the rainbows and the mountains and the seas and the lakes and the trees and the... */ramble*
third and final note.
evolution claims (as far as my research, which numbers a deal, has shown) that the evolution of the ape to the cro magnon to us came from mutations? isn't it so that most mutations are bad, and die out? it's like spitting in a lake. just cause your spit is different doesn't turn the whole lake to spit, does it? it dissapates.

p.s. i'm a christian, okay. and no, i do not think any one of you is stupid, and no, i'm not gonna hound on you for what you believe, so please, please, PLEASE do NOT think that! x_x to each his own. i have no intentions of saying anyone's stupid. mou, honestly.

... so, first we randomly pop out of a bang in the universe, and then develop over time against all odds into the beings that we are?
o_o how come my dog doesn't do my algebra FOR me, then. because they've totally had the same amount of time to morp-... evolve.
plus.
i cannot honestly look outside and see the trees and the flowers, see the sunsets and everything in this whole world, the great diversity of it all and think that it all came from an explosion. how did we get the atmosphere from that? and the oxygen? and the rainbows and the mountains and the seas and the lakes and the trees and the... */ramble*
third and final note.
evolution claims (as far as my research, which numbers a deal, has shown) that the evolution of the ape to the cro magnon to us came from mutations? isn't it so that most mutations are bad, and die out? it's like spitting in a lake. just cause your spit is different doesn't turn the whole lake to spit, does it? it dissapates.

p.s. i'm a christian, okay. and no, i do not think any one of you is stupid, and no, i'm not gonna hound on you for what you believe, so please, please, PLEASE do NOT think that! x_x to each his own. i have no intentions of saying anyone's stupid. mou, honestly.
Ow. Ow. Cerebral hemorrhage from overabundance of PRATTs. Someone else refute this garbage. I no longer have the patience.

Why is it necessary to have a state sponsored alternative to creationism?
Is not. Since there is a credible alternative you don't have that "proof" of god's existence. That's sufficient, and even that we could live without though some debates would be more boring. ("God says gays must die. Since you know He exists you'd better start building those pyres or prepare for hell.")

If you quit giving theists crap about their theisms you might get a cease fire agreement out of the thing. Further, Evolution just makes Christians more inwardly drawn and defensive, which makes them less likely to change and more likely to give people crap as a pre-emptive defensive measure.

I'm not giving you crap about believing in a god; I'm giving you crap about loudly yelling that there is conclusive evidence (or any evidence, for that matter) that your god exists. I don't care what you believe in, so long as you don't bug me about it. As for making Christians indrawn: That's what they said about the Copernican model of the universe. Science will continue to figure things out, regardless of your beliefs.

But going to other planets would also help us determine if their is life on other planets.

Ah, but going to another planet is incredibly expensive and slow; while it may be cheaper, faster, and easier in the future, it still seems smart to understand the chances of something useful being there before setting out.

Of course, now it all makes sense. By charting the exact point where the common ancestor of monkeys and mankind came from, we will all gain a +10 on our rolls vs. Stock Market Crash!

Oh, please. Use a little imagination: Doesn't a free market rather resemble a living system? Ideally, the point is that it follows 'survival of the fittest,' correct? That is, isn't the company that provides the best service/product for the lowest price (i.e. highest efficiency) supposed to prosper while others die out? In that case, it seems to me that having a good grasp of evolution also means having a good grasp of a free market, and delving into the past and seeing examples of evolution (such as from ape to man) is how we understand it.

There's also another use- medicine. Specifically, gene therapy. By understanding how heredity works, we can devise how to use the rules to kill harmful genetic defects.

Maybe, but there are much greater things that people should learn about then Evolution vs Creationism. Money and Time are limited resources, and so I don't think that they should be spent on pursuits of minimal application.

Again, they do have application. And of course, money and time aren't so limited as you think; there is more than enough of people to dedicate time and raise money to ensure a good quality of life for everyone while still maintaining solid research into a variety of fields.

Glinkaa: For the love of... I could carefully pick apart every statement you say, but that would take a long time and be a bloody headache for me. Let me just say that you should not let your ignorance and lack of imagination determine what must and must not be the truth.

... so, first we randomly pop out of a bang in the universe, and then develop over time against all odds into the beings that we are?
o_o how come my dog doesn't do my algebra FOR me, then. because they've totally had the same amount of time to morp-... evolve.
plus.
i cannot honestly look outside and see the trees and the flowers, see the sunsets and everything in this whole world, the great diversity of it all and think that it all came from an explosion. how did we get the atmosphere from that? and the oxygen? and the rainbows and the mountains and the seas and the lakes and the trees and the... */ramble*
third and final note.
evolution claims (as far as my research, which numbers a deal, has shown) that the evolution of the ape to the cro magnon to us came from mutations? isn't it so that most mutations are bad, and die out? it's like spitting in a lake. just cause your spit is different doesn't turn the whole lake to spit, does it? it dissapates.

p.s. i'm a christian, okay. and no, i do not think any one of you is stupid, and no, i'm not gonna hound on you for what you believe, so please, please, PLEASE do NOT think that! x_x to each his own. i have no intentions of saying anyone's stupid. mou, honestly.
If you don't use any logics we can't refute your logics. Since there are no arguments and no questions in your post I'll just make some unrelated comments and ask you some questions if that's ok.

Why do you think that doing your algebra is the meaning of life? Or could it happen that the dog is as advanced as you, but does different things?

Do you really want to hear the whole long lecture on how the universe formed? You know, there are quite good accounts of it, but trying to relate one would be giving a four hour science lecture that you'd probably not understand anyway. If you want to know it properly, go to university and read cosmology. If your universities are like the Swedish ones you'll need an advanced course, and you should probably have some calculus, some quantum mechanics and some general relativity as preliminaries. If you just want the funny version I recomend any book written by Stephen Hawking. The Universe in a Nutshell is good.

Oh, and while you are at it, do high school biology, in particular the chapter about genetics. To simplify, DNA is not like a lake. DNA is like a book with letters sorted into words and chapters (or triplets and genes). Every time a cell divides itself the whole very long book is copied with a typewriter. Obviously the guy copying it makes some mistakes. A mutation is when one letter in the original is replaced with another letter in the copy. When a letter is replaced it stays replaced for as long as the book is used. In the next generation the copy is used as original for a new copy. Then the old mistakes are copied, and some new mistakes are introduced. A letter that has been replaced is not diffused among letters that have stayed the same, but the changes keep accumulating over time.

Most mutations don't make any difference at all. They are like changing one letter in a big book. You read the same as you would have without the change. Sometimes a word or a chapter gets so screwed up that it becomes unreadable. And even more seldom a word is changed to a word that makes more sense in the context than the original word.

Then comes the process called natural selection. That is like a guy reading the copied book. If he doesn't understand what he is reading, or thinks that some copy is worse than some other copy, then the bad copy is scrapped. If a copy is good enough it is usually saved and used as original for new copies. If he finds that one copy suits him better than the others, more copies are made from that one, so that the good changes become more common among the copies.

If a chapter was rather bad at the start the reader will often find that mutations make it better, and in the end the whole chapter will have been transformed into something new and better than it was. The copier can't change a whole chapter, and the reader does not change anything, but the whole chapter (and indeed the whole book) is made up of words that are made up of letters, so by changing one letter at a time a whole chapter or the whole book can be transformed.

I'm not giving you crap about believing in a god; I'm giving you crap about loudly yelling that there is conclusive evidence (or any evidence, for that matter) that your god exists. I don't care what you believe in, so long as you don't bug me about it. As for making Christians indrawn: That's what they said about the Copernican model of the universe. Science will continue to figure things out, regardless of your beliefs.
Ahem, I am only going to say this once, so pray listen well, friend.
I AM A GODDAMN AGNOSTIC! JUST BECAUSE I'D RATHER NOT RANT AND RAVE ABOUT GOD NOT EXISTING ALL DAY DOESN'T MEAN I WORSHIP ANYTHING!!!!!
Anyway, the key difference between Evolutionists and other perceived threats to Christianity, is that an Atheistic Evolutionist actually intends to threaten Christianity. ID was an attempt to invent a pseudoscience bridge that could connect Evolution with Gawd, and that seems to be the main thing that pisses atheists off.
Ah, but going to another planet is incredibly expensive and slow; while it may be cheaper, faster, and easier in the future, it still seems smart to understand the chances of something useful being there before setting out.
Yes, but going somewhere is the only way to, you know, learn about it. Unless you think that by observing how cultures and peoples rose and fell in the U.S. I could determine everything there is to know about French History.
Oh, please. Use a little imagination: Doesn't a free market rather resemble a living system? Ideally, the point is that it follows 'survival of the fittest,' correct? That is, isn't the company that provides the best service/product for the lowest price (i.e. highest efficiency) supposed to prosper while others die out? In that case, it seems to me that having a good grasp of evolution also means having a good grasp of a free market, and delving into the past and seeing examples of evolution (such as from ape to man) is how we understand it.
Two things, one no one moved from ape to man. We have a joint ancestor, that is it.
Secondus, knowing why in the hell Koala Bears are as fucked up as they are isn't going to help anyone manage a business. All that studying the evolving of Koala Bears will tell you is that Koala Bears aren't bears.
There's also another use- medicine. Specifically, gene therapy. By understanding how heredity works, we can devise how to use the rules to kill harmful genetic defects.
But that is genetics. Evolutionary Biology is a seperate field of endeavour. Further, "pwning Xtians" won't further any causes at all.
Again, they do have application. And of course, money and time aren't so limited as you think; there is more than enough of people to dedicate time and raise money to ensure a good quality of life for everyone while still maintaining solid research into a variety of fields.
Yes, a variety of fields. A variety of useful fields. Like Economics (which helps you understand businesses), Astronomy (which helps you determine whether there is extraterrestrial life), or Genetics (which tells you about hereditary diseases).
Glinkaa: For the love of... I could carefully pick apart every statement you say, but that would take a long time and be a bloody headache for me. Let me just say that you should not let your ignorance and lack of imagination determine what must and must not be the truth.
Damn it, damn it, damn it!
Must take contrary opinion . . . can't agree with enemy . . . must accept . . . the . . . stupid . . . must . . . embrace . . . NO! I cannot.
I must side with my foe. My stubborness has abandoned me.

It isn't a matter of not understanding, it is a matter of not caring.
Especially since, among most people I have seen, the argument isn't about whether things evolved, but about whether or not God guided the evolution. (Unless I am using a different definition of ID, in which case I'm going to have to find myself in bed with Biology and feel all dirty)
So, one side says that the ball started rolling down the slope because it was kicked, and the other side says that a gust of wind knocked it down.
To which I must reply, does it really matter? We're rolling downhill and almost certainly towards something unpleasant, so what does it matter how we started rolling?

Well, that argument isn't usually the one held between "evolutionists" and intelligent design proponents. What you describe - God starting evolution's ball rolling - is actually a fairly rational belief held by many people. But the problem most rational people I know have with it is that Intelligent Design/Creationists basically say that evolution doesn't even occur.

So basically, you have people arguing that the ball rolled down the slope cuz it was kicked, people arguing that a gust of wind did it, and then the Intelligent Design folks who don't even think the ball is rolling at all!

This is a minority viewpoint - I hope - but its a very loud, annoying one that tends to be responsible for things like pushing Intelligent Design into science classes, taking evolution out of them, or the Scopes Monkey Trial. Stuff that the rest of the western world laughs at Americans for.

People who just want to argue that God created the world and time and everything else, sure, OK, but calling that notion Intelligent Design and passing it off as science is just fraudulent, and thats why I for one have a problem with it.

... you COULD just say "you're wrong, glinkaa, and here's why, here are the facts" instead of calling me an idiot. i know i've got my opinions, and that i'm not the best at saying them in the most convincing way possible, or even using proper arguments, but stating the obvious doesn't do a heck of a lot.
so WHY, tell me WHY please, could there in no way have been an intelligent designer? i really want to know.

... you COULD just say "you're wrong, glinkaa, and here's why, here are the facts" instead of calling me an idiot. i know i've got my opinions, and that i'm not the best at saying them in the most convincing way possible, or even using proper arguments, but stating the obvious doesn't do a heck of a lot.
so WHY, tell me WHY please, could there in no way have been an intelligent designer? i really want to know.
It is possible that there was a creator. But there is no way of knowing, or even intelligently arguing, that there really was one. The creator is not in this world. The scientific method implicitly assumes that he does not make any difference, so if you believe in an acting god you should stop fussing about being scientific.

... you COULD just say "you're wrong, glinkaa, and here's why, here are the facts" instead of calling me an idiot. i know i've got my opinions, and that i'm not the best at saying them in the most convincing way possible, or even using proper arguments, but stating the obvious doesn't do a heck of a lot.
so WHY, tell me WHY please, could there in no way have been an intelligent designer? i really want to know.

No one is saying that it's impossible for there to have been an intelligent designer. It's just that, before making that leap, we'd like at least a little evidence for it. As no evidence exists (unless you have some that no one else has ever seen before,) it's kinda hard for me, personally, to make that conclusion.

Do you have any evidence for an intelligent designer?

This is a minority viewpoint - I hope - but its a very loud, annoying one that tends to be responsible for things like pushing Intelligent Design into science classes, taking evolution out of them, or the Scopes Monkey Trial. Stuff that the rest of the western world laughs at Americans for.
That (Scopes Monkey Trial) was in the 1920s, so I hardly think it applies to modern USians. If, however, you want to bring that up, then Germany must agree to change its name to Naziland, and the Russians had better damn well admit that they are a bunch of Commies.
Further, I don't believe that Evolution has been removed from anywhere (well maybe some third world places like Arkansas where they have only just recently discovered fire), and I doubt that ID is going to sweep the nation.
However, it is as I said. If you give a man the impression that you are going to piss on him, he will lash out. In the same way, if you convince a theist that you want to cut down his religion, then he is going to be loud and noisy when he fights back. So why don't we just drop the issue and move onto better things, like drinking ourselves to death and perfecting the procedure for growing replacement livers in animals.

That (Scopes Monkey Trial) was in the 1920s, so I hardly think it applies to modern USians.

Heh. One might think so...

If, however, you want to bring that up, then Germany must agree to change its name to Naziland, and the Russians had better damn well admit that they are a bunch of Commies.

The commies in Russia didn't just disappear, you know. And nazism isn't dead in Germany. Similarly, the idea that the law exists to crush evolution and science in order to protect God-fearing Americans is still alive and well. No name-changing required really.


Further, I don't believe that Evolution has been removed from anywhere (well maybe some third world places like Arkansas where they have only just recently discovered fire), and I doubt that ID is going to sweep the nation.

Give it time.


However, it is as I said. If you give a man the impression that you are going to piss on him, he will lash out. In the same way, if you convince a theist that you want to cut down his religion, then he is going to be loud and noisy when he fights back.

The intelligent design fanatics aren't going to turn the other cheek, you know. And I'm not going to live my life in fear that some religious zealot is going to think I'm attacking his religion. Most of those people tend to think I am even if I'm not, so why bother?


So why don't we just drop the issue and move onto better things, like drinking ourselves to death and perfecting the procedure for growing replacement livers in animals.

I agree, except in 50 years no one born and educated in the US will know a liver replacement operation from a toothpick because science will be teaching religion, religion will be teaching more religion, and anyone rational will have drunk themselves to death leaving only stupid people behind to inherit the world.

Heh. One might think so...
And you, more then likely, don't exist. After all, the 1920's probably had a precedent for you not being alive, and so you obviously are still nonexistent. And so am I. And so is the Interweb.
After all, this is apparently still the 20s and nothing about this argument is real.
The commies in Russia didn't just disappear, you know. And nazism isn't dead in Germany. Similarly, the idea that the law exists to crush evolution and science in order to protect God-fearing Americans is still alive and well. No name-changing required really.
Oh, get over your fucking persecution complex.
The whole world is created to thwart me, boohoo!
Give it time.
OMFGZ, T3H KR15714N C0N5P1R4CY!1!!!!
Think about it this way, early schools tended to be religious, yes?
Said schools didn't teach Evolution, because no one had heard about it, yes?
That would mean that Evolution has recently appeared, while religion faded from education, yes?
I doubt that said trend is going to do a sudden about face just because your panties are in a bunch.
The intelligent design fanatics aren't going to turn the other cheek, you know. And I'm not going to live my life in fear that some religious zealot is going to think I'm attacking his religion. Most of those people tend to think I am even if I'm not, so why bother?
I never said that you had to be in fear. If I run up to a police man and call him a "Fucking Faggoty Fuckface" is he going to appreciate my spur of the moment alliteration? No, he'd probably arrest me for appearing in public without any pants. Does that mean I live in fear of the police? Well, I do, but I'm afraid for other reasons.
Leave them alone, and if someone tries to convert you, pull out their holy symbol of choice and say "I've already got one" and then wander on. Christians haven't done conversion by the sword for at least a hundred years.
I agree, except in 50 years no one born and educated in the US will know a liver replacement operation from a toothpick because science will be teaching religion, religion will be teaching more religion, and anyone rational will have drunk themselves to death leaving only stupid people behind to inherit the world.
Yeah, because the past 2 centuries of scientific progress didn't happen, and anyone who tells you so is a fucking liar.
Quit being so alarmist and visit us in the Real World, now and again, it is quite pleasant in the Spring.

It's hard to prove honestly that there is a creator, i'll admit, and i regret i've no physical evidence at the moment, but i am researching this.

but how on earth is it possible to get a more complex lifeform from a less complex one? i've never seen proof of this, there's nothing out there that i can see honestly evolved from something else that was simpler. how can you get something like a human from an ameoba? (forgive if this isn't the most current theory on evolution, and inform me what is, but i still want to know the answer)

It's hard to prove honestly that there is a creator, i'll admit, and i regret i've no physical evidence at the moment, but i am researching this.

but how on earth is it possible to get a more complex lifeform from a less complex one? i've never seen proof of this, there's nothing out there that i can see honestly evolved from something else that was simpler. how can you get something like a human from an ameoba? (forgive if this isn't the most current theory on evolution, and inform me what is, but i still want to know the answer)
Like any long journey. One step at a time. Starting from single cell eukaryotes you form volvox colonies (by clumping together many cloned identical cells in a sphere). Then you build somewhat bigger colonies that require a certain structure to get oxygen and nutritients to all cells. So the genes (remember the books?) adjust so that they automatically form and maintain such structures. Then they can form even bigger colonies again by using flagella to pump water through the structures (that also adjust to make this more effective). Then the colony improves it's ability to survive by letting some cells produce and excrete enzymes that change organic compounds to nutritients inside the colony. Etc.

I hope you don't want me to type the whole sequence up to humans. Every little step is a set of mutations, a set of changes in the 'books' I talked about before, and each change is made because the cells containing the new version have greater chance of survival than cells in the same situation with the old version of the same gene (chapter).

EDIT: There is no proof in science, only evidence. Evidence for the evolution you talk about is that there are so many organisms, and even more fossils, that seem to represent middle steps between each other. Like volvox colonies being middle step between single cell animals and sponge animals. Or sponge animals being a step between volvox colonies and proper animals.

It's hard to prove honestly that there is a creator, i'll admit, and i regret i've no physical evidence at the moment, but i am researching this.
Since a creator is not necessarily subject to natural laws, how can possibly research or investigate it? None of the usual means of reckoning we know how to employ are necessarily of any use whatsoever in making deductions about the supernatural. It seems unlikely that a creator capable of such a creation would be natural and the fact is our investigations into the natural have turned up nothing so in all liklihood if there is a creator that creator is not subject to our ability to investigate/research.

but how on earth is it possible to get a more complex lifeform from a less complex one?
Changes in the DNA that instruct the production of proteins that make up the structure and direct the processes/functioning of the life-form. Equally how on earth would a creator make life and matter from nothingness or life from non-live matter?

i've never seen proof of this, there's nothing out there that i can see honestly evolved from something else that was simpler.
How long have you been alive, compare this to the amount of time it is believed that any such accumulative changes would need to occur over if such a change (from something less complex) were to occur.

how can you get something like a human from an ameoba?
Well you wouldnt (I would imagine). However we do know that from one generation to the next off-spring are able to be novel (in comparison to the parental generation). The idea of macro evolution (speciation via evolution) is that such changes accumulate over vast numbers of generation so that eventually the descendents are a different species from the 'original' parent generation. By extension it is plausible to suggest that perhaps all species resulted from such incremental changes over vast numbers of generations.

Ahem, I am only going to say this once, so pray listen well, friend.
I AM A GODDAMN AGNOSTIC! JUST BECAUSE I'D RATHER NOT RANT AND RAVE ABOUT GOD NOT EXISTING ALL DAY DOESN'T MEAN I WORSHIP ANYTHING!!!!!
Anyway, the key difference between Evolutionists and other perceived threats to Christianity, is that an Atheistic Evolutionist actually intends to threaten Christianity. ID was an attempt to invent a pseudoscience bridge that could connect Evolution with Gawd, and that seems to be the main thing that pisses atheists off.

The only things that irritate me about Intelligent Design are the claims that: 1) They have evidence for their claims (they don't), 2) Evolution couldn't have occured (it has and does, and there's a whole bloody lot of evidence for it, such as the utterly random hip bones found in some whales), and 3) that Intelligent Design should be taught in classrooms alongside evolution (religion should not be taught in science class, and Intelligent Design has no evidence behind it).

I don't care what your religion is. Worship or don't worship who you wish, and let the same apply to everyone else. I have never said that God is impossible; I have merely maintained that there is no evidence that He has ever mucked about in the creation of species. There is no evidence for God or against God, and as such, science has nothing to say on the subject. Let everyone choose their beliefs as they wish, so long as none force them on everyone else or lets it blind them to evidence.

I don't care whether any given person believes it was a foot or a gust of wind that got the ball rolling; I don't even care if they think that it's really standing still. I just don't want them to teach in science class that the ball is standing still, in the same way I don't want them to teach that the earth is flat or that elephants like to tap dance.

Yes, but going somewhere is the only way to, you know, learn about it. Unless you think that by observing how cultures and peoples rose and fell in the U.S. I could determine everything there is to know about French History.

There are two target suns with planets around them. One is a yellow star, like our sun. The other is a red star, like Betelgeuse. We want to check to see if they have life. By your logic, we should visit both, damn the cost. However, through study of the conditions necessary for life as we know it, we know that it's far, far more likely that the yellow sun has life than the red sun; therefore, it is much wiser to send an expedition to the yellow star, thereby cutting the cost in half. It's how geologists find mineral resources (rock X yields oil much more often than rock Y, so we should check rock X), and the same way that meteorologists predict the weather (conditions X tend to produce rain much more often than conditions Y, so if conditions X are in place, it's likely that it's going to rain). And it's only by studying the origins of life and species that we can decide such factors as these.

Two things, one no one moved from ape to man. We have a joint ancestor, that is it.

Urgh... It was a bloody turn of phrase; forgive me for not saying 'early ancestor of modern higher primates to humans.'

Secondus, knowing why in the hell Koala Bears are as fucked up as they are isn't going to help anyone manage a business. All that studying the evolving of Koala Bears will tell you is that Koala Bears aren't bears.

In this specific instance, it could help in the care of koalas in zoos, so that if something makes marsupials sick but leaves bears fine, it's good to know into which category a koala belongs. Anyway, knowing the development of the koala may lend itself to a greater understanding of evolution in whole. Again, the free market is like the natural world, and the corporations are like individual competitive species, moving in patterns like those of evolution; therefore, knowing how evolution works lends itself to knowing how the stock market will develop.

But that is genetics. Evolutionary Biology is a seperate field of endeavour. Further, "pwning Xtians" won't further any causes at all.

Everything is connected; understanding evolutionary biology lends itself to understaning genetics, and vice versa. After all, it's bloody useful for a gene therapist to know the chances of the stuff he's working with to suddenly mutate, what the effects are, how it does so, and how to prevent it. These are all things determined through study of evolution and its processes.

In addition, I'm not trying to 'pwn Christians,' nor have I claimed that I am.

Yes, a variety of fields. A variety of useful fields. Like Economics (which helps you understand businesses), Astronomy (which helps you determine whether there is extraterrestrial life), or Genetics (which tells you about hereditary diseases).

All of which are created. Studying how competitive systems develop allows you to predict how the economy will develop. Studying the conditions of the origins of life allows us to use astronomy to determine which systems are likely to have life and which aren't (since you're so concerned about frugality and all). Studying evolution tells you about how hereditary diseases developed (for example, sickle-cell anemia is linked with a gene that provides resistance against malaria), and tells you how diseased and such will develop.

An example of evolution in action: Penicillin was developed in 1942. It was something of a panacea, obliterating pretty much every bacterial disease. Unfortunately, some bacteria with a natural resistance to penicillin survived and spread in the absence of their non-resistance, currently-dead peers. This trait spread- after all, there's plenty of incentive for this trait to spread amonst antibiotic-happy '50s doctors. Now, many diseases are resistant to penicillin and other older antibiotics. By applying our knowledge of evolution, we may be able to limit the reoccurence of this with newer antibiotics.

Damn it, damn it, damn it!
Must take contrary opinion . . . can't agree with enemy . . . must accept . . . the . . . stupid . . . must . . . embrace . . . NO! I cannot.
I must side with my foe. My stubborness has abandoned me.

I'm sorry if I've made myself into your enemy, but hopefully you will see some inkling of my point- this is the kind of thoughtless BS that I'm trying to have kept out of the classroom.

It's hard to prove honestly that there is a creator, i'll admit, and i regret i've no physical evidence at the moment, but i am researching this.

but how on earth is it possible to get a more complex lifeform from a less complex one? i've never seen proof of this, there's nothing out there that i can see honestly evolved from something else that was simpler. how can you get something like a human from an ameoba? (forgive if this isn't the most current theory on evolution, and inform me what is, but i still want to know the answer)

If youy devote equal time to researching evolution (at the very least so that you thoroughly know what you're arguing against,) you might just be surprised.

Very funny.

Now can anyone explain to me why it is that creationists seem to be arguing that evolution is random? It isn't. It's highly logical and follows patterns in fact, i.e. survival of the fittest.

Evolution is not logical though. Nor does it follow a pattern. It is, in fact, a stochastic process.

That said, it is what happened. (Oh dear, religious people, no god for you!).

I don't care what your religion is. Worship or don't worship who you wish, and let the same apply to everyone else. I have never said that God is impossible; I have merely maintained that there is no evidence that He has ever mucked about in the creation of species. There is no evidence for God or against God, and as such, science has nothing to say on the subject. Let everyone choose their beliefs as they wish, so long as none force them on everyone else or lets it blind them to evidence.
Yeah, but you started talkign about "Your God" and that made me a bit defensive. I have never once claimed that money started the Universe, and I would never feel the need to do so. Its a sort of gag reflex that originates from caring about not caring, everyone thinks you must be on the otherside. As a result, depending on who I'm arguing with, I am called either a Godless Commie or an Ignorant Bible Thumper.
There are two target suns with planets around them. One is a yellow star, like our sun. The other is a red star, like Betelgeuse. We want to check to see if they have life. By your logic, we should visit both, damn the cost. However, through study of the conditions necessary for life as we know it, we know that it's far, far more likely that the yellow sun has life than the red sun; therefore, it is much wiser to send an expedition to the yellow star, thereby cutting the cost in half. It's how geologists find mineral resources (rock X yields oil much more often than rock Y, so we should check rock X), and the same way that meteorologists predict the weather (conditions X tend to produce rain much more often than conditions Y, so if conditions X are in place, it's likely that it's going to rain). And it's only by studying the origins of life and species that we can decide such factors as these.
Except that the sun example is using Astronomy, not Evolution. To observe Evolution, you have to either be where it happens, or be able to look at where it happened and the results. Neither of these could be accomplished until you are at said star already.
Further, Space Exploration isn't a matter of flinging shuttles all over the place first you use telescopes, satellites, that sort of thing.
Urgh... It was a bloody turn of phrase; forgive me for not saying 'early ancestor of modern higher primates to humans.'
Fine, I'll forgive that transgression, but as a man of "Scienze" (which is like Science, but so extreme that the spelling has to be whimsical to capture it all) I won't forgive it again.
In this specific instance, it could help in the care of koalas in zoos, so that if something makes marsupials sick but leaves bears fine, it's good to know into which category a koala belongs. Anyway, knowing the development of the koala may lend itself to a greater understanding of evolution in whole.
But there is no point in studying Evolution as a whole! To further the point, there is already veterinary medicine, which will tell you all about sick Koala Bears.
Again, the free market is like the natural world, and the corporations are like individual competitive species, moving in patterns like those of evolution; therefore, knowing how evolution works lends itself to knowing how the stock market will develop.
I will laugh at this point until you can provide me an example of one corporation developing bright plumage and a high pitched mating call so that it can attract more attention then the others and thus increase its oppurtunities to reproduce.
Should you show me such a thing, I still won't agree with you, but I will quit laughing long enough to demand that you quit spiking my drinks with acid.
In addition, I'm not trying to 'pwn Christians,' nor have I claimed that I am.
Yes, but most people (such as the thread starter) seem only to want to use evolution for that purpose.
All of which are created. Studying how competitive systems develop allows you to predict how the economy will develop. Studying the conditions of the origins of life allows us to use astronomy to determine which systems are likely to have life and which aren't (since you're so concerned about frugality and all). Studying evolution tells you about how hereditary diseases developed (for example, sickle-cell anemia is linked with a gene that provides resistance against malaria), and tells you how diseased and such will develop.
Yes, but I see little reason for a sperate field. By shifting resources being spent on Evolution to the other sciences, they could determine such things for themselves, instead of doing their best to adapt one set of theories to suit their own.
An example of evolution in action: Penicillin was developed in 1942. It was something of a panacea, obliterating pretty much every bacterial disease. Unfortunately, some bacteria with a natural resistance to penicillin survived and spread in the absence of their non-resistance, currently-dead peers. This trait spread- after all, there's plenty of incentive for this trait to spread amonst antibiotic-happy '50s doctors. Now, many diseases are resistant to penicillin and other older antibiotics. By applying our knowledge of evolution, we may be able to limit the reoccurence of this with newer antibiotics.
We could apply our knowledge of lets not screw up so much this time and only prescribe antibiotics in cases where they could be of use.
I'm sorry if I've made myself into your enemy, but hopefully you will see some inkling of my point- this is the kind of thoughtless BS that I'm trying to have kept out of the classroom.
If we argue, then we must be enemies. However, I can slide back into neutral now, because this argument has reached the Stale Point. (The Stale Point is the point at which every point that either side possesses has been introduced and rebutted at least once, and all we are doing is rephrasing our earlier comments. At this point it is far simpler to Agree to Disagree for a week or so, and end up repeating the performance due to a lapse of memory)

If we argue, then we must be enemies. However, I can slide back into neutral now, because this argument has reached the Stale Point. (The Stale Point is the point at which every point that either side possesses has been introduced and rebutted at least once, and all we are doing is rephrasing our earlier comments. At this point it is far simpler to Agree to Disagree for a week or so, and end up repeating the performance due to a lapse of memory)

I don't think we have to be enemies. Everyone has differences of opinion; does that make everyone enemies?

Agreed that we're pretty much talking past each other at this point, but I do have one trick up my sleeve.

I will laugh at this point until you can provide me an example of one corporation developing bright plumage and a high pitched mating call so that it can attract more attention then the others and thus increase its oppurtunities to reproduce.
Should you show me such a thing, I still won't agree with you, but I will quit laughing long enough to demand that you quit spiking my drinks with acid.

You want corporate plumage? Here's some corporate plumage (http://www.allposters.com/-sp/Coca-Cola-Yes-Girl-License-Plate_i995028_.htm). Advertising is the mating call of the corporation, and profits are equivalent to getting to reproduce. Again, companies are much like competing species.