Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Tangible proof?

No offense inteaded or anything but there is nothing about that even in the proximity of proof. Conjecture is not proof.

You're just jealous, this IS proof, no conjecture. You just have to disagree, even when it makes a complete fool out of you.

Keep believing blindly in your utterly idiotic, illogical arguments...whatever keeps your fantasy, fools paradise real...

There is nothing to be jealous of. As soon as I read that their supposed proof was ape to man (of which it is a fact that there is no evidence for such) I stopped reading.

You stopped reading because you fear you might see the truth! I would suggest that you don't just stop reading based on the subject - what if further on in the article they DO infact proof something? You would not be aware of it!

No, I just dont feel like reading the same stuff ive read over and over. I dont understand what there is for me to fear. I remain objective (while you dont) but the problem lies in the obvious. It is known that there is no proof that man came from ape so why would I be intersted in somebody who uses that as "evidence" for macroevolution?

Please

Please, there IS proof that man came from ape, but obviously a creationist will never admit that.

"Creationist are "pathetic for demanding evidence". "Evidence is unnecessary".

You say this even though you can't provide evidence for your belief in god !Ha-ha! Obviously for you, being a creationist, evidence IS unnecesary as you blindly believe in a god, not supplying evidence. Do you call believing in a god 'objective science'?

You remain objective, but believe in a god, without being able to proof him or providing objective evidence?

Naturalism and creationism are philosophies. The problem lies in the fact that naturalists try to act as though their philosophy is fact when it is not even close. In fact, it isnt even scientific theory. Why not? Because unlike creationsim, it consistently fails to meet observed scientific evidence.

Dont try to blur lines and dont try to divert from the real issue at hand. Nice try though.



Refer above.

So show me the objective scientific evidence which supports creationism.
And don't try to dodge this one.

You have no willigness to learn though, we have already discovered that you are so biased that you dismissed evidence as having relevance.

Tell me why I should waste the time when you clearly dont want to know anything?

You realy enjoy rolling around in your own idiocy, don't you.

You didnt answer my question.

Also, again Ive asked you numerous times now that we just ignore each other. Your limited knowledge and unwillingness to learn, be objective, etc are just far too annoying for me to deal with.

my theory that micro-evolution (gene mutations) can indeed cause macro-evolution is entirely accurate: a gene(micro-evolution) led to smaller, weaker jaws(macro-evolutionary effect) and, ultimately, bigger brains(an improved feature, thus proving that upward evolution can indeed stem from information loss(mutating gene causing weaker jaws) on the gene scale.

PLEASE READ FURTHER INSIDE THE FIRST POST, clickclick MESSED UP THIS THREAD WITH HIS UTTER IDIOCY.

"Java Man: How many skeletons do you think were found of Java Man? 100? 50? 25? 10? How about one complete skeleton? How about half a skeleton? Java Man was reconstructed from a skullcap, thighbone, and 2 molar teeth. Dr. Eugene DuBois found the thighbone 50 feet away from the skullcap, but assumed it was the same individual. After discovering human skulls at the same level near his Java Man discovery, he hid the skulls under the floorboards of his bedroom for 26 years. Before his death DuBois confessed that he had not found the missing link and admitted that Java Man was probably a giant gibbon."

I really love how people that parade themselves as some kind of elite intellectual throw proof at you that are frauds. Come on man at least get your facts right before you start paradiing around like you know something other people don't.

keep dreaming about java man philO

finch beaks!!!!!!
haha give me a break man
so is a poodle proof of evidence for evolution too man?
Its called adaptation PhilO, there are breeds of dogs that can live in extreme freezing temps and there are dogs that can live in the hottest climates on earth. Now if you switch the dogs in those climates they will be hard pressed to survive. This is a example of adaptation just like finch beaks. They can adapt through different climates but they never turn into another animal.
You can bring all the "proof" to the table you want over evolution but every shred of evidence i have ever heard of has been shot down. If you want to try to post some "proof" feel free to try I am quite confident i can shoot it down for you.
Evolution is a not a fact it is a theory!!!!!
and i don't know why you are so insulting to click click calling him stupid. He seems to have a above average intelligence to me.
Your the guy whos posting a thread of what a fact evolution is when all those great facts are highly questioned. Not to call you an idiot either, you probably just need to do a little more research.
And not to say i know everything on the subject as well, i am learning just as much as everyone else, i just know enough that stating finch beaks as a fact for evolution is a mass of bull dung

there just if you missed my posts in your other threads that were closed down PhilO

"Before his death DuBois confessed that he had not found the missing link and admitted that Java Man was probably a giant gibbon."

The above was a lie: Look at the biography of the man and you'll see he never confessed as such.

thats all you have to say???? even hypothetically if he didn't confess that, java man is inconclusive but you seemed to be howlering on the roof tops of it being some important finding that proved evolution. sorry bud no such case. and whats this about.
dude and please can you do better than copy and paste of someone elses writings? maybe think for yourself?
I haven't even hear you mention peppered moths yet, isn't that evolutions favorite animal even though thats just another example of adaptation.
just as a side not too you do realize that the dating system scientists have is very inaccurate don't you? Did you know that people took a sample of volcano rock that went off about 100 years ago, they gave it to scientists and they all gave them dating that went back get this......over like 250 million years old or so....hahahahahah dude if you are gonna take the word of these guys when they give you dates but as for me when they are wrong by that much i will pass. Did you ever even come across this info bud or are you just content on taking "facts" from the far extreme side of the argument?

you are exibiting faith in evolution just as a christian does for god. Though you seem to be pretty rude and unforgiving when a christian does. why is that? faith only works for you if it discounts god?

Whatever, it seems you believe everything you read - the valcano rock dating...PLEASE!

Anyway, happy living in la-la land!

your beliveing everything your reading as well it appears PhilO. So because you have read these "facts" on evolution and you choose to believe them your not living in "la la land" when indeed there is evidence that disputes it??
you seem to think la la land is only a place if it disagrees with what you already made up your mind to believe is right. I choose to look at both sides of a subject myself.
have you even looked at any of the claims that the evidence you claim is so untouchable to see if it hold up or not??
I see that your just biased, not that there is anything wrong with being biased, but the least you could do is take into account there is another theory of how life originated apart from your own and it holds as much weight as yours (in my opinion more)
I am of the mind , and this is speaking of personal opinion, that evolution could not work by itself as a singular process by itself. I belive there is something pulling its strings behind it if it does exist. How can you have a eco system that every creature plant and species benifits from and can only survive in, do to how the other species are as well within that eco system, and have species randomly mutating into other species. If that takes place that new breed of creature would disrupt the eco system it is in. It would take millions and millions of years for the other creatures to adapt to it correct?
what i am getting at is look at nature and look at our world. These things did not randomly fall into place to help along life. The enviroment wehave is far to complex and intracit and works to well in itself to be random. There is a designers signature all over it. Its not hard to see.
so wether you want to be religeos or not is up to you. But to scoff at people saying there is a creator is pretty dull in my opinion. Its another view other than your own and its quite valid.

ps. oh and if you want me to get the information for you about the testing of the lava rocks i will be more than happy

I don't understand why it's so hard for some religious people to possible accept the "idea" at least, that we may have evolved from Apes. I happen to believe in Evolution, just because....it is more tangible and makes more sense than God creating one Man to lavish in the Garden of Eden, and then a woman from his rib-bone.
But meh, why do I care? I'll probably burn in Hell with the rest of the world, right?

Well, do you understand why it is so hard for certain atheist to accept the "idea" at least, that we were created?

Now if you think that spontaneous generation makes more sense than life creating life, I must completely disagree. Though is but the tip of iceburg, I wonder how you qualify your statement. What is so believable about spontaneous generation?

Were we to see a fully assembled plane would you find it more believable that it was the result of spontaneous generation or the result of creation?

science is flawed and changes a lot.
everything is reproven wrong.
in the bible doesn't it state the god created man twice?
the second time from the dust?

i don't understand exactly how god created man, but it makes more sense when you look around you at our world that there was a "guiding hand" so to speak. I think people that think that the universe happened from an explosion from out of nowhere exibit just as much faith as a christian does. your not relying on fact, you aare using just as much faith as a believer in god does. Only their faith tells them that there is a god that loves them, and your faith says your a step above a monkey and you will eventually became food for worms

There is one thing common in the mode of thinking by creationists: You can't wrap your brains around the passage of millions and millions of years - over such a long time period anything and everything happens, all possibilities, all permutations of forms. When you think about that it's pretty obvious how things can develop naturally without a divine designer. Over millions of years mutations perfect themselves into new generations of species - they DON'T disrupt the eco system, rather they survive in a changed environment while those species which did not mutate die out.

The most flawed reasoning by creationists is they argue that there has to be a god who designed everything, while they cannot explain how this god are able to be omnipotent without having been created himself - they say that he's eternal with no cause. NOW why can't we just say then that existence itself is omnipotent and eternal and completely independent as its own sustainer? Why does a god have to be imposed onto an existence which itself can have the same power as that of a god?

Humans did not evolve from modern day apes. They have a common ancestor.

As to creationism.... hahahahahahahahahaha.... *phew*

You clearly have no grasp on what evolution is. A species evolves into a new one when a population adapts to be able to live in their environment through natural selection.

And MC Mike got the next bit that I wanted to say...that we did NOT evolve from apes, but that apes and humans share a common ancestor. Anyone wants to refute that, then they can explain why humans and apes have 99.9% of the same DNA and are nearly structurally identical.

Clickclick, you keep speaking of this scientific evidence for creationism. Why don't you actually post it? And do NOT play off your whole "you don't want to hear it" bit. Either show the proof or shut up.

As for spontaneous generation -- there is scientific proof that it is possible. I did research on it for an AP Biology class project last year and they were able to perform spontaneous generation in a lab. So yes, it is possible, it can happen, and there is PROOF for this.

And I have seen nothing yet that refutes evolution, like clickclick so often says that science does...in fact, I've seen science do nothing but support the theory of evolution!

BTW, evolution IS a scientific theory. There is a load of evidence to back it up. What does creationism have to back it up? A book that is, at best, a work of fiction.

By all means please explain the abiogenesis your AP biology class accomplished? Its funny cuz here I thought it has never happend, the odds were virtually impossible (even in 100 billion years or more) and there in your high school science class, you managed to do it.

Puported by evolutionists, our most common ancestor would be chimps and they most certainly do not have 99.9 % of our DNA sequence. Try 95 %.

Again, more to say later but im interested about your science class experiment.

When did I ever say my class was able to do abiogenisis...had you bothered to actually read you would see it clearly says that I did research on abiogenisis for a project for my AP Bio class. In doing my research I discovered that in a lab, scientists were indeed able to simulate the conditions required for abiogenesis and that it occured.

Sorry about that, I misread what you wrote. As to spontaneous generation having taking place. Thats not possible. Please elaborate.

Damnit, some of these new members are bitchy. Thank goodness that Oo Bou Low guy was banned.

He was?!

Chimps does share 99% of our DNA - that's a FACT! BUT chimps are not our common ancestor - we and chimps share a common ancestor - a primitive ape species which DON'T exist today. This misconception held by most creationists that evolution claims we evolved from apes or chimps in existence today is ridiculous. If you knew anything at all about evolution of the Hominid, you would never have stated anything so telling of your ignorance. Do your homework before you claim to know anything of evolution.

Chimps share most of our dna, but we are like 'brothers', sharing a common ancestor - we don't come from chimps you imbecil.

Ask any evolutionary scientist or paleontologist and they'll tell you exactly what I told you - just go read up on human evolution to see that evolutionists say we and chimps share a common ancestor.

Philo, you are correct. I worded that one incorrectly. Most common relative is what I should have said.

Anyway, likewise I have heard that it was 99 percent but ive also read by reliable sources that it was rather 95 percent. This was reported by CNN, etc and is out there if you want to have a look.

Good luck and peace.

My AP Biology book from last year said something like 99.5% or 99.9% of the same DNA is shared between primates and humans...

Yes. That makes me happy.

And, yes, I believe approximately 99.8% of our DNA is shared with primates...and over 50% with bananas.

And I'd like to take this moment to point out it is a sad day when we have to "prove" evolution.

Evolution is just a theory? Well so is plate tectonics, and electricity, and the earth revolving around the sun... etc.

Theories of this type are so close to the truth, the only inconsistencies are the details - not the main ideas.

Hmm... on the same page, I'd also feel its a sad day when we have to see or read something to believe it. I couldnt blame anyone though... there is clearly alot of deception in the world.. as for the bible being a work of supposed fiction.. it may have been changed by men over the years.. but theres many moral guidelines that help many people tackle their otherwise difficult lives.. but kudos to you if you feel yourself to be a better person for saying that

Micro-evolution is true indeed.

Organisms have assumed numerous changes over the course of many years, just like television and computers for example. They have undergone many changes, but they are still televisions and computers.

Don't let your mind wonder. Macro-evolution is NOT possible.

In those regards, we are embarking on a totally different playing field. Cars have evolved over the years too, but none have taken the form of an airplane. Sure, this example is a bit extreme, and I'm referring to machines, but you get the idea.

Just a thought.

Your example is not "a bit extreme," it is completely false. A logical analogy with regard to evolution cannot be drawn between living organisms and non-living objets.

Adam Poe

Using machines or "non-living objects" as you put it to convey the basic theme or point behind my message should have rang a few bells regardless, despite not using living organisms. Thanks for pointing out the obvious, which I clearly indicated in my message. Your over looked the concept.

The first human beings to walk the earth were different in many aspects in comparison to human beings today. Human beings after all these years, subjected to Micro-evolution, are still very much human. And further more, humans today, given millions of years, will NOT manifest into newly designed organisms that have never been in existence before.

Micro-evolution is true, but not Macro-evolution. At any time, will a human being grow gills, claws or a third arm to better the chance of survival. Instead, small changes will occur... much like parts of an automobile. The engines, tires, rims, body colors, suspension, air bags and body styles have changed over the years, but automobiles remain to be automobiles.

You can apply the same concept to living organisms, whether it's bigger brains, shorty or taller statures, hairy heads or bald, walking or crawling you will ALWAYS remain human. Never will humans grow reptilian like skin, replacing the old, because they spent too much time in the sun over the years, or grow wings because too many people have died sky diving.

Living organisms grow, adapt, and reproduce resulting in variation whereas, non-living objects do not.

To assert that because non-living objects that do not even manifest micro-evolution will never manifest macro-evolution, that living organisms that manifest micro-evolution will also never manifest macro-evolution is a complete falsehood.

Adam Poe

Do you know what macro-evolution is? Don't confuss it with micro-evolution. Give me an example (if you do), of an organism; let's say organism A, that over millions of years will change into a totally different organism... organism B for instance, that has NEVER existed before. In other words, give me an example of how a mouse, could somehow manifest into a rabbit or squirrel. And, if you can't do that, inform me of a organism that was proved to be in existance today SPECIFICALLY from micro-evolution. Just name one.

The following 22 examples have complete dinosaur-to-bird transitional fossils with no morphological gaps:

Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba.

Adam Poe

Thank you for the reply. However, you have given me 22 examples of prehistoric dinosaurs manifesting into birds with zero scientific verbage to support your rebuttle. What are the names of these birds? Do they exist today?

Macro-evolution is a theory, and it doesn't correlate with micro-evolution at all. Kiss all hopes of Darwinism goodbye. I wanted examples of mammals, reptiles, amphibians or insects (either one, just one) that exist TODAY that have birthed from macro-evolution.

Surely, if macro-evolution is true, we should see examples of this amazing feat in our present time. Cockroaches have been around since dinosaurs, why hasn't macro-evolution had an effect on them? Why not human beings? What about mosquitoes? What about alligators or crocodiles?

What is your definition of macro-evolution?

I provided you with 22 examples of dinosaur-to-bird transitional fossils with no morphological gaps. This is proof enough of macro-evolution, I do not need to present complete phylogenic morphologies of existent organisms or illustrate in which organisms macro-evolution is operating in today.

Adam Poe

Please read carefully. And... take your time.

The foundation of modern science is built on evolution. Yet, evolution is one of those vague words that mean different ideas to different people. It actually has two meanings:

MICRO-EVOLUTION is the theory that organisms can adapt to changes in their surroundings and develop a LIMITED amount of diversity based on their environment. Variation within a species is possible, such as a Bird's beak getting larger or a moth's wings changing color, but it's limited in scope. Micro-evolution has a solid scientific basis, and no one disputes it's occurrence in nature.

MACRO-EVOLUTION is another ballgame altogether. Also called Darwinian evolution, this theory takes the proven idea of limited change over time and attempts to explain all questions concerning the origins of life in the same manner: Simple organisms branched out over billions of years to create complex organisms like you see inhabiting the world today.

Macro-evolution is driven by NATURAL SELECTION, a survival-of-the-fittest process that has no mind or purpose; organisms that adapt to their environment survive, and those that don't, become extinct. Natural selection causes such features as wings and eyes to develop over extended periods of time as a way for organisms to better adapt to their environments. Staunch evolutionist Richard Dawkins memorably called this evolutionary process "the blind watchmaker."

Although micro-evolution is a theory that evidence confirms, macro-evolution is FAR MORE SPECULATIVE. In fact, scientists have no more evidence today (and argue less) to support macro-evolution than Darwin did. To scientists who believe in a God as a designer and creator, the theory of evolution has NEVER successfully answered the basic questions about how life began or explained the mystery of the DNA code. They also point in recent discoveries as further evidence showing the need for a God as designer, or TRANSCEDENT CAUSAL AGENT (for those who lack faith in God). For example, in Darwin's day, scientists originally thought the cell was a simple structure, but advances in molecular biology over the past 30 years have shown how complex the cell is, making the likelihood of natural selection at the molecular level seemingly impossible.

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." -Charles Darwin

Charles Darwin believed that the cell is a relatively simple structure that could've evolved through natural selection. But, as the quote above illustrates, Darwin himself saw holes in his theory should cells be proven to be too structurally complex to have evolved on their own. Due to technological advances over the past 30 years, scientists no longer have to speculate on the cell. They now have the ability to view and understand a cell's composition in the ways that were unheard of decades before.

With this newly discovered knowledge in tow, scientist Michael Behe writes in his book "Darwin's Black Box" that it's IMPOSSIBLE for cells to have evolved through a gradual process, because they're IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX. In other words, a core set of parts has to be present in a cell in order for it to function in the first place.

To explain his point, Behe uses the example of an ordinary mouse trap. Behe argues that a mouse trap is irreducibly complex, because all it's pieces have to be present and in working order for it to function. You can't just put a piece of wood out in the attic and catch a mouse or two, then add a spring to snatch a second, and then assemble the hammer for even more. This increment approach doesn't work.

Instead, all these pieces must be assembled together and functioning properly before the challenge of mouse catching can even begin. In the same way, cells and other living organisms are irreducibly complex, which seems incompatible with the survival-of-the-fittest theory and suggest strong evidence that cells were designed by a transcendent causal agent, or God.

The popular assumption is that the fossil record proves that simple creatures evolved to become complex ones. But, in reality, the fossil record doesn't show the proof of any transitional forms of species that Darwinian evolution requires. Fossils consistently show up as sudden explosions of species with little changes taking place after that in the fossil record.

Darwinian evolution is the required way to explain the origins of the world if you have a naturalistic worldview. It's a belief system.

Evolutionary mechanisms such as co-evolution and frictional change not only make irreducible complexity possible but also expected.

Furthermore, accoring to modern evolutionary theory, cells did not come into being through random processes but have evolved from more primitive precursors.





The fossil record is abundant with morphologies of species-to-species transitional fossils in higher taxonomic levels.

If you say so.

If that's the case - then why aren't monkey's turning into Apes in the zoo? Why are there still monkeys and Apes after "millions" of years?

Philosophicus, Can you see or touch the wind? Just because you can't see God or touch God - doesn't mean He's not there.

Evolution is not a random process. The genetic variation on which natural selection acts may occur randomly, but natural selection itself is not random at all. The survival and reproductive success of an individual is directly related to the ways its inherited traits function in the context of its local environment. Whether or not an individual survives and reproduces depends on whether it has genes that produce traits that are well adapted to its environment. In other words, the sort of speciation you describe is not occurring in these populations because there is no biological need for it.

The Hominid species is a perfect example of a prehistoric ape species having evolved into the Hominid - Humans for example and todays primates like Chimps share a common ancestor - proof of Macro evolution. Also, wales are also an example of mamals having become marine creatures - previosly they were land animals which evolved into fish-like shapes to adapt to sea-life. Just the mere fact of a mamal living in the sea is proof enough of evolution on a macro scale, also the flying mamal - the bat - another example. It's so damn obvious, for f*ks sake.

readheadgurl89: "If that's the case - then why aren't monkey's turning into Apes in the zoo? Why are there still monkeys and Apes after "millions" of years?

Philosophicus, Can you see or touch the wind? Just because you can't see God or touch God - doesn't mean He's not there."

You obviously have no clue about evolution and the mutative proccess, don't argue on a subject you have no knowledge about.

About God - by the way, you can touch the wind (moving air) - you can feel it on your skin. If there was a god, everyone would have known it...why would god hide from us??? Give me one good reason why there would be a god - what neccesity?

Originally posted by clickclick
There is nothing to be jealous of. As soon as I read that their supposed proof was ape to man (of which it is a fact that there is no evidence for such) I stopped reading.

WHO THE HELL BUMPED THIS SHIT?

And ushomefree is the new whob sock.

EDIT:
Originally posted by MC Mike
Theories of this type are so close to the truth, the only inconsistencies are the details - not the main ideas.

cockroaches can survive in most of any form of attack, the government has tested on things to kill them, and it continues to be smashing it with a hammer, how much more evolved can something get to living without a head for 2 weeks and only dieing due to a lack of food, not alot more to do in its billions of years of evolution.

OMG this is ridiculous.

Originally posted by Alliance
OMG this is ridiculous.
Thread necromancers, assemble!

micro evolution is proven to exist. fact. it is responsible for the evolution and appearance of most if not all single celled organism and other simple organisms. it might be true that micro evolution happens in humans but the evolution is slower because it is often seen as alien or cancer and is destroyed/removed. many people are misunderstanding darwin here. he never proposed that there was some collective unconciounce{like jung} found inside the very phenomenon of non localised evolution which was making it pick out the FITTEST. not at all. the reason this misunderstanding arises is because of lack of understanding of what darwin meant by FIT. FIT was simply an organism that was better off in A SPECIFIC ENVIORNMENT AT A SPECIFIC TIME. this could mean that a diseased organism who could drink less was genetically STRONGER than a healthy/ strong organism who could drink more. also genetical FITNESS also means reproducing, a weak, old, disease prone man having six children is genetically more FIT in the darwanian sense than a strong, athletic, healthy man having only one. most of the time reproductive superiority as i mentioned just now is far superior in the darwanian sense to enviornmentally ADAPTIVE{not traditionally STRONG or PERFECT} superiority. in the end its about which GENES survive{NOT individuals or individuals posessing the gene} the GENE ITSELF. just as sickle cell anemia, although an inferiority and deadly disease is more FIT in malaria prone areas as it prevents the infected person from getting and dying of malaria as malaria is a more potent killer than the longterm sickle cell anemia.

My eyes are bleeding.

Evolution as Darwin saw it is a very archaic theory.

MACROEVOLUTION DOES NOT EXIST AS A CONCEPT

My eyes are bleeding.

Gauze, apply consistant pressure, apply new bandages ontop of the old as necessary. Get a friend to call 911.

darwins theory is evolution but its mainly natural selection either you change for the better or you die

No. Evolution is a fact. Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection explains evolution. And Natural Selection is not "either you change for the better or you die."

Originally posted by Alliance
No. Evolution is a fact. Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection explains evolution. And Natural Selection is not "either you change for the better or you die." Bottlenecks come to mind.

why?

Bottleneck situations where survival is random. That's still natural selection is it not?

Wow, a thread where the religious side made more sense. That quickly changed half way through. ermm

Originally posted by Nellinator
Bottleneck situations where survival is random. That's still natural selection is it not?

In a bottleneck only the ones with extraordinary abilities survive. So, how is a bottleneck random?

OMG i posted this morning and its gone !!!!

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
In a bottleneck only the ones with extraordinary abilities survive. So, how is a bottleneck random? Not true, a bottleneck is where an event basically kills everything and survival is a fluke.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Not true, a bottleneck is where an event basically kills everything and survival is a fluke.

Flukes never happen in nature. The week never survive by accident, there is always something that gives them an edge.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Flukes never happen in nature. The week never survive by accident, there is always something that gives them an edge. No, not always true, and that is called a bottleneck. Survival can be entirely random.

Originally posted by Nellinator
No, not always true, and that is called a bottleneck. Survival can be entirely random.

Please provide an example.

Ok, lets say you are in an auditorium with people randomly dispersed and the roof collapses. However, three people near the door are not killed by falling debris and live to reproduce. Nothing about there genetics contributed to their survival, it was purely chance. That is a bottlenecking effect.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Ok, lets say you are in an auditorium with people randomly dispersed and the roof collapses. However, three people near the door are not killed by falling debris and live to reproduce. Nothing about there genetics contributed to their survival, it was purely chance. That is a bottlenecking effect.

That's true, but that is not a population bottleneck.

If there was only enough food to feed 1/4 of the people in the auditorium, only the strongest and smartest will survive. That would be a bottleneck.

I never said it was a population bottleneck, this is different. Still called a bottleneck sometimes though, the actual name escapes me right now.

EDIT: I looked it up and it is called the bottleneck effect and can be a cause of the founder effect.

Originally posted by Nellinator
I never said it was a population bottleneck, this is different. Still called a bottleneck sometimes though, the actual name escapes me right now.

Ok, when you said bottleneck, I assumed population bottleneck.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Ok, lets say you are in an auditorium with people randomly dispersed and the roof collapses. However, three people near the door are not killed by falling debris and live to reproduce. Nothing about there genetics contributed to their survival, it was purely chance. That is a bottlenecking effect.

Yes, but its not natural selection.

NS requires reproduction. Any sort of cataclysm like this is not actually evolution, however, evolution is drastically altered thereafter.

Originally posted by Alliance
Yes, but its not natural selection.

NS requires reproduction. Any sort of cataclysm like this is not actually evolution, however, evolution is drastically altered thereafter. Okay, you got me, I suppose there is nothing natural about it, however, that did come to my mind, so apparently I'm not actually wrong

I'm so confused...but OK


and psych still sucks

Originally posted by Alliance

and psych still sucks



Sounds like someone is being defensive

Maybe the survivors got really horny because of the adrenaline rush.

Originally posted by Alliance
I'm so confused...but OK


and psych still sucks Them fighting words.

Yup. Thems are.

But now you have a friend to attempt to justify physchology with you.

Hehe, psychology is too fun to ignore you know. It affects everything, you can't escape it fear

Or you just percieve that you can't escape it.

are you saying that you are an emotionless robot?

Maybe

Originally posted by Alliance
Or you just percieve that you can't escape it.

hold on...

you say this and you DON'T like psychology

Originally posted by inimalist
hold on...

you say this and you DON'T like psychology He'll realize it soon enough. He'll convert soon or later...

Originally posted by Nellinator
He'll realize it soon enough. He'll convert soon or later...

Hurray for cognitive dissonance!

come to the dark side.....

Originally posted by inimalist
Hurray for cognitive dissonance!

come to the dark side..... I don't think he's uncomfortable yet, he'd have to realize it first.

I'm quite comfrotable in real science thank you Originally posted by inimalist
hold on...

you say this and you DON'T like psychology

To say that the first cause of creation is a being even more complex than any of its creations is even harder to believe. Did this complexity create itself?

Originally posted by bynus
To say that the first cause of creation is a being even more complex than any of its creations is even harder to believe. Did this complexity create itself?

I don't get it. Being more complex than what you create is logically improbable/impossible?

I like the judeo-christian concept of God, he is so far above human characterization that the very concept of time is irrelevant to him. In another thread someone asked what was God doing before creation, just hanging around?

According to the Judeo-Christian interpretation he couldn't be "hanging around", not according to a time-based interpretation.

Eternity is a place where time doesn't exist, if time doesn't exist for this God then it is possible for him to have "always been", in the same way you can imagine existence to have "always been".

I was responding to the argument that the complexity of man implies a creator. Accepting that hypothesis it would be hard to beleive that an even more complex being would be the first cause.

Originally posted by bynus
I was responding to the argument that the complexity of man implies a creator. Accepting that hypothesis it would be hard to beleive that an even more complex being would be the first cause.

Doesn't the hypothesis do well to explain why the creator would be complex. I think that hypothesis stems from the idea that life and nature functions by itself and is far too complex to have come about unintelligently.

Basically, I don't see how one position disqualifies the other.

As far as Im concerned i have yet to see enough proof to say we are from Apes. While at the same time I have yet to see enough proof to say we are made by "God"... while on that matter not enough proof that he exists. just years of paper work. Even a story made today, if it is good, will became Legend in the futur.

In other words

Not enough evidence to prove gods existence

Not enough Evidence to Prove we are from apes.

Im not arguing any points here nor do I care if you respond hostile or try to tell me something about "God" Or apes. this is strictly MY OWN OPINION and thus should be respected if not fully agreed upon.

Originally posted by Scarlet Fox
As far as Im concerned i have yet to see enough proof to say we are from Apes. While at the same time I have yet to see enough proof to say we are made by "God"... while on that matter not enough proof that he exists. just years of paper work. Even a story made today, if it is good, will became Legend in the futur.

In other words

Not enough evidence to prove gods existence

Not enough Evidence to Prove we are from apes.

Im not arguing any points here nor do I care if you respond hostile or try to tell me something about "God" Or apes. this is strictly MY OWN OPINION and thus should be respected if not fully agreed upon.

In light of that, what are your thoughts on Sun Wukong?

Originally posted by Scarlet Fox
As far as Im concerned i have yet to see enough proof to say we are from Apes. While at the same time I have yet to see enough proof to say we are made by "God"... while on that matter not enough proof that he exists. just years of paper work. Even a story made today, if it is good, will became Legend in the futur.

In other words

Not enough evidence to prove gods existence

Not enough Evidence to Prove we are from apes.

Im not arguing any points here nor do I care if you respond hostile or try to tell me something about "God" Or apes. this is strictly MY OWN OPINION and thus should be respected if not fully agreed upon. I shall not respect you, but you have a cool and sexy Mystique sig so you are all right

Originally posted by Scarlet Fox
As far as Im concerned i have yet to see enough proof to say we are from Apes. While at the same time I have yet to see enough proof to say we are made by "God"... while on that matter not enough proof that he exists. just years of paper work. Even a story made today, if it is good, will became Legend in the futur.

In other words

Not enough evidence to prove gods existence

Not enough Evidence to Prove we are from apes.

Im not arguing any points here nor do I care if you respond hostile or try to tell me something about "God" Or apes. this is strictly MY OWN OPINION and thus should be respected if not fully agreed upon.

We are not FROM apes, we are apes.

Mqybe Mormons got it right mith he dogma of God above God above God ad nauseum,

Absolutely true!



Absolutely false! Micro-evolution states that organisms undergo variation, but that such processes are "limited in scope." You are referring to macro-evolution.

The point is, for example, cat DNA -- despite the similarities of cats and dogs -- does not contain information to birth/formulate a dog, not to mention a "dog feature!" The biological information, is simply non-existent! Hence the reason, so-called Creationists, presented this issue to Richard Dawkins:

zaKryi3605g
It's a fair question!





Micro-evolution and genetic mutation are completely different areas of understanding. Do not confuse and blend the two.



Absolutely true! In fact, Darwin knew nothing about the most simplest form of life: the cell. To Darwin, the cell was merely protoplasm.



Absolutely true! But that does not account for "origins." The term "Survival of the Fittest," applies to real-life phenomena! Don't force it to define something else!!



A weak analogy, but I understand. Your correct.



Absolutely true!



In this statement, your focusing on the molecular level, and you are absolutely correct!



What, however, does this have to do with "origins?"

Originally posted by ushomefree
...The point is, for example, cat DNA -- despite the similarities of cats and dogs -- does not contain information to birth/formulate a dog, not to mention a "dog feature!" The biological information, is simply non-existent!...

It seems that this has already happened. Cheetahs do not have retractable claws just like a dog. Millions of years ago Cheetahs were just like all other cats but then they started running and getting faster. One of the things they needed to go faster was dog like claws; now then have them.

There is no such thing as cat DNA because there is no fixed think called a cat. It is just a name we gave to an animal. Your understanding of evolution is too simple minded.

this is not mine, but i thought it might help...

"Okay, perhaps an answer from an evolutionary biologist will help (someone who actually understands evolution). Obviously, this answer will be a gross oversimplification. Microevolution and macroevolution are, essentially, the same thing. However they are very different in the respect that macroevolution extends over many generations and can eventually lead to another species. Yes, there is proof of macroevolution. Obviously we do not have the time to sit around and wait thousands or millions of years to watch it happen, so we must look elsewhere. Summation is a great example. Scientists from different fields (such as biology, paleontology, anatomy, genetics, microbiology, anthropology, etc.) can take different species of animals and arrange them on a phylogenetic tree (tree of life). Every time, from all different fields, independently, all of the trees of life will match...EXACTLY. We also have millions of fossils to show transitions and millions of animals to compare DNA.
Specifically regarding humans, Chromosome 2 proves that we do in fact share a common ancestor with the Great Apes. All of the Great Apes have 48 chromosomes (24 pairs), we have 46 chromosomes (23 pairs). Where did that pair go? We believed that a chromosome had gotten fused, but we weren't sure. If there was no fused chromosome, then evolution had a huge problem. Then we found Chromosome 2. Chromosomes have a telomere on each end and a centromere in the middle. Each chromosome has two telomeres and one centromere. So if a chromosome had been fused, it would have three telomeres (one on each end and one in the middle) and two centromeres (one should be inactive). Guess what...we found it. Chromosome 2 has three telomeres and two centromeres (unlike any other chromosome). Somewhere along the line, we broke off and took our own evolutionary route, although we still belong in the family of Great Apes.
On a side note, Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) exist in DNA. They are essentially viruses that are "good," and they exchange information. If they land on a body cell of an organism, their information is forever lost. However if they land on a sperm or an egg, their information will be passed to that organism's offspring. Chimpanzees and humans have over 60 ERVs in the exact same places in our genome. The chances of even one ERV landing in the same spot in our genomes (if we weren't related) is .00000000016% (since our genome is about 3 billion base pairs long). Think of the likelihood that over 60 ERVs would land in the exact same spots.

Things to study to improve your understanding:

- Summation
- Atavisms
- ERVs
- Vestigial Structures
- Pseudogenes (relates to atavisms)
- Speciation (very important)
- Allele Frequencies
- Genetic Drift

Hope this helps,

Dr. J"

Ushome, I hate your debating style. I specifically remember having a conversation about that Dawkins video with you years ago, yet you're using it falsely again.

Dawkins was tricked into thinking the interview was simply about a few evolutionary tenets. The group had lied to him about their true intent. The question revealed their intent, and in his anger he asked them to stop recording. He later went on to answer the question in a more scholarly manner, one that couldn't be condensed into a few sound blurbs.

You know this, but you're being duplicitous to further your agenda. It's sickening, frankly.

Besides that, you'll always just have a series of attacks about a subject you have too little understanding of. You'll never have a valid explanation of your own, you'll just blindly insert God into the areas where you perceive there to be a discrepancy between evidence and claims. It's the same tired sh*t creationists always pull, and remains just as illogical and self-serving as it's always been. You're not a scientist, you're not even an informed lay-person. You're just regurgitating information given to you by people with your same belief system.

Do we need another evolution smack-down?

Originally posted by Ordo
Do we need another evolution smack-down?

Guess not.

srug

A shame though. I always enjoy them.

Damn. I was hoping to justify all the money I spent taking bio and history of Darwinism classes in college.

That's not proof at all!

If "macro-evolution" existed, perhaps we could prove it.

I don't get this, macroevolution is really just evolution of life on earth in a broader scale of time, thus its study contemplates cladistic branches above the species level. It's not a distinct phenomenon from micro-evolution and it has been proven.

Originally posted by 753
I don't get this, macroevolution is really just evolution of life on earth in a broader scale of time, thus its study contemplates cladistic branches above the species level. It's not a distinct phenomenon from micro-evolution and it has been proven.

IIRC, pretty much the entire thread is people making that point.

Originally posted by Philosophicus
You're just jealous, this IS proof, no conjecture. You just have to disagree, even when it makes a complete fool out of you.

Keep believing blindly in your utterly idiotic, illogical arguments...whatever keeps your fantasy, fools paradise real... Proof of what exactly? That evolution is a fact? There's evidence of adaptation everywhere and it's obvious that we are related to all the animals and share the most with the monkeys and apes. We also have proof that humans are aware of Gods role in all of this.

What exactly has this generation of scientists speculations proven that wasn't already glaringly obvious. We have been given a rare power on this world and we all know what Spidey says about great power...

Of course that's true but some people will always rationalize for the ability to be irresponsible and guilt free. I hope you're not striving for a godless existence just so you can do whatever you want to do with no fear of having to own up to the things that you have done that you personally knew were wrong because you wouldn't want those things done to you.

Originally posted by The MISTER
We also have proof that humans are aware of Gods role in all of this.

wut?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
wut?

You mean you are not aware of his god's role?

Originally posted by The MISTER
What exactly has this generation of scientists speculations proven that wasn't already glaringly obvious.

I can start a list if you want, but are you referring specifically to evolutionarily biology?

for instance, that the bear like mammal which entered the ocean to become the modern whale, at some point left the ocean again to become the hippopotamus. If you think that was glaringly obvious your intellect is wasted on us meager simpletons

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You mean you are not aware of his god's role?

If you've ever seen a church then you've seen the PROOF that PEOPLE are AWARE of GOD'S ROLE, not just me.

Originally posted by The MISTER
If you've ever seen a church then you've seen the PROOF that PEOPLE are AWARE of GOD'S ROLE, not just me.

Circular logic.

God arranged evolution.
How do you know?
Because people go to church.
Why?
Because God arranged evolution.
How do you know?
Because people go to church.
Why?
Because God arranged evolution.
How do you know?
Because people go to church.
Why?
Because God arranged evolution.
How do you know?
Because people go to church.
Why?
Because God arranged evolution.
How do you know?
Because people go to church.
Why?

Originally posted by The MISTER
If you've ever seen a church then you've seen the PROOF that PEOPLE are AWARE of GOD'S ROLE, not just me.

I have also seen prisons. Does that mean that crime has a role in our lives that everyone is aware of?

I have also seen dog pounds. Does that mean that dogs have a role in our lives that everyone is aware of?

I have also seen KFC. Does that mean that fried chicken has a role in our lives that everyone is aware of?

Originally posted by inimalist
I can start a list if you want, but are you referring specifically to evolutionarily biology?

for instance, that the bear like mammal which entered the ocean to become the modern whale, at some point left the ocean again to become the hippopotamus. If you think that was glaringly obvious your intellect is wasted on us meager simpletons If you're talking about the fact that evolution is complex.....I was aware. I didn't know about the facts that you just gave me but it does come back to the fact that there is infinite amount of discoveries that can be made.
Go make some new discoveries yourself but don't act like nobody knew that we're going to keep on finding out new things.

Which scientist will tell us that origins are a myth and that things will just materialize by themselves if you just wait a few trillion years....sounds logical doesn't it?

Originally posted by The MISTER
Go make some new discoveries yourself

oh, yes, let us measure penises

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I have also seen prisons. Does that mean that crime has a role in our lives that everyone is aware of?

I have also seen dog pounds. Does that mean that dogs have a role in our lives that everyone is aware of?

I have also seen KFC. Does that mean that fried chicken has a role in our lives that everyone is aware of?

Yes. Everyones who knows what those places are are aware of the roles that they play in our lives. Churches/places where some sort of faith is taught however are worldwide and either accepted or outlawed.

Would you disagree with the fact that everyones been exposed to some sort of faith?

Originally posted by inimalist
oh, yes, let us measure penises More power to you! You never know, your new discoveries might just give you an ego boost!

Originally posted by The MISTER
Yes. Everyones who knows what those places are are aware of the roles that they play in our lives. Churches/places where some sort of faith is taught however are worldwide and either accepted or outlawed.

Would you disagree with the fact that everyones been exposed to some sort of faith?

Yes, I would say the chance that everyone has been exposed to some form of religion is almost 100%. However, that does not mean that religion is anything more then a human activity. The reason for this is because once you start observing other animals, then the percentage of animals exposed to religion drops to almost 0%. If religion was a universal reflection of a god, then all the percentage of animals exposed to religion would be just as high as with humans.

Originally posted by The MISTER
More power to you! You never know, your new discoveries might just give you an ego boost!

nice retort, the arrogance of your "i already know the truth" position is rather pedestrian though

Originally posted by inimalist
nice retort, the arrogance of your "i already know the truth" position is rather pedestrian though

You might even say "whirlyriffic".

tbh, "whirly" proper was before my time...

I only really know the socks

Originally posted by inimalist
tbh, "whirly" proper was before my time...

I only really know the socks

Same here, but I recognize the use of MSPaint to add a "tough" message to a picture and the uncontrollable use of smilies.

Originally posted by The MISTER
If you've ever seen a church then you've seen the PROOF that PEOPLE are AWARE of GOD'S ROLE, not just me. No, this shows that people have beliefs which are different from awareness or knowledge.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Yes. Everyones who knows what those places are are aware of the roles that they play in our lives. Churches/places where some sort of faith is taught however are worldwide and either accepted or outlawed.
Which means that religious beliefs play a role in the lifes of people who spouse them, not that God exists or plays a role in anything whatsoever.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Same here, but I recognize the use of MSPaint to add a "tough" message to a picture and the uncontrollable use of smilies.

yes, but it seems less insulting, errr, less overtly insulting, and way too on-topic.

Originally posted by inimalist
tbh, "whirly" proper was before my time...

I only really know the socks

No, whirly is a friend of mine, and I would recognize him.

Originally posted by 753
No, this shows that people have beliefs which are different from awareness or knowledge. When people believe something then they know that THEY are right. I am aware of the fact that the earth is round. So that's MY belief. Someone who "knows" that the earth is flat could tell me that my "beliefs" are foolish.

The people who have faith in a creation feel very strongly that they possess knowledge of many things that other people don't, so I don't see how you can seperate knowledge and awareness from the BELIEF that you're right about something that you know and are aware of.

Originally posted by The MISTER
When people believe something then they know that THEY are right. I am aware of the fact that the earth is round. So that's MY belief. Someone who "knows" that the earth is flat could tell me that my "beliefs" are foolish.

The people who have faith in a creation feel very strongly that they possess knowledge of many things that other people don't, so I don't see how you can seperate knowledge and awareness from the BELIEF that you're right about something that you know and are aware of. No, unlike belief, knowledge (without going into axioms) must necessarily be justified by empirical backing or arrived at as a logical conclusion stemming from premises that correspond with reality. Awareness is a mental state in which you perceive something with your senses thus becoming conscious of its existence.

Belief is simply holding something to be true - it doesnt need justification or direct sense perception - and the particular type of belief that we call faith is neither knowledge (no empirical or rational backing) nor awareness (God can't be perceived with the senses, not in any palpable or verifiable way, that is).

People who believe in God don't know anything about it.

Originally posted by 753
No, unlike belief, knowledge (without going into axioms) must necessarily be justified by empirical backing or arrived at as a logical conclusion stemming from premises that correspond with reality. Awareness is a mental state in which you perceive something with your senses thus becoming conscious of its existence.

Belief is simply holding something to be true - it doesnt need justification or direct sense perception - and the particular type of belief that we call faith is neither knowledge (no empirical or rational backing) nor awareness (God can't be perceived with the senses, not in any palpable or verifiable way, that is).

People who believe in God don't know anything about it.

Do we have any evidence of something coming from nothing? Am I wrong if I say that I know that non-living things do not give birth to living things? Many people who believe in science only must admit that thier knowledge has limits as well. Saying that they don't know ANYTHING because of their limitations is just closed-minded and biased.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Do we have any evidence of something coming from nothing? Am I wrong if I say that I know that non-living things do not give birth to living things? Many people who believe in science only must admit that thier knowledge has limits as well. Saying that they don't know ANYTHING because of their limitations is just closed-minded and biased.

First things first: Nothingness cannot exist, therefore something cannot come from nothing. However, something cannot be created from nothing, because that also violates the fact that nothingness cannot exist. The only conclusion I can make is that there was no point of creation. The big bang is just an event in a much larger multiverse.

Life on the other hand defies all logic. It has the unique ability to turn disorder into order. I believe our definition of life and non-life is incorrect. All things that can change disorder into order are, by my definition, alive. That means that crystals are alive, and we know that crystals can propagate out of a solution. I believe that life is a natural force of nature.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Life on the other hand defies all logic.

not really...

it might be true that astrophysics doesn't have much to say about the origins of life or behaviour, but there is a logic to these things

Originally posted by inimalist
not really...

it might be true that astrophysics doesn't have much to say about the origins of life or behaviour, but there is a logic to these things

That was more for drama then anything else. If you take it out of context, the line falls apart.

Originally posted by inimalist
not really...

it might be true that astrophysics doesn't have much to say about the origins of life or behaviour, but there is a logic to these things I agree that there is a logic to these things but that the logic is not in human scope. Many things defy logic. Survival of the fittest is logical. Humans purposely defy it.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Do we have any evidence of something coming from nothing? We have hypothesis that explain the origin of the universe and time itself that are consistant with what we know of physics. We don't know much about it and there several competing theories in the field.

Yes, actualy you are. Non-living things do not give birth evidently, but we know the processes through which simple chemical compounds can originate more complex ones, that in turn can combine into autocatalytic sets that can gain furhter complexity, originating metabolic systems encircled by a lipid layer - living cells that can reproduce. We do not know the exact sequence of events that gave origin to life on earth, which molecules came first and how exactly the first living cells operated, but we know that all the processes I mentioned above and others in competing theories are possible and we can see this spontaneous self-organization processes in the lab.

Scienctific knowledge has many limitations, but it's knowledge just the same, while religious faith isn't. This doesn't refute the existence of God or mean that believers are wrong about it. just that they have no way to justify their beliefs, therefore they don't know about god's exitence, they have faith in it.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Life on the other hand defies all logic. It has the unique ability to turn disorder into order. I believe our definition of life and non-life is incorrect. All things that can change disorder into order are, by my definition, alive. That means that crystals are alive, and we know that crystals can propagate out of a solution. I believe that life is a natural force of nature. That property isn't all that unique and it's certainly not in defiance of logic. It's not just crystals that decrease internal entropy, hurricanes and even objects floating down a river creating a whirlpool do it too.

I personally go with systems' theory derived definitions of life such as autopoiesis.

Originally posted by The MISTER
I agree that there is a logic to these things but that the logic is not in human scope. Many things defy logic. Survival of the fittest is logical. Humans purposely defy it.

I dont understand your point...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Life on the other hand defies all logic. It has the unique ability to turn disorder into order. I believe our definition of life and non-life is incorrect. All things that can change disorder into order are, by my definition, alive. That means that crystals are alive, and we know that crystals can propagate out of a solution. I believe that life is a natural force of nature.

That's an awfully broad definition. It makes your refrigerator alive, in fact it makes ice-cubes alive.

Order to disorder isn't illogical anyway, it's just unintuitive.