Evolution

Hawkeye · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The legs on snakes can be explain because when the serpent tempted adam and eve, he was cursed and made to crawl on his belly.
Yes, at the dawn of tiem, snakes had legs.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I have a theory that suggests a giant chicken created the earth. He made people walk backwards. When the giant chicken realized it was difficult to pee like that, he turned all the people backwards and that's why our butts our on our backside.

It is trivial to say that, you realize, just like it is trivial for me to say this theory of mine. It seems ridiculous to say, because there is no proof. This is precisely the same as your theory, only in a less obvious fashion.

Sirus · October 2003

You guys write fast <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'>

I don't have much time to sort through the extra 3 pages of writing, I've got some important things to do.

Aegri, the point of the majority of the information FAR from an attempt to try and prove evolution wrong, I said I was going to do that. I was just trying to cast a doubt on the fact that Evolution is unchallenged by a single bit of science.

Also, without complete support from the fossil record it's really not possible to prove Evolution is true. Missing intermediates should run an immediate red flag about Evolution.

And in the end, at least to me, it comes down to the fossil record. Regardless of the rest of all the science, if the fossil record doesn't show clear evidence, especially intermediates that should practically be jumping out of the ground, I simply cannot believe evolution to be anything more than a very well crafted hypothesis.

Eviscerator · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Please dont try to tell me that that it just a response to evoluton, because the creation story was around ages before evolution was thought of.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Well I believe it literally is just that... a story. The story of creation cannot be proven or disproven. Just like I can't prove or disprove that the story in "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" isn't true. It's in a book that you believe, and your parents convinced you that it is, indeed, the truth. Lacking any actual evidence to prove it, you rely on something called faith. Faith in your parents and your elders that what they have told you is the truth. Your parents are to be respected, and you should believe what they believe. After all, they wouldn't knowingly mislead you, right? Thus it has been for millenia. Your parents got it from their parents who got it from their parents... ad nauseum. Four, five thousand years later we're at the point we are now. Trouble is, Adam and Eve didn't sit down with a camcorder and document everything for us in their home movies of Eden. Tis a shame that god left the invention of photography to us. Couldn't he have just given it to Adam so as to be able to convince the rest of us of his goodliness?

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You can bet that all of those serve a purpose in some way, if only to confuse us</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

[sarcasm]
Oh, well now I'm convinced. If there's anything in this world that the bible does not explain, then it must be there <i>just</i> to confuse me. Praise the Lord for wasting my time! It would have been nicer had he actually explained <b>everything</b> and let me go about spreading the word of the Lord amongst all my countrymen. I could be out trying to convert Muslims to Christianity right now, instead of trying to convince everyone that god does not exist. Or I could be out running for president trying to convince a nation that our brand of religion is the best, and the others are all terrorists. Oh, the humanity... the missed opportunities! [/sarcasm]

Eviscerator · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sirus @ Oct 8 2003, 04:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Also, without complete support from the fossil record it's really not possible to prove Evolution is true. Missing intermediates should run an immediate red flag about Evolution.

And in the end, at least to me, it comes down to the fossil record. Regardless of the rest of all the science, if the fossil record doesn't show clear evidence, especially intermediates that should practically be jumping out of the ground, I simply cannot believe evolution to be anything more than a very well crafted hypothesis.  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
Thankfully, we're still digging. New stuff comes up all the time. Unfortunate for us, a lot of it won't ever be found before it is churned back into the Earth and turned into magma... forever lost to our knowledge. All we can hope for is that in time we'll dig up enough evidence to convince even the most stubborn disbelievers. And when that happens, you'll see them squirm and rewrite their beliefs! Dinosaurs... extinct animals from long ago... were not known to the original authors of the stories in the bible. Had they known about them, they could have invented some additional stories to explain them. It may take a few modern revisions to the bible to incorporate whatever new explanation is given.

Maveric · October 2003

Evolution.

Is.

Survival.

Cats usually have 5 "fingers" right? Polydactly cats have 6 "fingers". They can grip things. They ARE better mousers. Where are these cats?

Coastal towns.
Now, that may not seem like much, but think: Humans have ships that go across oceans, carrying food. They pick up vermine and other pests, then they dock at a port town. The pets get off, and it just so happened that a cat with a genetic mutation now has 6 "fingers". The first polydactly cat. The polydactly cat grows up, and turns out to catch more mice than the other cats. It lives. It breeds. It passes on its genetic code. The next few kittens are polydactly. Those polydactly cats find other polydactly cats and they reproduce. They get more food. They reproduce more. They have their numbers increase drastically, until theres a polydactly cat in every port town because a sailor took one as a pet and let it loose in another town.

Evolution is the best way for the natural world to find out what works and what doesn't. If something doesn't work, its a evolutionary slide and it ceases. What works in evolution is a ladder, it can only get better. Polydactly cats... Ladder. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'>

Aegeri · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Mutation. Show me an example of a positive mutation that caused the emergence of a species.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Deletion 2 in TB that produces <i>M. bovis</i>.

How many bacterial examples would you like however?

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Those beetles lost information in their genetic code (that for growing wings) which made them better able to survive on a windy island that would have normally had them blown out to sea.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

This is still a beneficial mutation, but I'll change my example.

The aquisition of pathogenicity islands in <i>Salmonella typhi</i> that split it from similar <i>Enterococcus</i> species and allowed it to become a super pathogen. That is a massive gain in DNA, and various mutations on the theme have created different kinds of pathogenic salmonella capable of different kinds of infection.

There you go.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>There is not a single example of a mutation that caused a species to gain a trait.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

You don't know a lot of genetics do you?

Honestly, this argument is tired, plain wrong to begin with and really should be buried by now. The field of modern genetics has shown this DOES happen. Not just in bacteria, but in many animal species as well.

Try arguing against TODAYS evidence, not 10 or 20 years ago.

Oh and try reading about genes that increase (maginify) the effects of other genes and also read about Hox (or Hot box) genes. If you wanted to make a 16 legged beetle in one mutation, that's where you look.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>For example, (getting a little graphic, so I hope I don't get banned) those hip bones in whales are actually different in male and female (a species vestigal organ wouldn't be) and in fact it has been noted that the male's hipbone helps with penile erection while the female's helps with vaginal contraction. Pretty important use from the Natural Selection standpoint, I mean, no breeding = no whales, right?</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Link to journal of Zoology that has said this. Hell, even a link to Structual Anatomy of Animals would be best because that is where it would be. I have never heard of this even remotely. I'm 100% certain there is a massive amount of research done on whales and many papers, and this is news to me.

Incidently, hip bones in whales are still vestigial to my knowledge, because they certainly aren't essential in breeding (or like, reproductive biologists would of mentioned that in a paper, in a journal...) or todays whales are worse at it. The previous fossils we have of early whales all have larger hip bone structures than the comparatively emancipated hip bones todays whales have.

Also genetic analysis has revealed the genes for their hip bones are being DELETED over time.

Again, as I said above, actually do and read some genetics.

<b>Nemesis Zero and Eviscerator</b>

Excellent posts btw. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'>

moultano · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Donnel @ Oct 8 2003, 02:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> This simply goes against all reason. The world is not becoming more and more coherent, we know from the 3rd law of thermodynamics that order is moving into chaos. That left to it's own devices, all things deteriorate given enough time.  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
First of all, it's the second law of thermodynamics that you are alluding to. Secondly, that is a completely inadequate summary of the priciple.

<i>In a closed system</i> order degenates into chaos. When we are talking about the earth's ecosystem though, we are not talking about a closed system. There are many inputs into the system, the most significant of which being the sun. We are constantly bombarded with the energy necessary to overcome our local entropy by the sun. This is the entire basis for life on earth. If the earth were a closed system, life would end very rapidly. There are tons of systems in the universe in which order arises from chaos naturally. The physical requirement though is that these systems have an input of energy from somewhere, be it the electromagnetic potential that causes crystals to form, or the sunlight that allows plants to grow. Anyone who uses this to make that type of argument against evolution clearly has only a cursory knowledge of physics, probably through hearsay.

moultano · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Donnel @ Oct 8 2003, 09:30 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Back to your dating methods. You already have said that C14 dating is inaccurate past 30,000 years (well actually after about 50,000 there would be no traces of C14 left, so yeah, that is true).

What other methods do you propose that bring about dates of millions+ of years? </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Google for radioactive dating or try <a href='http://earthsci.org/geotime/radate/radate.html' target='_blank'>this link.</a>

Legionnaired · October 2003

Linkeh. It's long, so a preview is below.

<a href='http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?program=CRSC&command=view&id=54' target='_blank'>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/in...mand=view&id=54</a>

But how does a cilium work? Experiments have indicated that ciliary motion results from the chemically-powered "walking" of the dynein arms on one microtubule up the neighboring subfiber B of a second microtubule so that the two microtubules slide past each other (Figure 2). However, the protein cross-links between microtubules in an intact cilium prevent neighboring microtubules from sliding past each other by more than a short distance. These cross-links, therefore, convert the dynein-induced sliding motion to a bending motion of the entire axoneme.

Now, let us sit back, review the workings of the cilium, and consider what it implies. Cilia are composed of at least a half dozen proteins: alpha-tubulin, beta-tubulin, dynein, nexin, spoke protein, and a central bridge protein. These combine to perform one task, ciliary motion, and all of these proteins must be present for the cilium to function. If the tubulins are absent, then there are no filaments to slide; if the dynein is missing, then the cilium remains rigid and motionless; if nexin or the other connecting proteins are missing, then the axoneme falls apart when the filaments slide.

What we see in the cilium, then, is not just profound complexity, but it is also irreducible complexity on the molecular scale. Recall that by "irreducible complexity" we mean an apparatus that requires several distinct components for the whole to work. My mousetrap must have a base, hammer, spring, catch, and holding bar, all working together, in order to function. Similarly, the cilium, as it is constituted, must have the sliding filaments, connecting proteins, and motor proteins for function to occur. In the absence of any one of those components, the apparatus is useless.

The components of cilia are single molecules. This means that there are no more black boxes to invoke; the complexity of the cilium is final, fundamental. And just as scientists, when they began to learn the complexities of the cell, realized how silly it was to think that life arose spontaneously in a single step or a few steps from ocean mud, so too we now realize that the complex cilium can not be reached in a single step or a few steps.

But since the complexity of the cilium is irreducible, then it can not have functional precursors. Since the irreducibly complex cilium can not have functional precursors it can not be produced by natural selection, which requires a continuum of function to work. Natural selection is powerless when there is no function to select. We can go further and say that, if the cilium can not be produced by natural selection, then the cilium was designed.

<b>My personal view on the subject:</b>

The prospect of a 7000 year Earth is both illogical and flawed, for the reasons described above. As C.S. Lewis once stated, God wants us to have the heart of a child, but the mind of an adult. I cannot concieve of a single reason why God would give us reason, and then give us evidence that works against Him. As it is written, he wants "all men to come to a knowledge of the truth."

So then, either the scriptures are wrong, our evidence is wrong, or our interpretations of the scriptures or evidence is wrong.

The evidence is scientific fact, and I think the bible gives ample evidence of it's divinity, but that's for another thread. WHat then must be left to us, is developing a theory which harmonizes the statements made by the Bible with Darwinism, and in fact, actually uses them to fill in the holes where there can be no further empircal research. His black boxes, as it were.

This is intelligent design. Some higher power filled in the black boxes, which in turn became building blocks upon which evolution took place.

Hawkeye · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Well I believe it literally is just that... a story. The story of creation cannot be proven or disproven. Just like I can't prove or disprove that the story in "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" isn't true. It's in a book that you believe, and your parents convinced you that it is, indeed, the truth. Lacking any actual evidence to prove it, you rely on something called faith. Faith in your parents and your elders that what they have told you is the truth. Your parents are to be respected, and you should believe what they believe. After all, they wouldn't knowingly mislead you, right? Thus it has been for millenia. Your parents got it from their parents who got it from their parents... ad nauseum. Four, five thousand years later we're at the point we are now. Trouble is, Adam and Eve didn't sit down with a camcorder and document everything for us in their home movies of Eden. Tis a shame that god left the invention of photography to us. Couldn't he have just given it to Adam so as to be able to convince the rest of us of his goodliness?</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
That's a good argument, but it is flawed. Adam and Eve didn't pass down the story. A guy with a pencil and paper claiming to be a prophet of God wrote it. Remember that the bible is a series of books written by various people in the bible. Likewise, so is Genesis. These weren't stories passed down, they were written down because they were spoken from God. Hence, you can't claim the story from Adam and Eve is true since the source wasn't adam and eve. If that guy who wrote genesis had said it was a bunny rabbit instead of a serpeant, that would have been the story as everybody knows it.

Whether or not that guy heard the voice of God is the argument that remains. Then you reach the question we keep getting back at. Does God exist?

On a side note, what do we take for granted that is true told by textbooks and our parents and not from experience. A WHOLE LOT in fact. Unless you've circled the globe, you cannot say the earth is round (could be flat). We assume they know what they are talking about when they give us such facts. This is a pattern that needs to break. People need to ask why more often instead of how. People believe God exists for the same reasons. They take it for granted because their parents believe in God or for various other reasons. Ask yourself why you believe God exists, and there wont' be a reason. What's lacking is the empirical evidence every athiest who has thought through in this same manner has craved as well.

moultano · October 2003

I read that article, and while I am thankful to read an an intelligent design article that isn't simply blowing hot air, he makes a few fatal mistakes in his analysis.

The basis of his argument rests on his inability to conceive of how "irreducible" structures could arise, but he offers no proof or even compelling evidence that they are theoretically irreducible. He seems to think of the evolutionary process as simply adding and removing components, (which is clearly insufficient.) Suppose instead that components can start out as contiguous, barely specialized masses that gradually split and specialize and become mutual requisites as they become more efficient. Obviously in the finished product, removing a whole part will break it, but evolution isn't restricted to bringing whole parts into existence. It can fudge it marginally for a while until it gradually gets it perfect, precise, and specialized.

This relates quite a bit to evolutionary algorithms and FPGAs. A lot of research has been done into 'training' FPGAs to perform specific tasks by using natural selection on random configurations. Very, very frequently, the end results work perfectly, and are completely incomprehensible to the people conducting the study. In one instance, an FPGA was trained to distinguish between two tones. It worked perfectly using an almost impossibly small number of circuits, but if the level of dust in the room changed slightly, or if the temperature changed slightly, or if they plugged it into a different outlet, it would fail. It had evolved to use electromagnetic properties of its environment that no engineer could have possibly considered. Its stuff like this that convinces me that the irreducibility argument doesn't hold much water. Our imagination, compared with the "creative" ability of natural selection, is incredibly limited.

Bogglesteinsky · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Eviscerator @ Oct 8 2003, 11:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> In my opinion, the debate about Creationism vs Evolution always boils down to one simple problem: Creationists do not want to accept the fact that what they were told may end up not being, in fact, the truth.  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
You just shot yourself in the foot

In my opinion, the debate about Creationism vs Evolution always boils down to one simple problem: Evolutionists do not want to accept the fact that what they were told may end up not being, in fact, the truth.

See how i took your agument and turned it round?

Legionnaired · October 2003

Eviscerator and Boggle, for the love of God, sit down and stop taking pot-shos at each other.

moultano, though I don't doubt that there could be that fudging of parts for a period of time until the larger system is establish, I ask you, where are the intermediates? Where are the fossil records which show an animal, where are the bacteria that exemplify these half-developed traits? The entire reason the intelligent design argument exists is because that damning evidence has not been located.

Now, i'm willing to suspend disbelief for a while, but do you really think it's possible that with the sheer number of samples and skeletons we've found, that there still remains an equally large number of samples undiscovered, which are logical intermediates in the development of conplex traits.

Aegeri · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>moultano, though I don't doubt that there could be that fudging of parts for a period of time until the larger system is establish, I ask you, where are the intermediates? </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Go read some journals. There are many examples of intermediates across the entire animal kingdom, but not PERFECT fossil records. This isn't very likely either because it never happened that every animal on the planet fossilised.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>where are the bacteria that exemplify these half-developed traits?</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

This is non sensical.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The entire reason the intelligent design argument exists is because that damning evidence has not been located. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Intelligent Design is emerging due to the fact standard Creationism has taken a massive beating.

It's worse however than classic creationism because it is pure debating and nothing else. Where creation tries to use poor pseudo science, intelligent design doesn't bother trying any science to begin with.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Now, i'm willing to suspend disbelief for a while, but do you really think it's possible that with the sheer number of samples and skeletons we've found, that there still remains an equally large number of samples undiscovered, which are logical intermediates in the development of conplex traits.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Except there are many such things present. Some are alive today (if we want to talk about where the origins of complexity start arising, such as the immune system) but many more faded from history. The simple fact of the matter is that not everything that has lived is going to hang around and decide it's a brilliant morning to die and be fossilised.

Some animals don't even fossilise anyway.

smokingwreckage · October 2003

See fire, must pour petrol.

Some animals don't fossilize, but jellyfish do. And in their era of the geological time scale, as read by a deep-time evolutionist, they were megapredators without suitable prey. Further they exhibit some of the most impressive biological systems ever to... um, "appear", ie the toxin-delivery systems. On the other hand, did God create animals for his perfect world that had on-board an almost perfect toxic arsenal?

There are some real interesting arguments here, and a lot of this thread seems pretty civil all things considered. I'm impressed.

Forlorn · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Donnel @ Oct 8 2003, 11:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Now... for the other point you missed...

Evolution is not based on FACTS, but based on opinions, speculations and assumptions just as Creationism is. I'm not asking anyone to change their view here. Simply to realize that neither side can prove to the other that what it says is true. I believe in Creationism because of evidence that I see that SUPPORTS it. The funny thing is, the evidence that I see debunks evolution.

Give me some FACTS that support evolution.

Then we will talk again. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
I've noticed that everyone seems to believe that evolution is based on a few assumptions, and here they are, please tell me how rediculous they sound to you:

- Every single species reproduces more than enough of itself to fill the world many times over.
- Every animal differs slightly from each other.
- Every animal is adapted to it's enviroment.

These are the fundamental assumptions Darwin made when he developed his theory of evolution.

However, everyone today can easily prove that Darwin's assumptions aren't false. Everyone knows that animals will reproduce like mad. This is no secret. Every animal has a different genetic pattern, which we all know of, thanks to genetics and Gregor Mendel. And every animal is suited to their enviroment. This is common knowledge. The only animal to exceed this rule is the human being, who does not adapt to the enviroment by adapts the envrioment to himself.

So the theory really isn't theory, it rests on sound facts.

Evolution == FACT.
Creationism == OPPINION.

It really should be titled the 'Law' of evolution, but society would never do that. For some reason, people have a hard time accepting we evolved from lesser species.

Even Darwin only thought that this theory applied to animals and not humans, because he was deeply religious. He never even considered that humans could have evolved.

So please, enough of this non-sense of evolution isn't based on facts; this thinking is delusional and probably self-destructive.

Donnel · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Aegeri @ Oct 8 2003, 06:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Deletion 2 in TB that produces <i>M. bovis</i>.

How many bacterial examples would you like however?
 </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
Deletion = losing DNA right?

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>0
The aquisition of pathogenicity islands in <i>Salmonella typhi</i> that split it from similar <i>Enterococcus</i> species and allowed it to become a super pathogen. That is a massive gain in DNA, and various mutations on the theme have created different kinds of pathogenic salmonella capable of different kinds of infection.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

You may have me on this one, but first a question. Did this particular pathogen GAIN a trait that it did not already possess in it's DNA? Or was this a Hybridization, or perhaps an activation of a trait it already had?

Therein lies the difference really. What I am suggesting is that a simple mutation could not produce a trait in an organism that it did not already have the blueprint for. Mutation is just that. Mutating something into a different form. If the wording of the sentance changes, that means the sentance already exists. The meaning might be changed in the process but it is still the same sentance structure:

The enemy is now attacking
The enemy is not attacking
Tha enemy is now attacking

2 different mutations there, one harmful, one decidedly nuetral, but there was never any MORE information there then when it started.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Link to journal of Zoology that has said this. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I have to actually do some work today but I will try to.

Now, I need to address something. This discussion, while more or less remaining pleasant and non-personal has taken a different tone with a few of the posts last night. Just because you may not believe that God exists really does not give you the liberty to belittle my faith. Such personal attacks are in no ways related to science.

And to the Christians in this discussion... lighten up. They aren't attacking you personally (or at least they shouldn't be) so don't take it that way. Remember, our fight is not against flesh and blood. (Ephesians 6:12)

<img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/asrifle.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='asrifle.gif'> <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/pudgy.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='pudgy.gif'> It's against those dang dirty aliens LOL

Eviscerator · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>That's a good argument, but it is flawed. Adam and Eve didn't pass down the story. A guy with a pencil and paper claiming to be a prophet of God wrote it. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Yes, I know. I don't believe in the story of Creation. That was my attempt at being sarcastic. There is no evidence for the Creation story, it's just some whacko who claimed to hear the word of god. We have similar whackos today, and no one gives them any credence.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>On a side note, what do we take for granted that is true told by textbooks and our parents and not from experience. A WHOLE LOT in fact. Unless you've circled the globe, you cannot say the earth is round (could be flat). We assume they know what they are talking about when they give us such facts. This is a pattern that needs to break</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Ahh, but the key difference between what you are told is scientific fact and what is religious fact is that scientific facts <b>can be proven.</b> You have the ability to circumnavigate the globe and find out that the Earth is not flat. You cannot travel back in time to some period and witness the story of Creation. To save people time, it is enough to prove the underlying concepts and then extend them throughout all other areas. Mathematics works this way. You can boil everything you learn in Calculus down to some very fundamental concepts... such as 1 + 1 = 2. Once you master the fundamentals, everything else falls into place. So it is in the scientific world.

Faith in a bunch of fairy tales is all you have to stand on in the Creationist world. You can't prove or disprove made-up stories, so you cannot argue for or against them. You either believe or you do not. The job of the Evolutionist who wants to convince others of his belief is to show the overwhelming body of evidence, and then proceed to explain the theory for how all creatures on this planet came to be. It's still a theory, and very much a work in progress. As we continue to learn more about our world, how it works, and how it came to be, we will fill in the gaps in this knowledge. That is the beauty of science and learning.

Creationists have to wait until they die to determine whether or not their beliefs were accurate. To go that route and spend your entire life not really knowing whether it's true or not takes a leap of <b>faith</b>. I personally cannot accept that as an answer for what life is and how it came to be... I need to keep searching and learning. If I was born in India and raised as a Hindu, my religious beliefs would be totally different than those that I learned being raised as a Christian. Since there is no universal agreement in that regard, it cannot possibly be true in my mind. And I'm not waiting around for death to come so I can find out. How I am able to participate in society and have morals/ethics is an entirely different topic.

Eviscerator · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Oct 9 2003, 01:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
In my opinion, the debate about Creationism vs Evolution always boils down to one simple problem: Evolutionists do not want to accept the fact that what they were told may end up not being, in fact, the truth.

See how i took your agument and turned it round?  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
I can prove my argument. You cannot. You have faith in unprovable fairy tales. I have faith in provable science. Done and done.

Donnel · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Ahh, but the key difference between what you are told is scientific fact and what is religious fact is that scientific facts can be proven.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Creationism starts with an unprovable premise. That a Diety created everything.

Evolutionism starts with an unprovable premise. That natural processes created everything (well really changed what already was).

That's a leap of faith either way.

Now you will say that you have evidence that supports your theory. You may think you do, but can you prove that it started the way you claim? No. You still rely on your <i>belief</i> to support your initial premise.

I think it's about time we did away with the hogwash that Evolution is right simply because it's science and creationism is not.

A notable evolutionist Rhonda Jones (Professor of Zoology, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia) stated in <i>Quadrant</i> (August 1988) that she was stunned at the thought that students should be presented evidence for creation right alongside the evidence for evolution.

She gave two criteria that she believed to be universal in identifying science.

By her own definitions, she proclaims creationism as a science.

1) Correctability - some acknowledgement that what we currently think can be changed by future discoveries.

You are naive to think that every creationist shares the same belief. There are of course many scientific controversies even among creationist (the speed of light decay theory is just an example). While it is true that there is a "bottom line" in creationist theory that goes back to a literal creator, there is a "bottom line" for evolution as well that is just as immovable: the belief essentially that the world made itself into what it is today.

There are indeed many controversies about the mechanism of this self-transformation. Opinions shift and scientists are often willing to correct and abandon their ideas about how evolution happened. But they are not prepared to abandon the bottom line, the belief that some sort of evolution did occur. To put it another way, the how of evolution is negotiable, but not the whether.

2) A Commitment to finding out how the world works by studying the natural world itself.

Creationist scientists are of course equally committed to this statement, since you will notice it refers to ‘how the world works’, not how it came to be. The evolution/creation question is not about how the world works. Given that the world works in the way it does, this says nothing about whether it originated in the same way.

Keep in mind that the scientific method cannot ultimately prove or disprove matters related to origins because they involve the unrepeatable, unobservable past. So either they both should be regarded as science or neither should be. It's the same coin, just different sides.

Hawkeye · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Faith in a bunch of fairy tales is all you have to stand on in the Creationist world. You can't prove or disprove made-up stories, so you cannot argue for or against them. You either believe or you do not. The job of the Evolutionist who wants to convince others of his belief is to show the overwhelming body of evidence, and then proceed to explain the theory for how all creatures on this planet came to be. It's still a theory, and very much a work in progress. As we continue to learn more about our world, how it works, and how it came to be, we will fill in the gaps in this knowledge. That is the beauty of science and learning. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

You're right. Evolution really can't be proved. No matter how much evidence we can find, it won't prove evolution is true. Only if we have a time machine and see the progress of evolution for ourselves will this be true. However, this is a double edged sword. You could say that natural selection is simply the small window of time in which we've seen the world move slowly through evolution. In this case, evolution has been proven all along and people just have yet to believe it.

It doesn't matter though, since those that believe things without facts cannot be persuaded with facts. Thus is the story of creationists. Assuming the entire scientific community comes to a consensus that evolution is a correct theory, there will always be creationists that will claim it is full of hot air. When you think about it, it is more a matter of stubbornness than anything else.

I'm sticking with my giant chicken theory. A giant chicken created the world! It is legitimate right? It has no evidence, but neither does creationism. So if you say it is absurd to believe that, you are doing nothing but shooting yourself in the foot.

Donnel · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Oct 9 2003, 11:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I'm sticking with my giant chicken theory. A giant chicken created the world! It is legitimate right? It has no evidence, but neither does creationism. So if you say it is absurd to believe that, you are doing nothing but shooting yourself in the foot.  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
And the same is really true with evolution, there is no evidence (no evidence stronger) for evolution then for Creation or for your chicken idea. To say that any theory is wrong is really shooting yourself in the foot.

Now here is the rub, I believe Creation because I have faith in a Creator God.

Those of you on the flip side believe in Evolution because you have faith that a natural process has created the world all along without any form of divine intervention.

Bottom line I think, no one will be able to PROVE their theory correct. That is why they both exist today. Neither has been debunked, because quite frankly we just can't know. Now I believe that one day I will be in the presence of said Creator God, and when that time comes, I will be able to ask Him: Just what happened exactly... in fact I intend to say... uh.. can we rewind the tape and see it again?

Funny thing is, whether I am right or wrong is really irrelevant to the future of mankind. There have always been people who have said "There is no God". If I say "There was no Mohammad, There was no Budda, There is no George Bush" That doesn't make it so now does it.

Of course the argument will come back that says "yes, but we can see them, or they have left traces behind that show they were here"

Well, yet again, we come to an impass: Every mountain, every valley, every heartbeat, every new day that dawns to me is the evidence of God.

FilthyLarry · October 2003

Dr. Watson: "Gad Holmes ! How can you say that we evolved from... from apes !! ?"

Sherlock Holmes: "Elementary my Dear Watson. The London zoo contains singularly magnificent examples of the creatures in question. Note carefully the amazingly human-like habits they display, their playfullness, thoughtfulness and body-language in general. Then consider how ape-like certain primitive tribes of today are in appearance, and how some have a reputation for savagery."

*Sherlock lights his pipe and takes a few puffs*

Sherlock Holmes: "Furthermore Watson, there is evidence that the common chimpanzee displays remarkable self-recognition and abstraction abilities."

Dr. Watson: "Good Lord, Holmes !"

Sherlock Holmes: "Indeed Watson, indeed".

Hawkeye · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Donnel @ Oct 9 2003, 04:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> And the same is really true with evolution, there is no evidence (no evidence stronger) for evolution then for Creation or for your chicken idea. To say that any theory is wrong is really shooting yourself in the foot.  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
Now lets not confuse "false" evidence with "no" evidence. There is evidence all over the place. I suggest you reread the thread if you don't think so. Now, you may think the evidence is wrong, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There is plenty of evidence.

On the contrary, there is NO evidence for creationism. No, that doesn't mean there is wrong evidence. That means there is NO evidence.. zero.. nada.. zilch.

Donnel · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Oct 9 2003, 01:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Now lets not confuse "false" evidence with "no" evidence. There is evidence all over the place. I suggest you reread the thread if you don't think so. Now, you may think the evidence is wrong, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There is plenty of evidence.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I don't think the evidence is wrong, I just don't think that the evidence supports evolution. Natural Selection Happens. Proper Creationists will never deny this, because we can see it happen. It's a natural phenomenon. Mutation happens. Proper Creationists will not deny this either. But Mutations which cause a gain in genetic material resulting in traits appearing that were not origonally part of the genetic structure have not happened. Hybridization has happened, but Hybridization is not mutation. Neither is forced gene manipulation mutation because there is no way to prove it would happen naturally.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Oct 9 2003, 01:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> On the contrary, there is NO evidence for creationism. No, that doesn't mean there is wrong evidence. That means there is NO evidence.. zero.. nada.. zilch. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

You say there is no evidence because you don't take into account the Biblical record. And well you shouldn't! You have no reason to regard it as anything but myth and fairy tale.

Is Evolution right? No.

Is Creation right? Yes, can I prove it? No.

Does it matter in the end? No, because we will find out one way or another.

Well, sort of...

If you are correct, then what could possibly happen when we die? Nothing I suppose... we just die. So I guess as long as Creation is correct... we will find out in the end.

Sorry for saying the wrong thing...

Eviscerator · October 2003

Hypothetical analogy here to your argument that evolutionists cannot prove that evolution created all modern forms of life. If Bob walks out the door of a windowless room holding a smoking gun, and Harry lies in a pool of blood on the floor in that room with a single bullet hole in his head, can you say that Bob killed Harry? You did not witness the act, no one was there but Bob and Harry. Bob isn't talking, and neither is Harry. But the <b>evidence</b> to convict Bob is overwhelming. This is sufficient in our legal system to put Bob to death. It wasn't god or some supreme being that killed Harry. Bob did it.

So it is with evolution. The evidence is overwhelming and irrefutable. It is impossible to know what happened when the first molecules started exhibiting life-like behaviors. However, with what we know today about how biology works and how molecules interract, we can deduce how life came to be and how life evolved over billions of years. The theory of evolution is not a story put down on paper by some nut-job claiming to hear the voice of god. All scientific theories are put forth by people who analyze the world around them and come to some educated, logical conclusions as to why it is the way it is. One tests this theory by creating experiments designed to either prove or disprove the theory. This is how all theories involving the unobservable are tested. By unobservable I mean to the naked eye or occuring in the past. Surely you believe in this scientific process... unless you believe the computer you are typing on is a gift from god.

The mountain of evidence proving the theory of evolution is far too overwhelming. It does not require <b>any</b> leap of faith. Just analyze what is given to you, understand what the rest of the world looks like, and make the simple conclusion that the theory of evolution is <b>correct.</b> You do not want to believe it because you really would rather believe the fables in the bible. Why... well who knows? Perhaps you should ask yourself why you choose to have faith in those stories without any proof. Maybe it's because you would rather believe that this life of Earth is not all there is. Optimistic that you'll go to heaven and enjoy everlasting life surrounded by happiness and all those loved ones you knew in the past. This gives you great comfort and relief. It's hard to argue against that, considering evolution doesn't exactly offer much hope for eternity of the soul. And maybe that is sufficient for you to continue participating in society.

This is why I believe religion, or the belief in a supreme being as the creator of all things, is one of those evil necessities... most of the world's population just can't deal with life without having some kind of mystical being to fall back on. I'm actually thankful for it, otherwise we would not be where we are today as a species. Our species is far too primal and selfish to be humanistic. We continue to kill each other, rape each other, molest each other, abuse each other, mistreat each other... the list goes on and on. Religion is about the only global police out there that can really reign in those who would otherwise act out on their primal instincts. Burn in hell for eternity if you're a bad dude. I remember my mother screaming that at me when I was a child. I was going to burn in hell if I didn't stop fighting with my sister. Put the fear of god in them kids! Well, it works for billions of people. Works on most Americans. Didn't work on me, but thankfully I don't have any homicidal tendencies. Enough about religion.

Here's my take on death. When we die, nothing further happens. Just like when you go under anesthesia for an operation. I've gone under the knife a few times in my life, and I have absolutely no recollection or knowledge about what occured during those times. I start counting down from 20, and before I get to 16 I'm out. My brain comes back much later, as I lie in some bed. So it is with death... except your entire brain and body ceases to function and you no longer create new memories or recall old ones. Most of the body mechanisms shut down completely. Some of your cells continue right on living... however they too will die off eventually after their supply of nutrients runs out. Now you're just a blob of organic material, awaiting recycling for the next generation of organisms to make use of your leftovers. That is, unless you've been frozen cryogenically or hermetically sealed in that coffin. I told my relatives I want to be cremated and spread across the forest. Let my leftovers become part of a tree. That would be cool.

coil · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Oct 7 2003, 05:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I have some questions for you evolutionists out there:

If it (evolution) takes millions of years to occur, <i>How can we be sure it is happening?</i> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
<i>Example 1:</i> A species of moth living in Europe exists in two varieties. One is white with black splotches, a phenotype which corresponds to a dominant allele of a particular gene. The recessive variant is black with white splotches. These moths inhabit birch forests. Because the black moths are much more visible against the white birch bark, the moth population used to contain approximately 80% white months and 20% black moths.

I say "used to" because this figure was reached prior to the Industrial Revolution in Europe. When coal-fired production plants popped up in the vicinity of the forests where the moths lived, smoke from their furnaces dusted the trees with soot, turning the white trees ash-gray or black. In a few years, the moth population had reversed its percentages: the black moths, better camouflaged on the soot-covered trees, comprised 80% of the moth population.

Changes in environment like this are the driving force of natural selection and evolution: the more fit animal survives and reproduces, and the species changes.

<i>Example 2:</i> Species of animal are differentiated by the fact that two animals of different species cannot produce fertile offspring (and generally cannot produce offspring at all). All variety of domestic dog are a single species, and can theoretically produce viable offspring (we won't talk about a great dane father and chihuahua mother - physical and genetic limitations are different). Conversely, a horse and a donkey can breed, but their offspring is a mule, which is infertile. Attempting to cross a horse and, say, a cow, would result in no offspring at all.

Sub-species are defined as two distinct, separate groups of animals that can nevertheless reproduce together. They are in essense a "midpoint" between a single species and two discreet species. I forget the name of the animal, but there is a mouse which exists as four subspecies. Two (call them NE and SE) exist on the east side of the Rocky Mountains, while the others (call them NW and SW) live on the west side of the range. The ranges of the NE and NW mice overlap, but the mountains completely separate the SE and SW mice from one another.

Of these mouse subspecies:
1) Those on the same side of the mountains can interbreed (NE with SE, NW with SW).
2) The NE and NW, who share some territory, can interbreed.
3) The SE and SW, who have been geographically separated for an unknown amount of time, <i>can no longer interbreed and produce viable offspring.</i> This is speciation in action.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Is humankind as we now experiance it merly an intermediate satge leading to a more complex and intelligent life-form?</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Possibly. Personally, I believe humanity has in some ways removed itself from many of the pressures of natural selection. However, there is no doubt that humans continue to grow taller, and our brains continue to grow larger. Selection does act in other instances as well. The recessive gene that causes sickle-cell anemia also gives its carrier resistance to malaria. While it is fatal if a person carries two recessive genes (aa), the sickle cell gene is extremely common in Africa because carriers (Aa, rather than AA or aa) are resistant to malaria and therefore live long enough to reproduce.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If humans are the product of random mutations, sifted by the process of natural selection, how can we be sure this statement is true?</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Evolution does not produce inferior organisms. Mutation is random; natural selection is by definition NOT random. While mutation may produce inferior "versions," these organisms are less likely to survive and pass their genes on. In some cases, evolution reverses (whales and snakes, for instance, gained and then lost their legs), but this is to the evolutionary *advantage* of the organism, and is not a recession.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>How can natural processes, operating by blind chance, generate complex, functioning mechanisms, let alone intelligent human beings, out of random particles?</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
The eye is the classic argument both for and against evolution. The eyes of flatworms are the best explanation, in my opinion. Flatworms do not have true eyes; they have "eyespots" which are nothing more than light-sensitive cells. The precursor to the human eye was probably a similar construction. The simple fact is that given enough time, ANY advantage - no matter how minute - multiplies to importance. A creature with eyespots and an instinct to seek dark places (flatworms will remain stationary when in shadow but move when in the light - until they're in shadow again. shadow = hidden = safety) will be more likely to survive and pass its genes on. And if a random mutation produces an even better eyespot - perhaps more cells, or more sensitive cells - that organism will now be better at hiding than its ancestors. Bit by bit, a complex organ develops. Remember the sheer TIME scale involved.

More simply, here are two other examples. Imagine at some point in the future, humanity is reduced to a basic existence - but an *aquatic* existence. There is a mutation among humans in which the person has webbed fingers and toes - a single point mutation of a single gene, which can be inherited or spontaneously developed. Such a web-footed person in an aquatic life would be more able to succeed, and in some amount of time all of humanity might be composed of web-footed and -fingered people.

Whales lost their legs when they returned to the sea. Growing a limb takes energy, and limbs produce drag against the water. Any whale that was born with smaller-than-normal legs had more energy to spend on other things and needed less effort to move through the water. The end result: legless whales. Some whales still have hip bones, and whale fossils have been found with leg bones.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>What objective value or dignity does humanity have if it owes its existence to nothing more then millions of accidents?</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
De facto dignity? If you measure value or dignity by our being "special" or destined, none. We are animals; we are as much a product of chance as a fly, a leopard, a fish. If fate had been different, the dominant race on this planet might be a bipedal saurian descended from Stenychosaurus (I'm probably misremembering that name). In some ways we are "newbies" in the game of evolutionary success: homo sapiens has existed only about two million years, and modern man for possibly as little as 20,000 years. Cats - arguably the supreme terrestrial hunter (discounting humans) have been unchanged for ~40 million years. Sharks haven't changed dramatically in <b>200 million years</b>.

On the other hand, we are the most successful species to have ever lived. We are one of the most widespread organisms on the planet (if not the most widespread), and no other species can hold a candle to our social constructions. We are self-aware. It's something that few other animals could boast of, and certainly a source of pride for me.

Aegeri · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You may have me on this one, but first a question. Did this particular pathogen GAIN a trait that it did not already possess in it's DNA? Or was this a Hybridization, or perhaps an activation of a trait it already had?</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

These are completely new, unbefore seen genes in it's genome. It gained the ability to hijack cells (Via a Type III secretion system), penetrate out into the blood stream and evade the immune system.

That is a massive amount of new genetic material.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Therein lies the difference really. What I am suggesting is that a simple mutation could not produce a trait in an organism that it did not already have the blueprint for. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

You're wrong, I've explained why twice now.

In this case however this is the aquisition (capture) of genes from another entirely different organism. Microbes don't have to evolve by stepwise increments all the time. Take multiple drug resistance, these are usually the result of gene capture and not always by slow mutation (but the original individual resistance genes usually are).

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>2 different mutations there, one harmful, one decidedly nuetral, but there was never any MORE information there then when it started.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

<i>E. coli</i> is another example, the genes that break down lactose are definitely from another organism.

There are so many examples of where entirely new traits are aquired by bacteria either by mutation or horizontal gene transfer it's silly to dispute this FACT.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You are naive to think that every creationist shares the same belief. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

You're still wrong Donnel. Creationism still starts with its conclusion FIRST then does an experiment to PROVE that conclusion. If they found, for example, that radiocarbon dating was in fact consistent and gave correct results disproving a 6000 year old earth, they'd throw it out and maintain their original conclusion.

If they found that a world flood would be impossible due to plain simple physics, they would disprage the original physics and maintain that yes, there was still a world flood.

THIS IS WHY CREATIONISM IS NOT SCIENCE, END OF STORY.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>That is why they both exist today. Neither has been debunked, because quite frankly we just can't know.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I've said this before, but to the general scientific community creationism is just an annoying blip and nothing more. It isn't a science so it can't be debunked because it doesn't have any scientific principles to debunk.

See the previous debating vs science I've gone into before.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You say there is no evidence because you don't take into account the Biblical record. And well you shouldn't! You have no reason to regard it as anything but myth and fairy tale.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Because there isn't any hard evidence for a world flood etc etc. Honestly, you are doing exactly what I accuse creationists of: Debating but not using any solid science or evidence.

You and previously sirus, have proved my point better than I could of hoped.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Is Evolution right? No.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Actually, we have a lot more evidence to suggest evolution is right than anything else.

It really just boils down to that.

Eviscerator · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (coil @ Oct 9 2003, 04:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> More simply, here are two other examples. Imagine at some point in the future, humanity is reduced to a basic existence - but an *aquatic* existence. There is a mutation among humans in which the person has webbed fingers and toes - a single point mutation of a single gene, which can be inherited or spontaneously developed. Such a web-footed person in an aquatic life would be more able to succeed, and in some amount of time all of humanity might be composed of web-footed and -fingered people.
 </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
Yeah, that movie was called WaterWorld. It sucked <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'>

I am particularly interested in our own history as to our relationship with water. There are many facets to our existence not found in any other primates that would lead one to believe we had an aquatic past. The Aquatic Ape Theory. Specifically, our ability to control our breathing, our descended larynx, our relative hairlessness, subcutaneous fat, human infant abilities in the water, shedding of tears, our propensity to live as close to water as possible, our love affair with oceans and lakes, etc. Interesting stuff.

Hawkeye · October 2003

Well I hate to break everybody's bubble, but humans have redefined the rules of evolution.

Humans won't grow big brains and tiny bodies. Why should we? Nothing bad happens to the ones who evolve badly. Retarded and handicapped people live like anybody else. In fact, the only way genes aren't carried down is if they can't get a mate in today's world.

Evolution operates under certain premises, and those premises are no longer there. I believe in evolution, but it has skyrocketed in a completely different direction than before.

How you ask? All these animals are getting killed in rain forests and other environments where humans are taking over. I'm not saying that to sound like a green peace activist, but this is a fact. If you take a look at the animals which AREN'T dying, you can see pigs, chickens, horses, pigeons, dogs, cats, and other "human-friendly" animals. That's for a good reason. The reason they are there is because we let them live. In fact we encourage them to grow. In the end, the survival of the fittest doesn't work anymore. It is now the survival of the "human-friendly"-est. The types of things we can expect for the future are genetically engineered extra-fat pigs and chickens, heavy milk-producing cows, smaller cuddlier cats and dogs, etc. If it is an animal that exists because we can't kill it, it will only get more efficient at it. Cockroaches, for example, will only become even MORE adaptive to the human environment so that we can't kill it. This is why cockroaches are everywhere.. the niche they've found is one no other animal was adapted for at the time human development grew.

Anyway, that is sort of a sidenote. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'>
For those of you who don't believe in evolution, ignore that.

Evolution

Comments