An evolutionary question

[treme]

Quote by: loser I'm sure that I don't understand the TOE in all of its nuances so perhaps someone can answer this question for me. It's my (mis?)understanding that evolution is triggered as a survival of the fittest phenomenon; that adaptations which give a species a clear advantage (a better chance of survival) are the ones that are passed on. I was thinking about just how much of an advantage it is to have thick fur. My dog is able to withstand cold outside that would kill me. Some arctic animals swim in frigid arctic waters that will kill us in seconds. How much better it would be for humans to have such fur in order to live in the many hostile and extreme conditions. Did we evolve away from having body fur so that we would have to kill animals and then make coats from their fur in order to survive in these conditions? That really doesn't make much sense to me. If we had more hair in the past, why did we lose it? For aesthetic purposes? Why couldn't we just evolve body fur with zippers for easy removal? Or, like other animals, the ability to molt or shed? It's hard to accept evolution when so much of it goes against reason. Of course, there may be answers that I can't see that others can. Hence, the question.

First a bit about body hair. We haven't technically lost it. We still have hair over quite a bit of our bodies. The DNA for body hair or genes for body hair are still present and making their presence known. Some people grow quite a bit of hair, and some people have just a little.

Imagine we take 100 humans, all with varying amounts of body hair and throw them in an environment where having body hair is a bad thing (bad thing = something that could lead to death, or at least, not getting any action). Now suppose we allow these humans to reproduce and keep them and their descendants inside this environment for 10,000 years. At the end of those 10,000 years, how hairy do you think this population of humans is going to be? Will they be more or less hairy on average? What if having hair was a good thing? What DNA would be more likely to live on through the generations?

That's kinda how evolution happens. The environment evolves (ice ages, meteor impacts, new predator moves into town, etc) and kills off or breeds out most/all of the DNA that doesn't help (or sometimes hinders) a species' survivability.

Why do humans today have less body hair? I don't think we'll ever know for sure but there are some really logical suggestions out there. I don't think it's extremely important to know exactly what pressures the environment was putting on our ancestors that led to us having less hair than them. More than a thousand factors probably came into play, likely more than that. What is important is that we recognize the fact that our environment does act upon us as a species.

If somebody can't recognize that I can completely respect their opinion, but mainly because I know that particular opinion is living in an environment that is not suitable for it. That opinion is going to go the way of our body hair.

[loser]

Quote: That's a fallacy. There are no random mutations. ALL are cause and effect. Where is your evidence to support this be all end all claim?

Cancers are examples, thalidomide is another. Radiation exposure is another cause of genetic mutation. The causes are endless.

If you come home to find the fender of your car smashed in, I hope that you don't buy your teenage son's explanation that it was just a random event with no explainable cause.

Like everything in life, there is a cause for every effect. This is one of the basic tenets of physics, though it is more often relegated to the realm of philosophy (which indeed includes physics).

The point being made is that absolutely nothing that happens is ever just a random event. We live in a world of causality; it's what defines life.

Perhaps you should go back and read 'Paleontology: Chapter 1' this time, that way you would know that fossils aren't exactly plentiful or easy to find.

Given the aquatic nature of our planet, this isn't really surprising. Also, the age of the planet might have something to do with the scarcity of fossils.

Quote: That statement in itself is very misleading. The ToE is almost bereft of any support and Darwin's theory that evolution is fueled by natural selection is all but defunct. Once again, you make a very bold statement and then back it up with absolutely nothing. Where is your evidence, where are your sources, where are your FACTS?

There's nothing bold in that remark. Even well-known evolutionists have said as much. You've heard it all before, surely. Lamarck actually had it right, even though he has been mostly dismissed since the false assumptions of Darwin have been promoted. The environment does indeed effect genetic change and the new research field of epigenetics investigates this. Also, the adaptation of finches' beaks due to weather changes in the Galapagos brought on by the La Nina currents observed in the span of a season (in just several months) verified the truth of epigenetics. Once again, simply cause and effect.

What is the reason behind the genetic mutation that would make a child autistic? Retarded? Deaf?

Ill effects are still effects. The causes are not always readily apparent. Pollution and/or chemical exposure in our food, our water , and our air are some possible causes for many mutations. Medical practices (such as inoculations or vaccines) are another. Even flying in airplanes could have undetected effects upon our cellular makeup.

Genetic change is reasonable...so much less pretentious than evolution. Perhaps you could be troubled to explain to us the difference between the two.

A rabbit in the arctic is white. A rabbit that lives in the swamp is dark. A puma which lives in the swamps is black and is called a panther; one which lives in the mountains is brown (rock colored) and is called a cougar or mountain lion. Same animals with genetic differences brought on by epigenetics. This is genetic change or adaptation and is reasonable and can be observed.

Extending these factual truths to devise an incorrect theory that all life (the rabbit and the puma) has a common ancestor (a single cell?) is where evolution takes flight from reality. This cannot be observed and is unreasonable.

You aren't even making sense. How does the presence of DNA completely disprove evolution?

DNA is a complex language of billions of genetic letters. DNA stores the detailed instructions for assembling proteins in the form of a four-character digital code. The genetic code has an alphabet, grammar, meaning, and an intended purpose. The only other true languages are all of human origin.

Information cannot be considered the same as matter and energy...it can only come from intelligence. The incredible amount of information stored in each gene makes it impossible for it to have just occurred randomly.

Every living thing has DNA. It is certainly not confined to 'intelligent life', although what you may consider intelligence may differ greatly from another person.

It's not that the DNA always contains instructions to manufacture intelligent life; it's that the DNA in itself shows it's origin in intelligent design and not in some random occurrence. You can't read 'Mein Kampf' and conclude that those words just came together randomly and by accident...you have to admit that it took some intellectual thought (however arbitrary) in order to compose it.

We have different (very distant) ancestors. What we share is a Creator. Oh boy, here comes the God train.

Which is what really troubles you.

Monkeys and apes are capable of preforming math and communicating with humans, in addition to sharing a large chunk of our DNA. Not a human certainly, but even you cant be blind to the fact that they are similar.

Yes, similar. Amazingly, however, all life is indeed similar. Our genetic makeup differs only very slightly from that of a tree. Infinite diversity is not a proof of common descent.

A cause of gamma radiation, an effect of an eyeless three armed child. Hardly purposeful or designed by any parent.

Of course not (to the design part) but, then, no parent designed life. As to purpose, yes, it is indeed for a purpose if not on purpose.

How is it not accurate? Can you please back up your denouncements with something like, oh I don't know, evidence?

No, can you?

Answer: No!

I agree, but when given the choice between an answer that has evidence and facts to back it up and an answer made of baseless claims and assertions, I'll choose the former.

As well you should. The key is being able to recognize "facts" from "baseless claims" and assumptions.

Quote: Well, after all, man was created in the image of God. Why should it surprise anyone that they are approaching the ability of God...ever learning, and, yet, never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. And the ugly, fundie truth surfaces.

Truth, most likely. Ugly, not even.

So just because they would have to use the only known code that there is to create life, that means that their feat is meaningless?

Definitely not meaningless. Scary, you betcha! It's the same kind of feeling that I would get if I came home to find my grandson playing with a live hand grenade.

Interesting choice of words, your evidence is more invisible than God himself. The only reason all the evidence is invisible is because you wont let yourself see it. To look at something objectively is to go in without bias and with an open mind, actions you have refused to take. What really gets me is that you created this thread under the guise of wanting to be educated, and then you proceeded to upend the table that we had all placed our evidence on and scream "I reject your reality and substitute my own!" Science is supposed to be the pursuit of knowledge, not the exclusion of knowledge that does not suit your fancy or purposes.

Objectivity is impossible and bias a certainty. Even still, no one pursues knowledge and truth and understanding more than me. My goal is to prompt others to examine their beliefs...that table holding your 'evidence' may be a lot more wobbly than you realize.

[loser]

I think its funny that the chemist thinks he knows more about biology than the biologist.

I'm sorry I give that impression. I know hardly squat about biology and even my chemistry (though perhaps relatively advanced) is hardly anything to crow about. I'm sure that the resident biologist is quite schooled in his field. My contention, however, is that much of the 'knowlewdge' which he has learned by rote is faulty...it has caused him to reach false conclusions.

Isherwood: While I appreciate your links to supposed 'evidence', it really just solidifies my stance. While I have no problem with the DNA evidence suggesting the apes as being our closest relative, it is the unwarranted conclusional leap to the common ape ancestor of 5-8 million years ago to which I balk. Also, while it's true that evolution comprises many elements to which I might agree, it is common descent to which I object...and not just whimsically, either.

The obvious question, then, is; how much of your knowledge about chemistry came from your own investigation and the Bible? Are you completely self-taught?

No, Ish, I was university taught and the Bible has very little to say in the way of chemistry. However, I didn't complete my training (receive a degree) though I easily could have (had most of the required credits). My problem lay in what psychiatry would call my manic syndrome...I almost always felt superior to my educators...I felt like I needed to teach them.

Little has changed, of course. I still feel superior in intellect and knowledge (to most) and I come across as arrogant and haughty. I could be pretentious (and often am) in order to disguise this reality but this usually causes others to just discredit my understanding and teachings and is counterproductive. I have found humor to be my best friend.

At any rate, I continued my education (in schools and libraries) and, in fact, still do (though, now, mostly on the internet). I continue to dabble in chemistry (home laboratory, greenhouse/garden experimentation, etc.) but do not attempt any serious research (though I have been considering doing some Mengele-type experiments...)

For those who patiently tolerate me, thank you.

For those who don't...

Funny. You certainly have a high opinion of yourself, none of which is supported by your posts on this board. Did you hear about the study that was done that showed that people who brag the loudest about their competence are usually less competent. They surmised that those people were so incompetent that they were unable to recognize their own incompetence. You're quite a laugh.

High opinion? Yes, indeed (especially when high)!

Competence? I'm full of it!

"Did you hear about the study that was done that showed that people who brag the loudest about their competence are usually less competent."

What, those idiots? Besides, if you close your eyes, you won't even hear me.

You: "They surmised that those people were so incompetent that they were unable to recognize their own incompetence"

Me: "As mankind becomes more ignorant, his ability to recognize his ignorance diminishes (From "All Blue-Eyed People Are Related").

You: "You're quite a laugh."

It's about time you said something nice about me.

Thank youi.

It is generally used by those who lack a clear understanding of evolutionary theory, or by those who wish to discredit evolutionary theory, especially those who wish to fall back on mythology.

Evolution is mythology!

You seem to understand very little about evolutionary theory. ... you do not display any proficiency in science whatsoever. Indeed he was instructing you. Moreover, you seem to have failed to understand. No. I'm just explaining to you some very basic ideas of evolutionary biology. You got them wrong It is generally used by those who lack a clear understanding of evolutionary theory, or by those who wish to discredit evolutionary theory, especially those who wish to fall back on mythology. But in most cases there is no clear advantage, and the fact that you equate that to "a better chance of survival" shows that your knowledge is quite lacking. Your statements of "survival of the fittest", "clear advantage", and "better chance of survival" make it clear that your claim of knowledge of evolutionary theory is false. It was also quite clear that you lack sufficient knowledge to discuss the topic at even a high school level in spite of your claims of having studied the topic. That is either a demonstration of vast ignorance of the topic or an intentional effort to misrepresent. Further, Cro-Magnon (you don't seem to be educated enough to even spell that correctly) isn't a species from which modern mankind evolved. Your lack of understanding is quite apparent. You seem unaware that the evidence isn't based on ape skulls. Yet another example of your lack of knowledge, and thus your failure to educate yourself. You don't seem to have a good grasp on what science is or how it works. Yet another example of your complete lack of understanding of evolutionary theory. Again, more incorrect terminology. What? I see since you don't have any answer you rely on misrepresentation. Again a demonstration of lack of understanding. But with your lack of knowledge you have become obsessed with fur. Unacceptable to who. You, with your lack of education about science and evolutionary theory? Are you trying to display ignorance or dishonesty? Now you are confused, or trying to confuse Anyone with only a most basic understanding of evolutionary theory knows that individuals don't evolve. No, it's not. You didn't read the book, did you? Perhaps you should read it again in order to grasp what happened You are grossly misinformed. Contrary to what the uneducated may think... Well, I know that you don't know much about science and evolutionary biology. The problem is that your few words demonstrate a profound ignorance of evolutionary theory, and biology for that matter.

Wow, you sure showed us your wealth of knowledge, didn't you?

Wait, let me think...I've read somewhere about this kind of debate. There's a name for it, isn't it?

Ad hominem attacks!

When you have no evidence or the ability to counter your opponent, revert to ad hominem attacks. It's like school kids calling names. How pathetic, how tragic, how weak, how little, how nothing the person who uses such tactics.

[loser]

Now that I've got about 95% of your pathetic post dealt with, let's look at the miniscule rest:

Further, Cro-Magnon (you don't seem to be educated enough to even spell that correctly) isn't a species from which modern mankind evolved. Cro-Magnon is modern man. DNA that has been extracted from Cro-Magnon fossils is indistinguishable from that of modern Europeans. Your lack of understanding is quite apparent. You seem unaware that the evidence isn't based on ape skulls.

Since man has always been man and has never evolved from another species, this is just what you should expect. I'm very aware that apes have nothing to do with humans...apples and oranges.

I wasn't even aware that "creative license" and exaggeration were legitimate tools in chemistry.

You weren't? Are you aware that ad hominem attacks are not legitimate tools in debate? Obviously not, for if you used such despicable tactics purposefully, well, what would that say about your character?

quote[What I meant was that if a man falls in these icy waters he has literally only seconds to get out before hypothermia sets in. Once this happens, a person becomes too weak to even hold on to a rescue line that might be thrown to him.

And that has any relevance to human evolution exactly how? [/quote]

It has immensely more relevance to human life (your evolutionary fantasy) than your ad hominem attacks.

So you are saying that we should have a thick layer of fur so that we can live in polar regions?

No, I am saying that evolution (as commonly taught) is a myth, a fantasy, a fallacy, a lie...take your pick, they all aptly fit.

Arctic animals weren't designed.

Of course they were!

They have evolved through various evolutionary mechanisms to become adapted to their environment.

Foolish fantasy that you only wish were true.

But with your lack of knowledge you have become obsessed with fur.

It's clear that you are the one that is obsessed...with attempting to discredit me. Get a life, already.

I guess you aren't aware that it has been cold in Greenland for at least 250,000 years.

So, are you telling me that you were aware (awake, alive) some 250,000 years ago in Greenland? Or, are you just reciting some fairytale stuff that you read in a book somewhere? Do you realize how stupid people sound when they speak about things that they have absolutely no way of knowing but yet say it so matter-of-factly as if they were there as eye-witnesses? No, I guess you don't.

Anyone with only a most basic understanding of evolutionary theory knows that individuals don't evolve.

If individuals don't evolve, then groups of individuals don't evolve. You're absolutely right...evolution isn't happening!

Not a single bird grew a larger beak from one season to the next.

No, their beaks adapted for a different kind of food source within a season.

Skin pigmentation is largely genetic.

Exactly!

Contrary to what the uneducated may think, getting a sun tan cannot be inherited.

Of course not, it's cause and effect.

What you are claiming is that if you lived in Africa you would become a black man and your children would be black.

Not exactly, it's generational (passed on genetically from generation to generation). It's epigenetics...change (adaptation) in a species due to environment.

Several recent published studies have shown it to be true.

Does publication make it true?

Where are you investigations published.

Does publication make it true?

[rez]

If the Theory of Evolution is a mythology, then provide a better explanation for how life changes over time.

[loser]

well, i just scanned through some of these posts, to be honest all the big words and technical words made my head hurt.... But basically whoever the Loser person is, man u need to get a grip. All of ur arguements really didnt prove anything and just made u look like a uneducated, narrow minded child. U babble on and on about evoloution being impossible and blah blah and u babble on about God and creation, but really where is ur proof? I've seen far more to believe in evolution then that we were all "created" by some unseen being. Everyone has a right to an opinon, a belief or a theory...but if u want others to actually take what u say seriously, u need to back ur crap up instead of just ranting and raving that everything someone says is wrong or make snide remarks. Learn how to debate and present an arguement.

So, are you saying that you ranted and raved all of this crap because you had a headache? Is your post an example of learning "how to debate and present an arguement"? Did you prove anything? Aren't you babbling? Why should I take you seriously? Did you back your crap up or is it just ANOTHER opinion? Think about it.

I believe 100 pct in evolution.

Why 100%? Why not 95%? 50%? Are you saying that there is no doubt in your mind whatsoever that God doesn't exist and that all life just appeared randomly and by chance?

There is just way way too much evidence to support it.

Where is this evidence? When have you ever seen one animal give birth to a completely different animal? Is it not, in fact, true that the evidence you speak of is only what you have been taught and NOT anything that you have directly observed? Think about it.

It makes sense that modern humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor.

Why does that makes sense? Does it make the same sense that elephants and mosquitoes and crocodiles all evolved from that very same common ancestor? Does it make sense that scientists aren't even sure if viruses are alive or not? What's up with that? Wouldn't it make even more sense if each animal was created just as it was with only minor superficial changes?

Let's look at automobiles. Does it make more sense that one automobile came into being because a bunch of different parts just happened to come together and then all of the different automobiles evolved from this one automobile OR every different kind of automobile was created individually, though they often look very similar to each other? Which one makes sense to you (try to forget that you know the answer)?

I believe the bible was created as a way to bring hope to people and to control.

Why would you believe that? Is it working? Does it give you hope or control your actions? Think about it.

I believe in reincarnation and past lives.

Why? Have you been indoctrinated by a religion such as Buddhism? Dabbled in the dark forces (the mystical elements)?

I believe that we come here to learn and evolve spritually and mentally.

I don't know what to say to that except why (it's close to what I believe)?

Sometimes I even believe we are all in a huge snowglobe and we are just a higher evolved species's toy or entertainment

Ever smoke weed?

My beliefs change all the time because its better to be open to new ideas then closed off to them.

Well, Vengey, that is absolutely wonderful to hear! What this means is that there is still hope for you...that you are indeed still learning. Good job, that one!

If I can see the logic, sure why not it could happen. There is way way too many mysteries in this world to ever fully learn the truth of anything, and really who would want to? If everything could be explained and reasoned and understood, there wouldnt be anything left to quest for,.

Logic is indeed good!

Mysteries are many and they keep us searching!

Now I'm sad. I've figured everything out, there's nothing left to search for. No wonder I'm depressed all of the time.

Wait, I just remembered...I don't know everything.

I'm happy again!

[loser]

Zhavric: Thank you for that intelligent and somewhat thoughtful and restrained post (I say somewhat because you inappropriately dismiss this thread as irrelevant and/or a waste of time). It really doesn't matter how stupid the OP is, it is often merely a springboard for much intellectual discussion. Because evolution versus creationism is one of the most debated subjects at this site, it is good (in my POV) that it is approached from different levels and from different angles and in different threads.

I don't know whether you are implying that there is a level of dishonesty at work in this thread or not (I'm definitely not trying to deceive anyone, only enlighten) but I'll assume that's what you meant.

First, your cake analogy doesn't work because even though all of the ingredients are there they won't come together magically and bake properly without some kind of intelligent intervention. I believe in a Creator but there's nothing magical about that anymore than it is magical than television was created by someone even though it required the creation of prior elements before they could all come together as a television. And what good would a television be without a camera and a way to send those images thousands of miles to many different televisions all at the same time? The importance of one is dependent upon another. For example, what good would a printer be without paper? Not very much, at all. It seem to me everything that has ever been created (which is everything) was created for a PURPOSE.

God used the same intelligence in creating life as we use in creating the things we use in life. No magic, just intelligence. The building blocks of life were there (the ingredients for the cake). God merely put the ingredients together (devised the recipe) and baked the cake.

Like evolution, aging is a gradual process with many small imperceptible changes over time. If we draw an analogy from your argument to aging, then it would be something akin to, "Infants become toddlers and Old men become very old men. But, no matter how much we age, infants don't become old men."

I'll answer this in an upcoming question from Rez...watch for it.

[Jack]

Here's something to think about in the debate between creationism and evolution:

Does intelligent design creationism predict and explain infanticide? Evolutionary theory does. Here in Alaska, any brown bear sow with a cub will go to considerable trouble to avoid interaction with a male, because the male will frequently attempt to kill the cub. It makes sense that the bear would do this - the chances of a particular cub being his offspring are very small, so eliminating a cub almost always eliminates the genes of a competing male. It also makes the sow sexually receptive more quickly, thus increasing the male’s chances of mating. By this means males who commit infanticide make their genes more frequent in the population. In other words, in this case, the genes that make infanticidal bears perpetuate themselves in the gene pool. What about infanticide in humans? There are many cultures in which people committed infanticide under various circumstances. Some cultures set deformed children out of doors to die by exposure. While not morally defensible in our culture, in a society in which resources are scarce, doing this makes a certain amount of perverse sense - you want to expend what little in the way of crops that you have on children who are healthy and vigorous. Evolutionary theory predicts that those parents who expend the least on children of low fitness will better perpetuate their genes. Just because a baby is lost this year, doesn’t mean you can’t try again next year, or the year after, when crops are good. I started with a Google search, and I was disappointed to find that Walker is correct when he says that intelligent design creationism is silent on the issue. I found nothing from an intelligent design creationist on the web5 that said anything about intelligent design creationism’s views on infanticide. That leaves us to explore the issues for ourselves. As Walker notes: What characteristics of the unknown designer might we infer from infanticide? … [T]he issue here is that ID as a theory is doomed unless something is known about the designer and that information can be used to generate hypotheses about the real world. That’s a real problem, because intelligent design creationists frequently refuse to say who or what the creator/designer is. But we can obviously go the other direction here. Infanticide is widespread, not only among people, but also in nature. This is observed fact. Given this, what does it say about the designer/creator? What it necessarily must say is that the designer/creator found nothing wrong with killing children and helpless young animals. Otherwise, this capability would not have been built into creation. Even if we accept the rather ad-hoc and evidence-lacking assertion that “the fall” corrupted creation and infanticide did not exist prior to then, organisms could not be physically capable of infanticide if the tools for it had not been built into life in the first place. Intelligent design creationists say that biological structures are intelligently designed to fulfill their functions. If so, that means that the biological structures that animals use to kill babies were intelligently designed for the purpose of killing babies. Furthermore, infanticide is practiced by organisms that are incredibly diverse. Even plants do it. Bacteria do it. Lobsters do it. The list is incredibly long, and as far as I can tell every class of organism does it. That suggests that not only does the designer/creator condone infanticide, but that he’s positively enthusiastic about it. This picture of the creator/designer is not, I would suggest, the kind of supernatural power or little green alien that my readers would enjoy hanging out with. Of course, science is all about finding out what is true, and not about gathering support for what you want to be true. So all we need to do is look at the evidence. Evolutionary theory makes several predictions and provides powerful explanations for what we observe in the biological world - including infanticide. It is so successful at this that it it responsible for originating or explaining - or both - all of our knowledge of biology. Every day, more scientific studies about evolution are conducted, and every day, all of them show that evolution is sound. Meanwhile, intelligent design creationism? It explains nothing. Even infanticide, which it explains, presumably, by hypothesizing a bloodthirsty infanticide-loving designer/creator, is better explained by evolutionary theory. But it goes beyond this. An intelligent design creationism that explains infanticide with a designer/creator that approves of violence against children cannot cope with the simultaneous presence of altruism in organisms - while evolutionary theory does.

Blue Collar Scientist » Blog Archive » Is Intelligent Design Creationism Pro-Infanticide?
This post was an extension of the article begun here by a behavioral ecologist that studies invertebrates.

[loser]

Quote: Quote by: loser Yes, adaptation and change is a fact of life. Indeed. But I suspect that you know so little that you are unaware that the word is commonly used with at least two different meanings. One has to do with temporary changes in an individual organism as a reaction to environmental conditions. A wolf gets a heavier coat of fur in the winter and sheds it in the summer. People get a tan from repeated exposure to sun. They lose the tan in the winter. The other use means adaption, a word used by biologists to indicate genetic changes in populations of organisms over generations by which they become adapted to changes in their environment.

I know that there are seasonal changes such as a winter coat and a summer tan and I know that there are more lasting changes such as the development of more skin pigmentation to protect against intense ultraviolet exposure or white fur to provide camouflage in arctic conditions. The meanings aren't really that different and both have genetic origins.

Quote: People develop freckles and butterflies develop spots. How do you envision that either of those are adaptations? What do freckles have to do with you misunderstanding of natural selection that you call "survival of the fittest"?

Freckles is skin pigmentation designed to protect against sun exposure and butterfly spots are survival markings to protect against predators and/or sexual enticements to promote reproduction. Both serve an intended purpose as needed. No misunderstanding on my part.

This is more blatant dishonesty on your part. The alternative would be mind-numbing stupidity, and I don't believe that you are stupid. Of course, since you claim to have educated yourself about evolution, that no one who knows even the most basic facts of evolutionary theory has ever claimed that butterflies become humans.

Nothing dishonest here. I don't know the supposed sequence of changes that are supposed to link modern humans to their common ancestral origins in the mythological procession called evolution. I just pulled butterflies out of a hat...it was an act of randomness. Are you saying that what I have been taught about evolution (the progression from aquatic animals to land animals, etc.) is false? If so, what evolved into the apes that evolved into humans. Take it backwards for me. I know there was lateral branching but what is the succession from the base of the tree to man...or were the apes created?

That's just not true. The first fossils of insects showing the characteristics of butterflies were found in Jurassic sediments about 190 million years old. As insects go, butterflies are actually pretty young, the oldest having lived about 400 million years ago, and beetles appeared about 250 million years ago.

Once again, you don't realize how stupid this sounds? You're calling butterflies young at 400 million years ago and talking about Jurassic sediments about 190 million years old. You believe that there is evidence to support this but there simply just isn't. The dating techniques used are completely arbitrary, designed to yield EXPECTED ranges not ACTUAL ranges.

I'm not saying that these dates are not possible. I'm saying that you are being dishonest when you spout these dates off as a God-given fact. You don't know because NO ONE knows...it's that simple.

What's a "diehard evolutionist"? Is it someone who would rather look at the evidence than buy into the mythology of bronze age, nomadic herdsmen as fact?

There you go again with your preconceived ideas that you are somehow more superior intellectually than goatherders of the past. It's simply not true. It's been proven time and time again that ancient people were more intelligent and more capable than modern man has ever thought of being. "Idiocracy" was a movie based on fact, not fiction. If evolution is working, it's working backwards. By the next millenium, we'll all be apes, puffing our chests out and grunting and scratching...wait, we're doing that already!

Uhmm...OK. I thought about it. It seems pretty good to me since we have seen examples. For example, although all humans are a single species, some humans that live in the north carry a mutation that allows them to manufacture more vitamin D when exposed to sunlight. Evidence indicates that that mutation arose as the last ice age was ending, the ice in Europe was retreating, and populations were moving northward. That appears to have been about 15,000 to 10,000 years ago. It is also the mutation that makes white people white as opposed to black.

And somehow you see this as proof that we evolved from apes, a totally different species (or whatever...the taxonomy classifications are vague and ill-defined)?

I saw a baseball coming down from the sky one time. This proves that baseballs came from outer space.

We have also observed domestic animals evolve in different directions because of selective breeding (artificial selection). Chihuahuas are not Great Danes, and in fact, can't even interbreed, and yet they both are descended from wolves

Yet, they are all canines, aren't they? But what were they before evolving into canines? Felines?

It's just that it doesn't agree with mythology claimed as truth.

That's the problem. It very much agrees with the mythology claimed as truth.

Quote: Quote by: loser There are no random mutations. ALL are cause and effect. Wow! I guess no one ever explained to you that random does not mean uncaused.

No, they never did. In all of the instances that I read about, randomness implied arbitrary.

I guess since chemistry is a bit like magic, only about 95% of chemists accept evolutionary theory, the others substituting magic

Boy, it's a LOT like magic. Cool, amazing stuff!

Point mutations, inversions, indels, transpositions all have causes or reasons that they happen, but they are all random.

I don't think that they are random at all, it's just your perception of things you don't undersatand.

Genetic change is reasonable...so much less pretentious than evolution. You know so little. Genetic change is evolution.

I know a lot. Evolution goes much farther (in it's implications) than genetic change. If you agree with me that genetic change is limited, then I can accept your statement. Otherwise, no, there's a macro difference!

Actually it can and does. Why else would all life use the same genetic code unless it is all descended from a common ancestor?

Who wrote the code?

Or that all live is descended from a common ancestor. But for you, magic is preferable.

Would a Creator be construed as a common ancestor? If so. we're in agreement. If not, take your magic elsewhere.

Quote: An example of cause and effect...purpose. Sorry, cause is not purpose.

Ahh, but the effect is.

[treme]

We have also observed domestic animals evolve in different directions because of selective breeding (artificial selection). Chihuahuas are not Great Danes, and in fact, can't even interbreed, and yet they both are descended from wolves Yet, they are all canines, aren't they? But what were they before evolving into canines? Felines?

Yes Chihuahuas and Great Danes are both canines. Man and chimps are both primates too.

Silly monkey :)

[treme]

Would a Creator be construed as a common ancestor? If so. we're in agreement. If not...

It's obvious that you have a different idea as to how we came to be. Instead of trying to force your idea into the imaginary holes you're poking in the ToE, how about a nice explanation of your idea.

Doubt I'll get it tho...

just sayin'

[Jack]

Christian creationists believe that god created man by breathing on some dirt, a concept obviously so much more acceptable than to believe that natural processes brought about humans.

As to how god created all the plant and animal life on the planet, the Bible is woefully vague about that. He just did it. "God did it" is the Christian creationist's universal answer for anything to complex to grasp or requiring too much study to understand.

[gallo]

Quote by: loser Cancers are examples, thalidomide is another. Radiation exposure is another cause of genetic mutation. The causes are endless.

While all mutations have a cause, they are still all random. I explained before but it seems that the simple idea is a bit beyond you. Random does not mean uncaused. Whatever the cause, specific mutations cannot be predicted - they are random. I even gave you examples of random mutations for which we know the cause. For example, chromosomal transpositions are caused by crossover during mitosis and meiosis. But it is impossible to predict when such events will occur or what the effects will be. Such events, though having a cause, are purely stochastic.

If you come home to find the fender of your car smashed in, I hope that you don't buy your teenage son's explanation that it was just a random event with no explainable cause.

While the smashed fender has a cause, without a doubt, it still may be random. Perhaps the old oak tree fell on it for no apparent reason. The car just happened to be parked there when the oak tree fell over. We could investigate and find causes for every event in the series, but that does not mean that it was not random.

Like everything in life, there is a cause for every effect. This is one of the basic tenets of physics, though it is more often relegated to the realm of philosophy (which indeed includes physics).

Don't know much about physics, do you. There are events in physics that are not only random, but apparently uncaused. Once again I feel I should explain that random does not mean uncaused and uncaused does not mean random.

The point being made is that absolutely nothing that happens is ever just a random event. We live in a world of causality; it's what defines life.

Again, random does not mean uncaused.

Given the aquatic nature of our planet, this isn't really surprising.

The aquatic nature of the planet has little to do with it. It has more to do with the burial of the remains before they can be scavenged. Another method is if the organism falls into anoxic water, then only anaerobic bacteria can work on it while it is covered with silt.

Also, the age of the planet might have something to do with the scarcity of fossils.

Yes, that is true. The longer a fossil is in the ground, the less chance that it will survive. The surface of the earth changes and as it does it destroys previous traces of life. For example, several T. rex fossils have been found in the hillsides of the Hell Creek formation in eastern Montana.

There's nothing bold in that remark.

You are correct. A claim that evolution is without support is ignorant, not bold.

Even well-known evolutionists have said as much.

Then they were wrong.

You've heard it all before, surely. Lamarck actually had it right, even though he has been mostly dismissed since the false assumptions of Darwin have been promoted.

Again, a statement without support. Please state the false assumptions.

The environment does indeed effect genetic change and the new research field of epigenetics investigates this.

You don't know what epigenetics is, do you?

Also, the adaptation of finches' beaks due to weather changes in the Galapagos brought on by the La Nina currents observed in the span of a season (in just several months) verified the truth of epigenetics. Once again, simply cause and effect.

The changes were not caused by the weather. Did you read the book?

It really isn't enough to latch on to new words that you don't understand and then claim that they mean what they do not. Epigenetics is Lamarckism only to the ignorant. Neither is it evolution.