An evolutionary question

[Kamehameha34]

The Evolution Evidence Page

There's a whole domain of evidence for evolution. There's no excuse for you to say that none has been provided.

Now let's see your evidence, loser.

[loser]

Does intelligent design creationism predict and explain infanticide?

Absolutely!

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.

It seems that you overlooked the obvious. Since the majority (at least in America) of people who believe in ID are Christians who believe that God is the intelligent being that created everything, you should turn to the pages of the Bible to see what it says about infanticide. WARNING! It's not a pretty subject and is very offensive to most but, then, infanticide is a horrible fact of human and animal nature. Of course, from the perspective of God, it's really not a big deal.

What characteristics of the unknown designer might we infer from infanticide?

He's only unknown to those who reject God (and, therefore, ID).

That’s a real problem, because intelligent design creationists frequently refuse to say who or what the creator/designer is.

Talk about intellectual dishonesty!!

But we can obviously go the other direction here.

It's clear the direction the author has gone already!

Infanticide is widespread, not only among people, but also in nature.

Widespread, maybe. Common, not really.

Given this, what does it say about the designer/creator?

Very little. Do house fires say a lot about house builders?

What it necessarily must say is that the designer/creator found nothing wrong with killing children and helpless young animals.

And why should He? Do you find anything wrong with plucking an apple off a tree? Of killing a baby roach (your very close kin)?

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.

But why stop there? Why not just create robots (machines) with no mind, thought, will, desire, or choice. In other words, why not create non-life that couldn't ever question Him or His creation? No sex, no work, no play...no sorrow but no joy, no tears but no laughter, no hate but no love...just a life with NOTHING. No, non-life.

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 wit

What a sad and pathetic life the author must live. Does he live in Darfur? Beirut? Baghdad? In the jungles of Borneo? You know, I don't watch a lot of television and I don't visit zoos that often but I never get to see infanticide. I do, however, see mothers tenderly loving their infants (even in the animal world) and fiercly protecting them.

I know how evil the author must be. He puts out contracts on his enemies all the time and practices genocide (he calls Orkin). He shows no mercy on the children, killing them all indiscriminately (mosquitoes). He poisons man, woman, and child, taking no prisoners (roach bait).

Who would hang out with such a creep as that? How dare such an evil murderer as that accuse someone else of crimes which he has never witnessed? How stupid and evil could one person be?

Evolutionary theory makes several predictions and provides powerful explanations for what we observe in the biological world - including infanticide.

So this false god can commit infanticide but you are alright with it...you'll still worship him?

What a stupid post by an ignorant person. Are there some out there who actually believe that this moron presented a good case for evolution vs ID? Well, if you did, I'm not surprised. After all, you DO believe in evolution.

[loser]

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.

Isherwood, that's not a fair representation, at all. You're not trying to see it in a realistic light. You're pretending that Christians believe in magic and hocus pocus and not in science. You couldn't be further from the truth! In fact, it is YOU who believe in magic! You believe all life came about through random chance. There's your hocus pocus!

If you can believe that life exists, then you can believe that God exists. If you believe that life came about in whatever fashion, then you can believe that God brought it about in whatever fashion. God as creator is no more far-fetched than evolution as creator.

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.

When you bought your last car, did the car salesman sit you down and explain to you every step in that car's production. Did he begin with the ore taken from the mountain and explain how it was crushed and then smelted into iron and mixed with other metals to make steel and then take you through the process of your car coming together at the assembly line? Why not?

I bet that none of that is in your car owner's manual. I bet that it doesn't even teach you how to drive!

Why do you think God gave you a brain? Think about it.

You know what it does show, however? In the story of creation, the various creatures were created in the exact same order as scientists say they evolved! Doesn't that amaze you? How could they have known (if it wasn't really God who told them or if they were less knowledgeable than we are today)?

He tells just enough so that a dilligently thinking person can see the validity of His word.

gallo wrote:

But it is impossible to predict when such events will occur or what the effects will be.

Just because something is unknown and currently unpredictable does not make it impossible to know or fortell. More knowledge and understanding is the key.

The aquatic nature of the planet has little to do with it

Actually, it has everything to do with it. The land beneath the oceans, for all intents and purposes, is inaccessible. Therefore, the fossils remain hidden.

Let me get this straight. You admit that you know next to nothing about evolutionary biology, you admit that you actually don't have anything more than a freshman knowledge of chemistry, and yet my post, based on knowledge of my subject is pathetic

I admitted nothing of the sort, you are reading what you WANT to read into my comments. The reason I called the post pathetic was because of the constant and very long line of ad hominem attacks. Go back and re-read your post. Look at the dearth of knowledge that you presented. Get a cup of coffeee. Wake up and smell it.

Except that we very obviously have shared a common ancestor with chimpanzees. In fact, by any definition, we are apes.

Obvious to who? The chimps? Not by my definition!

How is my statement that I wasn't even aware that "creative license" and exaggeration were legitimate tools in chemistry an ad hominem attack?

Good grief, almighty...I feel I'm dealing with children that have absolutely NO understanding whatsoever. Everything has to be spelled out to the T. No one can read between the lines or make simple observations. Deep breath.

Your statement about "creative license" WAS NOT an ad hominem attack! I listed line after line of your ad hominem attacks. Did you see that statement listed among the ad hominem attacks? NO! I merely used that statement as a transitional statement to my statement.

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

So I said: "Are you aware that ad hominem attacks are not legitimate tools in debate?"

Get it?

Then you can't defend your statement that falling into freezing water is somehow relevant to evolutionary theory?

Sigh, I don't have the energy. Go back and read my statement in context. I'm sure that what I said made perfect sense. I'm not sure but I see no reason to believe that that particular statement had anything to do with evolutionary theory. Instead of constant bickering and nit-picking, couldn't we focus on creative/evolvive questions?

Have you actually read your Bible?

Huh?

[rez]

Quote by: loser Thank you for that serious and fair question (and easy...). Change is the modus operandi of life. Without change, life COULDN'T exist! It is the DYNAMICS of life. Time only exists through change. Even space is dependent on change...no change, no big bang. No solar system, no sun, no planets, no energy, no matter. It is flux that defines the universe. Life MUST change in order to exist. Therefore, the unanswerable question is how could life NOT change?

I asked for you to provide an explanation for how life changes over time. Currently the preferable explanation is the Theory of Evolution. The Theory of Evolution states that life changes due to the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next.

I will state some basic facts. You need to provide alternative facts that do a better job at explaining how life changes.

1.) Cells exist.

2.) Cells have organilles.

3.) Eukaryotic organisms contain a nucleus

4.) The cell's nucleus contains DNA.

5.) DNA gives specific instructions to the cell.

6.) Within cells, DNA is organized into structures called chromosomes.

7.) Chromosomes contain a single continuous piece of DNA, which contains many genes, regulatory elements and other nucleotide sequences.

8.) Chromosomes contain genes.

9.) Genes contain the blueprints for the phenotype of each organism.

10.) The way genes are shared is through sexual reproduction.

11.) Sex cells contain 23 chromosomes.

12.) Mother sex cells combine with father sex cells to form 46 chromosomes.

13.) The combined version of these chromosomes contain DNA.

14) Repeat step 8. Chromosomes contain genes.

15.) Repeat step 9. Genes contain the blueprints for the phenotype of each organism.

16.) Each cells nucleus has these specific instructions and sends out information for duplicating.

17.) After 8 months, the phenotype is complete and the baby is born.


Here is what you should critically think about.

Since the mother and father combine their phenotype instructions together, they formulate a whole bunch of different possibilities of what the characteristics of their offspring will look like.

They can have children with long necks, are short in height, have big ears, big eyes, small noses. etc...There are many different combinations.

Now the offspring of the mother and father reproduces and shares their genes with a different family producing many new characteristic's that may never had existed in the family tree.


So since all of this is complete mythology....now please provide a more preferable way for the way in which life changes. Since you disagree with every piece of information here please provide an alternative fact....

[loser]

Science doesn't make absolute predictions about the future.

I don't either though it make look so. Just chalk it up to dramatic license, to go along with my creative license and my extreme exaggeration and my disingenuousness.

No one asked for proof. We've asked for supporting evidence. Those opposing your opinions in this thread have cited publications that support their points. You have offered none. The only book I can think of that even generally might support some of your opinions is the Bible, and that's hardly authoritative or scientifically sound. You are certainly encouraged to cite references that support your contentions. Again, I understand why you haven't done so

I have but my references are summarily dismissed as being subjective and/or biased. If I say "Michael Behe", what is your reply? Lee Strobel? Dr. Stephen Meyer?

Thinking people don't find personal opinions unsupported by evidence a barrier, just a challenge to be overcome. They would also use a spell-checker to avoid typing words like "unshakeable" (unshakable) and "inpenetrable" (impenetrable).

I agree, I hate to make typos or misspellings but sometimes it just happens. I don't judge the author for his typos, it's the content that matters most.

Did I say unshakeable?

[Jack]

I have but my references are summarily dismissed as being subjective and/or biased. If I say "Michael Behe", what is your reply? Lee Strobel? Dr. Stephen Meyer?

When they discuss science, their understanding of it and correct relating of it are of essence. If they misrepresent scientific theory or base their findings on bad science, of course we'll point that out. I've read what Behe has to say about ID. None of his work has been peer reviewed nor can it replicated by others since it depends on the supernatural. That's not science, that's religion. So no one in mainstream (non-religious) science has ever published anything that supports your opinions?

[loser]

.) Cells have organilles.

You meant organelles.

So since all of this is complete mythology....now please provide a more preferable way for the way in which life changes. Since you disagree with every piece of information here please provide an alternative fact....

Why do you think it's mythology and if you do why do you post it as fact? Your facts weren't perfect but, for the most part, I agree with your post. I find it amusing that you presuppose what I believe...it's hard to take you serious.

In your little synopsis, I see human beings giving birth to human beings with human characteristics. I don't see human beings giving birth to chimpanzees or to human beings with opposable toes.

I've made it clear that I don't have a problem with REAL science. Talk about variations in each kind of animal and I'll help you teach it. But if you're going to create made-up creatures that never existed and attempt to make connections that don't belong, then count me out.

[rez]

Quote by: loser Why do you think it's mythology and if you do why do you post it as fact?

Sorry loser, I must of lost you. Let's catch up on what has been going on in this thread.

You said

Quote by: loser There is absolutely no evidence to support evolution and there never will be.

So I gave you a list of facts that support the Theory of Evolution.

Quote by: loser Your facts weren't perfect but, for the most part, I agree with your post.

Odd.

Quote by: loser There is absolutely no evidence to support evolution and there never will be.

Quote by: loser I find it amusing that you presuppose what I believe...it's hard to take you serious.

You must be schizophrenic then.

Quote by: loser There is absolutely no evidence to support evolution and there never will be.

Quote by: loser In your little synopsis, I see human beings giving birth to human beings with human characteristics.

Not just human beings, but all living organisms.

Quote by: loser I don't see human beings giving birth to chimpanzees or to human beings with opposable toes.

I don't either. That is not what the Theory of Evolution predicts. I thought you knew that? Do you know that? If you don't know that, then perhaps you should go read a book.

Quote by: loser I've made it clear that I don't have a problem with REAL science.

It is only real science because it does not conflict with your personal superstitions. But in reality it does. And if you were educated, you would know that. Instead you look like a fool.

The facts that I listed are apart of the Theory of Evolution. I only mentioned one generation of sharing and mixing their genes together. That is what we call "micro-evolution". Micro-evolution deals with small changes. Now if you mix genes together for a longer period of time we can call that Macro-evolution. Macro evolution deals with large changes within a population.

You see, eventually the small changes lead to large changes. Just like if you take many small steps you reach a different destination point.

If you agree with the above facts, then you agree with the Theory of Evolution. Now please get your ducks in a row and start providing alternative explanations that do a better job at explaining how life changes.

Talk about variations in each kind of animal and I'll help you teach it. But if you're going to create made-up creatures that never existed and attempt to make connections that don't belong, then count me out.

The Theory of Evolution posits a natural explanation that explains the fossil record, the fact that all the cells are made out of the same stuff. That different species are built on top of previous species. That genetic information can grow and shrink. That life will be found at the boundaries with an energy flux. That systems far from equilibrium can be self organizing.

You seem to have a problem with all of these facts because they conflict with your superstitions. If you were intelligent you would supply alternative explanations that do a better job at prediction how life changes. I supplied Cell Reproduction theory as well as Gene Theory to support why I agree with the Theory of Evolution.

[loser]

The Evolution Evidence Page There's a whole domain of evidence for evolution. There's no excuse for you to say that none has been provided. Now let's see your evidence, loser.

Okay, I believe in evolution (change). I believe everything has been changing (evolving) ever since God created the heavens and the earth and the universe. So, is there a category for a creationist/evolutionist...or am I in a class all by myself?

You see, when you define evolution as "any change in a population's allele frequencies over time", you've got me on board. This is how life works, exactly the way God made it. Life IS change. Without change, life doesn't exist!

I've been arguing all this time because, stupid me, I thought evolutionists believed we had somehow evolved from apes. I should have known they weren't that ignorant.

So, we start off good, don't we? But, then, as I begin to read your link which purports to have evidence to support evolution, I begin to observe what I call 'drunken logic'. For example:

"Here are a list of the conditions Darwin thought were required for evolution by natural selection:

1. All organisms produce far more offspring than can survive to adulthood and reproduce. This means that many of those offspring will die without reproduction.
2. Organisms vary in many ways, and much of that variation is heritable - that is, variations that exist in the parents are passed on to the offspring.
3. Some of those heritable, variable traits affect an organism's fitness - its ability to survive to reproductive maturity.
4.(This is the kicker.) Those traits that increase an organism's fitness will tend to be passed on to the organism's offspring and to subsequent generations.

What Darwin realized was that this tendency of organisms to increase in fitness by the increase of certain traits would lead to divergences in the characteristics of the offspring. Eventually, as some groups of offspring adapted to slightly different environments (than other groups), speciation would occur.

In point 1, the word "can" should probably be "do". Other than that, the first two premises are fairly sound. Point three is akin to smoking a bowl of weed. It's illogical and unfounded. There is very little relational causality between survival and these inheritable traits.

Point 4 doesn't exist because point 3 was false. Darwin got off track before he even got started.

What would have proved Darwin's assumptions? If no species of animal had ever gone extinct. Extinction of species proves that Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection was wrong.

Next, I read "Examples of Beneficial Mutations and Natural Selection". A lot of stuff, to be sure, but no proof of anything extraordinary. IOW, it's just what we expect to find in creation (life).

Finally, from here:

"The literature on observed speciations events is not well organized. I found only a few papers that had an observation of a speciation event as the author's main point (e.g. Weinberg, et al. 1992). In addition, I found only one review that was specifically on this topic (Callaghan 1987). This review cited only four examples of speciation events. Why is there such a seeming lack of interest in reporting observations of speciation events?

In my humble opinion, four things account for this lack of interest. First, it appears that the biological community considers this a settled question. Many researchers feel that there are already ample reports in the literature. Few of these folks have actually looked closely. To test this idea, I asked about two dozen graduate students and faculty members in the department where I'm a student whether there were examples where speciation had been observed in the literature. Everyone said that they were sure that there were. Next I asked them for citings or descriptions. Only eight of the people I talked to could give an example, only three could give more than one. But everyone was sure that there were papers in the literature.

Second, most biologists accept the idea that speciation takes a long time (relative to human life spans). Because of this we would not expect to see many speciation events actually occur. The literature has many more examples where a speciation event has been inferred from evidence than it has examples where the event is seen. This is what we would expect if speciation takes a long time.

Third, the literature contains many instances where a speciation event has been inferred. The number and quality of these cases may be evidence enough to convince most workers that speciation does occur.

Finally, most of the current interest in speciation concerns theoretical issues. Most biologists are convinced that speciation occurs. What they want to know is how it occurs. One recent book on speciation (Otte and Endler 1989) has few example of observed speciation, but a lot of discussion of theory and mechanisms."

All of the above can be shortened to two words: Blind acceptance.

This is what is driving the young scientific community: assumption and lack of investigation.

Evolution can account for skin pigment and eye color but probably not for penis size. It definitely won't ever evolve a bullet-proof body for mankind no matter how beneficial to survival. And it definitely hasn't been the cause of all the diversity of life on this planet. Sure, shar-peis may have evolved from another, more ancient breed of dog. But as far as you can take the dog family back, they have always been canines.

Why try to make evolution into more than it is? Is there some underlying need to believe in a cosmic soup? What could that need be?

[loser]

None of his work has been peer reviewed nor can it replicated by others since it depends on the supernatural. That's not science, that's religion.

Yet, it's the same exact thing offered by evolutionists. They can't replicate their assertions because their assertions take billions and billions of years and, of course, the human species will be extinct or living on another planet by then. There's no reason to believe that the earth will even last must longer. What are the odds of being struck by a huge asteroid or comet, slamming the earth into the inky void of space, turning it eventually into a huge iceball? There's a much better chance of that happening than for mankind to evolve into a new species of animal. The truth is, neither side has an iota of evidence, regardless of how much evolutionists pretend to have.

You would think that if God didn't exist, science would have already been able to prove it. Instead, He continues to trouble the non-believers and comfort the believers...He just want go away.

[loser]

So I gave you a list of facts that support the Theory of Evolution.

Your list supports the basic facts of life and have absolutely nothing to do with apes becoming chimpanzees over billions of years (and doing so in thousands of years).

Flour gets wet and then bakes in the hot sun. It turns into bread.

Did I just prove evolution or did i just prove creation?

I don't either. That is not what the Theory of Evolution predicts. I thought you knew that? Do you know that? If you don't know that, then perhaps you should go read a book.

Okay. Does evolution teach that chimpanzees and humans BOTH evolved, in tangential fashion, from a common ape ancestor?

If it does, it's bullshit and you have absolutely no proof or evidence to back such a stupid idea up. In fact, only stupid people would believe such stupid shit.

If I'm wrong, then call me stupid.

Instead you look like a fool.

So, if fools think you a fool, how does that make you feel?

I only mentioned one generation of sharing and mixing their genes together. That is what we call "micro-evolution". Micro-evolution deals with small changes.

Nice going, sherlock.

Now if you mix genes together for a longer period of time we can call that Macro-evolution. Macro evolution deals with large changes within a population.

Oh, you mean like Planet of the Apes? Star Wars? Chewbacca (species Wookiee)? 2001: A Space Odyssey? Some other fairy tale that I've missed?

Gosh, I hate to tell you but evolution doesn't do macro.

You see, eventually the small changes lead to large changes. Just like if you take many small steps you reach a different destination point.

Yeah, well, not really. You find that you walk a very long way (all around the world) in a very long time (your whole life) and you find that you are right back where you started (older and tired, but still a wookiee).

If you agree with the above facts, then you agree with the Theory of Evolution. Now please get your ducks in a row and start providing alternative explanations that do a better job at explaining how life changes.

Okay, here's an example. Take some water and cool it to 32 degrees. Guess what, it's evolved (changed) to ice! Cool it to 20 degrees. Guess what? Still ice! Take it down to 0 degrees. What is now? Ice! Okay, 40 below zero! Gawww, it's still ice...whine... No matter how cold I get it and for ever how long it doesn't evolve (change) anymore. Hmmm.

Let's call it limited change. Some things can change so far and they won't change any farther. That's the way life changes. It's a good guess that mankind will never grow as tall as a giraffe or as big as a blue whale or as ugly as a warthog...evolution has its limits (thank God!).

The Theory of Evolution posits a natural explanation that explains the fossil record, the fact that all the cells are made out of the same stuff. That different species are built on top of previous species. That genetic information can grow and shrink. That life will be found at the boundaries with an energy flux. That systems far from equilibrium can be self organizing.

A bunch of mumbo-jumbo there and no facts. The fossil record is self-explanatory, no explanations are needed. Same stuff cells...duh-uh. Species built on top of species, yeah, right. Don't forget...tides ebb and flow and moon cheese makes good sandwiches.

I supplied Cell Reproduction theory as well as Gene Theory to support why I agree with the Theory of Evolution.

You're not from Missouri, are you?

They've got a word for your kind of logic: tautology.

Hey, if you're happy with your 'evidence', go ahead on. I'm not so easily convinced...you'd think I was from Missouri.

[rez]

Quote by: loser Your list supports the basic facts of life and have absolutely nothing to do with apes becoming chimpanzees over billions of years (and doing so in thousands of years).

First off. Why don't you actually start talking about the relevant information here. Stop using words that have nothing to do with the theory being discussed. At least act like you know what you are talking about.

The basic facts that I did list have absolutely everything to do with the Theory of Evolution.

Genes that you consider to be real have been identified as having genetic code that is universal to all living things.

Flour gets wet and then bakes in the hot sun. It turns into bread. Did I just prove evolution or did i just prove creation?

No, you wasted your time typing that out. Flour and baking has nothing to do with genes or chromosomes pairing with each other. I thought you could tell the difference...

If it does, it's bullshit and you have absolutely no proof or evidence to back such a stupid idea up. In fact, only stupid people would believe such stupid shit.

Analyzing genetic code, looking at the fossil record, and seeing evolution occur with our own eyes is not proof?

Oh, you mean like Planet of the Apes? Star Wars? Chewbacca (species Wookiee)? 2001: A Space Odyssey? Some other fairy tale that I've missed?

Nope not at all. You are trying to use movies to back up your claims. Don't you find that rather pathetic? Is that how you critically think about all things in your life? Just compare one thing to a movie you saw and then conclude if it is false or true? It seems that how your brain does work...

Gosh, I hate to tell you but evolution doesn't do macro.

Yeah? You really must hate to tell me considering you havent provided any reasoning for this conclusion?

Here I will use your line of reasoning. Evolution doesn't do macro because Jesus says so.

Yeah, well, not really. You find that you walk a very long way (all around the world) in a very long time (your whole life) and you find that you are right back where you started (older and tired, but still a wookiee).

Good job loser, you found a hole in my analogy but lack any ability to find a hole in evolution.

Considering that we do know microevolution is true we conclude that macroevolution is true due to the fossil record that exists. Whales are a perfect example of this. You can find that certain organs on the whale are currently useless and do not even need to be there. We have transitional fossils of the whale slowly moving in to fresh water and then salt water.

All these facts and the facts I listed above are all reasons why Creationism was dropped from science hundreds of years ago. People started seeing the evidence and got a clue loser. Why don't you go and get a clue or perhaps a Biology book to read.

Okay, here's an example. Take some water and cool it to 32 degrees. Guess what, it's evolved (changed) to ice! Cool it to 20 degrees. Guess what? Still ice! Take it down to 0 degrees. What is now? Ice! Okay, 40 below zero! Gawww, it's still ice...whine... No matter how cold I get it and for ever how long it doesn't evolve (change) anymore. Hmmm.

You creationists love using retarded analogies to prove your points dont you?

Water is nothing like life at all. Water does not have genes. Water does not have cells that reproduce. Water does not reproduce.

How can you do such a thing and think you are being smart? You are failing very basic common sense here. I think you need to read more then just a Biology book dude...

Let's call it limited change. Some things can change so far and they won't change any farther. That's the way life changes. It's a good guess that mankind will never grow as tall as a giraffe or as big as a blue whale or as ugly as a warthog...evolution has its limits (thank God!).

Good guess? Based on what? You haven't supported one damn thing in your post and you expect people to actually understand and agree with you?

A bunch of mumbo-jumbo there and no facts. The fossil record is self-explanatory, no explanations are needed. Same stuff cells...duh-uh. Species built on top of species, yeah, right. Don't forget...tides ebb and flow and moon cheese makes good sandwiches.

Is that what this is? Your brain can't comprehend simply biology so you compare all this stuff to fairy tales?

You actually think none of these facts exist and that all these scientists are spending their times studying absolutely nothing?

Hey, if you're happy with your 'evidence', go ahead on. I'm not so easily convinced...you'd think I was from Missouri.

You are not so easily convinced because you already made up your mind at such a young age when your parents failed to home school you. You are from Missouri, thats why you don't understand anything that conflicts with your superstitions. You think ghosts, goblins, demons, spirits, and genies are more real then genes, atoms, black holes, molecules, and fossils. You are a supernatural thinker and don't even stick to your own religious convictions. How about you stop using all scientific inventions all together and I will stop laughing at your face when you try to make analogies.

Quote by: loser Why couldn't we just evolve body fur with zippers for easy removal?

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: loser Okay, I believe in evolution (change). I believe everything has been changing (evolving) ever since God created the heavens and the earth and the universe. So, is there a category for a creationist/evolutionist...or am I in a class all by myself?

Of course there's no category, just as there's no category for square circles.

You see, when you define evolution as "any change in a population's allele frequencies over time", you've got me on board. This is how life works, exactly the way God made it. Life IS change. Without change, life doesn't exist!

I really don't care if you are ever "on board", as it's not science's goal to please as many people as possible by contorting the evidence.

The evidence suggests that your god is unnecessary, and that evolution as described by high school biology texts has occured and is occuring.

I've been arguing all this time because, stupid me, I thought evolutionists believed we had somehow evolved from apes. I should have known they weren't that ignorant.

You think you're being sarcastic, don't you?

If you knew anything about the theory of evolution, you'd know that not only does it not suggest we "evolved from apes" - but that we share a common ancestor with them. And "evolutionists" (a silly term, any responsible scientist would come to the same conclusions) don't 'believe', they know that evolution has occured based on evidence.

Point three is akin to smoking a bowl of weed. It's illogical and unfounded. There is very little relational causality between survival and these inheritable traits.

The PHENOTYPES resulting from GENOTYPES that are altered via mutation could offer an advantage. That advantage could aid in survival, and therefore eventual reproduction.

For example, imagine a monkey born with an eye born on the back of his head because of some bizarre frameshift mutation. Is this likely to result in an advantage? Could it result in an unsuccessful predator? Could it give the monkey an increased probability of making it to adulthood?

If this monkey reproduces, there is a 1/2 chance that he will pass on this chromosome to each of his offspring.

A mutation that grants an advantage means that the animal is more likely to make it to adulthood which results in an increased possibility of offspring and therefore passing on the trait.

Common sense.

What would have proved Darwin's assumptions? If no species of animal had ever gone extinct. Extinction of species proves that Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection was wrong.

What are you smoking?

Animals have gone extinct because they were hunted to death, the sudden onset of severe environmental factors, or a number of other reasons. Evolution isn't some living entity in the core of the Earth monitoring the world's animal populations, giving them claws and brains when their numbers are low.

Next, I read "Examples of Beneficial Mutations and Natural Selection". A lot of stuff, to be sure, but no proof of anything extraordinary. IOW, it's just what we expect to find in creation (life).

No. I'd explain more but I'm noticing a pattern of me offering up counterevidence to claims you've never even substantiated yourself.

Finally, from here:

We link our sources in adult-land. I'm ignoring the rest until you've done so.

Evolution can account for skin pigment and eye color but probably not for penis size.

It actually can, in a way. Women tend to be more attracted to males with larger penises, and this is in part because of the evolutionary advantage a large penis has in delivering sperm to an egg.

It definitely won't ever evolve a bullet-proof body for mankind no matter how beneficial to survival.

You're just parading your ignorance.

In order for natural selection to occur, a MUTATION has to FIRST occur. A mutation allowing for bullet-proof skin, whilst allowing most vital body functions is probably most unlikely.

And it definitely hasn't been the cause of all the diversity of life on this planet. Sure, shar-peis may have evolved from another, more ancient breed of dog. But as far as you can take the dog family back, they have always been canines.

Incorrect. Via the expansive fossil record, there are many animals that can be traced back much farther than that. You know the fossil record, the thing you deliberately ignore so you don't feel foolish believing in your fairy tails?

Why try to make evolution into more than it is? Is there some underlying need to believe in a cosmic soup? What could that need be?

Evolution has nothing to do with "cosmic soup."

This sincerely scares me - you seem to have a middle-school level knowledge of the workings of evolution.

Understand that you aren't making arguments, you're just damaging your own understanding. You're misconstruing evidence that we've already figured out and accounted for, and you're only hurting yourself in furthering this foolish escapade.

What's your motivation for doing this? I really am interested. Why do you argue against something so obviously evidenced beyond a reasonable doubt? Is it a puzzle for you?

Upon reading through the thread, I noticed that not one person made an argument against yours. They EXPLAINED THE BASICS of the theory you're trying so hard to debunk, always in response to your expected bastardized representation of reality.

[Technosoul]

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.

It is an advantage because we save more money at the barber shop and our survival is based on money in our human environment. Just kidding.

Acturally many animals are born without much hair and then it grows out as they quickly mature. Now some have speculated that for some reason humans never fully mature in that respect, why that is so would demand speculation.

We did not evolve lots of things that might be useful, such as wings, the ability to see both at night and during the day like cats, or radar like ears or keen smelling noses. Just to name a few.

And the fact that we have large head sizes compared to apes and other animals, and that this can cause birthing problems for both the infant and the mother, was not a wise "evolution" to develope, as it hampers our reproductive advantages for survival of the spieces. Nor would it say much for the workings of a designer god to make such a design.

Relative to other animals our intelligence is supernatural. How did that happen in the normal course of nature?

But if evolution and creationism does not make sense then we must come up with an alternative explaination. A hairless alien with a large head mixed it's DNA with a primate here on earth and created the human beings, perhaps as an intelligent work force.

Needless to say both science and religion has rejected the alien "experiment" idea. And needless to say no proof can confirm such a thing took place.

Now as we observe nature the ideas of evolution seem apparent and logical, but when we get to us humans things get problematic, because we are such odd balls. Although it is clear that we are mostly animals of earth's orgins. Other aspects of the human being are rather "paranormal" if you do not mind me using that word here.

But mentioning aliens is taboo, as they will only ask you what you have been smoking, and so no one wants to give it real thought or respect.

On the other hand our dna is close to that of an earthworm, and they do not have lots of hair. So perhaps we are evolved earthworms who ended up above ground and then evolved monkey like ape shapes. Or perhaps we were earthworms and evolved into intelligent hairless beings and then some mutated into the apes and the monkeys, and grew more hair. The dumming down of the population in some locations might have resulted in apes who then branched out into different types.

But that is pretty wild speculation. The alien introvention is the most logical one but things do not have to be logical, lots of strange things happen in nature all the time. And the theory of evolution does not command that everything will evolve into something better or die off. A tree does not just grow up towards the sky, it grows in all dirctions - outwardly and down into the earth as well. Evoultion can move in many direcitons as well, not just up, up, and away.

(PS - I am responding to the OP only)

and also, shedding our fur would be indecent according to the