im perhaps not understanding the whole 'micro' 'macro' evolution thing. it sounds to me like so much noise

ev·o·lu·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (v-lshn, v-)
n.
A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.

1) The process of developing.
2) Gradual development.

Biology.

A) Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.

C) A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.

D) Mathematics. The extraction of a root of a quantity.


now as i understand it , that micro evolution is what you call the changes in DNA structures the 'Variation' if you will in offspring from their parents, no matter what the changes are?

and macro evolution is the whole man from slime debate?

if i have those ideas right (and im by no means sure i do) than 'microevolution' is relivent how? i mean whats it matter if DNA combines with random changes? thats not evolution its ........, well, random. i dont see that that proves that things are evolving. evolving by its very definition means "A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form" but your argument that evolution is proven is based on random DNA changes that dont in most cases actualy do anything. they are flukes that are corrected in future offspring. they dont change or improve anything. you have yet to list for me an example of something evolving from one species to another. show me that cat that had puppys. or the frog that was born with feathers

pointing out that single lines of DNA code change at random out of literaly hundereds, thousands, millions (the more complex the higher) of lines of DNA code is your proof that evolution, natures master plan and the God slayer that its touted as being is based on? evoultion is THEE argument as to why God isnt needed. it is THEE answer to how 'nature' could have created life as we know it over billions of years no God involved. and i quite simply dont see it. no sir ive never seen a tree grow a brain, or a flower develope legs

i think this is just the darwins crouds version of 'creation theory' that the religious right is trying to fobb off as 'science' here in the States. just another specious argument disguised in half backed assumptions and debates over common terms for things that are used to so cloud an issue that the average person just shakes their head and walks away with no clue to whats actualy useful information and whats just noise disguised as such

the heart of the evoultion debate is that things that help life survive are kept and things that dont are tossed aside. that argument looses all basis when you ask yourself, why isnt everything in creation atleast as intelligent as humans are? or why did only one 'branch' of monkeys decide to drop out of trees and start making spears and building huts?

or why would two species such as Dogs and people 'evolve' side by side for millions of years under the same envoiromental conditions and not share the same level of eye sight or hearing or intelligence? the theory of evoultion is based on the core ASSUMPTION that changes in species are driven based on their enviroments. then it stands to reason that all species in the same enviroment would evolve along the same lines. so why dont whales have gills? or fish have lungs?

if the changes in DNA arent truly totaly random and thus mean nothing and prove nothing. then the changes in DNA have to be caused by something. that being either God or the enviroment. than if its God his master plan would be guiding them. dogs 'evolved' as a companion to humans because God willed it (either through speaking the word or causing specific changes in DNA) or it is caused by the enviroment, in that case since the dog and the human share the same enviroment they would evolve the same way.

Evolution mixes two things together, one real, one an assumption. Variation is the real part . The types of bird beaks, the colors of a moths wings, the styles of horse hooves and their sizes etc are variation. Each type of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool for finches. Creatonists have always agreed that there is variation within species. But what darwintes leave out is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed. They want you to think that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the assumption part of the theory of evolition comes in. It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs out of fish, reptiles out of frogs, and mammals out of reptiles, to name a few.

Do these changes really happen? darwinits tell us we cant see evolution taking place because it happens too slowly. A human generation takes about 20 years or so from birth to parenthood. however a new generation of bacteria grows in a matter of hours. There are more bactria in the world than there are grains of sand on all of the beaches of the world . They exist in just about any environment: hot, cold, dry, wet, high pressure, low pressure, small groups, large groups, isolated, alot of food, very little food alot of oxygen, no oxygen, in toxic chemicals, etc. There is much variation in bacteria. There are many mutations (in fact, darwinites say that smaller organisms have a faster mutation rate than larger ones)............. But they never turn into anything else............... They always remain bacteria. In the lab, bacteria are studied under every conceivable condition. There is alot of variation in bactreria. There are many mutations. But they never turn into anything else.............. They always remain bacteria. Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria all over the world shows that evolution is not happening today.



in any event untill i see that cat have puppys, or that frog start to fly. evoultion is as much fantacy to me as creation would be to a darwinite. i know that im not likley to change your mind if your a darwinite. but i will say that my mind CAN be changed if you can show me an example of any species turning into something else. and i dont mean a red rose turning into a yellow rose but i mean a rose turning into a pine tree. untill you can, you can talk untill your blue in the face and toss all the ransom noise you want out about micro vrs macro and this and that but the proofs in the pudding. if evoultion is real and not just an assumption than examples of it in action should be abundant.

bring on those flying frogs baby WOOP

What have I done? What have I unleashed?

Let's not debate evolution and creationism here. There are plenty of other nice forums where we can debate this (I've even seen a few where they keep death threats out of their insults!).

The Ten Commandments controversy boiled down to this, really: it wasn't about suppressing religion. It was because the object in question was a ten foot high, solid granite statue payed for with government (taxpayer) dollars. Painting a wall, perhaps, or even ordering one of those thin, printed metal sheet signs, would have been acceptable, but this was a bit overmuch (it is still up, though, at least from when I last checked). I think all involved can agree that indirectly charging taxpayers for a religious monument, or at least one as extravagant as that, is too much.

(I apologize for the faulty statistics )

Please, stop the discussion about real-world religion here! This is a gaming website where we come to IGNORE reality, not get ourselves embroiled in the mainstream debates about philosophy

pointing out that single lines of DNA code change at random out of literaly hundereds, thousands, millions (the more complex the higher) of lines of DNA code is your proof that evolution, natures master plan and the God slayer that its touted as being is based on?

If you think evidence for evolution is merely restricted to the observation that mutations occur and variation occur, I submit you are woefully ignorant on the issue. Remember Darwin himself had no idea about DNA... There's a reason why scientists say nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution, and this does not refer to DNA!

The rest is pretty ridiculous but let me single out a few of the more stupid points.

the heart of the evoultion debate is that things that help life survive are kept and things that dont are tossed aside. that argument looses all basis when you ask yourself, why isnt everything in creation atleast as intelligent as humans are? or why did only one 'branch' of monkeys decide to drop out of trees and start making spears and building huts?

There are many ways of living, you might as well ask, why some people like to wear boxers others like to wear briefs. Luck plays a role of course.

One of the ways evolution works is by working on small groups that are reproductively isolated from a larger gene pool. After millions years of years of isolation , genetic drift, and mutation, they become a new species, they might even 'reunite' with the parent species, and compete with them.

Do these changes really happen? darwinits tell us we cant see evolution taking place because it happens too slowly. A human generation takes about 20 years or so from birth to parenthood. however a new generation of bacteria grows in a matter of hours. There are more bactria in the world than there are grains of sand on all of the beaches of the world . They exist in just about any environment: hot, cold, dry, wet, high pressure, low pressure, small groups, large groups, isolated, alot of food, very little food alot of oxygen, no oxygen, in toxic chemicals, etc. There is much variation in bacteria. There are many mutations (in fact, darwinites say that smaller organisms have a faster mutation rate than larger ones)............. But they never turn into anything else........

BS alert! bacteria do evolve. Because of their faster generation turnover they evolve resistance much quicker. Is this resistance part of your 'normal variation'? Why would bacteria have part of their natural variation a resistance to drugs that never existed until recently? is this how creationist move goalposts? Anything that can happen is by definition 'part of natural variation' hence microevolution. Heck many of the new drug resistant bacteria ARE new species, the only complication is that because they reproduce by asexual reproduction so defining a species line is a complicated business.

Or do you mean you want to see bacteria evolve into humans? Why should they? Is there any evolutionary pressure that makes sense for them to become humans?

You seem to think that it is the goal of evolution to move from bacteria to beings like us or that there is something primiative or bad by being bacteria. In fact, it has being pointed out that we live in the age of bacteria, in terms of biomass they far outweigh us, and they have existed for a far long span then us.

And likely they will outlive us, for all our vaunted human cleverness, we have existed only for an eyeblink, compared to the dinosuars much less bacteria. I would give good odds that when the last human is gone, bacteria would still be happily suriving.

r why would two species such as Dogs and people 'evolve' side by side for millions of years under the same envoiromental conditions and not share the same level of eye sight or hearing or intelligence? the theory of evoultion is based on the core ASSUMPTION that changes in species are driven based on their enviroments. then it stands to reason that all species in the same enviroment would evolve along the same lines. so why dont whales have gills? or fish have lungs?

LOL. Let me point out to you one obvious fact, evolution is not 100% free to do whatever it wants. Unlike what you seem to think Evolutionists full recognise that evolution is not infinitely adaptable.

What the species is now, constrains the development paths available, in that. Given what a species is now, some destinations are more remote and more unlikely then other destinations... No destination is impossible per se, but many/most are closed off practically speaking.

Why don't dog and humans evolve the same? Because dogs and humans don't start off the same! QED.

You also labor under the miscomprehension that there is only one highest peak in the adaptive landscape, in reality, there are many.

Human are on one peak, it's not the only peak, or even the highest by any means.

but i will say that my mind CAN be changed if you can show me an example of any species turning into something else. and i dont mean a red rose turning into a yellow rose but i mean a rose turning into a pine tree. untill you can, you can talk untill your blue in the face and toss all the ransom noise you want out about micro vrs macro and this and that but the proofs in the pudding. i

This sounds to me like a juror saying that despite all the fingerprints, the dna evidence , I refuse to believe that the accused commited the crime unless you bring me there (how? by a time machine presumably) to see it with my own eyes.

I can go on about the philisophical problems of identifying a new species, and the fact that a new species is only 'retrospectively crowned' so if even YOU are the father/mother of a new species, you wouldn't know it untill millions of years later where the next branch dies out leaving your descendents alone, but I doubt you would have the intellectual capability to understand.

Not to mention of course creationists are famously good at evasion.

Creationist: "Show me a transitional fossil between X and Y"
Evolutionist: Here.
Creationist: Hah! That makes the problem worse, now you need to find another transitional between that fossil and X, and that fossil and Y.

Or

Creationist: Show me an example of a new species that have evolved.
Evolutionist: Pointing to a new species of fruit flies observed in the lab, or some new flowery plant that cannot breed with it's closest cousins.
Creationist: That's not a new species! It's just another fruit fly!

Sigh, what then would be a new species? Where do you draw the line? other than by using reproudctive isolation as a citeria?


Notice how the magic trick works. In the first case, the moment you introduce a transitional fossil ,they will keep asking for evidence of further transitional fossils in between, so you keep going closer and closer until you reach sibling species that are almost functionally alike. In other species that have just started on the road of divergence from each other.

And yet In the second case, they deny very close sibling species are new species.

Can you see how this flawed argument allows them to stop acknowleding that evolution occurs?

Richrf. Good answers.

A good source for answers to creationist claims is this site Link which also works for a lot of ID claims.

We are beholden to the US Constitution. America has not surrendered its sovierty to the UN. We are Americans not whomever. I don't care how Libya, China, Syria, Gana, or any other country votes. Without the American people agreeing to it, forget it.

A nationalist.

That's funny. I've thought that those were extinct since some time now, but looks like that they're are still some left.

he answered nothing, he faild to cite any case of one species evolving into another one. there was alot of flash and thunder and if you read it it looked impressive, what with citing 'new' bacteria created and what not, but that bacteria was still just a bacteria it didnt evolve into a house plant.

the argument that i could gather was that the bacteria didnt need to evolve into a house plant so it stayed a bacteria. then perhaps he could give a theory as to why the original 'slime' needed to evolve into humans eventualy?

since bacteria have and continue to be tested in all kinds of enviromental conditions and not one single instiance out of billions if not trillions of generations of bacteria that have been tested for hundereds of years now has a bacteria ever evolved into a new/different species. bacteria breed other bacteria. not one instiance has a bacteria ever bread anything else.

i do perhaps sound like a juror that says despite certian claims you have faild to show me the murder weapon. your evidence lacks the only true poof that can be accepted and that is an example of one species becoming another.

Sigh, what then would be a new species? Where do you draw the line? other than by using reproudctive isolation as a citeria?

a bird.

show me a fruit fly that develops feathers or a beak.

notice how the real questions of evoultion is allways dodged by pointing to an example of a fruit fly becoming red instead of green and then back to red and then green again but still being a fruit fly, is some how an answer as to how man evolved from mud.

their isnt one shred of evidence anyplace in all of human science where one speicies becomes another species. you cant point to a dog becoming a cat or a horse becoming a shrub. not one time.

the darwinites would have you belive that because a fruit fly that is two different colors is somehow a different species is basicaly the same argument that has people of different colors being different species. seems we need to stay in the dark ages in order to believe the evoultion theorys. a black person is of a different species than a white person? how advanced we have become as humans via our 'scientific proofs' *snicker*

darwinites in their desperate need for 'proof' want to change the information that is available by sorting it in odd and counter intuitave ways (and you though the games UI was some what hard to deal with on occasion ) they want you too see different colored fruit flys as being totaly different species. once you swollow that, then why evoultion is simple then, all you would have to do is wate a few billion years and eventualy after the fruit fly gets done changing its colors enough WAMO it will now become a........ hell probibaly a living traffic signal since it will most likley evolved the ability to change from red to green at will then. talk about believing in magic

Notice how the magic trick works. In the first case, the moment you introduce a transitional fossil ,they will keep asking for evidence of further transitional fossils in between, so you keep going closer and closer until you reach sibling species that are almost functionally alike. In other species that have just started on the road of divergence from each other. And yet In the second case, they deny very close sibling species are new species. Can you see how this flawed argument allows them to stop acknowleding that evolution occurs?

actualy your right in that asertation. the thing is , and while your right that creationists break off talks at this point its because that final proof cant be supplyed by science.

darwinites say its 'close enough' and creationists say 'not by a long shot'. if darwinits are 'right' then the link should be there clear as a bell. the fact that the have to settle for phrasing like "almost functionally alike" instead of "its the exact same thing down to the smallest detail". is what derails their argument. they want you to follow them down this path of 'science' and let your immagination fill in the glaring blanks. dont look behind the curtian or you might see ......... not the wizzard, but *gasp* could it possably be God at work?

its as if you have a road, and it travels for 10 miles untill it comes to a bridge. but that bridge is split in two. on the one side its made of oak and on the other side its made of pine and the road gos on. the darwinites would say well its obviously a bridge so its all one road. the creationists say yeah but why is one side oak and the other pine, and the darwintis say WTF? are you a moron its all wood that means we are right and your asking for too much proof its after all almost functionally alike so your wrong and a moron for not believing that X is Y like we do. just close your eyes and accept that oak became pine due to evoultion and not creation. we know it looks alot like either magic or wishful thinking but its not *slaps on a scientific lable* there now stop being a heathen and looking to a tribal god immage to believe in, believe in the great god of science instead after all thats not REALLY magic we are asking you to believe, hell the fact that we CANT provide hard proof is all the proof that we need that we are right. and we guard our truths by enforcing the lable of 'science' as the ultimate new god, to question the word of science will require that we burn you at the steak as a heritic. or just answer your valid questions by saying things like "The rest is pretty ridiculous but let me single out a few of the more stupid points"

but here i set in all my stupidity, stinking in the filth of my own fait in the 'magic' of an ultimate creator, refusing to put my faith in science a science that cant show me a frog with wings.

its a small thing to ask really. in fact its not so foolish as it would seem even to an educated darwinite since frogs come before birds on the road of evoultion. some where there should be a flying frog. but yet ............. there are frogs, and there are birds, so thats proof that they are both almost functionally alike i guess, that should be proof enough for even the most 'stupid' person to give up their belief in the 'magic' of creation and put their faith into the 'magic' of evoultion.

i submit that both paths require a susspention of belief in 'reality' as we can see and measure it. and yet being a creationists i look at the spots on the map that say "here there be dragons" and see the hand of God, but a darwinits would have you ignore those spots on the map where it says 'here there be dragons' and pretend they dont exists.

dont look behind the curtian, dont ask whats in those areas of 'dragons', pretend the Emperior is NOT naked if you know whats good for you. im quite certian that all the members of Isabellas court called columbus stupid for daring to question the science that said the world was flat too. but his fait in God lead him to discover the new world. what an amazing thing.

dont take offence richrf (or anyone else that believs in evoultion over creation)

i dont take offence at being called 'stupid' or having my arguments called "pretty ridiculous". lol its not the first time ive had this kind of a debate.

im not really trying to prove anything except to make people question their faith in science to provide all answers to everything.

science is just one aspect of the whole human condition. its valuable and provides us with many things. its a noble persuit. but its one aspect to being human it isnt the compleat picture.

people that have chosen to offer opinions here (their own opinions and not just 'yeah what he said' posts, or the usual calls of 'peace' even when there is no 'war' except a spirited chat about the possable and the impossable) are people that i can relate too. people who actualy take an interest in what it is to be human and where we come from are of a kind with me. even though we dont allways come from the same side of the topic and it can seem like hostility i for one dont feel that way. its like arguing with brothers for me. we all want the same thing. an answer to the question.

im sure all sides in this debate have been here before. i know i have, and i know how it ends. with alot of posts where points are ignored by both sides in favor of stressing those few points that support our individual positions. but the end result is that we learn a little more about each other on a personel basis. one brick in building the community and that we dont answer the questions 'was it evoultion or creation'.

the only answer to that question will be in the heart beat AFTER we die. will it be God we face or nothingness? there is so much i see in this world , there is so much i KNOW in this world. a few years back i was involved in a thread much like this one that went on for almost 300 pages of posts .............. with no answers. even after 5 months of debate and some amazingly good arguments there was still no final conclusion. there was only each persons beliefs. each person looked at the total body of evidence and drew their own conclusions from it.

i was one of the people arguing FOR evoultion then. and even at the end i was still convinced that i was right in my beliefs. then life happened and i changed my mind. the evidence was still there but the conclusions i drew from it changed. no evidence speaks for itself, its only in how we approach it and through what pre conceptions we apply to it are our conclusions reached.

for me the path of evolution dead ended. in the end i relized that i had to make as many leaps of faith to support evolulion as i did to believe in God. and the short of it is that if im wrong about God then nothing happens when i die, but if im wrong about evolution, Gods gunna be pissed. there is alot more too it than that but we would cross a line from debate over a theory to me trying to convert you all to my religion, something i dont want to do. that would turn personal and mighty quick and in the end would be very much fruitless. since a persons belief in God (or lack of) is between them and God (or nothing).

anyway my point to all this is to say it IS possable to change a persons mind with talks like this. mine was. it took several years to accomplish but when i look back , that 'debate' was what really started my questioning my faith in science.

no person is ever made less by an exploration of questions. i dont ask that anyone agree i do HOPE that if nothing else it will make you think, REALLY THINK about the topic. i despise yes men of any stripe. i dont want to lead an army i want to see an army of leaders. if your interested in this topic then learn about it for yourself. dont just take whats spoon fed to you by others and puke it up on demand for EITHER side. dont argue by rote, but rather argue from passion and conviction.

but keep an open mind while you do so, after all im living proof that you never know what might sneak in when your not looking

In a more modern example think of animal rights protesters, from many peoples point of view they do "evil" deeds to prevent animal testing but from their point of view these same deeds are "good" as they are fighting for the animals. In the end, if the animal rights protesters are stopped then they are stopped from doing "evil" deeds if we stop animal testing then people will assume that the animal rights protesters were doing the right thing.

I think the best thing these protesters can do is volunteer to be the tested animals. I like cats but can't stand these morons

Let me make some general points first before giveing you links to the evidence I'm talking about..

im sure all sides in this debate have been here before. i know i have, and i know how it ends.

No offense knute, but I have debated with creationists who know way more about the subject of evolution then what you are exhibiting and *they* would laugh at the points you are making particularly the ones wondering why dogs and humans don't evolve into the same beings.

Sorry if I hurt your feelings, but not all opinions are equal and the lack of your knowledge shows.

or me the path of evolution dead ended. in the end i relized that i had to make as many leaps of faith to support evolulion as i did to believe in God. and the short of it is that if im wrong about God then nothing happens when i die, but if im wrong about evolution, Gods gunna be pissed.

It seems to me you underwent some religious experience, that made you change your mind, or you are swayed by the idea known as Pascal's wager, which means it is better to believe then not to believe. Have you considered that believing in the wrong kind of God or religion might even be worse? Seen the South Park cartoon?

For the record, I have studied and read both sides of the debate with an open mind, I have read both creationist books and evolution books. And clearly the balance lies with evolution. You claim to have argued for evolution in the past, but given the way you argue, I would submit your understanding of evolution is shallow and wrong in parts as I have expalined, which explains why you were so easily swayed.

he answered nothing, he faild to cite any case of one species evolving into another one. there was alot of flash and thunder and if you read it it looked impressive, what with citing 'new' bacteria created and what not, but that bacteria was still just a bacteria it didnt evolve into a house plant.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html for examples of observed specication or even
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=106806&org=NSF&from=news
. And any generally educated person would know already what I'm saying about bacteria, what kind of cite do you need? That because most bacteria reproduce asexually and exchange genes at a snap?

But The reason why I never borthered is because creationist will just move the goal posts so it's not an evidence problem, it is a logical reasoning problem. Look you do it here already

Sigh, what then would be a new species? Where do you draw the line? other than by using reproudctive isolation as a citeria? a bird.

Look closely this is where the magic trick occurs. By lumping everything into one big category birds you are employing trick number 2. So a ostriach and a penguin are the same species? The problem with most unsophiscated creationist is that they fail to examine carefully their own concept of 'species', they think it is self evident what a species is, and that the species is some eternal platoian form forever unchanging.

I appeal to your reasoning ability, the way you are arguing there is no logical way evolution can occur even if God wanted it! And surely that is wrong.

Assertion 1: Any change that we can point at or have evidence of , is no change.

E.g Sympatric Speciation is not speciation.

So basically you are closing off the possibility of exactly the way evolution claims to work! By small changes. Sibling species (look up the term) , are the beginnings of more evolution, once gene pools are reproductively isolated, they evolve further. Note:This is also an answer to why not everything evolved into humans!

So for creationists what's left? They insist evolution can occur only by big leaps, something no evolutionist will agree to!
In other words, creationist insist on their only broken form of evolution , a strawman to attack.

he argument that i could gather was that the bacteria didnt need to evolve into a house plant so it stayed a bacteria. then perhaps he could give a theory as to why the original 'slime' needed to evolve into humans eventualy?

Please, this kind of arguments make you look even more foolish than you are already looking. As I already said, there are different peaks in the adaptive landscape, and who knows what conditions (random and determined) that caused *some* of the first life to evolve into mutlicellular organisms and to more complicated organisms.

Unless you are telling me conditions all over the world are exactly the same, and all the mutations happen to happen to everyone at the same time. why would everything evolve to humans? Why would anything else evolve to humans given that the conditions before where humans existed and conditions after humans existed is obviously different?

And of course, the time frame itself is crazy expecting bacteria to evolve to humans in your lifetime even given the faster turnover.

do perhaps sound like a juror that says despite certian claims you have faild to show me the murder weapon. your evidence lacks the only true poof that can be accepted and that is an example of one species becoming another.

Your problem knute is that you are a juror who only thinks one kind of evidence counts, you being there in the flesh looking at the crime happening.

their isnt one shred of evidence anyplace in all of human science where one speicies becomes another species. you cant point to a dog becoming a cat or a horse becoming a shrub. not one time.

See? To you, the only way evolution can be proved is that someone comes up to you, show you a flim (shot over millions of years) showing it in action.

The weight of evidence for evolution is multi-dimensioned. Why do scientists believe in evolution? because it explains almost everything , the patterns we observe in nature. The geographical distribution of animals, why sp4ecies have Vestigial organs, why the eye is designed so strangely wrong (because mother nature works with what it has), the fossil record, the dna record etc.

And please before you accuse me of impressive words, I recommend you educate yourself and go read it up in the links already citied, I can't do justice to the weight of evidence that exists.

It's the same thing if you are a juror in court. The DNA evidence left over, the footprints found at the scene, the muddied boots that matches the prints, the fingerprints, the motive, the means etc. None of this will make sense, unless the accused actually did it!

I can imagine a creationist still refusing to believe this saying "there isnt one shred of evidence anyplace in all of criminalogical science where Terry killed James. you cant point to Terry killing James, not one time."



Asking to see evidence of evolution occuring in action such as from bacteria to man is equally foolish. What we can show is that if evolution didn't occur, none of the evidence would make sense.

Just as we can't show you Terry killing James, but we can show you all the other evidence that makes no sense *unless*
Terry killed James.


I concede this is not 100% proof, but it is surely beyond reasonable doubt and jurors have no problems with it.

All creationist arguments are based on WHAT?....FABLES handed down from generation to generation by MEN desperate to cling to power. Power over the masses.

To say "why doesn't a whale have gills" is simply a copout.
I SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE (i know it' doesn't match your agenda) shows that whales where land-MAMMALS who gradually developed the ability to hold their breath underwater for extended periods. They have finger AND toe bones in their flippers - evidence of their former land dwelling. Why wouldn't 'the creator" just make a whale more efficient in the water? Having to breathe air while spending 100% of the time in the water is, well, inefficient. And what about those toe bones?
Is this due to 'god working in mysterious ways'/ <- another blanket copout statement. No, it's becauce Whales are STILL EVOLVING. Wow, what a concept! SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE suggests that given time, WHALES COULD DEVELOP GILLS. This could take ten million years but it could happen.

So how would creationists explain alien species, if we do encounter them? What if they are millions of years old as a species? That would not jibe well with the bible thumpers' fables.

If we embraced creationism as society, we may as well give up science as a whole (boy, would they LOVE that).
Just sit there, boy and swallow what I try to cram down your throat as you ignore carefully researched EVIDENCE. Better to not research but instead listen to a repressed MAN, who heard from another MAN that the universe is only 10,000 years old and dinosaurs walked side by side with humans. Disregard all the carbon dating (must be the work of Satan anyway).

Religions' attemps to discredit and silence the scientific community is EVIDENCE in itself of it's deliberately ignorant nature. If people start being able to explain how things happen out of pure chaos, they'll never stick with the church or GIVE MONEY to said church.
Science and religion in their pure forms are mutually exclusive. However, one can be spiritual (not religious), and still be a scientist.
Religios explanation of the universe is 'the easy way out'. "Mommy, why does a whale not have gills?"..."Because son, there's a big man up in the sky who created everything. Nothing to see here, move along." Science promotes IDEAS and THINKING, not the suppression of both.

"I AIN'T AKIN TO NO MONKEY!" ..even thoughwe share 99.6% of the same genes. (yes, it's actually a song that Baptists use to brainwash kids)

their isnt one shred of evidence anyplace in all of human science where one speicies becomes another species. you cant point to a dog becoming a cat or a horse becoming a shrub. not one time.

Wrong use of "their" first of all. A dog is not a cat. However, they share a COMMON ANCESTOR. In fact dogs, cats AND humans, according to EVIDENCE share a common ancestor. Likely one of the first mammals to walk the Earth.
There goes that argument.

EVOLUTION VS CREATION "SCIENCE"
(Creation "Science" is now sometimes called Intelligent Design Theory)
1. Who is anti-evolution?

a. Creation "science," although even creationists accept much of evolution,
= groups of fundamentalist who literally interpret parts of the Bible
b. NOT most Christian and Jewish denominations: not United Methodist, Roman Catholic, Episcopal, Prebyterian, American Jewish Congress
c. NOT the overwhelming majority of scientists
2. What is evolution?
A change in the percent of different genetic traits over time.
3. Isn't evolution just a theory?
a. You can measure evolution in nature, in the lab, on the farm. (see references and web links below).
b. Evolutionary theory is the verbal and mathematical ideas about how (NOT whether) evolution occurs
just like talking about the theory of gravity doesn't reflect doubt about whether gravity occurs
c. To see how easily and obviously evolution can occur, play candy evolution -- it's fun and tasty
(For other exercises, go to http://www.bios.niu.edu/bking/evoexercises.htm )
4. Why not teach creation science in science classes alongside evolution?
a. Creation science is 1 of many religions; it is NOT science.
(1) Creationists use the term creation science, but in court their OWN witnesses say it is NOT science (Berra 1990).
(2) Teaching creation science is "religious advocacy" according to federal courts (Matsumura 1995, p. 9). and thus violates the separation of church and state.
b. Creation Science is not supported by
(1) scientific evidence from physics, geology, biology, astronomy.
(2) many religions (see 1b above). Many religions strongly oppose creation science being taught in science classes and strongly support evolution. They point out that a literal interpretation of the Bible is not supported by the Bible, e.g., the order of creation is different in Genesis chpt 1 vs 2; insects have 4 legs (Lev. 11:20); bats are a kind of bird (Lev. 11:13-19; Deut. 14:11-18), e.g., verses saying men must not cut their sideburns or when you may beat your slaves...
c. To be fair, would every group's creation story be taught in science class? not just the bible one? What about American Indians' creation stories? In which case, when will there be time for science to be taught?
5. Why not just avoid teaching evolution?
a. Evolution is a major and important part of biology and has been extremely well-tested and supported.
b. Understanding evolution has important practical applications, e.g., medicine, agriculture, biotechnology, conservation
c. What is taught in science classes should be based on scientific evidence NOT religious belief
6. Can school districts require that evolution be taught? Can they prohibit creation science from being taught in science class?
Yes. Yes.
Requiring teaching of evolution does NOT violate freedom of religion.
Prohibiting the teaching of creation science does NOT violate free speech.

As usual, the anti-science guys bail out when the evidence gets overwhelming.

As usual, the anti-science guys bail out when the evidence gets overwhelming.

Most people opposed to evolution, don't really understand evolution, or reasons why scientists (many of whom believe in God) believe evolution happened. It's not just looking at small changes in fruit flies and fossils.

Anti evolutionists who don't really understand the issues think that by doing the following , they prove their case.

1. Scream microevolution isn't macroevolution.

2. Declare that unless they see a monkey turning into a man RIGHT IN FRONT of their eyes, evolution is false.

I admit that despite being pro-evolution I'm somewhat uncomfortable with the idea that evolution (or more accurately macroevolution as the creationists insist on calling it with huge long term changes) is so slow, that no one can whip up a flim showing the evolution of bacteria to man.

In a way, it almost makes evolution unfalsifiable and might even be a built in excuse.

However, the universe and the truth does not care if evidence of it's truth cannot be easily displayed in the way you want it.

As I have already shown, altough no one can whip up a flim to show you it happening right in front of your eyes, we have convincing evidence from other indirect evidence, none of which would have any sense if evolution was false.

This is the exact same way scientists are convinced of the big bang theory, and yet anti-evolutionists seldom challenge the big bang theory. I have never even seen someone yelling to be shown a flim of bacteria turning into human, demanding the same for a flim of the big bang happening.

If this was REALLY about the evidence....


Why does the human eye seem so poorly designed with a blind spot when any sane engineer would have avoided it?, Why do some organisms have vestigal organs that don't do anything? Why is it that the human dna has evidence for the expression of a vestigial tail, and some babies born with rare defects actually show this! Why does the fossil record as a whole fit the evidence of common descent? Why don't we find humans deep in the fossil layer with dinosaurs? Why is it as Darwin has observed way back in 1859 that different species on isolated islands or land masses (think australia) are closely related to one another, compared to everything else? And why is it that these isolated land masses tend to have fewer species? Or why is it that animal species that used to be connected via land bridges are more closely related to each other?

I have also pointed out in past posts that anti evolutionists have a lot of dishonest methods of arguing that make it impossible *whatever the evidence* , to prove evolution true by defining species in two distinct and contradictory ways, whenever they need it.

I suspect most of them aren't even aware they do it.

/\ I agree with most of that. What's most distressing is that to simply throw the "god blanket" over eveything is to say (paraphrased), "God did everything, so stop learning about the universe and ACCEPT that God did it all and you can never explain it."

Is this REALLY what you want you children to do with their minds?

The brainwashed will default to , "YES! It's in the scriptures!"

The desperate-to-control clergy (most of them) scare me.
The mindless, unquestioning sheep terrify me.

Oh and Richrf , their is no "why" to the universe. If it could care, it wouldn't.

Oh and Richrf , their is no "why" to the universe. If it could care, it wouldn't.

I disagree with that, but that's another debate.

the heart of the evoultion debate is that things that help life survive are kept and things that dont are tossed aside. that argument looses all basis when you ask yourself, why isnt everything in creation atleast as intelligent as humans are? or why did only one 'branch' of monkeys decide to drop out of trees and start making spears and building hu

Well, that's wrong. There were quite a few monkeys (chimps actually) who could use tools. Why aren't there more? Because, in case you hadn't noticed, we as Homo Sapiens are INCREDIBLY good at killing things. Sure, we aren't really strong, fast, or anything like that, but we use intelligence and traps. Neanderthals and the like didn't, which is why they're dead.

A good example of natural selection is around the Chernobyl site. Since envirmentalists have been constantly wandering around, they have spotted things like 3 eyed frogs. Radiation can't do that (most things mutated by radiation are sterile), and what has happened is the predators haven't had any habitat (enviromentalists destroyed it by trampling it) so the (for want of a better word) "inferior" members of a species haven't left.

That's where microevolution is important. Things like this happen constantly. If they get into the genepool over a few hundred years, the species starts to take on such characteristics. Things like natural selection and blind chance shape evolution. Whales were once land walking, and there's a debate about whether elephants could possibly be of aquatic descent (whales that decided water wasn't worth the hassle), since the trunk is great for scuba diving, and they can swim long distances. Some mammals have primitive wings (flying squirrels have those skin flaps for gliding), and bats are mammals that can fly. Evolution isn't organised, nor does it make sense, but if something survives it gets into the genepool.

Oh, and saying "Darwinists" isn't really relevant. Darwin's ideas are outdated quite a while. They weren't accurate, just famous. Quoting Darwin on the specifics of evolution is like quoting an ancient Greek on the mechanics of gravity. "Rocks fall since the Earth is their home". His ideas and theory of evolution do make sense, and the beak thing he noticed on the galapagos is still an important issue.

Why does the human eye seem so poorly designed with a blind spot when any sane engineer would have avoided it?, Why do some organisms have vestigal organs that don't do anything? Why is it that the human dna has evidence for the expression of a vestigial tail, and some babies born with rare defects actually show this! Why does the fossil record as a whole fit the evidence of common descent? Why don't we find humans deep in the fossil layer with dinosaurs? Why is it as Darwin has observed way back in 1859 that different species on isolated islands or land masses (think australia) are closely related to one another, compared to everything else? And why is it that these isolated land masses tend to have fewer species? Or why is it that animal species that used to be connected via land bridges are more closely related to each other?

Well, that's another thing that is a theory too small to see. There is proof, but considering land masses move at roughly 3 cm a year it wouldn't be hard to mismeasure. But the continents fit together quite nicely, and we WILL see in a few hundred years, when Mexico is predicted to break away from America. But bears are a key point. Siberia, the Arctic, and North America were very closely connected when Earth was Pangea, and have merely become different colours out of camoflauge. The tail thing is a big point, people who say "look we don't have tails, so we aren't related to monkeys" have done very little proper research. And "werewolf syndrome", where people have a full coat of fur.

I think one issue that a few anti-evolutionist have as well is "why?". Well, if the thoery that we evolved near water is correct, that explains the lack of fur (except a very thin coat of down) that we have. But it is normally thought we evolved in Africa, where we stood upright to keep the sun off our backs (and see lions). But that doesn't answer the fur or the tail thing. A lot of scientists don't know how or why many things evolved as they did. Duck billed platypus? Err... what possible evolutionary advantages could it have over something more specialised?

The desperate-to-control clergy (most of them) scare me. The mindless, unquestioning sheep terrify me.

And the people who actually say "Telling children about evolution in science is a CRIMINAL OFFENCE" need a new language to be invented to describe them.

What the hell does any of this have to do with Galactic Civilizations 2, might I ask?

This sort of argument belongs on somewhere like Fark or Slashdot, not the "game talk" froum of the Gal Civ 2 boards.

Oh, and saying "Darwinists" isn't really relevant. Darwin's ideas are outdated quite a while. They weren't accurate, just famous. Quoting Darwin on the specifics of evolution is like quoting an ancient Greek on the mechanics of gravity. "Rocks fall since the Earth is their home". .

I suspect you are overstating this by a *lot*. The current understanding of evolution is often termed as 'the modern synthesis' or neo-darwinian based on blending our understanding of mendel genetics and the classic darwinian ideas.
People like Fischer, Wright, JBS Haldane showed mathematically how evolution could be understood as a change in the proportion of alleles in the gene pool.

None of this contradicts what Darwin thought about evolution. The only major point that Darwin was wrong about was his speculations about our inheritance would work (he believed in some sort of blending form which logically couldn't work because of the dilution effect) and even then he was clear that it was just speculation.

Of course, Darwin was occasionally wrong about the specifics when he speculated about possible evolutionary pathways of some fish I think in origins of the species , but in the generality he was almost 100% correct.

His ideas and theory of evolution do make sense, and the beak thing he noticed on the galapagos is still an important issue.

Indeed. Jay Gould (yes, I know his position as an authority on evolutionary theory is a bit clouded) in his huge book 'The structure of evolutionary theory' claims that Darwin's brilliant understanding about the subties of evolution was pratically unmatched by all of his intellectual descendants until in recent years, and that all evolution theory debates among scientists on mechanisms since then is merely a reply to the issues he raised.

If Darwin was living now, he would have no problems at all I think following all the debates (scientific ones I mean like the importance of species sorting, the debate about the correct unit of selection (gene,organism,species??) going on right now.

For sure, most people who claim to know evolution and have rejected it, know far less about evolution then Darwin lol.

And someone who has only read origin of the species, would be more than qualified to win any debate against a creationist.

Okay enough. On the behalf of the pro-evolution side, I declare victory, we can start sending the troops home now.

sorry i got held up

ive read all the replys. and i may say that you ahve all done an outstanding job of using google and cut/paste.

there is post after post, pointing out everything from my lack of understanding, to my spelling errors, and even boasts of 'victory' as if the conclusions reached in this forum will shut the doors to collages across the world and God will be declared a myth by the U.N tommorow and creation will become the next Holy grail.

and yet not one link to a whale with gills or a frog with wings.

lots of thunder and flash but no lightning strikes.

you cant <----- read that slow because i typed it slow for you since you missed it last time.

you can NOT provide proof of evoultion sinse none exists. you can provide observations, and you can provide opinions but you can NOT provide facts. you can not show me one case anywhere of any thing evolving into something different. no horse fly has ever evolved into a horse.

and all the MACRO paths that that were admited to be fantacy by marc are a prime example of it, there is NO direct link between dogs and cats. none, there is no direct link between dogs and man, none, there is no direct link between cats and humans, none. there isnt even any direct links between man and apes ................... none.

there is fruit flys that change color , but are still fruit flys, there are bacteria that change size and shape as well as color, they even develope the ability to live in enviroments that would have killed their parents, but they are STILL bacteria.

and THAT my dear lads is what you keep missing, that point just flys over your heads and dissapears into the wild blue yonder.

all your posts are just alot of noise to cover the fact that you cant point to a single case of observed evoultion where one species evolved into another one.

if i have to. (and lord i hope i dont have too) i can go fire up the old google engine too and provide links to all the breaks in the chain. i can provide all those cases where the bridge turned from oak to pine.

but would it help? prolly not. as hard headed as you think us creationists are, heh *shakes head* well lets just say that its a two way street.

ill tell ya what, now that you cant provide the flying frog or the whale with gills, ill rest my case. and let anyone who cares too take it from here. ive asked for proof, none has been provided. none of you have asked for my proof of God, i say that its evident in the fact that when you turn the light on you dont have to turn the dark off.

my 'proof' will be supplyed to each and every person alive today, the instiant after their death. im content to give up this 'victory' and wate for the final battle.

i surrender. the field, sir, is yours

Allah will shake his head sadly as he casts you out from the true believers, Knute. I hope you eventually drop this false faith and actually try listening to the truth.

there is post after post, pointing out everything from my lack of understanding, to my spelling errors, and even boasts of 'victory' as if the conclusions reached in this forum will shut the doors to collages across the world and God will be declared a myth by the U.N tommorow and creation will become the next Holy grail.

My dear friend you are confused, no one is out to disprove your precious God. That would take a philisopher I believe God exists. LOL.

As for the rest , it is simply as I predicted in post #90, yelling over and over again for evidence, I suppose all the evidence i posted doesn't count unless a frog turns into a dog (or whatever arbitary stupid thing knute wants to see) happens before his eyes?

No reply at all about all the other evidence that I posted? The DNA evidence? The vestial organs? The geographical distribution? The imperfect design? The fossil records?


For amusement purposes...

and yet not one link to a whale with gills or a frog with wings. you cant <----- read that slow because i typed it slow for you since you missed it last tim

Yes, I can't. Because I'm not claiming frog should grow wings NOW right in front of your eyes. Why should they grow wings now? Any particular reason why they should do it so fast? Just because some confused creationist demands to see that happening?

My theory of evolution says there must be a selective pressure for that to happen and it will take a long long time and the right mutations if you are lucky. The one you made up, might allow miracles, mine doesn't.

But if you mean you want to see evidence of evolution of say the link between humans and apes, or reptiles and mammals there are tons of it. Feel free to tell me what's wrong with the evidence stated in say here .


Besides eye witness accounts, What other types of evidence do you need? DNA similarities between humans and chimps? The fact that the human DNA can still occasionally express a vestigal tail - a left over from our ancestors with chimps? Or more generally, evidence that mother nature not some omnipotent all powerful God designed the human eye with the strange blind spot design? What about the fossil record?

Why would any of this be true, if evolution didn't happen?

What i can offer is other evidence that makes no sense if evolution is false. Remember the juror scenario? I have no eye witnesses but i have lot of other evidence like dna, fingerprints.... More than enough to convict.

all your posts are just alot of noise to cover the fact that you cant point to a single case of observed evoultion where one species evolved into another one.

I gave the links already in #85. I doubt you even read them.

Please note that you should be trying to disprove the real theory of evolution, not some made up ones in your mind that makes changes in such a short time, that you can observe it right in front of your eyes.

In the scientific theory of evolution, evolution takes hundreds of thousands of years to occur, the bigger the divergence between species you demand, the more time it takes. Given the short span of time we have being observing, any new speciation event occured will be necessity involve relatively small changes. But make no doubt, these are NEW species with isolated gene pools, and do not breed with each other. Some are pretty different from each other externally.

It's too bad you don't dare to submit your own definition of 'species' to examination, though you feel free to declare organisms to be not species when the evidence turns against you. Must be pretty useful to be able to use and change definitions when they suit your purpose.

Arguing with many creationist is pretty fustrating. They demand to see evidence OF THE SORT that they know does not exist if evolution IS TRUE. Yes that's not a typo, they want to see the sort of evidence that can't exist if evolution is true".

Why do I say that?

*Theory of evolution states, major evolutionary changes such as those from human to bacteria take a long long time, far longer than we can observe or have being observing.

*Yet creationists willfully demand to see eye witness evidence of something that is not possible because of the way evolution works. A pretty safe bet don't you think? In a way they are not doubting the theory of evolution, they are doubting their own version of super fast nonsense evolution , where as knute says frogs grow wings and dogs turn into cats at a drop of a hat for creationists to see. If that was the theory we were proposing i agree, it makes sense to demand to be shown a cat turning into a dog right into front of your face.

So why do so many scientists believe in evolution if they can't see bacteria turning into humans? Because they are all aethists? Nonsense!

It's simple enough, because they have *other* evidence just as good that shows evolution happens and I have stated them several times already over and over again.

Fingerprints on the murder weapon, dna evidence, the lack of an abili, demostration of means and motivations is pretty good evidence for a crime don't you think? Or do you continously hold out that no evidence counts except for eye witness accounts before you will convict?

Of course, the creationist refuses to listen, to him, the only way to prove evolution to him is for a rabbit to turn into a cat or something in front of his eyes. That's silly of course, because if he truly understood evolution, he knows that won't happen, so why is he asking for such evidence?

Besides this kinds of evidence, we have tons of other evidence, already mentioned dozens of times already, none of which he acknowledges....

I suspect knute will refuse to respond to any of the points here, just as he failed to address any of the points and evidence linked by various posters, and continue to say there is no evidence, no evidence!