Evolution

[Thermopylae]

Do You Believe In Evolution?

[Achilles]

Very much so...there is too much evidence not to, imo.

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof. ~ Ashley Montagu

[cpwill]

e-yup.

[Chelle]

Voted 'yes'.

I think there has to be some kind of evolution.... after all, aren't things constantly evolving?



Chelle

[DeathMonkey]

Yeah, I saw an Evo last week. Had an upgraded turbo kit, new front and rear spoilers, APC intercooler, and purple neon underlighting. Then it got schooled by an Integra with the JDM engine swap and Skyline conversion package. Dumbass. NEVER race a Skyline. They always packing the heat!

[Seth928]

Evolution is well documented. Even the catholic church has admitted to "change over time".

[Duo_Maxwell]

creationism's one defence aganist evolution is picking at the parts of evolution that currently don't make sense.

Creationism's one defence aganist geology is picking at the parts that didn't make sense in the 60s, and hoping no one looks up the new data.

[Craig]

Jamesrage and Ranger, why did you vote "No" on this poll? What comment do you have regarding empirically proven speciation which is direct verification for species evolving?

[mataj]

Wrong question. Evolution is scientific theory, based on facts. As such, it's not meant to be believed into, on the contrary. It's meant to be doubted into, verified, and re-verified.

[Duo_Maxwell]

Not quite Mataj. Evolution is not meant to be believed in, it is meant to be understood.
Therefore you need the scientific method, doubted into, verified, and re-verified.

:)

There really isn't any proof of creationism, not to mention it's inconsistant with the theory of a perfect God.

[eugene40]

Of course, I understand evolution... it makes sense. But then I am guided by logic,, reasoning,, research,,, and science...

[mataj]

. . . doubted into, verified, and re-verified.Scientifically, of course, that goes without saying. Scientifically, not creationistically.

BTW, this is the best creationist "gem" I came across so far:

When God created the Earth in six days, he divided the waters and placed a giant canopy of water around it on day two. The canopy shielded the planet from the sun's harmful rays and created a "hot house" effect. Before the Flood, weather conditions were perfect and people lived to be 900 years old.

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/5002/5002_01.asp , picture 13

And see that snake with legs! Wow! :D http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/5001/5001_01.asp

[Duo_Maxwell]

I love how that guy essentially takes if all for face value. :rolleyes: I wonder if they think that why they are right, after reading stuff like that.

[cpwill]

:shrug::lol: did it ever occur to you that for some people science just isn't that important?

[Duo_Maxwell]

Sure, I know plenty of people who could careless about science, but then again they take for granted much of their lives they owe to science.

Belief will not save you from planetary implosion. Science with a rocket ship will. :)

I don't jump up and down when a new discovery comes about, but I realize the resource that scientific thinking brings.

[udenjoe]

There has been no evidence for creationism that I have seen. There have been holes in evolution theory. Most notably the evolution of the human oral cavity that allows for human speech has not been proven. There is a large gap that we don't understand.

Evolution certainly exists and explains most. Maybe evolution is the wrong word.

[cpwill]

Sure, I know plenty of people who could careless about science, but then again they take for granted much of their lives they owe to science.

Belief will not save you from planetary implosion. Science with a rocket ship will. :)

I don't jump up and down when a new discovery comes about, but I realize the resource that scientific thinking brings.


no, i don't mean that, i mean the conscious decision that people make that, given the choice of altering their beliefs or choosing science, will simply decide that they'd rather believe X, and science has to take a second role to that.

[mataj]

:shrug::lol: did it ever occur to you that for some people science just isn't that important?So why are they wrapping up their myths into the cellophane of science?
Belief will not save you from planetary implosion. Science with a rocket ship will."Saving" has entirely different meaning for believers.
There have been holes in evolution theory.Facts are expensive commodity. Discovering, and verifying them takes a lot of money, and hard work. Their supply is limited, therefore the scope of the theories based on them is also limited. There will never be such thing as scientifical theory of everything.

Evolution of easily fossilizable species with large populations (sea shells, for example) is well prooven. With human evolution, this is not the case. Fossilization requires water, and our ancestors evoluted in arid conditions. Their fossiles are therefore extremely rare. To make the matters worse, their population was very small- a couple of 1000 individuals teethering on the verge of extinction, according to the latest DNA analysis. It's quite possible, that "the missing link" will never be found.

[cpwill]

mataj; because that is the language that they are attacked in. so they try to answer in it. ultimately,they are doomed to fail, but they try nonetheless.

[Secession]

Do you believe in evolution? :D No, I don't 'believe in it', like I used to believe in Father Christmas. I accept the proof I have seen that evolution is a fact.

[Redheat]

Do you believe in evolution? :D No, I don't 'believe in it', like I used to believe in Father Christmas. I accept the proof I have seen that evolution is a fact.

I'm with them^

[mataj]

Do you believe in evolution? :D No, I don't 'believe in it', like I used to believe in Father Christmas. I accept the proof I have seen that evolution is a fact.Amen, brother :)

[MikeD4o7]

When God created the Earth in six days, he divided the waters and placed a giant canopy of water around it on day two. The canopy shielded the planet from the sun's harmful rays and created a "hot house" effect. Before the Flood, weather conditions were perfect and people lived to be 900 years old.

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/5002/5002_01.asp , picture 13


I like the frame immediately after that where the guy is riding the triceratops... and the fact that the way they drew noah makes him look sort of like chuck norris in a fishing vest.

[DeathMonkey]

Yeah, I saw an Evo last week. Had an upgraded turbo kit, new front and rear spoilers, APC intercooler, and purple neon underlighting. Then it got schooled by an Integra with the JDM engine swap and Skyline conversion package. Dumbass. NEVER race a Skyline. They always packing the heat!

"that was funny, DeathMonkey!"
"Thanks, I thought so."



Bastards.

[heel31ok]

Not as the source for life. It does occur within like kinds.

[Gale_Force15]

i Believe this; the Creator made the universe. everything else just happened.

[Craig]

It's truly bizarre that Mr. Chick thinks the single piece of reasoning "local floods don't put seashells on top of mountains" trumps secular science, as though ignorance somehow falsifies orogenesis, a natural process that easily accounts for the lift of beds from former seas to the top of mountains.

Ironically, Mr. Chick cowers at home, afraid that of the people who want to kill him, rather than boldly proclaiming God's Word and travelling fearlessly to speak to people on the subject. I made the above assertion based on the fact that a reporter looking to interview Mr. Chick was told by the lady who speaks to the public on his behalf that he doesn't like to give interviews, and doesn't go out too often. There are a lot of people who want to kill him, you see.

[ranger]

Jamesrage and Ranger, why did you vote "No" on this poll? What comment do you have regarding empirically proven speciation which is direct verification for species evolving?My understanding of evolution as a theory is that its theory keeps changing. Now we know that the universe is expanding, play the video backwards at high speed and you would logically end up with a time when time, space, and matter did not exist. Science now explains this with the big bang theory.

My choices logically are 1. Time, space and matter that did not exist at all suddenly, simultaneously, with no outside help or help from each other (non existent at the time) created themselves. Can anyone point out in our experience where anything created itself from nothing?

2. A pre-existing being created time, space and matter at one time for whatever reason.

Within my experience I have seen beings create new things but never nothing creating a new thing. Based on this experience I am gonna go with choice 2. I call this pre-existing being God.

Most people argue that the Big Bang had to happen because the only other option is that of a being creating space, time, matter. That would be very unscientific and impossible to prove.

What empirical data do you have to prove 3 nothings in fact created nothing into something’s called time, space, and matter?

[Craig]

Ranger,

I asked you why you said "No" regarding evolution; I did not ask for your justification as to why God must necessarily exist. ;)

[ranger]

Ranger,

I asked you why you said "No" regarding evolution; I did not ask for your justification as to why God must necessarily exist. ;)One necessarily involves the other.

I voted NO regarding evolution because it starts with the big bang and I find that theory illogical. To avoid useless attacks on my beliefs I attempted to explain my reasoning for you.

Sorry for the confusion.

[Fasdf]

2. A pre-existing being created time, space and matter at one time for whatever reason.

Within my experience I have seen beings create new things but never nothing creating a new thing. Based on this experience I am gonna go with choice 2. I call this pre-existing being God.

Well #1 is too hard to swallow, so I'll go with #2!!
Logic: 0 Human thinking: 1

[ranger]

Well #1 is too hard to swallow, so I'll go with #2!!
Logic: 0 Human thinking: 1That is only your opinion, which you offer no explanation for.

Lets see, a being created things versus nothing created things. Yes, in my opinion 2 is much more logical than 1. I offered an explanation as to why I believe the way I do. You in turn attack my ability to reason? Care to take a stab at it and provide your reason why you believe 1 is better than 2.

I am open minded enough to consider any data you can offer as proof of any instance in history where 1 actually happened. I am waiting for your explanation with great expectation!

[MikeD4o7]

Lets see, a being created things versus nothing created things. Yes, in my opinion 2 is much more logical than 1. I offered an explanation as to why I believe the way I do. You in turn attack my ability to reason? Care to take a stab at it and provide your reason why you believe 1 is better than 2.

I am open minded enough to consider any data you can offer as proof of any instance in history where 1 actually happened. I am waiting for your explanation with great expectation!


This might be the impasse we woudl be at if we lived hundreds of years ago... but there have been mathematical and scientific proofs that do show that something can in fact come out of nothing.

[Fasdf]

That is only your opinion, which you offer no explanation for.

My opinion of what? You don't exactly offer any explanation as to how the universe was created. "god being responsible" offers nothing at all. Its like blaming god for anything we don't understand.


Lets see, a being created things versus nothing created things. Yes, in my opinion 2 is much more logical than 1.

That's terrible logic on the grounds that you chose the easier answer. Can you understand something being created out of nothing? Where did god come from? Who created him? Is he eternal? How is that possible, since its clearly illogical that the universe can't eternal, why should he be?

[ranger]

This might be the impasse we woudl be at if we lived hundreds of years ago... but there have been mathematical and scientific proofs that do show that something can in fact come out of nothing.Really, lets make it simple. What is the mathematical or scientific formula that would allow me to create an atom from nothing?

[Vic]

Really, lets make it simple. What is the mathematical or scientific formula that would allow me to create an atom from nothing?

lets asume, that god created the universe. Now i ask you the following:
who created god? Because god couldn´t have been created out of nothing right? just like the universe couldn´t have been created out of nothing. But some say, god has always existed, but that is for me as inlogical, as it is for you that the universe wasn´t created by a superior force.

But i know who created God, humans did.

[ranger]

My opinion of what? You don't exactly offer any explanation as to how the universe was created. "god being responsible" offers nothing at all. Its like blaming god for anything we don't understand.You are right. Neither your theory of evolution nor my theory of a pre-existing being offers any explanation as to how the universe was created. Your theory says it came from nothing, Mine says a being or beings existed prior to the creation.

That's terrible logic on the grounds that you chose the easier answer.It actually has nothing to do with easy or hard.

Can you understand something being created out of nothing?I thought it was obvious that I cannot! Can you prove it did at any time?
Where did god come from? Who created him? Is he eternal?God always was. You know, the way the universe was prior to Hubbel changing your theory. http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm

How is that possible, since its clearly illogical that the universe can't eternal, why should he be?Then you agree the theory of evolution that preached a universe that always existed was illogical. The Bible told us the universe, space, time and matter started at a single source and that the universe is expanding. God told us that 4000 years before enlightened scientists figured it to be true.



In my experience I have seen man take steel, rubber, copper, and lots of other things and make a car, airplane, space shuttle, whatever from those things. I have never seen a factory pop up from nothing and start building these things. Have you?

I base my opinion on experience. What is your's based on?

[admirralsdoll]

Ranger I just wanted to say your not alone. I myself can answer the poll because I cant grasp the idea that Dinosaurs existed then just disappeared. I have posted to another thread about this and just laughed at. I have been reading on the subject and still hasnt opened my eyes. I have also been trying to find any other species that has just disappeared without saying they are extinct now and not just disappeared all of a sudden.

[MikeD4o7]

I have also been trying to find any other species that has just disappeared without saying they are extinct now and not just disappeared all of a sudden.


You mean it's the abruptness of the dinosaurs' extinction that you find hard to grasp? There are several explanations... most of which revolve around rapid global climate change for one reason or another.

[Fasdf]

My opinion on the creation of the universe (which was neither stated or asked for), is that its way to difficult for simple comprehension and that its also irrelevent to every day life. Belief in something with no supportive evidence or logic is very relevent to every day life however.

Ranger: The first few questions were mindless rhetoric for which I am sorry. I too have trouble understanding that you can take nothing and create something.

However your argument goes like this:

something can not come from nothing
something must have created the universe
god is that something
god came from nothing because heck, he's god and can do anything I say

Who can spot the error? (hint: its in bold)



In my experience I have seen man take steel, rubber, copper, and lots of other things and make a car, airplane, space shuttle, whatever from those things. I have never seen a factory pop up from nothing and start building these things. Have you?
I'm sorry I don't have the experience of factory work, I will try to broaden my horizons so that I may better understand the creation of the universe.

[ranger]

However your argument goes like this:

something can not come from nothing
something must have created the universe
god is that something
god came from nothing because heck, he's god and can do anything I say

Who can spot the error? (hint: its in bold)
Actually my argument goes more like this:
something can not come from nothing
A being must have created the universe
I call that being God!
God has revealed to us that He has always been.

In God's book he told us the universe was started from a single point in space, time, and matter. In God's book he told us the universe was expanding. In God's book he told us he is, was, and always will be. He told us these things thousands of years before science "figured it out". God has not revealed where he came from but the three things I have mentioned here that he did reveal are correct. You even believe in 2 of them based on your science.

Try studying and open your heart and you may soon believe the third point. If not it is no biggie. I admit I can not prove God to you. I believe in God and put my faith in Him. I would appreciate it if you folks would either offer proof of the big bang or admit you cannot prove it and that your belief is based not on fact but your faith in science.

[ranger]

Ranger I just wanted to say your not alone. I myself can answer the poll because I cant grasp the idea that Dinosaurs existed then just disappeared. I have posted to another thread about this and just laughed at. I have been reading on the subject and still hasnt opened my eyes. I have also been trying to find any other species that has just disappeared without saying they are extinct now and not just disappeared all of a sudden.Thanks for the encouraging words.

Job actually mentions "Behemoths" and if they were the dinosaurs they could easily have become extinct as a result of the flood.

[Fasdf]

(...)
Try studying and open your heart and you may soon believe the third point. If not it is no biggie. I admit I can not prove God to you. I believe in God and put my faith in Him. I would appreciate it if you folks would either offer proof of the big bang or admit you cannot prove it and that your belief is based not on fact but your faith in science.

I CANNOT PROVE IT

Faith is believing in something with no supportive evidence, which is against my morals.

You accept that neither are provable, yet you accept one over the other. No one even said that either needed to be correct.

[Fasdf]

<snip>

[Craig]

One necessarily involves the other.

I voted NO regarding evolution because it starts with the big bang and I find that theory illogical. To avoid useless attacks on my beliefs I attempted to explain my reasoning for you.

Sorry for the confusion.

Back that truck up for a second, Ranger. Logically, it is fallacious to claim that evolution depends upon the Big Bang. They are seperate entities not dependent upon one another. One can exist without the other. And you still haven't explained the empirically identifiable genetic differences in observed speciation which is precisely one of the things explained by the theory of evolution. This evidence verifies beyond a shadow of a doubt that microevolution is true, thus my questioning for your belief that evolution does not occur. Unless, of course, you can demonstrate why the observed speciation fails to support any part of the theory of evolution...

[Craig]

Job actually mentions "Behemoths" and if they were the dinosaurs they could easily have become extinct as a result of the flood.

Then you and the other Creationists need to demonstrate the location of rock strata with Homo Sapiens sapiens alongside fossils of dinosaurs. At the current date, there have been absolutely no discoveries of this sort, which seriously damages any theorizing that dinosaurs lived at the same time as humans. If people are to believe that dinosaurs existed at the same time as humans and were wiped out by a flood, there needs to be evidence that it occurred.

[Craig]

Admirralsdoll, have you encountered this webpage? It discusses the mass extinctions that have occurred. http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/darwin/exfiles/massintro.htm
Among some of the extinct species explicity mentioned are all of the trilobites, most of the ammonoids, conodonts, many of the brachiopods, and of course the dinosaurs.

[MikeD4o7]

Job actually mentions "Behemoths" and if they were the dinosaurs they could easily have become extinct as a result of the flood.


I think the alternative explanation there is that it's describing a hippo... given the proximity to Egypt, it seems far more likely that's the case.

[ranger]

And you still haven't explained the empirically identifiable genetic differences in observed speciation which is precisely one of the things explained by the theory of evolution. This evidence verifies beyond a shadow of a doubt that microevolution is true, thus my questioning for your belief that evolution does not occur. Unless, of course, you can demonstrate why the observed speciation fails to support any part of the theory of evolution...

I believe it to be a generally accepted fact that species appear suddenly in the fossil record without known ancestors and often disappear just as suddenly from the record. I do not see enough in the fosil record to support the idea that speciation has had anything whatever to do with evolution. Most known fossil species appear to be highly stable entities that remain unchanged, by evolutionary assumptions, for tens of millions of years.

Nearly half of the marine bivalve mollusk species in the well represented fossils of the Cenozoic Era are identical in structure to living forms of today. Of those not having living representatives, I understand are believed by evolutionists to have become extinct rather than having evolved into some other species.

The following fossil species comprise at least 50% living species: marine gastropods younger than 3.5 million years old (myo), benthic foraminifera younger than 15 myo, plaktonic foraminifera younger than 10 myo, fresh water fish and terrestrial mammals younger than 7 myo and nearly ALL species of beetles younger than 2 myo. For plants, fossil species which comprise at least 50% living species include: seed bearing vascular plants younger than 4 myo, marine diatoms younger than 12 myo, bryophytes younger than 10 myo and nearly ALL Miocene and Pliocene species are alive today! These data suggest that for all species of plants and animals, there has been little measurable change in nearly ten billion generations!

So I believe evolution by "speciation" occurs only in a semantic sense and tells us nothing about how we have come to have lions and horses and chickens and cows and giraffes and dinosaurs etc. etc.

[Duo_Maxwell]

Ranger:
My understanding of evolution as a theory is that its theory keeps changing.

The basic prinicipals of evolution haven't changed in decades.

Your theory says it came from nothing

Evolution doesn't claim how the universe began.

I have never seen a factory pop up from nothing and start building these things

Ever hear of nanopaste? :)

[heel31ok]

Then you and the other Creationists need to demonstrate the location of rock strata with Homo Sapiens sapiens alongside fossils of dinosaurs. At the current date, there have been absolutely no discoveries of this sort, which seriously damages any theorizing that dinosaurs lived at the same time as humans. If people are to believe that dinosaurs existed at the same time as humans and were wiped out by a flood, there needs to be evidence that it occurred.
Yo craig , already been shown in The Paluxy river beds of Glen Rose, Texas , human foot prints preserved with "dinos". The question of dinos extinction is not valid because not all are extinct! Only certain kinds.More examples have been found in Virginia, Pennsylvania,Kentucky ,Illinois, Missouri and westward towards the Rocky Mountains. Strata positioning is inconsistent at best when used to determine ages because of the varying positions of same strata types. Most strata is dated by fossils contained in them. Most fossils dated by strata they are in.Dating methods as a whole are not very reliable past 6,000 years. It is mainly guessing and pure conjecture.Not very good "science!"

[Duo_Maxwell]

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=5&catID=2

Paluxy river beds is a scam.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/Paluxygullibility.html
http://members.aol.com/ibss3/ibss3/paluxy.htm
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/ukatheist/articles/dinosaurtracks.htm

[Craig]

I do not see enough in the fosil record to support the idea that speciation has had anything whatever to do with evolution.

The speciation I was referring to specifically is unrelated to the fossil record. There is more than one subject of discussion in this thread, including evolution and dinosaurs. I am referring to members of a species observed by modern day biologists that are now only able to interbreed with one another, rather than the collective species as a whole. While this is referred to as microevolution, it is proof of evolution occurring nonetheless.

And as for macroevolution, there is good evidence to support its existence as well. For instance, whales have a bone structure in their fins not totally dissimilar to the bones in hands and feet of other species. The question is, why are the bones present? The ergonomically shaped fins of fish are more efficient for movement in water, so what rational explanation can we give for whales not possessing fish-like fins? Well, if we start with the premise that whales evolved from land mammals, (and there are itermediary fossils to suggest this), it explains why whales have bones rather than the fish fins.

[ranger]

The speciation I was referring to specifically is unrelated to the fossil record. There is more than one subject of discussion in this thread, including evolution and dinosaurs. I am referring to members of a species observed by modern day biologists that are now only able to interbreed with one another, rather than the collective species as a whole. While this is referred to as microevolution, it is proof of evolution occurring nonetheless.

This all started by someone asking me why I don't believe in evolution. It is not so much that I believe or not believe but in what seems logical to me. I did not expect to get into all this discussion. It has been fun!

Craig, thanks for making me turn on the brain. Sometimes I just cruise in overdrive. I will do more research on your claim about microevolution but don't expect much. As I understand microevolution is evolution within a species and does nothing to prove macroevolution or the changing from one species to another.

[heel31ok]

I would not expect anything different than what the websites gave. The only thing that would give more credibility would be if it was on T.V.

[Craig]

Yo craig , already been shown in The Paluxy river beds of Glen Rose, Texas , human foot prints preserved with "dinos". The question of dinos extinction is not valid because not all are extinct! Only certain kinds.More examples have been found in Virginia, Pennsylvania,Kentucky ,Illinois, Missouri and westward towards the Rocky Mountains. Strata positioning is inconsistent at best when used to determine ages because of the varying positions of same strata types. Most strata is dated by fossils contained in them. Most fossils dated by strata they are in.Dating methods as a whole are not very reliable past 6,000 years. It is mainly guessing and pure conjecture.Not very good "science!"

As Duo mentioned, the Paluxy River beds are a hoax. Could you please provide links regarding the "surviving dinosaurs"? If survivors have been discovered, this is a major breakthrough that would be a top news story, and indeed, there would be much scientific literature devoted to the subject. The fact that there is neither is a red flag. The only surviving "dinosaurs" known to date are birds and the reptiles that survived the Cretacious extinction.

As for strata dating, it sounds as though you have not heard of dating using the halflife of of radioactive rock. While dating is not a precise science, it is not mainly guessing or pure conjecture by any stretch of the imagination. The geologic evidence does not support a young earth, but rather one that is several million years old.

[Craig]

Craig, thanks for making me turn on the brain.

No problem. I would suggest reading here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html
and
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Also, take a good look around the talkorigins webpage as it has a lot of other useful resources on the subject that most people are unaware of.

[ranger]

No problem. I would suggest reading here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html
and
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Also, take a good look around the talkorigins webpage as it has a lot of other useful resources on the subject that most people are unaware of.
In the morning, it is late and I am exhausted.

Thanks again.

[Duo_Maxwell]

when people say evolution doesn't exist I sometimes laugh. I live in Hawaii, there is a phenomen when eruptions destroy forests, but leave small pockets alive. This creates barriers insects cannot cross. Within the miniscule time frame of 50 years, we have seen new species of fruit flies arise in different pocket forests, evolution is alive and kicking, and it's in my backyard.

[marv]

Thanks Craig, I added TalkOrigins (www.talkorigins.org/) to my bookmarks.

[mataj]

I voted NO regarding evolution because it starts with the big bang and I find that theory illogical. To avoid useless attacks on my beliefs I attempted to explain my reasoning for you.Big bang has nothing to do with evolution. Big bang is physics/cosmology, evolution is biology.

[Secession]

If you throw a pair of dice enough times, you get two sixes. If you have a stable enough environment and suitable chemistry, you get life.

Why am I even bothering? Entropy rules.

[mataj]

If you throw a pair of dice enough times, you get two sixes. If you have a stable enough environment and suitable chemistry, you get life..It's not like throwing dices, or assembling aeroplane at random. I think I've wrote here about "Monte carlo" method here already. The only requirement for start of evolution is one molecule capabale of self replication, that's all. One molecule replicates, and yields 2, they again replicate, and we got 4 of them, and 8, and 16, and so on. Before long, they consume all available space, and chemistry, and selection begins. The ones, which are capable of replicating in deteriorated conditions survive, the rest of them vanish. It's like running "Monte carlo" problem solving algorithm in parallel billions of times, for a countless millions of years. Complex solutions aren't just probable, but are pretty inevieatable.

Why am I even bothering? Entropy rules.Entropy can be reversed locally. Price for it is increased entropy in the neighbourhood. Fridge or air conditioner is a nice example. It lowers temperature, and consequentially entropy inside, by releasing even more heat on the outside (not to mention heat produced by electricity generation).

The most common way of decreasing the entropy is selection, givig the word it's broadest meaning. Annealing, crystallization and condenzation (which takes place in refrigirator's/air conditioner's radiator unit) is also a sort of selection. Molecules, which are slow (cold) enough to incorporate themselves into chrystalline structure, or liquid stay there. Molecules, which are too fast (too hot), continue on their way.

I'm sure, that everybody around here heard about biological selection. Selection is also part of any creative process. Artists discard much more works than they produce, especially during their study. Technical development requires great ammount of random tinkering, and experimentation. Version 1.0 never works. Universe V1.0, if it was indeed created, must have been a fiasco.

[earth]

However your argument goes like this:

something can not come from nothing
something must have created the universe
god is that something
god came from nothing because heck, he's god and can do anything I say

Who can spot the error? (hint: its in bold)

Now I believe in evolution but I have serious problems with this arguement

First: What is nothing? Nothing is an abstract term. Making a far-fetched assumption such as the existance of dimensions outside of our own 4, our universe may indeed be a crossover from another dimension. Hence, it may seem like it came from nothing but in fact it was coming from a place where we can only perceive as nothing due to our limited intellect.

Second: This is going into another thread. I just thought of it now. See Here. (http://www.whistlestopper.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11428)

[Secession]

It's not like throwing dices, or assembling aeroplane at random.

No. I should have said that when you get two sixes you keep them. My point is that if a configuration which can replicate is possible it will happen eventually. The universe is very old.

[mataj]

I should have said that when you get two sixes you keep them.Nicely put.

[Fasdf]

Now I believe in evolution but I have serious problems with this arguement

First: What is nothing? Nothing is an abstract term. Making a far-fetched assumption such as the existance of dimensions outside of our own 4, our universe may indeed be a crossover from another dimension. Hence, it may seem like it came from nothing but in fact it was coming from a place where we can only perceive as nothing due to our limited intellect.

Second: This is going into another thread. I just thought of it now. See Here. (http://www.whistlestopper.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11428)

I saw your post, and seeing as how I would fit into the "naysayer" category, I felt it inappropriate to post things like "er, typically i really kinda don't. sorry.....". (Nothing personal cpwill!)

I don't really think ranger was taking into account multiple dimentions. However, wouldn't that just open more questions than it answers? Your last statement is where I stand, yet a common argument is that god has to be responsible for the creation of the universe because "it had to come from somewhere" and yet god doesn't have to come from anywhere. If god doesn't need to come from anywhere and he is all lasting, then it clearly means that not everything needs to come from something.

[Gale_Force15]

WHy not evolution? thats all i ask. Answer that.

[Hydrok]

WHy not evolution? thats all i ask. Answer that.

Because in and of its self it does not answer where the first "thing" came from, there has been mere speculation on that topic. Perhaps there were Amino Acids that when struck by lightning produced a cell... who knows.

[Gale_Force15]

Because in and of its self it does not answer where the first "thing" came from, there has been mere speculation on that topic. Perhaps there were Amino Acids that when struck by lightning produced a cell... who knows.

Two molecules combined. The formed a small dead bilogical bit, static elec. jumpstarted it, and formed the first life.

[Fasdf]

Life certainly had its share of time to get started. About half of the earth's time in existence has been lifeless. About none of the earth's time has had humans on it. If the timeline of the earth were compressed into a 24 hour day, we wouldn't be seen until the very last second. What's possible within that huge time period? I think its a little too much for any of us to conceptualize. Creationists are clearly a superior brand of human being that can conceptualize it however, and know that it is way too short for life to come into creation by itself.

[Gale_Force15]

Besides, the Biblical theory doesn't account for every 6 yr old boys obsession: Dinosaurs.

[Texsand]

Besides, the Biblical theory doesn't account for every 6 yr old boys obsession: Dinosaurs.
On that we agree GF. My son was sure obsessed with em. And I agree with the theory of evolution.

[Gale_Force15]

lol. when I was 6, all i ever talked about was dino's.

[Texsand]

lol. when I was 6, all i ever talked about was dino's.
So did my son, and he had a ton of replicas. He told dinosaur jokes, he told dinosaur stories, I thought at one point I might go mad if I heard the word just one more time. ;)

[DeathMonkey]

You know, I am more than a little hurt that no one commented on my Lancer Evolution VIII joke. Get it? Get it?


ugh. no one reads my posts anymore :(

[Fasdf]

is it a car?

[Thermopylae]

Okay, so, next question:

Who is dumber?

1) The people who don't believe in evolution
2) The people who do believe in evolution, but also believe in god.

[lucky1]

The people who do believe in Evolution period.

[LightFlower]

It’s all based on morals and ethics. People who are religious their culture and their up bringing would have a lot to deal with these issues. People need something to believe in to have a goal or objective. If you look closes science proves a lot of the bible wrong. People who need someone to believe in that life does a higher purpose instead of just dieing like any other creature. Me I think it’s scary as well; Einstein had his beliefs but always kept most of his religion life separate from science. Were taught since child that god will take us to this mystical land; but only those whom are good. But then science and history show that the bibles were used as states of laws in countries, as well as educational usage. Bibles were also edited by queens, kings and monarchy. So the bible is so twisted with stories and quotes and information. I think its wrong to not let scientist research everything about it. Because, its are human nature to be curious.


:mad: @Lucky1

[Craig]

The people who do believe in Evolution period.

Step right up to the plate then Lucky1, and be prepared to defend your belief. I assume you have read my responses, and have a suitable defence? Please outline what this is so that I and others may see it.

[Fasdf]

Ahhhh, two new members, one of which doesn't support his views, and the other who gives me a headache by trying to read mini bold font.

Well, nice to meet ya.

[Secession]

You know, I am more than a little hurt that no one commented on my Lancer Evolution VIII joke. Get it? Get it?


ugh. no one reads my posts anymore :(

Someone did comment on it. I thought it was very funny but didn't have any similarly witty response so I shut up.

[Secession]

The people who do believe in Evolution period.

Sigh...

[2ruballa]

The theory of evolution does not explain how life began. Life came from no life? How come that doesn't happen today still? How come life can only come from life now?

[Duo_Maxwell]

Um, I recall that theory says eletrical storms provided the energy needed for basic amino acids to form in a atmosphere conducive to these acids.

It helps that we've actually done it.

[Gale_Force15]

Life still comes from no-life. it's just they live so shortly we never get to document them.

[2ruballa]

It helps that we've actually done it.

What? Create life from scratch?

[barciad]

Ever read Frankenstein, that is all based on fact you know ;) . No but seriously, I think Duo knows where he is coming from. I just hope that you are also wondering where all those pesky dinosaurs came from as well.

[2ruballa]

Life still comes from no-life. it's just they live so shortly we never get to document them.

o lordy.....You make a claim and then say it was never documented?

who told you and where did they read it from? after all it never gets a chance to be documented. you couldn't have read it yourself.

[Duo_Maxwell]

Um, no. We created the building blocks of life is a lab using conditions thought to occur in primoredial earth.

http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SUA05/origin.html

[mataj]

The theory of evolution does not explain how life began. Life came from no life?It happened gradually. Border between life and no life is blurred even today. There is no precise definition of what is alive, and what isn't.

According to evolution theory, it all begun with a couple of molecules capable of self replication. In fact, one would be enough. In suitable chemical conditions, such molecule would replicate. Resulting two molecules would replicate again to yield 4 molecules, and 8, and 16, and so on. In a couple of ten generations, they would fill entire ocean, and start competing for space, and nutritients. In time, ocean chemistry changed. Those molecules, who aren't able to replicate in new conditions, died out, others continued to replicate, and became more, and more sophisticated. Gradually, they gained membrane, digestion mechanism, and so on. Living cell didn't popped into existance at once, as creationist theorists like to depict.

How come that doesn't happen today still? How come life can only come from life now?Two reasons. First, ocean chemistry is substantially different than a couple of billions years ago. Second, ocean is alerady full of life. Eventual emerging new life would quickly be devoured.

[Duo_Maxwell]

mataj: Slight correction: "chemistry is substantially different" replace substantially with astronomically.

[earth]

Two reasons. First, ocean chemistry is substantially different than a couple of billions years ago. Second, ocean is alerady full of life. Eventual emerging new life would quickly be devoured.

A good example of this would be the plankton that whales eat. Very simple life form that is not given an opportunity to evolve.

One question comes to mind with me though concerning evolution. The common fruit fly has a lifespan of mere hours, how come it hasn't evolved to a point past what it's species is at?

[Fasdf]

A good example of this would be the plankton that whales eat. Very simple life form that is not given an opportunity to evolve.

One question comes to mind with me though concerning evolution. The common fruit fly has a lifespan of mere hours, how come it hasn't evolved to a point past what it's species is at?
Easy: having a short lifespan is not necessary for survival of the species. Having a bajillion offspring is incredibly more effective than living for years and years with only a few offspring; at least for some animals. Fruit flies still thrive, don't they? A sure sign of fitness.

Having longer lifespans might complicate things, like overpopulation and a more complex biology which might require longer gestation periods and thus fewer offspring.

[mataj]

The only measure of success in evolution is survival. It doesn't matter how. There are two basic strategies, with everything in between: large number of simple species, and small number of sophisticated species. From our point of view, the latter is "better", "higher", "developed", and so on- but that's just our point of view.

Our wisdom, knowledge, morality, skills, science, and technology is constantly undergoing a process of non-biological evolution. Let's take a closer look at some of theese categories.


Widsom. There are a lot of thoughts and ideas going through our minds. Some a are acted upon, others are considered about, and vast majority of them is discarded, and forgoten. We don't know exactly how our brains work, but it's quite possible, that some sort of selection, and evolution process goes on in there- combination of succesful solutions, evaluation, selection, and occasional random mutation. If this is the case, so called "lower species", bacteria, insects, reptiles, and so on are also intelligent- not as individuals, but as population as a whole. Perhaps that's why they always outsmart our antibiotics, pesticides, and everything else we are throwing at them.


Morality. Prerequisite for survival of a certain moral code is survival of society, which practices it. Measure of success of a moral code is therefore success of "it's" society. Moral codes of a succesful society are copied, and sometimes imposed on others. They evolve together with society, and it's culture. As an example, let's examine the Christian moral codes from the evolutional point of view.

Significance of honesty (thou shalt not kill, steal, and so on) is self evident.

Sexual restrictions are often criticized and ridiculed nowadays, but they have their purpose. Apart from limiting the spread of STDs, they bring some stability into people's lives, leaving them more time, and energy for other things. They also increase ammount of hysteria, fanaticism, and pugnacity in society. In times of war, this often comes in handy.

In theese overcrowded times of ours, procreation is no longer important, but it was not always so. Funny as it seems, during most of our history, human beings were in short supply. For illustration: Function of so called 'ladies in waiting' on the medeival courts was exactly as their name suggests. Without hospitals and medicine, childbearing was a terribly hazardous undertaking. In order to assure the survival of the lord of the castle's bloodline, one wife was not enough. He had to keep a couple of others in reserve.

Evolutinal benefits of "honouring thy father and mother", solidarity towards elderly, and other unproductive members of society are not so obvious. Historical experience had shown, however, that abandoning of this principle leads to "live fast, die young" mentality, which is very detrimental on the long run. Also, passing of knowledge between generations is aggrevated. This leads to decline of society, together with it's moral code.


Skills. When a skilled craftman is doing his work, he does everything right at the first time. He wastes no time, nor material. This is how creationists are fancying the world being created. Centuries of tinkering, experimentation, gradual improvement, and painful transfer of knowledge from many generations of masters to their aprentices is usually overlooked. Medeival phylosophers, and theologists, who hammered together creation theory, certainly didn't reflected upon how skills needed to create something came into existance.
[Yea, yea, I heard of that old "something from nothing" problem. Howsoever, that something that came from nothing still had to be shaped somehoew.]


Science. Fittness of scientific theory is measured by it's accordance to the known facts, simplicity, practicability, intuitiveness, and ... yes, elegance too. Clumsy scietific theories (for example ether theory, and such) are promptly forgotten, as soon as discovery of a suitable new fact allows it. Elegant ones, like Newton's, persist despite of their known limitations. New scientific theories are usually combination of old ones, with a few modifications.


Technology. Known solutions are combined together in new ways, with some random tinkering, and modifications, and tested. Very similar to biological evolution.

[DeathMonkey]

A good example of this would be the plankton that whales eat. Very simple life form that is not given an opportunity to evolve.

One question comes to mind with me though concerning evolution. The common fruit fly has a lifespan of mere hours, how come it hasn't evolved to a point past what it's species is at?

Because:
Once the DNA is replicated (in the form of offspring), the host becomes useless (evolutionarily). Evolution does not view anything but the perpetuation of the DNA. Such as virus's that kill their hosts. Why is this evolutionarily advantageous? It isn't, but the external factors neccesary to affect change in the DNA at that level dont exist, or are irrelevant. Regardless, the virus survives long enough to replicate. What matters to the virus is replicating. Period.
What points to a strong evolutionary proof is that evolution rarely affects factors that exist AFTER the mating/replicating stage of life. Flies would not have more babies if they lived longer, ergo, there is no need for them to select that way. Longevity is selected when the being in question that lives longer than their compatriots breeds more.
Plankton have evolved to perfectly fit a niche in the aquatic eco-system, so there is no pressure to evolve.
Read "The Selfish Gene" sometime, or even just excepts. Fascinating book.

[xexon]

Evolution exists despite religious people who do not believe in it. I believe in both creationalism and evolution.

God kind of created the prototype, and mother nature evolves it according to the changes in it's surroundings. So you see, its not either/or. Its a fusion of the two.

There is room for both. Its the mix ratio we can't agree upon.



x

[cpwill]

i'd say it's a slightly stronger "control" portioned mix, i'd say that God created the prototype and then guided it's evolution.

i remember once seeing a scientist who was talking about evolution claim that the odds of a planet naturally evolving as complicated creatures us in 1 million years and having us become the dominant species was something like 1 to 1 followed by 3 pages of zeros.

i have no idea if it's true; but it's something i always think about when this debate comes up.

[Larani]

Most excellant post mataj. I am always trying to point out evolution is far more then just biological and your post does sucha fine job of it.

Very well thought out and very well presented. :clap:

Tell me did you write it or was it copied from another source?

[mataj]

i remember once seeing a scientist who was talking about evolution claim that the odds . . . Odds calculated by scientists of creationistic inclination must be taken with a bit of reserve. We don't know enough about cosmos, and evolution, to calculate odds.
having us become the dominant species Dominant species? Us? No way! We'll become dominant species, when we manage to keep cockroaches away from our houses, and bacteria out of our guts.


Read "The Selfish Gene" sometime, or even just excepts. Fascinating book."Selfish Gene" was meant to be a popular scientific book about zoology, nothing more. But, because it's so well written, it turned out to be much more than that. Without sacrifying scientific accuracy, Dawkins managed to explain basic principles of evolution in such way, that everybody could understand them. "Selfish Gene" is very absorbing reading, despite of it's exhaustiveness. In years that followed it's 1st edition, many people of different professions read it- sociologists, culturologists, engineers, computer scientists, theologists, and so on.

"Selfish Gene" is not like Darwin's "Origins of Species". There are no new discoveries in there, just the old evolution theory, presented in a new, innovative way. This book is not influential by itself, but because of new ideas it brought about in the other areas of science, and phylosophy.

Very thought provoking stuff, highly recommendable.

[mataj]

Tell me did you write it or was it copied from another source?I wrote it, thanxx for the compliment.

[TheGreyGhost]

Proud member of the Whistlestopper 5.......

[Fasdf]

i remember once seeing a scientist who was talking about evolution claim that the odds of a planet naturally evolving as complicated creatures us in 1 million years and having us become the dominant species was something like 1 to 1 followed by 3 pages of zeros.
1 million years? That's impossible. Its taken us what? 2.8 billion years just to get a cell going. Then another 2.8 billion to get people.

2.8 billion years just to get a single damn stupid boring ugly microscopic cell.

[lucky1]

Craig and others, explain to me how life comes from no-life because I just do not get it. How does nothing create something. Just because you place every single component of a timex watch separately in a box and shake it up for a thousand years, that does not mean the timex watch will be completely assembled and ticking.

[LightFlower]

Craig and others, explain to me how life comes from no-life because I just do not get it. How does nothing create something. Just because you place every single component of a timex watch separately in a box and shake it up for a thousand years, that does not mean the timex watch will be completely assembled and ticking.

Excuse me, ok hunnie!!!!

The big bang theory….Stated that heat, gases, and the right amount of pressure, it took a lot of hundreds-thousandths of years for this all to come. When earth was finally properly formed volcanoes and water which later formed; land with the gravitational shifts and the plates constantly moving.
Anyway, if you look one of the oldest bacteria’s around cyanobacteria was in the water. Some of there species evolved and adapted closer to land and the process continued. Then eventually we had little critters running on land. All forms of life need what? WATER! Their isnt one critter sponge, human, animal, that needs sometype of WATER...in their body...LIFE REVOVLES AROUND? WATER! :lol:


----------------TO YOU LUCKY---------------

Man isn’t that stupid; if we were always here there would most defiantly be evidence, Don’t you think? We had to have some type of communication? Just look at the Egyptians, Aztecs, Mayan ,Greeks, Romans, or even Nomadic people they have left evidence and trails and written type of communication in their communities. If we were always here wouldn’t we have some type of evidence and support? If not then that would..mean we evolved from something obviously? Right?

[Fasdf]

Craig and others, explain to me how life comes from no-life because I just do not get it. How does nothing create something. Just because you place every single component of a timex watch separately in a box and shake it up for a thousand years, that does not mean the timex watch will be completely assembled and ticking.
Ahhhhh!!!!! Its not a thousand years!!!!!! Its 2.8 billion years!!!!! Do you know how long that is??? No, you don't, because you'll be lucky to live 100 years and to comprehend that huge span of time is impossible. Single celled life forms are hardly what I'd call a timex watch.

Supposing this is all impossible, that macro evolution is a load of crap, and that we did in fact not evolve from a single celled life form, creation still has 0 supportive evidence and would not be a single bit more plausable.

That's why you shouldn't 'believe' it.

[Michele]

"that was funny, DeathMonkey!"
"Thanks, I thought so."



Bastards.

no this is funny.... my first laugh in the thread.

[lucky1]

No it doesn't. It does not mean that we evolved from anything. Evolution is a cute little idea that I must concede makes sense. Evolution is Man's feeble attempt to logically explain the Omega. It gives us a sense of accomplishment because we can explain where we come from. That is all Evolution does. It just helps feed the human ego. Once again, how does the nonliving create the living. How. Please tell me. Heat and gases and pressure are nonliving. How do those non living substances create something that is living.

To Avril, that is just it. No one knows prescisely how old the earth is or how long people having been living on it. No one knows for sure. There is only speculation. Depending on who you ask you will get a different answer. Of course if you ask a biological, ecological or Earth scientist you will get an answer that is in the millions or billions or years. For all we know, Human life on Earth could have started with the Egyptians. No one knows for sure.

[LightFlower]

No it doesn't. It does not mean that we evolved from anything. Evolution is a cute little idea that I must concede makes sense. Evolution is Man's feeble attempt to logically explain the Omega. It gives us a sense of accomplishment because we can explain where we come from. That is all Evolution does. It just helps feed the human ego. Once again, how does the nonliving create the living. How. Please tell me. Heat and gases and pressure are nonliving. How do those non living substances create something that is living.

To Avril, that is just it. No one knows prescisely how old the earth is or how long people having been living on it. No one knows for sure. There is only speculation. Depending on who you ask you will get a different answer. Of course if you ask a biological, ecological or Earth scientist you will get an answer that is in the millions or billions or years. For all we know, Human life on Earth could have started with the Egyptians. No one knows for sure.

What about carbon dating? And If the egyptians were here first how come we find bones older then them that aren't like ours but similar far as skulls? :confused:
Then on that note......no one is offically sure but why not take a second look at it....

[Michele]

this was an interesting... this read. I'm with evolution. But the best part of reading through this thread is now I understand perhaps the origin of all the strange and twisted logic one encounters ....

It is called faith to believe in something with no logical explanation in the face of scientific evidence (even as it is verified and reverified and with the known gaps in knowledge), seems more like no thinking at all.

Which actually might be somewhat zen:

Faith = no thinking at all or the wisdom of not knowing.

But I still believe in evolution the only other thing I like toying with because it still fills me with fascination is about those annunaki... I love them.

[Michele]

What about carbon dating? And If the egyptians were here first how come we find bones older then them that aren't like ours but similar far as skulls? :confused:
Then on that note......no one is offically sure but why not take a second look at it....

I am not sure the egyptians were here first... was everything said to expand or migrate from the nile region.... what about Africa?

I don't remember. someone else here is better to answer your question.


where geographically have been all the different findings of neanderthal and homo erectus?

[LightFlower]

I am not sure the egyptian were here first... was everything said to expand or migrate from the nile region....

I don't remember. someone else here is better to answer your question.
Oh i know I dont believe their the 1st but they're a very unique community and dynasty of people. I believe the first people where Nomadic people. They just roamed free :cool: ! I was just commenting towards, Lucky1....

[Michele]

Oh i know hunnie, I dont believe their the 1st but they're a very unique community and dynasty of people. I believe the first people where Nomadic people. They just roamed free :cool: ! I was just commenting towards, Lucky1....


oh please don't call me hunnie... it is one of those endearments that kind of like tweaks me in the wrong way...

oh yeah I would say the egyptians were happening without a doubt.

[lucky1]

Once again, Carbon Dating. A man created method of dating. As I said earlier no one knows for sure. How precise is Carbon Dating. I was not suggesting that the Egyptians were the first to walk this planet, I am simply saying we don't know who were the first to walk the planet. The first people to walk this planet probably were nomads. But all this is not important. What is important is for someone to make a sound argument that explains how a paper clip can one day become a polar bear.

[Michele]

Once again, Carbon Dating. A man created method of dating. As I said earlier no one knows for sure. How precise is Carbon Dating. I was not suggesting that the Egyptians were the first to walk this planet, I am simply saying we don't know who were the first to walk the planet. The first people to walk this planet probably were nomads. But all this is not important. What is important is for someone to make a sound argument that explains how a paper clip can one day become a polar bear.

come on... what are you kidding some of the illogical arguments one encounters on forums...

but that is what I would call an illogical jump in species, wouldn't you? a paper clip is a man made object that becomes a more organic species...??? I don't feel that requires a sound argument necessarily. I don't feel there is one.

[lucky1]

Michelle I was joking when I said explain how a paperclip can one day become a polar bear. What I would really like you to do is explain how something non living can create something that is living.

[Michele]

Michelle I was joking when I said explain how a paperclip can one day become a polar bear. What I would really like you to do is explain how something non living can create something that is living.


yes i could tell you were joking and I am in one of my goofy moods... so I couldn't resist. I am sure I am NOT one to make this argument.

what defines non living... I mean clearly the universe is very perplexing so before life as we the civilized have come to know it....

what I mean to ask is was there ever a time within this vast universe that we know for sure there was what would be defined as non-living... which would be non-being

most gases are not inert there is movement a form of living take weather creates all sorts of results like cranky waves that wash onto the sands creates negative ions...just to name one thing that happens without even getting into lightening and wind and fire and earth and friction and so forth and what happens once the negative ions are released what other reaction is created? and that is never only one action occurring in the universe just one show.

when do we know of a time when there was nothing... no life at all? we don't! we don't know the nothing, do we?

so what is the definition of non-living? Is my question.

[Michele]

I am going to watch "A Beautiful Mind."

I already missed if there was a cspan feed on the president's strategic summary that network decided not to air. I will check back later see if someone defined non-living.

see I am perfectly alright not having to believe some being created the universe. Yet I do like the parables in the biblical stories like morality plays... even god's on quandary with the failure of his own creation... so he destroys it twice in genesis right... seems to me he still hasn't gotten it right so I say we need to impeach him...

the universe in my mind was there it created itself. how many organisms actually do that recreate themselves?

[mataj]

Craig and others, explain to me how life comes from no-life because I just do not get it.What's the difference between life and no-life anyway?
Just because you place every single component of a timex watch separately in a box and shake it up for a thousand years, that does not mean the timex watch will be completely assembled and ticking.That's not evolution.

That timex watch analogy is not very good, but let's stick with it anyway. Evolution is like having a billion boxes with billion timex watches, shaked for billions of years. Whenever two components happen to get together properly in one box, they are assembled into other boxes as well.

[Larani]

I am not sure the egyptians were here first... was everything said to expand or migrate from the nile region.... what about Africa?

I don't remember. someone else here is better to answer your question.


where geographically have been all the different findings of neanderthal and homo erectus?


Interesting Read on Origins

Documentary Redraws Humans' Family Tree

Hillary Mayell
for National Geographic News
January 21, 2003

By analyzing DNA from people in all regions of the world, geneticist Spencer Wells has concluded that all humans alive today are descended from a single man who lived in Africa around 60,000 years ago.

Modern humans, he contends, didn't start their spread across the globe until after that time. Most archaeologists would say the exodus began 100,000 years ago?a 40,000-year discrepancy.

Wells's take on the origins of modern humans and how they came to populate the rest of the planet is bound to be controversial.

His work adds to an already crowded field of opposing hypotheses proposed by those who seek answers in "stones and bones"?archaeologists and paleoanthropologists?and those who seek them in our blood?population geneticists and molecular biologists.


Over the last decade, major debate on whether early humans evolved in Africa or elsewhere, when they began outward migration, where they went, and whether they interbred with or replaced archaic species has moved out of scientific journals and into the public consciousness.

Wells addresses these issues in a new book, The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey, and a National Geographic documentary of the same title. In a straightforward story, he explains how he traced the exodus of modern humans from Africa by analyzing genetic changes in DNA from the y-chromosome.

"As often happens in science," he said, "technology has opened up a field to new ways of answering old questions?often providing startling answers."

Of course, not everyone agrees with him.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/12/1212_021213_journeyofman.html#main

[Michele]

hey thanks Larani,

The article addresses my curiosity exactly. I had thought Africa was the cradle. I am up to the part regarding the question of intermixing. which in evolutionary terms, as you know has little to do with cross religious or cross racially breeding. Instead it is curiosity, regarding whether there was a crossover between modern humans and archaic humans. Seems an interesting query. I am interested now to find out if that question has arisen because evidence indicated it or because of modern man's propensity for comparisons with regard to civilized and savage. Human and subhuman. I find myself wanting to know what inspired that line of enquiry, for it seems to me evolution of thought modalities runs far behind anatomical evolution....

I wonder why that is? Is it solely societal conditioning due to the contructs between caste systems primarily or is evolution of thought (or lack of) also influenced by involentary reflex that can be linked to anatomy.

anyway. Thanks for the article it is interesting. I am going back to finish it now. Perhaps it will address my question... and truly what are or were the ramification of archaic man crossing with modern man... does that influence the evolutionary process in ways bad or good? I hope the article will now address that question.

[DeathMonkey]

Evolution of evolution! (http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=39&article_id=1254)

[Michele]

you mean technology? are you mounting a case for the potential of technological evolution causing human extinction?

[Fasdf]

you mean technology? are you mounting a case for the potential of technological evolution causing human extinction?
I thought it was a joke...

Have you ever noticed that all creationists do is attack evolution? That's because that's all they can do.

[Michele]

I thought it was a joke...

Have you ever noticed that all creationists do is attack evolution? That's because that's all they can do.

I thought it was a joke too! so I made what I thought was another joke... I guess you didn't get my joke - huh?

as for creationists.... well that is what was so interesting about this thread and all logic is suspended by creationists... or at least that is the way it seems to me and in observing that... well.... it explained for me a number of other things... and since now I understand something I hadn't before... I feel a kind of calm... for now I understand more how logic gets so twisted out of shape... but please don't ask me to explain ... it is most definitely beyond words.

[conservative28]

I voted no. I think it takes more blind faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in a creator. If evolution is true then why aren't we still evolving, why do they continue to not find bones of evolving animals? In the end nothing could prove to me that evolution is true I believe the teachings of the bible and it says we were created by the maker.

[Duo_Maxwell]

I voted no. I think it takes more blind faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in a creator. If evolution is true then why aren't we still evolving, why do they continue to not find bones of evolving animals? In the end nothing could prove to me that evolution is true I believe the teachings of the bible and it says we were created by the maker.

We are evolving, just at a abnormally slow rate. Instead of allowing the inferior to die off, we allow them to propagate their genes, essentially slowing evolution in humans to a standstill. There are people who can do freak stuff simply because they were born like that.

We don't find bones of evolving animals because they haven't acquired enough new mutations to designate them a new species.

If creationism is true, explain how a perfect God could create imperfect species?
If creationism is true, why can we force evolution in labs?
If creationism is true, why does all geological eviden point to a Earth that is billions of years old?
If creationism is true, where did the Dinosaurs go?
If creationism is true, why is there no scientific proof of any of it?

Where evolution has small holes, creationism has gapping maws the size of Sol.

[MikeD4o7]

Good post duo... I think we should also note that evolution has holes whereas creationism has contradictions.