Bush's take on evolution

[tonyk10971]

If your tired of talking about bush and his policies, feel free to talk about his take on evolution.

Bush believes that evolution is just a theory, but evolution is a model that describes how life changes over time and adapts to survive and reproduce. It has tons of data that proves the model through and through. It is not a theory or an explantion where life came from, so for bush to call it just a theory is absolutely ridiculous. I just want to know how he can get away with saying that?

[jyro]

I just want to know how he can get away with saying that?
You enjoy it, why shouldn't he?

[tonyk10971]

You enjoy it, why shouldn't he?
I enjoy what?

[D]

I enjoy what?

You enjoy free speech ya tard.

I tend to agree with him. Bush is a hardcore Christain, most like him tend to think the same way.

[HookEm]

Hey tard....
It's called THE THEORY of Evolution.
Not the LAW of Evolution, a la The LAW of Gravity.
It's unproven, due to many reasons: mainly, large gaps in the fossil record, and an incredible lack of the supcpecies Darwin theorized must exist...before he denounced the entire THEORY.

If your tired of talking about bush and his policies, feel free to talk about his take on evolution.

Bush believes that evolution is just a theory, but evolution is a model that describes how life changes over time and adapts to survive and reproduce. It has tons of data that proves the model through and through. It is not a theory or an explantion where life came from, so for bush to call it just a theory is absolutely ridiculous. I just want to know how he can get away with saying that?

[Phillip]

Bush believes that evolution is just a theory, but evolution is a model that describes how life changes over time and adapts to survive and reproduce. It has tons of data that proves the model through and through. It is not a theory or an explantion where life came from, so for bush to call it just a theory is absolutely ridiculous. I just want to know how he can get away with saying that?

uuuuhhhhh dude, what you are explaining is ADAPTATION not evolution. No one has ever witnessed or recorded a cat turning into a dog. And I don't care how many millions of years you wait... It ain't gonna happen.

[TexasDevilDog]

If your tired of talking about bush and his policies, feel free to talk about his take on evolution.

Bush believes that evolution is just a theory, but evolution is a model that describes how life changes over time and adapts to survive and reproduce. It has tons of data that proves the model through and through. It is not a theory or an explantion where life came from, so for bush to call it just a theory is absolutely ridiculous. I just want to know how he can get away with saying that?

It is called theory of evolution, for a reason. Science is based on hypothesis, experimentation and conclusion of proof.

[tonyk10971]

What bush said would be classified as free speech, i am not disputing that. What he said was false. I just think we need a president who is more educated, because if you cant see that evolution is more than "just a theory", then you cant understand how life works on this earth. Bush is denying evolution because it conflicts with his beliefs. but a belief is nothing but a practiced thought. So how can you base your life on a thought? How about living your life instead of sheltering it with beliefs and ignorance.

Check out this website, it can help you better understand where i am coming from. If you click on the link on the bottom it takes you to a website that compares evolution to creationism. And dont think this is my only source of info, there is tons of more information on evolution that I encourage you all to look into.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/intro.htm

[trey85stang]

What bush said would be classified as free speech, i am not disputing that. What he said was false. I just think we need a president who is more educated, because if you cant see that evolution is more than "just a theory", then you cant understand how life works on this earth. Bush is denying evolution because it conflicts with his beliefs. but a belief is nothing but a practiced thought. So how can you base your life on a thought? How about living your life instead of sheltering it with beliefs and ignorance.[/URL]

Last I checked Bush is living his life (and running yours while he is at it :o )... whether he believes in the 'theory' of evolution or not is irrelevant. Notice theory in quotes because... once again it is not proven.

And for you to say that what he said is false is an opinion... unless you have the undeniable proof needed to change that 'theory' into 'law'.

[SlowLX]

What bush said would be classified as free speech, i am not disputing that. What he said was false. I just think we need a president who is more educated, because if you cant see that evolution is more than "just a theory", then you cant understand how life works on this earth. Bush is denying evolution because it conflicts with his beliefs. but a belief is nothing but a practiced thought. So how can you base your life on a thought? How about living your life instead of sheltering it with beliefs and ignorance.

Check out this website, it can help you better understand where i am coming from. If you click on the link on the bottom it takes you to a website that compares evolution to creationism. And dont think this is my only source of info, there is tons of more information on evolution that I encourage you all to look into.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/intro.htm
You come up with more retarded shit to say every day.

[MouseKiller]

What bush said would be classified as free speech, i am not disputing that. What he said was false. I just think we need a president who is more educated, because if you cant see that evolution is more than "just a theory", then you cant understand how life works on this earth. Bush is denying evolution because it conflicts with his beliefs. but a belief is nothing but a practiced thought. So how can you base your life on a thought? How about living your life instead of sheltering it with beliefs and ignorance.

Check out this website, it can help you better understand where i am coming from. If you click on the link on the bottom it takes you to a website that compares evolution to creationism. And dont think this is my only source of info, there is tons of more information on evolution that I encourage you all to look into.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/intro.htm


I fail to see how saying the that THEORY of evolution is "just a theory" is false in any way, shape, or form. I would say Bush is calling it like it is, that is one quality I admire in the man.

Please tell us how the theory of evolution is "more than just a theory". How about the big bang theory? Is that more than just a theory too?

I will remind you that science + bias = poor results and ignorance. I know you have heard that some extermemly religious people speak out against the theory of evolution, but bear in mind there are also those who use the theory of evolution to lash out against organized religion as a whole.

[HookEm]

Look monkey boy......
It's called the
THEORY OF EVOLUTION.
Stupid, stupid, stupid.


What bush said would be classified as free speech, i am not disputing that. What he said was false. I just think we need a president who is more educated, because if you cant see that evolution is more than "just a theory", then you cant understand how life works on this earth. Bush is denying evolution because it conflicts with his beliefs. but a belief is nothing but a practiced thought. So how can you base your life on a thought? How about living your life instead of sheltering it with beliefs and ignorance.

Check out this website, it can help you better understand where i am coming from. If you click on the link on the bottom it takes you to a website that compares evolution to creationism. And dont think this is my only source of info, there is tons of more information on evolution that I encourage you all to look into.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/intro.htm

[Pro Trash]

uuuuhhhhh dude, what you are explaining is ADAPTATION not evolution. No one has ever witnessed or recorded a cat turning into a dog. And I don't care how many millions of years you wait... It ain't gonna happen.

I don't find that the definition of evolution supports transformation as in your cat to dog idea. The dictionary states:

"existing animals and plants developed by a process of gradual, continuous change from previously existing forms. This theory, also known as descent with modification, constitutes organic evolution. Inorganic evolution, on the other hand, is concerned with the development of the physical universe from unorganized matter. Organic evolution, as opposed to belief in the special creation of each individual species as an immutable form, conceives of life as having had its beginnings in a simple primordial protoplasmic mass (probably originating in the sea) from which, through the long eras of time, arose all subsequent living forms."

[Pro Trash]

If your tired of talking about bush and his policies, feel free to talk about his take on evolution.

Bush believes that evolution is just a theory, but evolution is a model that describes how life changes over time and adapts to survive and reproduce. It has tons of data that proves the model through and through. It is not a theory or an explantion where life came from, so for bush to call it just a theory is absolutely ridiculous. I just want to know how he can get away with saying that?


If the only thing I didn't like about Bush was his belief that evolution is theory, then I'd have no problem at all. Science and religion have always had a conflict of interest. Their are those who believe in the "theory" and those who believe in god. I find it funny that people make Darwin out to be anti-religious he was not Darwin simply theorized this idea, he was actually agnostic. I really liike the fact that Bush is a christian, it one trait I admire about him.

[46Tbird]

Uh-oh! Looks like we have some people here that don't understand scientific theory!!

A law defines a single, simple concept. Laws are built on mathematical data.

A theory defines a complex series of related concepts. Theories are built on empirical (experimental) data.

Both are accepted as scientific FACT. A law cannot be altered, but a theory can - in order to accomodate any new evidence. A scientific theory can be used to make predictions of events. While small components within a theory are subject to interpretation - and hence are subject to change - that does not change the fact that the theory is a device that is a useful tool for predicting outcomes.

Two-hundred or so years have shown that the Theory of Evolution is an excellent predictor for hypotheses. When Darwin saw an orchid from Madagascar (he never visited the place) with an eleven-inch long pistile (pollen receptacle), he predicted that there would be a flying creature with an eleven-inch long proboscis that would be able to pollinate it. Forty years later, the Madagascar Sphinx Moth was discovered...

http://www.poy.org/62/02/photosclar/62-02-ClarR-04.jpg

You own a vehicle - that is a fact. It will get you home tonight - that is a theory.

I don't see you arguing the concepts that have allowed us to define Electromagnetic Theory, or the Theory of Relativity...

[89 drop top stang]

I'm glad that Bush is acknowledging of both ends of the spectrum. I've always believed personally that evolution was a product of God. Just because the Bible doesn't spell it out doesn't mean that it can't be. And we're not talking about apes becoming men here. We're talking about certain genes being passed on to offspring to help ensure future propogation of the species.

[HookEm]

What's to argue? The originator of this thread hasa beef because W called the Theory of Evolution, the Theory of Evolution........

Uh-oh! Looks like we have some people here that don't understand scientific theory!!

A law defines a single, simple concept. Laws are built on mathematical data.

A theory defines a complex series of related concepts. Theories are built on empirical (experimental) data.

Both are accepted as scientific FACT. A law cannot be altered, but a theory can - in order to accomodate any new evidence. A scientific theory can be used to make predictions of events. While small components within a theory are subject to interpretation - and hence are subject to change - that does not change the fact that the theory is a device that is a useful tool for predicting outcomes.

Two-hundred or so years have shown that the Theory of Evolution is an excellent predictor for hypotheses. When Darwin saw an orchid from Madagascar (he never visited the place) with an eleven-inch long pistile (pollen receptacle), he predicted that there would be a flying creature with an eleven-inch long proboscis that would be able to pollinate it. Forty years later, the Madagascar Sphinx Moth was discovered...

http://www.poy.org/62/02/photosclar/62-02-ClarR-04.jpg

You own a vehicle - that is a fact. It will get you home tonight - that is a theory.

I don't see you arguing the concepts that have allowed us to define Electromagnetic Theory, or the Theory of Relativity...

[46Tbird]

What's to argue? The originator of this thread hasa beef because W called the Theory of Evolution, the Theory of Evolution........That's who I was talking to. ;)

[HookEm]

Progressive creationism......

I'm glad that Bush is acknowledging of both ends of the spectrum. I've always believed personally that evolution was a product of God. Just because the Bible doesn't spell it out doesn't mean that it can't be. And we're not talking about apes becoming men here. We're talking about certain genes being passed on to offspring to help ensure future propogation of the species.

[HookEm]

That's who I was talking to. ;)

damn it.....stupid caffeine! Work, damn you!

[TexasDevilDog]

Check out this website, it can help you better understand where i am coming from. If you click on the link on the bottom it takes you to a website that compares evolution to creationism. And dont think this is my only source of info, there is tons of more information on evolution that I encourage you all to look into.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/intro.htm

Ok, here is a test for your theory.

According to the theory, single celled organisms that reproduced through fission came first, later multi celled organisms that used fusion reproduction. What was the evolutionary catalyst that "evolved" an organisms from fission reproduction to fusion reproduction? There must have been a creature that did both? Where is it today?

Where is the proof?

[46Tbird]

There must have been a creature that did both?This is an assumption.Where is it today?Why would it have to be living today? Where is your great great great great grandmother? :confused:Where is the proof?That proof has not been found, just like the "evidence" of the first life form on earth. Therefore scientists use the theory to predict what they will find if evidence appears.

Prove to me that they won't find that evidence. :confused:

[Jester]

Look monkey boy......
It's called the
THEORY OF EVOLUTION.
Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Can't really argue with that.

[TexasDevilDog]

This is an assumption.Why would it have to be living today? Where is your great great great great grandmother? :confused:That proof has not been found, just like the "evidence" of the first life form on earth. Therefore scientists use the theory to predict what they will find if evidence appears.

Prove to me that they won't find that evidence. :confused:

Nice deflections. What was the catalyst? Any speculation is ok with me.

[46Tbird]

There's no deflections there at all. I answered your questions.

The catalyst? God, of course. :) To me, evolution and creationism are not contradictory unless you have a fundamentalist belief in either of them.

[TexasDevilDog]

There's no deflections there at all. I answered your questions.

The catalyst? God, of course. :) To me, evolution and creationism are not contradictory unless you have a fundamentalist belief in either of them.

Darn intelligent design people! :D

[46Tbird]

We're fucking assholes. :D

[TexasDevilDog]

We're fucking assholes. :D

I don't think god created a static world. I don't think a worm will ever become a bird after a billion years, even under the perfect conditions.

[46Tbird]

I don't think god created a static world. I don't think a worm will ever become a bird after a billion years, even under the perfect conditions.So is that an exaggeration, or are you just blatantly ignorant of the concepts behind evolution? :)

(worms don't become birds, dogs don't become cats, and cows don't become frogs ;))

[shrp88lx's]

There's no deflections there at all. I answered your questions.

The catalyst? God, of course. :) To me, evolution and creationism are not contradictory unless you have a fundamentalist belief in either of them.
:) ..yep

[TexasDevilDog]

(worms don't become birds, dogs don't become cats, and cows don't become frogs ;))

Why not?

[46Tbird]

Why not?
What do you mean "why not?" :confused:

Have you ever seen a family tree? You're descended from your ancestors, not from other random people. There is logic to this...

[tonyk10971]

Ok, here is a test for your theory.

According to the theory, single celled organisms that reproduced through fission came first, later multi celled organisms that used fusion reproduction. What was the evolutionary catalyst that "evolved" an organisms from fission reproduction to fusion reproduction? There must have been a creature that did both? Where is it today?

Where is the proof?

It seems that you didn't look at the website that I put up. I dont know the exact mechanism that singled celled organims used to evolve but one good way of thinking of it is that two heads are better than one. When singled celled organims reproduce, they pass on the same set of genes that they originally had, so in a sense they are immortal. So when the same set of genes are passed on they are limited to the flexibility of their genes. But when you start mixing up DNA with two different organisms, the offspring has a better chance of surviving with a better set of genes. You have to actually study biology to understand how evolution works. And saying that god had a role in the evolution of humans is a bunch of bullshiit, because that is the easy way out. Looking through the evidence and using experiments to rectify your your hypothesis is a way of understanding life. We have had religion around for thousands of years and look where it has got us today. There is not a single drop of proof that god exists except from a book that has had many of translations.

[TexasDevilDog]

It seems that you didn't look at the website that I put up. I dont know the exact mechanism that singled celled organims used to evolve but one good way of thinking of it is that two heads are better than one. When singled celled organims reproduce, they pass on the same set of genes that they originally had, so in a sense they are immortal. So when the same set of genes are passed on they are limited to the flexibility of their genes. But when you start mixing up DNA with two different organisms, the offspring has a better chance of surviving with a better set of genes. You have to actually study biology to understand how evolution works. And saying that god had a role in the evolution of humans is a bunch of bullshiit, because that is the easy way out. Looking through the evidence and using experiments to rectify your your hypothesis is a way of understanding life. We have had religion around for thousands of years and look where it has got us today. There is not a single drop of proof that god exists except from a book that has had many of translations.

You didn't address the fission to fusion part. What made a creature to go from splitting in half, to having sex with another creature, if the DNA passed on from one generation to another is the same. That would be like a woman one day, plopping out an egg and babies becoming hached nine months later.

[TexasDevilDog]

What do you mean "why not?" :confused:

Have you ever seen a family tree? You're descended from your ancestors, not from other random people. There is logic to this...

If a dinosaur can become a bird, why not a worm? You are limiting your evolution.

[Jester]

You didn't address the fission to fusion part. What made a creature to go from splitting in half, to having sex with another creature, if the DNA passed on from one generation to another is the same. That would be like a woman one day, plopping out an egg and babies becoming hached nine months later.
It could happen. :D

[46Tbird]

If a dinosaur can become a bird, why not a worm? You are limiting your evolution.No, I'm not. I don't have the time or desire (or expertise) to break down the causes and reprocussions of speciation for you, but you should take some time to investigate it.

[tonyk10971]

You didn't address the fission to fusion part. What made a creature to go from splitting in half, to having sex with another creature, if the DNA passed on from one generation to another is the same. That would be like a woman one day, plopping out an egg and babies becoming hached nine months later.

I did address the issue on fission and fusion, I said I do not know, I am not a cellular biologist. Did you look at the website or not? This would help you greatly because it sounds like you dont have a education in biology past high school, and we all know how great the texas education system is. If you are ever going to see past god and his glory (smoke and mirrors), you need to educate yourself.

[HookEm]

This, coming from someone who can't differentiate between a LAW and a THEORY....http://www.dfwstangs.net/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif


I did address the issue on fission and fusion, I said I do not know, I am not a cellular biologist. Did you look at the website or not? This would help you greatly because it sounds like you dont have a education in biology past high school, and we all know how great the texas education system is. If you are ever going to see past god and his glory (smoke and mirrors), you need to educate yourself.

[Mattica]

It seems that you didn't look at the website that I put up. I dont know the exact mechanism that singled celled organims used to evolve but one good way of thinking of it is that two heads are better than one. When singled celled organims reproduce, they pass on the same set of genes that they originally had, so in a sense they are immortal. So when the same set of genes are passed on they are limited to the flexibility of their genes. But when you start mixing up DNA with two different organisms, the offspring has a better chance of surviving with a better set of genes. You have to actually study biology to understand how evolution works. And saying that god had a role in the evolution of humans is a bunch of bullshiit, because that is the easy way out. Looking through the evidence and using experiments to rectify your your hypothesis is a way of understanding life. We have had religion around for thousands of years and look where it has got us today. There is not a single drop of proof that god exists except from a book that has had many of translations.

It's called faith dude, and for you to brush people off as ignorant because they believe is simply asinine. Tell that to the to the 240 million Americans that believe in God.

Are you a biologist? Or did you just study biology in college? If you are a biologist , I'd like to see some of your essays, publications, etc. What do you mean by your statement "We have had religion around for thousands of years and look where it got us today?"

[TexasDevilDog]

I did address the issue on fission and fusion, I said I do not know, I am not a cellular biologist. Did you look at the website or not? This would help you greatly because it sounds like you dont have a education in biology past high school, and we all know how great the texas education system is. If you are ever going to see past god and his glory (smoke and mirrors), you need to educate yourself.

Your correct. I be so dumb from tex ass school. I aint grade-ate but soon I do.

What is your education? You sound pretty pompous for coiming here to bash other people's belief and calling them dumb for believing what they do.

[Phillip]

I don't find that the definition of evolution supports transformation as in your cat to dog idea. The dictionary states:

"existing animals and plants developed by a process of gradual, continuous change from previously existing forms. This theory, also known as descent with modification, constitutes organic evolution. Inorganic evolution, on the other hand, is concerned with the development of the physical universe from unorganized matter. Organic evolution, as opposed to belief in the special creation of each individual species as an immutable form, conceives of life as having had its beginnings in a simple primordial protoplasmic mass (probably originating in the sea) from which, through the long eras of time, arose all subsequent living forms."

so what you are saying is that a dog turns into another dog, and a cat turns into another cat therefore ADAPTATION we have all whitnessed this I think that another word for it is Microevolution.
Macroevolution (I think) is monkey turns to man, or fish turns to lizard, or grandpa was a chimp, and great great great grandpa was a rock that lightning hit, and created life.

[AL P]

It's called faith dude, and for you to brush people off as ignorant because they believe is simply asinine. Tell that to the to the 240 million Americans that believe in God.

If the number of followers is what determines who is right, I hate to break the news to you that Islam has got you beat by quite a bit.

You aren't going to prove/disprove evolution, nor the existence of God so i don't really see the sense in this thread. You either believe it or you don't.

[Phillip]

What bush said would be classified as free speech, i am not disputing that. What he said was false. I just think we need a president who is more educated, because if you cant see that evolution is more than "just a theory", then you cant understand how life works on this earth. Bush is denying evolution because it conflicts with his beliefs. but a belief is nothing but a practiced thought. So how can you base your life on a thought? How about living your life instead of sheltering it with beliefs and ignorance.

Check out this website, it can help you better understand where i am coming from. If you click on the link on the bottom it takes you to a website that compares evolution to creationism. And dont think this is my only source of info, there is tons of more information on evolution that I encourage you all to look into.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/intro.htm
hey man you want a website try these
http://www.gorepent.com/en/ebible.html
and click on the creation vs Evolution at the top.
the debates and downloads on this site are cool www.drdino.com

[The Punisher]

What bush said would be classified as free speech, i am not disputing that. What he said was false. I just think we need a president who is more educated, because if you cant see that evolution is more than "just a theory", then you cant understand how life works on this earth. Bush is denying evolution because it conflicts with his beliefs. but a belief is nothing but a practiced thought. So how can you base your life on a thought? How about living your life instead of sheltering it with beliefs and ignorance.

Check out this website, it can help you better understand where i am coming from. If you click on the link on the bottom it takes you to a website that compares evolution to creationism. And dont think this is my only source of info, there is tons of more information on evolution that I encourage you all to look into.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/intro.htm
Are you talking about Micro-evolution or Macro-evolution? Micro-evolution is actually a vital part of creationism. I think you are confused.

[ruffdaddy]

Holy shit 46tbird....are you saying theres a way to experiment and test evolution...A process that requires thousands of years to happen? First off, there is no solid evidence to prove evolution, so why teach it? Adaptation and evolution are similar yet different. Adaptation is the change in any form of organic matter to better suit their environment. Evolutionary law naturally states that we came from monkeys. There are several variants of evolution. The "theory" of evolution is very weak, and thats why it isn't widely accepted.

[tonyk10971]

It's called faith dude, and for you to brush people off as ignorant because they believe is simply asinine. Tell that to the to the 240 million Americans that believe in God.

Are you a biologist? Or did you just study biology in college? If you are a biologist , I'd like to see some of your essays, publications, etc. What do you mean by your statement "We have had religion around for thousands of years and look where it got us today?"

I really dont care if you believe in god or not, but I do care that people try to bring god into evolution and say he had a part in it, because he didn't. Thousands of years ago people only knew of god as the originator of life, but when science came along and started to lay out how life works, suddenly god comes into the picture to fill the blanks of evolution.

I am not a biologist but i am a biology major. I am not trying to crush everybody's beliefs about god. I just want to let you know that evoulution is a vital part of science and has nothing to do with religon, so god needs to stay in church not in shcool.

You can believe whatever you want, but it is not valid until you prove it. Science has proved itself but religon keeps on making circles. What i meant with my statement was that religon has been around for a while but things didn't get better until science came along.

[tonyk10971]

Your correct. I be so dumb from tex ass school. I aint grade-ate but soon I do.

What is your education? You sound pretty pompous for coiming here to bash other people's belief and calling them dumb for believing what they do.

I did not say you were dumb nor did I call anyone else dumb.i know how bad public high shcool education is, I've been there. I spent my first two years in college having to relearn everything that was supposed to be taught in high school. You can believe what ever you like, but dont try to mix science and religon together.

[exlude]

<---Biology major, focus: Human Biology and Genetics

To me, macroevolution is borderline undeniable. We might not see mamallian macroevolution on a daily basis because it takes too long (longer than our scientific history), but the evidence is in plant evolution. Plants speciate regularly, withing a year. We have seen it and it has been documented, speciation in process.

I further believe (staying in mind with actual evidence) that there was no "creation" as stated in the Bible.

HOWEVER, the one thing that NO ONE can definitively argue (not even the great Darwin himself) is how did it all get there? Dating back to string theory and pre-Big Boom moments, no one can say if a god did or did not put matter there or where matter came from. It is just as logical to say that "matter has always existed" as it is to say "a god always existed".

I consider myself a fairly informed atheist, but I am absolutely stumped when it comes to pre-bigbang era. I absolutely have no clue. It is the one place I could accept a creator (but of the "hands off" style).

It's foolish to try to argue either way. Even more, it's non-scientific to say you know definitively either way. There are VERY few definitive answers in science. Does that make the science weaker than faith? Science is set up so everything is always questioned.

Just to clarify, there seems to be some confusion as to what macroevolution actually is. Macroevolution, simply, revolves around the idea that one species can, through evolution, become another species. The tricky part in putting this all together is the definition of the word "species". I think it's best said as, "A reproductively isolated aggregate of interbreeding organisms." Keys being, two different species are different in morphological variations and they can produce fertile offspring. It is a theory and is designed so it really can never be proved (try applying math to evolution, that isn't statistics). :)

Ex. A lion and tiger can breed, but are not the same species because a) they are morphologically different and b) their offspring is sterile.

Another decent definition: "a population of individuals that are alike, are able to breed and produce fertile offspring under natural conditions"

[jyro]

How did a womans hymen evolve, was it placed there by God through evolution to reinforce the rules he setdown? As far as I know , human women is the only life form to have it.

[exlude]

How did a womans hymen evolve, was it placed there by God through evolution to reinforce the rules he setdown? As far as I know , human women is the only life form to have it.

There is no way to definitively say, "(insert body part here) evolved because...". I, personally, don't know where the hymen came from. But the first thing that popped into my head was the tissue that male humans have that separate their testicles from their intestine...what you break when you get a hernia. Many species have "left over" pieces from their opposite sex counter part. e.g. the male nipple

[exlude]

How did a womans hymen evolve, was it placed there by God through evolution to reinforce the rules he setdown? As far as I know , human women is the only life form to have it.

With a little searching on google I found that canines and equines have them. On a little less credible note, saw it mentioned that most all mammals have them.

[46Tbird]

Holy shit 46tbird....are you saying theres a way to experiment and test evolution...A process that requires thousands of years to happen? First off, there is no solid evidence to prove evolution, so why teach it? Adaptation and evolution are similar yet different. Adaptation is the change in any form of organic matter to better suit their environment. Evolutionary law naturally states that we came from monkeys. There are several variants of evolution. The "theory" of evolution is very weak, and thats why it isn't widely accepted.Holy shit dumbass....the only place that the Theory of Evolution isn't widely accepted is in fundamentalist Creationist circle-jerks. :rolleyes: Sorry if you choose to ignore an undebatable body of evidence that grows larger every day. It's not something that can be refuted or dismissed.

[TexasDevilDog]

I did not say you were dumb nor did I call anyone else dumb.i know how bad public high shcool education is, I've been there. I spent my first two years in college having to relearn everything that was supposed to be taught in high school. You can believe what ever you like, but dont try to mix science and religon together.

You are so smart coming here to inform all of uneducated people. Why to think that you are so much more educated than anyone else here? You don't know me or 99% of the people on here and you spout how bad our public education was. Well, I didn't go to a public school, further more, I didn't go to school in Texas at all. You are wrong about that. What else could you be wrong about? You are not so smart after all.

BTW, I mixed what ever I like together. I use the many experiences, including living outside of Texas and the USA, to make a well informed decision.

You maybe, are becoming educated but sound like you are lacking common sense. You do sound like many college students I have hear before.

[The Punisher]

evidence is evidence. The evidence that athiest scientist use for evolution is the same evidence that creationist scientist use for creation. The only fact is that to substain evolution as a answer for your creation takes as much or more faith than intelligent design dose. Evolutonist look at different creatures and see micro-evolution happening and creatures with common similarities, they have faith in macro-evolution. Creationist look at creatures and see micro-evolution happening along with creatures with common similarities and we see a common Designer. Either way takes faith, if your thinking otherwise you are foolish.

[HookEm]

Holy shit dumbass....the only place that the Theory of Evolution isn't widely accepted is in fundamentalist Creationist circle-jerks. :rolleyes: Sorry if you choose to ignore an undebatable body of evidence that grows larger every day. It's not something that can be refuted or dismissed.


i suppose you can answer the questions that remain, then. start with the below two, and we can work from there, since it seems you have enuff info to take this from a THEORY into a LAW......

1. incomplete fossil record
2. lack of transitional species

[TexasDevilDog]

i suppose you can answer the questions that remain, then. start with the below two, and we can work from there, since it seems you have enuff info to take this from a THEORY into a LAW......

1. incomplete fossil record
2. lack of transitional species

Why is there only one intelligent humanoid?

[46Tbird]

i suppose you can answer the questions that remain, then. start with the below two, and we can work from there, since it seems you have enuff info to take this from a THEORY into a LAW......

1. incomplete fossil record
2. lack of transitional species1. Are you saying we haven't found EVERY fossil in existence? :confused: Well no shit, Sherlock.
2. What lack of a transitional species are you talking about? Have you ever heard of an Archaeopteryx? Or were you talking about humans? Because there are evolutionary changes taking place in our species right now. See that big ol' forehead you got? Perhaps you're a little taller than your grandfather?

[TexasDevilDog]

Because there are evolutionary changes taking place in our species right now. See that big ol' forehead you got? Perhaps you're a little taller than your grandfather?

You are confusing better health care and nutrition, for evolution. Unless you mean that because the average height in North Korea of 5 feet 2 inch is showing a different evolutionary tread with them.

http://www.free-definition.com/Human-height.html

[46Tbird]

You are confusing better health care and nutrition, for evolution. Unless you mean that because the average height in North Korea of 5 feet 2 inch is showing a different evolutionary tread with them.

http://www.free-definition.com/Human-height.htmlNo, I am not confusing anything. Taller humans are considered more attractive and have more opportunities to mate. The human RACE is getting taller, and as our nutrition and medical advances continue to improve, those traits will become more prominent. The average Japanese soldier in WWII was 5'3" and 125lbs - so it could be said that the Asian race is getting larger as well. ;)

[The Punisher]

No, I am not confusing anything. Taller humans are considered more attractive and have more opportunities to mate. The human RACE is getting taller, and as our nutrition and medical advances continue to improve, those traits will become more prominent. The average Japanese soldier in WWII was 5'3" and 125lbs - so it could be said that the Asian race is getting larger as well. ;)
People are getting fatter also. But I dont think being fat makes you more attractive and have more opportunities to mate. Evolution working backwards? :D

[46Tbird]

I'm getting balder but that ain't scaring them bitches away! :D

[The Punisher]

I'm getting balder but that ain't scaring them bitches away! :D
:D

[shrp88lx's]

.
2. What lack of a transitional species are you talking about? Have you ever heard of an Archaeopteryx? Or were you talking about humans? Because there are evolutionary changes taking place in our species right now. See that big ol' forehead you got? Perhaps you're a little taller than your grandfather?
Ahh the age old confusion I see.

You are talking about micro-evolution not macro. There is NO evidence of macro evolution, call it genome to genome or species to species, whatever phraseology you want to use, a canine will not ever evolve into a feline.

Honest disagreement as to whether Archaeopteryx was or was not a forgery was possible until 1986, when a definitive test was performed. An x-ray resonance spectrograph of the British Museum fossil showed that the finer-grained material containing the feather impressions differed significantly from the rest of the coarser-grained fossil slab. The chemistry of this “amorphous paste” also differed from the crystalline rock in the famous fossil quarry in Bavaria, Germany, where Archaeopteryx supposedly was found.10 Few responses have been made to this latest, and probably conclusive, evidence.11
Fossilized feathers are almost unknown,12 and several complete, flat feathers that just happened to be at the slab/counterslab interface are even more remarkable. Had a feathered Archaeopteryx been buried in mud or a limestone paste, its feathers would have had a three-dimensional shape, typical of the curved feathers we have all held. Indeed, the only way to flatten a feather is to press it between two flat slabs. Flattened feathers, alone, raise suspicions.
Also, there has been no convincing explanation for how to fossilize (actually encase) a bird in the 80% pure, Solnhofen limestone. One difficulty, which will be appreciated after reading about liquefaction is the low density of bird carcasses. Another is that limestone is primarily precipitated from seawater. Therefore, to be buried in limestone, the animal must lie on the seafloor—unusual for a dead bird.
Significantly, two modern birds have been discovered in rock strata dated by evolutionists as much older than Archaeopteryx.13 In Argentina, many birdlike footprints have been found which evolutionists say preceded Archaeopteryx by at least 55 million years.14 Therefore, according to evolutionary dating methods, Archaeopteryx could not be ancestral to modern birds. True fossilized birds have been found that evolutionists believe lived shortly after Archaeopteryx.15 This has forced some to conclude that the distinctly different Archaeopteryx was not ancestral to modern birds.16
When an evolutionist claim popularized by the media is later shown to be false, retractions are seldom made. National Geographic, which originally, and erroneously, reported the discovery in China of “a true missing link in the complex chain that connects dinosaurs to birds,” has provided one refreshing exception. (Actually, the fossil was a composite of a bird’s body and a dinosaur’s tail, faked for financial gain.)17 Details were explained on a few back pages of National Geographic by an independent investigator at the request of National Geographic’s editor. The report was summarized as follows:
It’s a tale of misguided secrecy and misplaced confidence, of rampant egos clashing, self-aggrandizement, wishful thinking, naive assumptions, human error, stubbornness, manipulation, backbiting, lying, corruption, and, most of all, abysmal communication.18
Such fiascoes are common among those seeking rewards and prestige for finding fossils of missing links. The media that popularize these stories mislead the public.
Archaeopteryx’s fame seems assured, not as a transitional fossil between dinosaurs (or reptiles) and birds, but as a forgery. Unlike the Piltdown hoax, which fooled leading scientists for more than 40 years, the Archaeopteryx hoax has lasted for 125 years. Because the apparent motive for the Archaeopteryx deception was money, Archaeopteryx should be labeled as a fraud. The British Museum (Natural History) gave life to both deceptions and must assume much of the blame. Those scientists who were too willing to fit Archaeopteryx into their evolutionary framework also helped spread the deception. Piltdown man may soon be replaced as the most famous hoax in all of science.

[TexasDevilDog]

No, I am not confusing anything. Taller humans are considered more attractive and have more opportunities to mate. The human RACE is getting taller, and as our nutrition and medical advances continue to improve, those traits will become more prominent. The average Japanese soldier in WWII was 5'3" and 125lbs - so it could be said that the Asian race is getting larger as well. ;)

So, short people either don't mate or their off spring change their genetic make up, to be taller and be able to mate. And the short ugly people in Korea?

[46Tbird]

the Archaeopteryx hoax has lasted for 125 years. Because the apparent motive for the Archaeopteryx deception was money, Archaeopteryx should be labeled as a fraud. BEEEULLshit. :rolleyes: There have been seven fossils located, and an eighth that is a feather only.

I could copy and paste from this but I wouldn't try to make you read it all.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html


And again, you're using failed logic to state that a dog would ever "morph" into a cat. Gentlemen, you really should go out and get educated on a subject before you post.

[46Tbird]

So, short people either don't mate or their off spring change their genetic make up, to be taller and be able to mate. And the short ugly people in Korea?.. are becoming taller and better looking.

I see you also don't understand some of the concepts behind speciation. What are the odds that you yourself (or any white dude from Texas) is going to mate with a black east African woman? Am I saying that Africans and Texans are going to become distinct species in the future? No, but if both populations remained segregated long enough, it is possible that enough genetic change would occur that their offspring would be sterile. If that is the case, then they are different species. Think horses and donkeys...

[shrp88lx's]

BEEEULLshit. :rolleyes: There have been seven fossils located, and an eighth that is a feather only.

I could copy and paste from this but I wouldn't try to make you read it all.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html


And again, you're using failed logic to state that a dog would ever "morph" into a cat. Gentlemen, you really should go out and get educated on a subject before you post.
I said a dog would NEVER. and the logic is sound.

[46Tbird]

I said a dog would NEVER. and the logic is sound.What I read into your message is that science would say that a canine could theoretically evolve into a cat. And it would never say such a thing.

[shrp88lx's]

What I read into your message is that science would say that a canine could theoretically evolve into a cat. And it would never say such a thing.
Correct it would never say such a thing because it cannot happen.

[46Tbird]

Correct it would never say such a thing because it cannot happen.Exactly. So what are we disagreeing on? :confused: LOL

[shrp88lx's]

Exactly. So what are we disagreeing on? :confused: LOL
IDK!! I think we do disagree on the micro vs macro thing, but that could just be definition.

[exlude]

Ahh the age old confusion I see.

You are talking about micro-evolution not macro. There is NO evidence of macro evolution, call it genome to genome or species to species, whatever phraseology you want to use, a canine will not ever evolve into a feline.

Your first sentence is ironic.

Read up a little on plant evolution. Read up on the documented speciation of plants. I would say that speciation (the idea that macroevolution revolves around) being witnessed is pretty damn good evidence towards macro.

The relation (or lack there) of a canine to feline as a basis for argument just expresses a lack of understanding for basic taxonomy.

[exlude]

Exactly. So what are we disagreeing on? :confused: LOL

He is arguing "it cannot happen" because he doesn't believe in macroevolution.

You are arguing "it cannot happen" because of the branching at their last common ancestory, but you do belive in macro.

I think I got that right?

[exlude]

So, short people either don't mate or their off spring change their genetic make up, to be taller and be able to mate. And the short ugly people in Korea?

Most all of Korea is short, so there is no mating competition with tall vs. short. The tall DNA is less likely to rear it's head, keeping them shorter. It's not like two tall people in America can fuck and a tall Korean pops out on the other side of the world :P

Ugly is an opinion, so I will leave that out.

However, with technology advances (among other things) and what-not, humans have somewhat exempted themselves out of evolution...especially adaptation.

[exlude]

i suppose you can answer the questions that remain, then. start with the below two, and we can work from there, since it seems you have enuff info to take this from a THEORY into a LAW......

1. incomplete fossil record
2. lack of transitional species

I think it's fairly ludicrous to expect the specific circumstances to produce a fossil to have occured to every corpse/individual/species throughout the world.

[exlude]

Why is there only one intelligent humanoid?

Because I am an only child :D

[TexasDevilDog]

.. are becoming taller and better looking.


North Koreans are getting shorter and uglier, because their communist government had cause malnutrition for the last 20-30 years.

The North Korean military had so much difficulty finding tall enough recruits that it had to revoke its minimum height requirement of 5-3. Many soldiers today are less than 5 feet tall, defectors say.

http://www.detnews.com/2004/nation/0402/15/nation-63770.htm

[TexasDevilDog]

No, but if both populations remained segregated long enough, it is possible that enough genetic change would occur that their offspring would be sterile. If that is the case, then they are different species. Think horses and donkeys...

Why is there no other intelligent humanoid of another species?

[exlude]

Why is there no other intelligent humanoid of another species?

This question really does nothing for either side of the argument. Similar thought processes to a human have just not evolved on Earth. It might one day, it might not.

[exlude]

North Koreans are getting shorter and uglier, because their communist government had cause malnutrition for the last 20-30 years.


http://www.detnews.com/2004/nation/0402/15/nation-63770.htm

However, with technology advances (among other things) and what-not, humans have somewhat exempted themselves out of evolution...especially adaptation.

.

[tonyk10971]

You are so smart coming here to inform all of uneducated people. Why to think that you are so much more educated than anyone else here? You don't know me or 99% of the people on here and you spout how bad our public education was. Well, I didn't go to a public school, further more, I didn't go to school in Texas at all. You are wrong about that. What else could you be wrong about? You are not so smart after all.

BTW, I mixed what ever I like together. I use the many experiences, including living outside of Texas and the USA, to make a well informed decision.

You maybe, are becoming educated but sound like you are lacking common sense. You do sound like many college students I have hear before.

You sound very angry, maybe becaue you keep dancing in circles with yourself and dont know how to stop. Exlude explained evolution very clearly, it isn't hard to understand. Whether this conflicts with your beliefs or not is irrelevant. Like i stated earlier, a belief is nothing but a practiced thought. Scientists dont make this shit up to destroy god, they do it so they can understand what the hell we are doing here. You dont see scientists trying to convert christians and make them obey the laws of the universe, but you do see christians going to south america and converting the last remaining native indians and completely wiping out thier languange and culture. I dont know why it is so hard to see that humans arent really that special, only 2% of our DNA is different from a chimpanzee, does that not register in your brain that we just might be related.

[HookEm]

What a tard you are. Your original post was a ranting foaming piece, because Bush called the THEORY of Evolution....GASP!!!! The Theory of Evolution.

It is a theory, not a law.......do you seriously not know the difference?
BTW......punctuation: learn it, know it, live it.

You sound very angry, maybe becaue you keep dancing in circles with yourself and dont know how to stop. Exlude explained evolution very clearly, it isn't hard to understand. Whether this conflicts with your beliefs or not is irrelevant. Like i stated earlier, a belief is nothing but a practiced thought. Scientists dont make this shit up to destroy god, they do it so they can understand what the hell we are doing here. You dont see scientists trying to convert christians and make them obey the laws of the universe, but you do see christians going to south america and converting the last remaining native indians and completely wiping out thier languange and culture. I dont know why it is so hard to see that humans arent really that special, only 2% of our DNA is different from a chimpanzee, does that not register in your brain that we just might be related.

[TexasDevilDog]

You sound very angry, maybe becaue you keep dancing in circles with yourself and dont know how to stop.

I am just pointing out your prejudices about other people here that are wrong.

Scientists dont make this shit up to destroy god, they do it so they can understand what the hell we are doing here. You dont see scientists trying to convert christians and make them obey the laws of the universe, but you do see christians going to south america and converting the last remaining native indians and completely wiping out thier languange and culture.

Actually, I see articles stating scientists are becoming more spiritual.

1998 article
Of those, 40% expressed belief in a deity, while nearly 45% did not. http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm
2005 article
About two-thirds of scientists believe in God, according to a new survey that uncovered stark differences based on the type of research they do.

http://www.livescience.com/othernews/050811_scientists_god.html

I dont know why it is so hard to see that humans arent really that special, only 2% of our DNA is different from a chimpanzee, does that not register in your brain that we just might be related.

See, you are just smart enough to be inaccurant with your information. AND I am not a biology major.
The first detailed genetic comparison between humans and chimpanzees shows that 96 per cent of the DNA sequence is identical in the two species. But there are significant differences, particularly in genes relating to sexual reproduction, brain development, immunity and the sense of smell.
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/43445728-1a44-11da-b279-00000e2511c8.html

[TexasDevilDog]

This question really does nothing for either side of the argument. Similar thought processes to a human have just not evolved on Earth. It might one day, it might not.

I was wondering why evolution would have a product of many different types of fishes, cats, birds but only one culture producing species in billions of years.

[Mattica]

You sound very angry, maybe becaue you keep dancing in circles with yourself and dont know how to stop. Exlude explained evolution very clearly, it isn't hard to understand. Whether this conflicts with your beliefs or not is irrelevant. Like i stated earlier, a belief is nothing but a practiced thought. Scientists dont make this shit up to destroy god, they do it so they can understand what the hell we are doing here. You dont see scientists trying to convert christians and make them obey the laws of the universe, but you do see christians going to south america and converting the last remaining native indians and completely wiping out thier languange and culture. I dont know why it is so hard to see that humans arent really that special, only 2% of our DNA is different from a chimpanzee, does that not register in your brain that we just might be related.

Yes those evil Christians wiping out their culture......convert or die you evil South American.....native indians in South America? which cultures are being wiped out by the Evil Horde...

[ruffdaddy]

ok 46tbird...apparantly you dont know the deffinition of dumbass either. First off we all know or any intelligent person should know that Carbon dating is highly inaccurate. And what the fuck can a fossil prove? Its a guess dip shit. Micro evolution does occur...and its basically the same as adaptation. Do you honestly think you know what you're talking about? "uhhh fossil records, and a moth you fucker...Thats all the proof i need."

[46Tbird]

ok 46tbird...apparantly you dont know the deffinition of dumbass either. First off we all know or any intelligent person should know that Carbon dating is highly inaccurate. And what the fuck can a fossil prove? Its a guess dip shit. Micro evolution does occur...and its basically the same as adaptation. Do you honestly think you know what you're talking about? "uhhh fossil records, and a moth you fucker...Thats all the proof i need."Well thank you for making it clear the fact that you understand JACK SHIT about the concepts behind evolution and the Scientific Method. :o

[01WhiteCobra]

And the short ugly people in Korea?

Yup.

On another thread note, the hymen isn't a perfect example. Unless, of course, God was in the process of creating hookers as well, since some females are not born with a hymen as the tissue completely divides in the womb.

[ruffdaddy]

hahahaha..Scientific method? Are you just spouting off random scientific words? Did you open an old text boox or something? Yes we all know the scientific method is in chapter 1 of just about any science related textbook ever created. That was cute though. Scientific method requires experimentation and you cant perform an experiment over a process that requires thousands of years and expect it to be accurate jackass. Honestly...explain to me how one would test evolution in accordance with the scientific method. Thats even worse than the moth...haha scientific method...try again.

[46Tbird]

hahahaha..Scientific method? Are you just spouting off random scientific words? Did you open an old text boox or something? Yes we all know the scientific method is in chapter 1 of just about any science related textbook ever created. That was cute though. Scientific method requires experimentation and you cant perform an experiment over a process that requires thousands of years and expect it to be accurate jackass. Honestly...explain to me how one would test evolution in accordance with the scientific method. Thats even worse than the moth...haha scientific method...try again.LOL at you, that you think of the Theory of Evolution as a shot in the dark guess. LOL


Since you DON'T understand the Scientific Method, I'll help you out. If you can't make an experiment in the lab to test a hypothesis, your hypothesis needs to be able to predict outcomes outside a controlled experiment. And that is EXACTLY what the Theory of Evolution does - on a daily basis.

This is built on logic. If you don't understand the logic, then you have no business trying to dispute it.

[The Punisher]

You sound very angry, maybe becaue you keep dancing in circles with yourself and dont know how to stop. Exlude explained evolution very clearly, it isn't hard to understand. Whether this conflicts with your beliefs or not is irrelevant. Like i stated earlier, a belief is nothing but a practiced thought. Scientists dont make this shit up to destroy god, they do it so they can understand what the hell we are doing here. You dont see scientists trying to convert christians and make them obey the laws of the universe, but you do see christians going to south america and converting the last remaining native indians and completely wiping out thier languange and culture. I dont know why it is so hard to see that humans arent really that special, only 2% of our DNA is different from a chimpanzee, does that not register in your brain that we just might be related.
2% is huge compared with DNA
Particles to people evolution requires changes that increase genetic information, but all we observe is sorting and loss of information. We have yet to see even a micro increase in information, although such changes should be frequent if evolution were true.

[01WhiteCobra]

hahahaha..Scientific method? Are you just spouting off random scientific words? Did you open an old text boox or something? Yes we all know the scientific method is in chapter 1 of just about any science related textbook ever created. That was cute though. Scientific method requires experimentation and you cant perform an experiment over a process that requires thousands of years and expect it to be accurate jackass. Honestly...explain to me how one would test evolution in accordance with the scientific method. Thats even worse than the moth...haha scientific method...try again.

You are a little light on your understanding of the scientific method.

[ruffdaddy]

Haha, ok genius....you still haven't even came up with any form of experiment on how to test evolution. I never said it was a"shot in the dark" Guess....its more of an educated guess based on what some scientists believe to be evidence. And science can be wrong dip shit. Or is the earth still flat? Maybe everything is composed of earth, wind, fire, and water? And maybe Boyle was right....Metals aren't true elements....we can change one metal into another.

Come up with some REAL evidence and maybe youll have me convinced...simply speaking of the scientific method has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.

[The Punisher]

Haha, ok genius....you still haven't even came up with any form of experiment on how to test evolution. I never said it was a"shot in the dark" Guess....its more of an educated guess based on what some scientists believe to be evidence. And science can be wrong dip shit. Or is the earth still flat? Maybe everything is composed of earth, wind, fire, and water? And maybe Boyle was right....Metals aren't true elements....we can change one metal into another.

Come up with some REAL evidence and maybe youll have me convinced...simply speaking of the scientific method has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.particle to people evolution cannot be proven, its simply a conjecture.

[46Tbird]

Haha, ok genius....you still haven't even came up with any form of experiment on how to test evolution. I never said it was a"shot in the dark" Guess....its more of an educated guess based on what some scientists believe to be evidence. And science can be wrong dip shit. Or is the earth still flat? Maybe everything is composed of earth, wind, fire, and water? And maybe Boyle was right....Metals aren't true elements....we can change one metal into another.

Come up with some REAL evidence and maybe youll have me convinced...simply speaking of the scientific method has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.Again, you obviously don't understand the subject you are speaking on. All those concepts you are speaking of EXISTED BEFORE THE ADVENT OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. My god, you are truly a fucking idiot. :rolleyes:

Evolution passes the requirements for the Scientific Method. The body of evidence is huge. Even if some component hypotheses within the SM are proven to be untrue, that does not make the entire concept invalid and irrelevant. That just proves that science continues to improve on itself - and as I stated before, the concept of evolution is only disputed by people that are ignorant of the facts, or choose to dismiss the evidence. Which are you?

[01WhiteCobra]

Haha, ok genius....you still haven't even came up with any form of experiment on how to test evolution. I never said it was a"shot in the dark" Guess....its more of an educated guess based on what some scientists believe to be evidence. And science can be wrong dip shit. Or is the earth still flat? Maybe everything is composed of earth, wind, fire, and water? And maybe Boyle was right....Metals aren't true elements....we can change one metal into another.

Come up with some REAL evidence and maybe youll have me convinced...simply speaking of the scientific method has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.

Dude, really, stop digging your hole. The Theory Of Evolution is based on SM. To think any different is absurd.

But I'll let you continue to dig yourself a little deeper. Then we can start discussing Popper, Jaynes, Anderson, Edwards, Royall, Salmon and their works.

It isn't the Law Of Evolution (although Sagan, Simpson and Muller believe it as law/fact). A theory is nothing more than an imperfect fact. In terms of magnitude you have fact -> theory -> guess -> wild ass guess.

[The Punisher]

Again, you obviously don't understand the subject you are speaking on. All those concepts you are speaking of EXISTED BEFORE THE ADVENT OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. My god, you are truly a fucking idiot. :rolleyes:

Evolution passes the requirements for the Scientific Method. The body of evidence is huge. Even if some component hypotheses within the SM are proven to be untrue, that does not make the entire concept invalid and irrelevant. That just proves that science continues to improve on itself - and as I stated before, the concept of evolution is only disputed by people that are ignorant of the facts, or choose to dismiss the evidence. Which are you?
Danny, evidence is evidence. It has to be interpretated and theorized to be used in the scientific process. How can you prove evolution if you cannot prove that any mutation increases information in DNA? This is vital for evolution to be true. It cannot be proven b/c a) it will not happen or b) it hasnt been observed
So basically your arguing a conjecture.

[ruffdaddy]

Wow, you guys really aren't getting it. You have provided absolutely no evidence or facts proving evolution has ever taken place. But first let me ask you this...to what extreme are you taking evolution? Are you saying we came from prokaryotic life forms?

And stop saying the Scientific Method....Any scientific method can be said to be brought about by the fucking scientific method. I'm sure they calculated the date on some sort of calculator...which used the order of operations...and I dont see you saying "dude...the order of operations...Thats how we know things are old..." Some people just aren't cut out for science.

[TexasDevilDog]

FYI, so everyone is on the same page, especailly our biology major.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Method

The essential elements of a scientific method are iterations and recursions of the following four steps:

Characterization (Quantification, observation and measurement)
Hypothesis (a theoretical, hypothetical explanation of the observations and measurements)
Prediction (logical deduction from the hypothesis)
Experiment (test of all of the above)

[ruffdaddy]

Everyone knows the scientific method, and it changes from text to text, yet has a general layout. Just becasue someone followed a template in formin a hypothesis doesn't mean they're true.

[01WhiteCobra]

Wow, you guys really aren't getting it. You have provided absolutely no evidence or facts proving evolution has ever taken place. But first let me ask you this...to what extreme are you taking evolution? Are you saying we came from prokaryotic life forms?

And stop saying the Scientific Method....Any scientific method can be said to be brought about by the fucking scientific method. I'm sure they calculated the date on some sort of calculator...which used the order of operations...and I dont see you saying "dude...the order of operations...Thats how we know things are old..." Some people just aren't cut out for science.

Stop remembering your 10th grade science class. Really.

[tonyk10971]

[QUOTE=TexasDevilDog]I am just pointing out your prejudices about other people here that are wrong.

I like the fact that you keep pointing out the wrong things I am doing. It sounds like you are more worried about me being prejudice. Let me offer some more evidence about evolution because you seem to be missing the point.

One of the most sriking cases of evolution in action is that of industrial melanism in the peppered moth of England. Early in the nineteenth century, occasional dark, or melanistic, specimens of the common peppered moth were collected. Over the next 100 years, this dark form became increasingly common in forests near heavily industrialized regions of England. In places without factories and other heavy industry, the common, salt-and-pepper form of the moth prevailed. Geneticists showed by crossmating light and dark forms that melanism is an inherited trait determined by a single dominat gene. Because the melenistic trait is an inherited characteristic, its spread reflected genetic changes (evolution) in the population.

Peppered moths inhabit dense woods and rest on tree trunks during the day. Where melenistic individuals had become common, the environment must somehow have been altered so as to give dark forms a survival advatage over light forms. It seems reasonalbe to suppose that natural selection had led to the replacement of typical light individual with the melanistic individuals. To test this hypothesis, a English Biologist H.B.D. Kettlewell captured a sample of moths of both forms, marked each individual with a dot of cellulose, and then released them back into the woods. The mark was placed under the wing so it would not attract predators. Some days later, Kettlewell captured more moths by attracting them to a mercury vapor lamp in the center of the woods. Kettlewell marked and released 201 common moths and 601 melanics in a wooded area near industrial Birmingham. The results indicated that a greater percentage of the dark form survived over the course of the experiment. A similar experiment in a nonindustrial area revealed higher sruvial by the common moth.

The specific agent of selection was easily identified. Kettlewell reasoned that in industrial areas, pollution had darkened the trunks of tress so much that typical moths stood out against them and were readily found by predators. Any aberrant dark forms were better camouglaged against darkened tree trunks, and their coloration made them more likely to survive.

Evetually, differential survival of dark and light forms would lead to changes in their relative frequency in the population. To test this idea, Kettlewell placed equal numbers of light and dark forms on tree trunks in polluted and unpolluted woods and watched them carefully at some distance behind a blind. He quickly discovered that several species of birds regularly searched tree trunks form moths and other insects, and that these birds more readily found a moth that contrasted with its background than one that resembled the bark it clung to. These data were consistent with the results of the mark-recapture experiments. Together they clearly demonstrated the operation of natural selection, which over long period resulted in genetic changes in populations fo the pepppered moth in polluted areas.

With the advent of somke control and the return of forests to a cleaner state, frequencies of melanistic moths have decreased. In the area around the industrial center of Kirby in northwestern England, the melanistic from decreased from more than 90% of the population to about 30% over a period of 20 years.

[openroadracer3]

geez... you bleeding heart tree hugging liberals give me tired-head. :rolleyes:

i'll tell ya what to do, man... just don't vote for him in the next election. that will teach him a lesson for his personal and religious beliefs on evolution. :rolleyes:

my bet is that you're probably just pissed about the war in iraq.

in my opinion, if clinton would have taken care of bin laden when they attacked the WTC the first time and then the USS Cole (the CIA had proof it was bin laden for both attacks.) then the twin towers would still be standing. both were direct attacks on the USA and clinton did nothing. now you see what clinton's inactions has caused. it's always the same when a democrat is in the whitehouse. look back at when the u.s. embassy was taken over in tehran. they knew that jimmy carter was a pussy and wouldn't do anything... one failed rescue attempt in i think it was 444 days? had the twin towers fallen on the first attempt, clinton wouldn't have done anything but launch a few criuse missles up some camel's asses. clinton should have attacked iraq like the bush's have done when they found out that hussein collaborated a plan to assassinate bush sr.... but no, he launched a couple cruise missle and made a couple big holes in the desert.

IMO, i blame the twin tower collapse, afghanistan and the iraq war on clinton. had he taken care of bin-laden instead of consentrating on where his next blowjob will come from, the world would be a lot safer right now.

[TexasDevilDog]

I like the fact that you keep pointing out the wrong things I am doing. It sounds like you are more worried about me being prejudice. I just like pointing out errors that you make.

Let me offer some more evidence about evolution because you seem to be missing the point.

One of the most sriking cases of evolution in action is that of industrial melanism in the peppered moth of England...........

So, there are some moths that are peppered colored and some that are black. And you say, because the tree trunks got sooty, the moths evolved one way. Now, they are evolving back the other way.

He is my view of it. There were always peppered and black moths. With the sooty tree trunks, birds could see the peppered one easier and ate more of them, hence a greater ratio of black moths. Now that the tree trunks aren't sooty, the birds are eating more black moths, hence a greater ratio of peppered moths.

The genetics of the moths didn't change. The survivalbility of the moths changed. :rolleyes:

[exlude]

I was wondering why evolution would have a product of many different types of fishes, cats, birds but only one culture producing species in billions of years.

Actually, it is theorized that we are not the first culture producing species. Our ancestor species were. It really boils down to chance, with the "culture producing" or "intelligent species" series of traits being very difficult to obtain. We aren't talking one or two mutations with intelligence.

[exlude]

Haha, ok genius....you still haven't even came up with any form of experiment on how to test evolution. I never said it was a"shot in the dark" Guess....its more of an educated guess based on what some scientists believe to be evidence. And science can be wrong dip shit. Or is the earth still flat? Maybe everything is composed of earth, wind, fire, and water? And maybe Boyle was right....Metals aren't true elements....we can change one metal into another.

Come up with some REAL evidence and maybe youll have me convinced...simply speaking of the scientific method has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.


Please read my previous posts. I have mentioned numerous times that WE ARE WITNESSING speciation (macroevolution) in plants HERE AND NOW. That is a pretty solid block of evidence.

This quip is simple enough, I'm sure even you can understand it:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VC1iSpeciationPlants.shtml

[exlude]

So, there are some moths that are peppered colored and some that are black. And you say, because the tree trunks got sooty, the moths evolved one way. Now, they are evolving back the other way.

He is my view of it. There were always peppered and black moths. With the sooty tree trunks, birds could see the peppered one easier and ate more of them, hence a greater ratio of black moths. Now that the tree trunks aren't sooty, the birds are eating more black moths, hence a greater ratio of peppered moths.

The genetics of the moths didn't change. The survivalbility of the moths changed. :rolleyes:

This is a text-book (quite literally, I have read it 10+ times) case of adaptation, imo. Not evidence for macroevolution. Namely because the peppered moth and the black moth are still the same species. They both still mate and they produce fertile offspring. It's adaptation not speciation.

Whether "they always existed" or "a mutation caused the color change", really doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of this discussion because the moth REMAINED THE SAME SPECIES. I think even the heaviest of creationists accept the theory of adaptation.

{even though I quoted TDD, this post is more directed at tonyk10971)

[exlude]

geez... you bleeding heart tree hugging liberals give me tired-head. :rolleyes:

i'll tell ya what to do, man... just don't vote for him in the next election. that will teach him a lesson for his personal and religious beliefs on evolution. :rolleyes:

my bet is that you're probably just pissed about the war in iraq.

in my opinion, if clinton would have taken care of bin laden when they attacked the WTC the first time and then the USS Cole (the CIA had proof it was bin laden for both attacks.) then the twin towers would still be standing. both were direct attacks on the USA and clinton did nothing. now you see what clinton's inactions has caused. it's always the same when a democrat is in the whitehouse. look back at when the u.s. embassy was taken over in tehran. they knew that jimmy carter was a pussy and wouldn't do anything... one failed rescue attempt in i think it was 444 days? had the twin towers fallen on the first attempt, clinton wouldn't have done anything but launch a few criuse missles up some camel's asses. clinton should have attacked iraq like the bush's have done when they found out that hussein collaborated a plan to assassinate bush sr.... but no, he launched a couple cruise missle and made a couple big holes in the desert.

IMO, i blame the twin tower collapse, afghanistan and the iraq war on clinton. had he taken care of bin-laden instead of consentrating on where his next blowjob will come from, the world would be a lot safer right now.



OFFFFFF TOPICCCCCCCCC :D

[tonyk10971]

I just like pointing out errors that you make.



So, there are some moths that are peppered colored and some that are black. And you say, because the tree trunks got sooty, the moths evolved one way. Now, they are evolving back the other way.

He is my view of it. There were always peppered and black moths. With the sooty tree trunks, birds could see the peppered one easier and ate more of them, hence a greater ratio of black moths. Now that the tree trunks aren't sooty, the birds are eating more black moths, hence a greater ratio of peppered moths.

The genetics of the moths didn't change. The survivalbility of the moths changed. :rolleyes:

The trait that decides whether the moth is peppered or melanistic is inherited. If the frequency of the melanistic trait occurs more than the other, then that trait is naturally selected. The melanistic moths acquired an adaptation due to the changing environment. The basis of evolution is survivability ( Survival of the fittest ). The population of a species must change in order to survive in its natural environment, and when the evnvironment changes the genes of the population will change to survive. You are correct about one thing, this is the survivability of the moths, you yourself are describing evolution.

[exlude]

The trait that decides whether the moth is peppered or melanistic is inherited. If the frequency of the melanistic trait occurs more than the other, then that trait is naturally selected. The melanistic moths acquired an adaptation due to the changing environment. The basis of evolution is survivability ( Survival of the fittest ). The population of a species must change in order to survive in its natural environment, and when the evnvironment changes the genes of the population will change to survive. You are correct about one thing, this is the survivability of the moths, you yourself are describing evolution.

I will repeat what I posted just earlier. Most people, even the heaviest of creationists, believe that microevolution (adaptation) occurs. The argument is over speciation, which is NOT occuring with the moths.

Essentially, it's a non-issue.

[openroadracer3]

OFFFFFF TOPICCCCCCCCC :D


i know.... but i don't know anything about evolution and i'm trying to increase my post count. :D :D

[TexasDevilDog]

The trait that decides whether the moth is peppered or melanistic is inherited. If the frequency of the melanistic trait occurs more than the other, then that trait is naturally selected. The melanistic moths acquired an adaptation due to the changing environment. The basis of evolution is survivability ( Survival of the fittest ). The population of a species must change in order to survive in its natural environment, and when the evnvironment changes the genes of the population will change to survive. You are correct about one thing, this is the survivability of the moths, you yourself are describing evolution.

I am saying that a moth will have a certain number of off spring of different colors. The observed distribution was due to survivability of the off spring, not due to a change in speciation.

Here is your big chance to make a name for yourself in the world of biology. Gather a bunch of moths in a close controlled environment. Selectively bred two groups of moths, one for peppered color and one for being black. Each type of moth would be in the proper color environment for the trait that is wanted for that group. When the groups have a near 100% distribution of the desired trait, then change both groups environments. Then watch in amazement as the moths change color.

[tonyk10971]

I am saying that a moth will have a certain number of off spring of different colors. The observed distribution was due to survivability of the off spring, not due to a change in speciation.

Here is your big chance to make a name for yourself in the world of biology. Gather a bunch of moths in a close controlled environment. Selectively bred two groups of moths, one for peppered color and one for being black. Each type of moth would be in the proper color environment for the trait that is wanted for that group. When the groups have a near 100% distribution of the desired trait, then change both groups environments. Then watch in amazement as the moths change color.

So you agree with the fact that a population of moths will accumalate adaptations over time that naturally select certain genes over the other. So if a population of moths keeps on adapting to its environment, will it be the same population later on with all of the accumalated adaptations? The genes from the original population are different than the ones that the population has accumalated. If enough adaptations occur, eventually a new species will rise out of the population.

[TexasDevilDog]

So you agree with the fact that a population of moths will accumalate adaptations over time that naturally select certain genes over the other.

no they didn't accumulate anything, they had the adaptation before, which was detrimental to their survival but now is helpful to them.

[46Tbird]

no they didn't accumulate anything, they had the adaptation before, which was detrimental to their survival but now is helpful to them.
You've got tonyk10971, I've got ruffdaddy. It's better for our sanity if we just stop. :)

[tonyk10971]

no they didn't accumulate anything, they had the adaptation before, which was detrimental to their survival but now is helpful to them.

What you are saying for the individual moth is true. But lets say they have a trait that is detrimental to survival but the environment changes and that detrimental trait is now benefecial. If the environment persists, that trait will eventually spread through the population and will be acumalated over several reproductive cycles, because the organism with the best traits will more than likely reproduce. If a trait that determines color can change through the organisms' interaction with the environment, what stops other traits the organism has from adapting as well? Ones that change the organism enough to be considered another species.

[exlude]

What you are saying for the individual moth is true. But lets say they have a trait that is detrimental to survival but the environment changes and that detrimental trait is now benefecial. If the environment persists, that trait will eventually spread through the population and will be acumalated over several reproductive cycles, because the organism with the best traits will more than likely reproduce. If a trait that determines color can change through the organisms' interaction with the environment, what stops other traits the organism has from adapting as well? Ones that change the organism enough to be considered another species.

I will repeat what I posted just earlier. Most people, even the heaviest of creationists, believe that microevolution (adaptation) occurs. The argument is over speciation, which is NOT occuring with the moths.

Essentially, it's a non-issue.

I swear, people just don't read what I post.

[TexasDevilDog]

I swear, people just don't read what I post.

Don't take it personally, I don't read your post either. :p