Do you believe in human evolution?
 

I was talking to my friend and he said he didn't believe in human evolution, and he isn't very religious either. He said he believed in Adam and Eve. I found that weird because most people believe in evolution now, especially people who aren't religious. Even pretty strong christians(though not all) do now too and people of other religions. The more that is being discovered by science, the more and more people are believing it.

I personally believe in it very much and I was wondering if you do or don't, and why or why not. I know I'm treading very thin water when I say this, but IMO if you don't believe in evolution or at least acknowledge that it is not only logical, but also probable then you are very naive.

and I don't mean that as a bash on anyone's religions or beliefs. Just my personal opinion.

I think you're deluded if you believe otherwise. The theory of evolution isn't perfect, but it's a damn sure more plausible than any other idea we've come up with.

I don't believe in Evolution, because to say that you "believe in" something makes it sound quasi-religious, and Evolution is just a scientific theory that is no different from any other. I do think that it is a theory that has some considerable credibility, but I also recognise that it is far from being perfect. If the human race should ever reach a better understanding of how humans and the various other species came to be, it could be different in some significant regards from the current understanding of Evolution.

It's important to recognise that our current understanding does not, and is not intended to explain everything about the origins of life on this planet. Some aspects of Evolutionary theory have been proved by observation, other aspects may remain a perpetual mystery. Speciation and natural selection are phenomena which have been observed in the wild, to a certain extent, but we may only infer those developments which have not been demonstrated by the fossil record.

I choose to regard the creation story, as told in the book of Genesis as an allegory. If there is an almighty God, who created the universe, and created everything on Earth, then why should this notion be incompatible with any scientific theories about the natural world?

The world exists as we have observed it to exist. If it was created by God, then this is how He created it. It's really very simple, and very elegant. Even if you believe the Holy Bible to be the flawless word of God, that does not imply that it must be a literal account of events, simply that it represents that which God wished it to represent.

Perhaps God assumes that his followers will be smart enough to comprehend metaphor and allegory.

To all of those who insist that "Intelligent Design" is a more appropriate idea about the creation of life on Earth, I have a question. Is the world as envisioned by science not a genuinely "Intelligent Design", in your opinion? If the Chrisitians are right, and God did create all living things, then the natural world as described by scientific theory is how He created it.

What exactly is incompatible with Christianity now?

I have but one final point to make. There is not (or should not be) any such thing as a "Darwinist" or "Darwinism". Science is not formed around a cult of personality, and it should not be a belief system. What can sometimes be perceived as such is people such as Richard Dawkins who are attempting to use science to push their own personal agenda. They are misguided in the extreme, for it is each man's choice to place his faith in such things as he wishes.

Those such as Richard Dawkins ignore a crucial point. Religion is not meant to be proved. It is a matter of faith, and not of fact. It is pointless to attempt to prove a religion false, since the most important parts of it are intangible in any case.

It is the only theory that really makes sense, so yeah, I really believe that is how we came to be what we are.

A lot of people who don't believe in evolution don't actually have a good grasp on what evolution is. It's easy to not believe in something when you were taught it wrong.

I don't, and I have a fairly good grasp on what it is. Which is exactly why I don't believe in it. There's too many logical fallacies, absolutely insane odds.

The microevolution part, sure. We've got plenty of evidence for it, we've seen it happen (Darwin's Finches), etc.

So many people say that if I believe microevolution, should I also believe in macro? Of course not. The process is entirely different. Microevolution describes a process whereby a single species makes small changes via forces of natural selection. These changes almost always result in the eventual loss of genetic information as the information needed to create trait X isn't needed. Regardless, natural selection describes a process which, ultimately, leads to genetic information loss. We've never once witnesses a mutation to bring about a beneficial genetic change to a species, unless one has been discovered VERY recently. Almost all mutations result in either early death or sterility, natures way of protecting bad genes from being passed on.

Macroevolution requires the generation of meaningful, useful genetic code, and as of yet, scientifically, I see no more reason to believe in macroevolution than I do the idea that rotting meat could generate maggots.

There's other reasons, but my main reason for not believing is the generation of meaningful genetic code via random mutations. The thing is, you can't have many mutations make the meaningful part over a long time, you need a single mutation to create something useful in order for that to be passed on. If it's useless, it won't be carried on.

Oddly enough, I find that the most people who do believe in Evolution were taught it wrong, but have enough of an idea about it that they can understand stuff I tell them about it. They might still believe in it afterwards, which I guess I can see. Most people who don't believe in evolution that I find are the types who have very little grasp on it, barely understand anything about it except "we came from monkeys" and don't understand a damn think I'm saying to them, lol. The whole thing hinges on whether or not you believe in anything supernatural (God). If you know enough about evolution and see all the logical fallacies, holes, insane odds, etc, and believe in a supernatural, you are more geared towards that answer. If you don't, you are more likely to want to find explanations for all those fallacies, holes, odds, etc.

I believe each idea is equally valid, and each is an equally logical conclusion. As long as you aren't defaulting to some "well God did it" lame backout argument all the time, and still strive to explain things scientifically without the inclusion of supernatural forces. There are many different ways to interpret the same data, and each way could be correct.

I've been talking with a guy recently (unfortunately it erupted into a flame war, as is the law of the internet....) who just simply could not understand how you could be religious and not have that infect every last aspect of your life, right down to the core. For some reason I guess he apparantly thought that all religious people were stupid and had to default to the "demons did it, god did it" explanation every time they don't understand something. He damn near exploded in confusion when he found out I don't think like that, lol.

Regardless of whether or not I believe in it, it's a fascinating theory, which is why I've studied and read up on it. There's so much that goes into it, and so much more that goes on than just "we came from monkeys." There's a scientific explanation for everything, but being that I do believe in a supernatural, I don't believe all the scientific explanations are the ultimately correct explanations.

-------------------------

The weird thing to me is, people debating Creationism vs Evolution. You are debating from a scientific platform, and Intelligent Design is, ultimately, NOT scientific. You can't debate something like that. It ultimately isn't meant to be proved, as someone else said. In the end, some parts just end up requiring nothing more than faith. It's cool to debate the scientific merits of Evolution, and the scientific merits of Intelligent Design, but to put them up against eachother doesn't make any sense. I had a guy try to use the fact that in debates, Evolutionists always win, therefore Evolution must be true. Ignoring the fact that that was probably the poorest evidence for any theory I'd ever heard in my life, I pointed out what I mentioned above. In that sort of debate, of course evolution wins. It's scientific. Intelligent Design is not scientific, no matter how much people want it to be. Science is explaining the world via natural means, and there is no place for a supernatural in it, as it should be.

There are insane odds against winning the lottery but the lottery has been won. I'm just saying that arguing that poor odds prove a theory wrong when the result has already happened is silly.

Also no, you don't have a good grasp on evolution. I didn't say that you have to admit you have a poor education on the topic.

Drug resistant bacteria.

Until something better comes along to disprove evolution scientifically, I'll stand by it.

The odds of winning the lottery are insanely smaller, not to mention, you are trying to compare an ordered system to a system that supposedly began in an almost completely chaotic state.

And the result hasn't necessarily already happened if evolution isn't true, so don't assume that it is.

That isn't generating new genetic material. They don't evolve new material at all. All that is happening in these instances is that they "degenerate" and end up losing efficiency. Take killing off a staph infection, for instance. Some staph is still left behind - the ones producing lots of a "penicillin protector." However, these staph cells don't grow anywhere near as quickly as the ones that don't produce huge amounts of this drug. They aren't as efficient or fit. They find ways to resist the drug by turning on a switch that produces more of a chemical they already have. They stop producing a chemical that creates a cell wall, so that the drug ignores them.

There's no evidence to suggest they have generated new genetic information at all, and saying so is just jumping to conclusions without actually applying any science to the matter.

Now, if you find me a specific instance where this has happened, I'll look more closely at it.

Until then, apparantly your grasp on evolution seems not to be as good as you claim it to be.

I have a friend who's in grad school for microbiology as a bacterial geneticist. She does experiements all day long mutating bacteria to make it drug resistant so they can further understand the process involved in order to effectively make better antibiotics.

I'll ask her to take a look at this example and see what she thinks.

Definitely. I would be very interested in something like that, regardless of what she says. I know we don't fully understand the processes involved, but from what we do know, it doesn't seem to involve any generated genetic information.

Darklink: Consider THESE amazing odds.

The Universe is Billions of Years Old. It contains Trillions of Trillians of Solar Systems. The odds that life would NOT evolve on at least some of these worlds is mind-boggling.

Two different thoughts on this:

I'd say the odds are even more ridiculous, using that kind of logic, that we haven't already discovered some bizzare life form on another planet that evolved with the set of conditions available to them.

Even so, the amount of conditions for the type of life existing on earth that had to be exactly right for evolution to happen, even ignoring the astronomical chances of evolution even happening, I'd say the larger question is "Why did life evolve at all?" No matter how many planets there are.

EDIT: Oh yes, and Meth, something I just thought of: One of the main problems with reproducing evolution in a lab, is that you are directing evolution using a human intelligence. It would be cool to introduce an element and see that a bacteria generated genetic code, because it would prove it was possible, but it still wouldn't be sufficient proof for evolution, because of the intelligence involved. It would definitely bring along a MUCH stronger case for evolution though, and bring it back into the realm of possibility (at least for skeptics like me).

I believe in certain aspects of evolution. Though I don't believe the story of Adam and Eve as fact, I don't fully believe evolution, either, mostly due to its flaws. All I know is that God put us here. I don't know how he did. I don't care. The details don't really matter.

How many other planets have we actually discovered?

That's why I said, here's 2 thoughts on that.

I was about to say that. Most people think of evolution as a species changing and morphing to adapt to the environment. That's not it at all.

That is a large part of it, and mostly what causes the controvery and debate. It isn't all that entails the theory of evolution though, no. You could say that "species changing and morphing to adapt to the environment" is a contemporary definition of evolution. Just wanted to clarify myself. When I see someone mention evolution in this day and age, I assume they are talking about the bit the causes controversy.

Why not?

Because then there'd be nobody to complain about it happening in the first place. :(

We've discovered hundreds of planets and many, if not all are the size or even larger than Jupiter.

Why haven't we seen signs of intelligent life? Maybe they're on the other size of the universe which is billions of light years away. Perhaps they've evolved so much that we are not aware of their existance. They're around but we can't precieve them, kind of like how an ant doesn't precieve of us. Maybe they don't want to be found. They've developed the technology to mask their signals and presence.

There are many possiblities for that and really that's a whole nother can of worms to open up.

The theory of evolution is a much more elegant way of describing the origins of life than invoking a supernatural entity for which there is no evidence. Some moderates believe evolution and creation are compatible but I don't believe that is the case at all. There really is an arugment to be won here. I know what it would take to change my opinion. If good reasons can show that evolution is wrong, I will be compelled to believe such. I don't think the same can be said of people of faith. Faith by its very definition is belief in spite of evidence. There is nothing you can say to change my mind. This is the thinking which dominates religions.

Wow! Hundreds out of a estimated 30 Billion (and that's just earth-like planets in our galaxy)! Well that's me convinced that there is no life out there.

No.

Belief in the absence of evidence.

It's not the same thing.

Dinosaurs may be a tool of the devil's deception, but boy can they boogie

http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/2...0danceski1.gif

Faith is as you say, belief in the absence of evidence. You just have to flip the coin however. We have mountains of evidence which undermines religious doctrine. Yet many people of faith have a continue belief while in the presence of scientific evidence and therefore in spite of scientific evidence.

I don't want to bring this topic off-track, but I would like to respond to those who asked by stating that Christian theology requires that the Adam and Eve section of Genesis be true (though everything else could, I suppose, be figurative). The absolute dependence on the story and the concepts behind it are why Christians are - and should be - concerned and intellectually curious about it.

I might comment further on what else you've written, but I am studying for exams and don't have the time. I'd be careful with the last sentence. Consider Homo sapiens sapiens for instance. We are continually evolving even now. One of the interesting things is loss of wisdom teeth. Many people don't have their wisdom teeth naturally (I am one of them) and the percentage is increasing (talk to your dentist if you don't believe me). Our jaws are getting smaller, heads bigger and we don't need excess teeth that have long, outgrew their purpose. Another one has to do with ribs. Humans have 12 ribs. Chimpanzees have 13 ribs. 8% of the global population has 13 ribs, and it is a slowly decreasing percentage. Anyways, just thought I would share those two little tidbits. I am a biologist, so I can get into this thread in a big way if I find the time after exams.

*Edit* Guess I should add my two cents about Adam and Eve. Eve is a invention of the King James version of the Bible. The Geneva bible, and I assume the bible versions before it (never researched it further), contains a snake-headed woman who is almost pagan in concept (some have referred to her as the Christian Medusa). Also no reference to the devil 'snake'/apple scene in the Geneva bible either. The snake and Eve were added in the King James version of the bible due to the hostility people had at that time with concepts they considered pagan.

Those are all perfect examples of a loss of genetic information brought on by environmental changes. They can't be used as a basis for the spontaneous generation of new genetic information. As the need for wisdom teeth becomes less and less, and jaws get smaller and smaller due to a diet of softer food, they gradually just disappear.

I might also add that this is happening in just a few hundred years, far, far, FAR to short a time for any proposed macroevolutionist ideas to take place.

"*Edit* Guess I should add my two cents about Adam and Eve. Eve is a invention of the King James version of the Bible. The Geneva bible, and I assume the bible versions before it (never researched it further), contains a snake-headed woman who is almost pagan in concept (some have referred to her as the Christian Medusa). Also no reference to the devil 'snake'/apple scene in the Geneva bible either. The snake and Eve were added in the King James version of the bible due to the hostility people had at that time with concepts they considered pagan."

tomb, while I won't begin to criticize your other points, I'd really appreciate you deleting this. I'd hate to lose respect for you so quickly.

Didn't you know? vemp made us.

I'm moving this thread to Political Palace, as it's bound to become another debate between spiritualism and empyricism.

For the record I believe that evolution is part of a well laid-out plan.

But, by and large, arguing the origins of life is a moot point, at best. No living being was around then to present an accurate account, and the truth, no matter what it is, changes little about ourselves today. The only purpose for the argument's existence is so that one group can tell another they're wrong. Honestly, I don't care who's right, since it's not our past but our future that is of imminent concern.

This is why I like my own concept that God exists and that he/she/it allowed for evolution to exist as part of a natural process. Though we attest that we, mankind, were created in God's image, it's the height of both naivetee and vanity to presume that this refers purely to physical form. God created birds, insects and fish too; are they less worthy beings because they don't write books in testament to their own merit?

We have self-awareness. We are free to make choices. We have the ability to create our world around us. We learn; we pass these knowledges down through our offspring and the ages. We have the capacity for love, fear and all emotions in between, and through these experiences we grow and realize ourselves more fully. This is "being created in God's image". If Jesus ever walked among us, this is the message he surely intended to deliver, that we have such potential.

That's the process each species goes through as it realizes itself. That's what evolution is, and it can be as scientific or as divine as you individually choose. Why argue the semantics when it makes no difference in the ultimate outcome anyhow?

When you think about it, today's sciences were yesterday's faiths. Being right isn't as important as being understood.

i believe that we had to come from somewhere and i think that our existence is based on our predicessors

That's the way I see it.


This always reminds me of what some kid said with regard to FFVII: "What are the odds that of all the people on Gaia, the game focuses on Cloud and company, who just happen to save the world!"

If we were the unborn product of any of those inordinate number of failed or unrealized possibilities, we wouldn't be here. DUH. People tend to focus on the prayer that was answered and forget about the thousands that weren't. That is religion.

Is this a serious statement or are you just having fun with language? I have to admit I'm not sure how to respond and I'm not sure what a proper answer would be but that's my problem and not a problem of natural selection. It may very well be that there is a tiny gap in evolutionary theory which can't explain certain things (at present) about the origins of life but to fall back on, "therefore God" explains absolutely nothing.

I'm sure I've have read or heard Dawkins address this very issue. However at face value I just can't take this statement as a serious advancement to the argument when no explanation is given.

Small gap? I studied origin of life in my molecular evolution class and it's a gaping gorge the size of the grand canyon.

You have to have a lot of faith in capricious events if you believe that something like this can occur apart from supernatural intervention. Either that, or you really haven't studied the information in any great detail.

Jesus, it's not a one-shot deal.

You must have no concept of the shear magnitude of time and space if you believe something like this can't occur apart from supernatural intervention. Either that, or you really haven't studied probability.

Obviously the disposition that most people seem to have preset for themselves. While I also think the Adam and Eve story is metaphorical, I also have a bias to think that the Big Bang is too ludicrous to think that everything in the world just happened to form this way and we became aware of it. Then again, I like the neutral point brought up the best. We simply don't know what happened, so we shouldn't act like either, or even a combination is the absolute truth.

Isn't it pretty simple? I.D. is a political tool. It has to have a deity aspect, because otherwise it's impossible for there to be original intelligence without expanding into realms possibly beyond our comprehension. (not that it isn't absolutely impossible to understand, but I wouldn't be surprised if we never cared to)

None of this will matter anyway when the universe dies a heat death or cold death or entropy death or the Big Rip or...

No. I just believe that when examining the origin of life, time and space becomes limited to a very small window of opportunity through certain evidence. The half life of Ribose Sugar is one small example. (53min at 20 degrees celcius. Ribose sugar is required to make both RNA and DNA)

The issue I have with the Big Bang theory is one of deferred causality. The idea that the big bang had to come from somewhere. Something had to create it. Recall that matter is neither created nor destroyed.

Something coming from nothing without cause, much like life from nonlife seems like a convenient exception from nature's laws.



Devo. Why do scientists insist on an atheistic worldview when discussing their research? Neither can be proven or disproven through the scientific method. I personally see nothing wrong with discussing theism and atheism with children and letting them make up their own minds.

Honestly, I don't know that I can even debate on I.D. See, I don't live in this little bubble you people call the United States of America and as a result, I am detached from the political issues in that country. Honestly, in Canada, I.D. has never come up as a valid curriculum in any of our schools.


This is all I hope to contribute without getting dragged into a pointless debate for the hundredth time.

But the concept of an infinite god, who exists at all moments in time and took the time to create a world and listen to people's prayers... that's ok? You can't argue for rationality and then run around the asylum claiming to be Napoleon. Brady nailed it: ID is a tool.

ID, regardless of whether or not I believe in it, has no place in a science classroom. Science is a means by which we explain things through natural processes. ID, if true, can ultimately not be proven through science, which is why it's stupid to try and directly have a ID vs Evolution debate.

It's cool and fine to debate the scientific merits of different parts of each theory, but ultimately, ID consists of supernatural & natural elements, while evolution consists only of natural elements. Science is not built to explain supernatural happenings.

Also, playing Devil's advocate, why did something have to create the big bang? If God was always there, why couldn't a hunk of matter just have always been there?

Evolution is the currently scientifically accepted method for the means by which we got where we are today, regardless of whether or not we can scientifically explain all aspects of it. Those things I believe need to be pointed out (as Devo's teacher did), so we don't churn out students convinced that Evolution is the ultimate proven answer, but a possible answer.

I just don't think we have any right to teach supernatural means to creation when something like that can't be held as science. ID isn't a science, it's a religious platform with a bit of science mixed into the fray.

It's times like these I feel good about transhumanism. Only a little, though.

Also I might as well throw my view into this: I personally adhere to the probability eventuality. Since time cannot exist, it is therefore possible that all probabilities exist at some point. The universe could have expanded contracted, dissappeared and reappeared the amount of times which we haven't even discovered the number for yet, before we were created.

Hell, probability also stipulates it's possible that Earth is the only planet in the universe which has born life. We could be the only carbon-based lifeforms in existence. Wouldn't that be something?

Using an estimation of the amount of Earth-like planets as evidence isn't very scientific, though. We can't really know unless they're confirmed to be earth-like.

If we do discover other forms of life, I hope it's delicious.

I vote this as the single best thought/point brought up in this thread :D .

Huh? I need more characters for this post to go through, but huh?

How do I put this? The prevailing notion is that time is linear or cyclical, but time is actually constant. Since everything exists constantly, it's impossible to move "forward" or "backward" in time, and therefore it doesn't exist.

Isn't there a possibility that people just want to know? It's not like Darwin went out shouting "HOW CAN I FUCK WITH RELIGION TODAY" while he was trying to develop the theory of evolution; he just wanted to know more about the universe because he felt his knowledge was inadequate.

I think that problem is escaped nicely by positing the theory that things outside the universe aren't subject to the rules of the universe. So while matter can't spontaneously be created in the universe, what's to say outside of the universe it can't be?

PS: Big bang theory doesn't say how the big bang occurred in the first place, it only describes what happens after all of that matter/energy got clumped into such a tiny space (you know, the whole timeline of the early universe and whatnot). Much as how evolution doesn't describe how life originally began, but how it's changed since it first got going.

PPS: Brady, Vonnegut's dead.

To answer the question: yes, I believe in evolution. So far, it shows the most convincing proofs to me with the evolution of the cerebrum, DNA closeness...

I always wondered: religion and the state are supposed to be separated in the US. Teaching creationism or its derivatives in religion/philosophy class is legitimate to me, because most of the time, they rely on pure faith rather than the scientific method

But why should creationism and its derivatives be taught in classes like biology, which relies on experimentation rather than faith?

That's what we're all trying to figure out. :(

Wait, what? I hope, as RR alluded to, this is just an homage to Slaughterhouse-Five. As far as I remember, spacetime can be modeled as a 4-space through which everything in the universe moves with a constant speed. When we move through space, our time-speed is slowed so that the magnitude of the vector sum remains constant.

We can't ask what came "before" the universe or define a point in time at which the universe began, because time is contingent upon the existence of the universe. We understand the rules which apply within the universe, but we can't assume that these same rules apply to the universe itself, end of story.

That is really one of the key points that I agree 100% with. If there can be an infinite god that created all life and existence, then why couldn't a single cell organism have always been there? People say that it has to come from somewhere. Why does it have to come from somewhere? To the human mind, we only understand the concept of things being created. Well we know so little about the universe that maybe things don't have to be created. Maybe things are just there for no reason? Maybe they appear for no reason?

If I told all of you 500 years ago some of the things technologically we can do today, then you would all say impossible. So the concept of something not having an origin point right now is ridiculous. The key word being RIGHT NOW. The thing is if everything has to have an origin point then how did an infinite god get there? Like DarkLink asked, why can't something else be there infinitely just the same?

I'm not challenging anyone's beliefs, I'm just making points.

Vonnegut lives!
in our hearts

The odds of life on Earth currently are 1 in 1.

There is new genetic information, whatever is necessary to stop producing that chemical. Unless you believe that staph cells have consciousness.

The idea that life on Earth evolved as described by the theory of evolution is currently in an unknown status. Don't act as though you know the answer, when nobody else does. That specific point was brought up on the second page I believe.

That's nothing more than a defensive cellular reaction to an invasive, destructive, element being introduced to their environment. Many times cells will stop producing a chemical, produce more of one, change their shape, even get rid of their cell wall for a time in order to prevent themselves from being destroyed. The survival instinct is not just something common to "higher" forms of life. The point is, they haven't created anything from nowhere to combat the drug. They've used means already at their disposal.

Additional Spam:
Just before someone brings this up to combat this post, I'll cover this point now, Einstein did not provide a means of travelling forward in time. He provided a means by which someone can percieve the passage of "time" at a different rate.

I agree with Brady, if I'm understanding him correctly. Time is something only percieved. Everything that exists exists right now. Time is just a name humans gave to how the Universe makes it's "forward motion."

However, there is the "Multiple Universe Theory" which I find interesting, and I'd like to believe. However, there really isn't any evidence to support this. It's one of a few ideas proposed to explain some weird shit that goes on down at the Quantum level. It also could explain things that go on at a larger scale, such as black holes/wormholes, etc. If there is a Multiple Universe Theory, then the idea we have of "time" persay, is not so much a chronological dimension as it is a spacial dimension. A different place exists for every single possible moment that ever could have happened. It's a cool idea/theory, I think :).

Time is essentially a fourth linear dimension. The second is related to the meter by a factor of c. Velocity is, in fact, unitless. By extension, energy can be measured in kilograms.

The only difference between space and time is the way we perceive it. Somehow we experience time in a "compressed" form. It's sort of flattened onto a three-dimensional page, so that no matter where you are in time in relation to everything else, you still perceive everything else as being in your space. This is how special relativity works. This is also, I believe, why we can't travel back in time, in the traditional sense. Even if an observer moved backward along the time axis, everything else would still move forward as usual. Though on the bright side, it might reverse the aging process.

um...the theory of evolution sounds much better to me I guess and that's why I believe it more.

For one man to have been created and a woman made out of his rib (basically the same DNA), and produce offspring? It's even worse than incest between siblings in the genetic point of view. And them being the parents of the entire human population? Ehh I don't know. Doesn't really work for me.

And does it really even matter? One day the universe will collapse back into itself thus negating all life anyway.

But if I don't hear it wrong, theory of evolution has been proved NOT to be quite right (I didn't say it to be wrong, OK?). I learned it in my biology class. And the prove given is in fact very logical.

This is a biological issue.



Even Darwin write in his 'Origin Of Species' about things that can make his theory ruin into pieces. He even claimed in his dying bed that his theory was merely an imagination, and he believed that GOD created all.

To tell you the truth, I still don't know which is to be believed. I believe that GOD create us and help us improve by evolution. That is what I believe.

P.S. If there's any mistakes, please tell me.

Ozma: While I am not a believer in many parts of Evolution, there are a couple flaws in your reasoning.

There are still monkeys because the way evolutionary forces work, different environmental changes are supposed to spur changes in specific populations. It isn't necessarily a worldwide thing. So monkeys in population A might be driven to "evolve" while monkeys in population B might not.

Another interesting fact about the fossil record, is that species of all complexity are found in many different layers, not just in the most recent fossil layers.

This is a common myth about Darwin. He didn't actually say this on his deathbed, or at least there is no credible reason to believe so. At the time Darwin came up with his theory, cells were believed to be very simple things, not the vastly complex objects we know them as today. I believe this is what you refer to when you mention certain facts ruining the theory of evolution - however, keep in mind, there is nothing wrong with rewriting and revamping a theory as we learn more about it.

Additional Spam:
Actually, the reason incest is forbidden (barring the obvious moral reasons, and the repulsion the very idea brings up =/) is because there is a much greater risk for birth defects in children. This is because our genes, over thousands of years, have gradually begun to decay. I imagine that the first humans (assuming they were created, not evolved) would have had perfect DNA and therefore no issue with birth defects in offspring until much, MUCH further down the road.

This confuses the hell out of me. It's well known that we didn't evolve from monkeys, but that we merely shared a common ancestor. Who still thinks we evolved from monkeys?

There are many transitional fossils

The story of Darwin's recanting is not true. Shortly after Darwin's death, Lady Hope told a gathering that she had visited Darwin on his deathbed and that he had expressed regret over evolution and had accepted Christ. However, Darwin's daughter Henrietta, who was with him during his last days, said Lady Hope never visited during any of Darwin's illnesses, that Darwin probably never saw her at any time, and that he never recanted any of his scientific views.

The story would be irrelevant even if true. The theory of evolution rests upon reams of evidence from many different sources, not upon the authority of any person or persons.

My bad on this when I offered my explanation. I didn't even think about this. Been up all night with no sleep, high stress, chemical imbalances =/.

Extremely valid point. If Billy Graham before he died had said God was an imaginary idea, you certainly wouldn't believe it, would you Ozma?

Yeah I believe in the Evolution Theory. That been said I think the "Adam and Eve" part of the Creationist Theory may also be relevent. This could be showing the time that man kind finaly Evolved past there basic animal instincts to a more devolped erea of thinking. I might be mistaken.. most likely am.. but the beliefe of a supreme beign, something greater than ones self requires a significant ability to think "out side the box" for lack of a better term. So what you could be seeing in the creationist theory is not the creation of man kind from nothing but the dawining of our ability from basic animal instinct to a though process of higher thinking.

I guess I just don't understand, then. You say you have a good grasp on what evolution is, but then you go on to say that the only evolution that counts is when genetic material is added. You think that evolution is some sort of special action that a life form does. You argue that it's incredibly unlikely for life to exist at all, which is why evolution is unlikely. You confuse evolution with biogenesis. You think it's possible that some species are more evolved than others.

Evolution is an observable and provable process. Arguing that there is a difference on the micro and macroscopic scale is as dull as arguing that while a glass of water is wet, the ocean isn't just because it's bigger.

Is new information in the form of genes created? Why yes, all the time and quite naturally. Radiation from the earth and cosmic radiation from space drives naturally occuring mutations in all forms of life. These are not guided by anything "intelligent", but every now and then a gene may mutate in a way that offers the creature it belongs to an advantage, allowing it to excel against it's environmental competitors. This creature will prosper, become more numerous and eventually marginalise all similar creatures without this advantage. As a result, this chance helpful mutation proliferates.

A changing environment doesn't cause an organism to deliberately change because of some magical in-built mechanism or "defence system". Rather, it causes those creatures least suited to the changes to die off. If the change occurs too quickly or is too extreme (such as getting creamed by a huge flying rock from space), they'll all die regardless unless their lifecycle is very short (eg a bacteria or virus, in which case they can evolve more rapidly) or if they are already by good fortune better equiped to cope with the new situation they live in. If the change is slow however, it will allow time for potentially advantageous natural mutations to occur, and certain organisms will survive. It's dumb luck, basically.

All of this requires no God. It is serendipity.

You aren't reading. I have a good grasp on evolution, what it is, and how it works. After I said that, I then proceeded to explain the various problems I find with parts of the theory. The process of macroevolution - that is, a less advanced species evolving via various natural forces into a more genetically advanced form - obviously requires the generation of new genetic material. That's a major snag I found with the idea, and something I specifically pointed out with the examples you gave, which were NOT examples of an increase of genetic information.

See, that's exactly what I'm talking about. You've convinced yourself that this is the only evolution that counts, and because you haven't found a suitable explanation of it on the internet you're convinced it doesn't work. It's less the flaws of the theory and more the flaws of your understanding, is what I'm trying to say.

Is it not reasonable to focus on, and request an explanation for, an integral part of a theory which, as far as he is aware, has no explanation? Recombination is the standard driver of evolution, true, but that does not mean that all other methods can be easily written off as irrelevant. Whether or not he has a thorough understanding of evolution, the question posed needs an answer.

That being said, one means that genetic material may be added to an organism is "failed" mitosis or meiosis(nondisjunction, aneuploidy, etc), where extra copies of the same chromosome are brought into the same cell. While often times these events are detrimental to organisms(especially the more complex ones, like humans), that does not make it harmful to all creatures 100% of the time. Therefore, its only a matter of time before this information is whittled down to more useful configurations.
I'm sure there are other means, and I'll be looking through Nature, and other such publications for them soon.

edit: Another means by which genetic material may be added is through viral gene injection. Often viruses have destructive self-duplicating genes which get injected into the host cell, however, due to the large volume of viruses which may be produced, there is an increased chance of variations within their resulting genes, some of which may prevent viruses from injecting these destructive self-duplicating commands, enabling the rest of the genetic information to be passed on the other cells/organisms.

edit2: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

It's more reasonable than the number of commas in that sentence.

No, I have not said that, nor do I believe it, and in fact, I believe I have said exactly otherwise. You are, once again, putting words in my mouth that I never said nor inferred.

Macroevolution does NOT equal Evolution. Macroevolution requires the gain of genetic information, and currently, we do NOT have evidence to support that. Every time I see information put forth that supposedly "proves" this, it ends up being something like the example of disease-resistant bacterium that you put forth.

The flaw lies in your understanding of what I'm trying to say. Once again:
1. I say I agree with parts of Evolution.
2. I then say I don't agree with other parts.
3. I then point out that I don't agree with Macroevolution in particular.
4. I point out a very vital, integral mechanism for the processes of macroevolution, that we don't have evidence for.

I'm not sure I can put it any simpler than that for you.

I'm sorry I don't agree with you on the topic of Evolution, but that doesn't give you the right to start re-inventing what I say.

Mathematically macroevolution becomes more probable when dealing with organisms who have rapidly replaced generations. It's more likely to observe genetic traits being adopted over the course of hundreds of years in insects than higher mammals. Spread out over the course of hundreds of thousands of years, new species branch off of the base species (which may very well still be in abundance). Then over millions and hundreds of millions classes begin to form.

There is, of course, no set timespan for any macroevolutionary change, but the "faults" of macroevolution are more a fault of human perception than of logic. Of course, we probably can't definitively prove it until protohumans are able to directly observe the changes over several millenia, but in the meantime it's the most reasonable explanation for the origin of the species.

DarkLink2135, what do you consider a gain of genetic information?

Sorry this took me so long to reply. My sleeping schedule is totally whacked right now.

I would consider a gain of genetic information (at least the type needed to make Macroevolution a feasible possibility, meaning, the organism didn't incorporate any DNA from external biological elements that it has come into contact with, which could explain some changes, but I don't believe all), to be any meaningful, beneficial, genetic code added to an organism via natural means. Changes that add more protiens, extra physical features, more complex internal process, perhaps so it can process more food, etc.

Organisms "borrowing" genetic code from other organisms it encounters I suppose could explain some parts of Macroevolution, but I don't believe it's sufficient to explain any macroevolution forces very much beyond a microscopic level.

We don't have any evidence to support this sort of advancement in species - it's simply a conjecture based on what we see with little supporting data. I choose not to believe it based on the incredible amount of complexity involved, and the literal impossibility of such things arriving via random mutations caused by background radiation.

I might be able to see this sort of evolution happening among simpler, single-celled organisms, but even then, I find that to be a long stretch.

Is this what you were looking for?

The hardest part of macro evolution is the grasping of just how complex it is. But in tern think of just how complex we are. I mean we depend completely on all the cells doing what they are supposed to when they are supposed to. Macro evolution is mind blowing to say the least just in part to the complexity of the organisms involved. In a single cell organisms if and evolutionary change doesn't work the organism doesn't last very long and doesn't propagate. But in a multi-cell organism it can take quiet some time for that failed attempt to be weeded out if ever. Also you would never notice if a small benificial change has occured in a multi-cell organism, well not as easy as in a 1 cell. Oh my head hurts just thinking of it :S

Stop letting other people do every single bit of talking for you. It's an extremely poor way to participate in any sort of debate, and it just makes you look stupid. Posting a book or some scholarly article is not debating, it's just slapping something up in a lame attempt to make you look intelligent. If you have something to say, say it, instead of posting something I very much doubt you even begin to understand.

BasG: You move up a level by posting a bunch of spam like you just did. Although I wouldn't suggest that since it's a fast track to getting banned.

Actually that was what I was talking about. I couldn't care less about the moral implications of incest, just that there are things that can go wrong with sibling breeding. Not taking into account the fact that random mutations can occur via radiation or imperfect DNA transcription, Creationism would show that our DNA should EXACTLY be the same. But it's not. Humanity has too many genetic variations for Creationism to explain. Unless God in his almighty wisdom created eve into a totally different person with different genes, it still wouldn't explain how most of the human race doesn't have genetic problems from their kids interbreeding.

That's exactly what I explained though. Assuming we were created by God, or a God in general, I would assume we started off with perfect DNA. Over time it's gotten less and less "perfect" so to speak via various transcription errors, which results in higher chances of birth defects from interbreeding. Way back at "the beginning," there wouldn't have been such a high chance from that.

EDIT^^^ Note that this is nothing more than an unfounded, untested theory. If the human race truly started out as 2 created human beings, this is how I would explain the problem of inbreeding.

It's called backing up your claims. In some institutions (for example universities) it's actually encouraged.

If backing up your views with academic evidence is stupid then what is intelligent?

I was merely presenting you with some evidence of new genetic information. Why are you getting so worked up and making childish ad hominem attacks instead of debating the issues brought up by the paper? If I were debating with someone over masculinity in John Woo films and they showed me an article about it, I would focus my attention on the article rather than attacking the person for not coming up with an entire theory on their own without any outside influences.

So are you actually going to make a case against the article or continue to cover your ears while blasting people for bringing it to your attention?

Kinkymagic's been doing most of the talking on his own in this thread. He posted a link to sources which back up his claims and cannot be derided for doing so. If anything, "DarkLink," you are the one who's cruisin' for a bruisin' here.

The difference is you haven't made any claims. You've just posted a link. I've seen far too many people get away with that in the past, because they are too afraid to throw themselves into the fray.

Backing up claims with scholarly articles is absolutely great, if you have any claims to begin with. And no, saying "I believe X, here's why (hyperlink)" doesn't count.

And there are many fossils that were found showing many transformations. To expect there to be a fossil for every conceivable transformation is preposterous. We're lucky to have as many transitional fossils as we do considering the very slim chances animal skeletons had of being fossilized. A gap in a fossil record does not indicate there was a God in the least; it indicates that either A) the fossil is yet to be found or B) the animal never made it to the fossilization process to begin with.

Great job quoting THE WRONG PERSON.

Additional Spam:

I counted one meaningful contribution to the thread:
http://www.gamingforce.com/forums/po...ost425117.html

And even then he used a link to do his debating for him. I'm more than happy to debate with a person, I find it enjoyable and intellectually stimulating, but I'm not going to sit around and read an entire article to search for what they specifically wanted to point out because they are too lazy to do their own debating.

And yet you still have not actually done made any critique of the scientific articles that profess to offer evidence for macro-evolution. Why not?

So far you have asked for evidence of macro-evolution and new genetic information, only to ignore it when it is presented to you and instead have chosen to attack the people who have given it to you.

Darwin's theory sounds more logical to me than the Bible.
I think that everyone started at zero. Higher life forms have evolved from lesser ones. Why should humans be an exception?

I'm not debating with a lazy person. If you want to actually present an argument and then use those to back yourself up, then I'm more than happy to talk about macroevolution.

For someone who seems so hesitant to actually offer up any meaningful discussion, you sure seem to want others to take quite a bit of time out of their day.

I'm not asking you to debate with me, but with the evidences presented. So can you actually critique the examples, yes or no, and if you can what is your reasoning for not doing so other than the fact that you don't like the person who posted them?

Oh, now I understand the problem. It's not all that stuff you said about me twisting your words or not reading what you say at all.

Random mutations happen all the time without 'background radiation' having anything to do with it. Random mutations in skin cells is what causes the elderly to have wrinkles, and random mutations in other tissue causes cancer.

Background radiation. Wow.

Anyway, DarkLink, you did ask for evidence and to be educated. Why are you throwing a fit when education is presented to you? You should thank the kind man for his reading suggestions and continue to further educate yourself. To do anything else is tacky, really.

What are the moral reasons? I'm not familiar with that aspect. I always assumed it was socialization, but now that I think about it, I can't recall any explanation beyond genetic defects (which have to do with inbreeding, not incest) and, "ew, gross, that's your mom." Now, socialization is obviously the cause of your disgust, but apparently even when social pressure works the other way, there is disinterest between members of the same household (who are not necessarily related), so it's largely an issue of instinct. So I ask again, what are the moral reasons?

I definately don't think that the theory of evolution is more plausible than any other. In fact, its not more plausible than that of Creationism. People are happy to dismiss Creationism as they don't want to consider a higher power, and are happy to believe something which still has no scientific proof ie Evolution. All evoltuion is based on is this ridiculous time span where everything is meant to have happened...ofcourse, no one can dispute anything about it as no one has lived millions of years. So frankly, I think its just pure ignorance that people can dismiss Creationism because there is 'no scientific proof'..which, in fact, does exist...except that its the same with Evolution, when it comes down to it, no one was there.

That’s odd, because from what I remember that evolution by natural selection has always been backed up by multidisciplinary science (such as astronomy and geology, and more directly in biology), but generally are disinterested actually proving evolution, but the evidence simply coincided.

The problem with creationism is simply that, it isn’t science. It is base on the claim of religious text from a specific religion. As a dogma, this claim simply does not subject itself to the self correcting mechanism to better understand the physical universe that of which we called the “Scientific method”. Perhaps it would further individual’s understanding of the “supernatural” or “spiritual” universe, but that has no bearing on science that should deal with the “natural” world. Further more, I personally think if creationism base on one religious dogma is given its run in school, we might as well put in the rest of them, like how the humanity is actually created by a Chinese Snake Goddess name Nuwa, or perhaps we go with Hinduism or certain Buddhist view of circular existence where beginning and end doesn’t actually exist and universe is an illusion.

If it is true that we were perfect in the beginning and somehow became less perfect via transcription errors, the human race should have started degenerating a long time ago or become extinct. Becoming "not perfect" is not a good sign in the natural world. And if you say that transcription errors DO occur then you concede that genes CAN mutate. Either evolution has happened throughout the history of the earth (natural selection) or in your creationist theory evolution will happen because of these imperfections.

Just the example of the different skin colors cannot be explained without some sort of evolutionary process, or did Adam and Eve have multi colored babies as well?

I could, but I'm not going to. I've got loads of other things that I need to read rather than an article you posted. Don't let the internet do your thinking for you. I'm debating with the evidences presented because you haven't offered up any debate in the first place. If you can't think for yourself there's no reason for me to debate w/ you or anything you post.

I think you are perfectly well capable of making very intelligent debate just based on posts I have read of yours, and I'm clueless as to why you won't.

I glanced through the links and while they are interesting, I also find it interesting that you encouraging people to just post links and not debate. Last time I tried to do that here I got reamed for it, so I avoid it now. I used to think it was a decent way of debating, but I realize better now.

Yet another example of you twisting my words. Either you exist on these boards simply to mess around with debates or you really have no reading comprehension at all. Or perhaps I'm just not explicitly stating enough things. It's beginning to get very irritating. I gave a single example of what sometimes does cause background mutations. I'm not sure why you automatically think that I am saying that's the only thing I believe causes mutations.

Wrinkles aren't caused in most cases by random mutations. Parts of wrinkling are caused by sun damage from UV radiation, sure, but that isn't the major cause. I have no idea where the hell you are getting all your information, because it's bizzare. Wrinkles are caused because with normal aging, less epidermal cells are produced. Because of this, moisture can't be kept in as effectively, which causes dry skin. There's damage to most layers of the skin, less collagen is produced, the fibers that provide elasticity wear out, etc. I can't remember all that goes on at the moment, but basically the skin sort of "breaks down" in function. Fat cells decrease in size, which means they can't fill in all the damage that happens to the other layers of the skin.

Cancer CAN be caused, among other things, by mutated genes, but we don't know, at least that I know, what causes them to mutate in all cases. Sometimes people are born with these mutated genes, sometimes not. I would certainly think that "background radiation" could lead to this. Too much UV radiation causes skin cancer.

I'm not sure why you think there aren't any. Society sort of creates it's own morals as it goes, incest being one of the taboos. I cannot, for one, give you any distinct reason as to why it is immoral other than society's views of it, but I don't think there is any doubt that it's an immoral act.

Like I said, it's an unfounded theory that I really haven't thought about much. Regardless, you have to remember this is based on what is ultimately faith, and while I hate to do it, I can alway resort to the "God made it do that" answer :p. Scientifically speaking though, I suppose genetic decay could be modeled from the beginning via a more exponential curve rather than straight up linear. I also never said genes couldn't mutate - I did say that I don't believe we have any reason to believe they can mutate in meaningful ways that will pass on to the next generation. Is it possible? In my opinion, I'd say no due to what literally amounts as mathmatically impossible odds.

Also evolution does not happen via the forces of natural selection. Natural selection describes a process whereby the gene pool DECREASES, not increases. The classic example of long and short-necked giraffes - gradually the short-necked gene gets weeded out. I'm sure that for awhile it would remain a recessive gene, but after a long enough time, this would disappear. Note that I do not know little about hereditary-related parts of evolution. I believe that over time recessive genes DO disappear, but they could remain in the body. Anybody who knows this for sure, please do speak up.

Skin color I would say, that over time, people's melanin production gradually increased or decreased with a population's sun exposure. I really do not know though.

And I really don't know what you are trying to accomplish. If you are trying to convince me that the Creationist theory is wrong, than you may as well give up now. I imagine most people on these boards are at an age where their views aren't going to be changed much, if at all. The point of a debate when you are at that point is to simply make the other party think a bit. You have made me think but I'm not entirely sure that's what your point is. And that matter is simply because ultimately, Creationism at it's core relies on faith. I know I can't scientifically explain away every last aspect of the theory, and I'm not going to try.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

I think I may end up ducking out of this debate. It's been incredibly fun, and enlightening, but I've pushed this topic beyond it's normal lifespan, and I sense people are starting getting pissed just simply because of what I believe. I'm getting pissed because I'm having to explain things that should be evidently clear. If this goes too much further it's going to erupt into a flame war. People have basically said all they are going to say, and I'm spending most of my post reiterating what I've already said.

Define "beneficial" and explain why this particular kind of genetic code is somehow different from other types to make it impossible to obtain.

Some causes of genetic mutation:
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/units...mutationbg.cfm

It's pointless. Unless you did all the research and wrote up the paper yourself he'll disregard it.

It was more of a retort to lurker actually, who for some reason appeared to pour scorn on the very notion that the radioactive substances we are exposed to and eat on a regular basis somehow would not affect our DNA. Yes, we do consume them; that's the basis of carbon dating in all living things.

You regularly eat radioactive substances? :confused:

Dude.... dude. Stop fronting. I set out to prove that people who don't believe in evolution have a poor grasp on evolution, and I've succeeded (based on case study) wildly. Not only do you not really know what evolution is, but your biology is pretty weak, and while we're at it you might want to work on your statistics as well.

And 'debating through links' is not what kinkymagic's doing. No, don't argue with me. This is not what you hope it is. Educate yourself and for christ's sake son. You tell me you only used 'background radiation' as an example and then you don't shut up about radiation causing wrinkles and cancer. Jesus christ, this isn't a debate, it's a slaughter fagdance man desperately hiding his willful ignorance.

Additional Spam:
I didn't say that. I mean, unless you're DarkLink2135's dupe, I really wasn't talking about that or about you.

This is an excellent book that I highly recommend to all who have participated in this thread: http://www.amazon.com/Language-God-S...7193138&sr=8-1

The Author, Francis Collins, was the head of the Human Genome Project which mapped our entire genetic code -- one of the premier scientists of our day. He's also a christian and evolutionist. Although the focus of the book isn't "Proving" evolution, he does put forth many of the examples we use that shows all or most of the evidence we've collected thus far certainly suggest evolution actually happened. As we learn more and more about DNA evolutionary theory becomes even more interesting, and this man is on the forefront of that research.

As for the argument about the addition of genetic material: It appears that gene duplication is one mechanism that has allowed increasing complexity in organisms. Take, for instance, the human coagulation pathway. Here is a basic diagram:
http://dpalm.med.uth.tmc.edu/faculty...js/pathway.gif

The early intelligent design proponents argued that this pathway was so complex that it could not have evolved without a designer. However, imagine an organism with a low-pressure circulatory system -- of which there are many in nature. It would require a much simpler coagulation cascade, perhaps consisting of only one protein. Then, through the course of replicating cells, the gene coding for that single protein duplicates -- once again, this happens commonly and can be observed.

Now with two copies of the same gene, one of these copies is free to mutate at will (because the good copy will still perform the same function). After many copies, duplications, and mutations, you would find an organism that generates a wide variety of different, but related, proteins all functioning in a very similar capacity. And this is exactly what we find in the human coagulation cascade -- this would represent a gain in genetic material, a positive mutation, an explanation of how a complex system like this could evolve, and also fits amazingly well with what we know about the development of the vertebrate circulatory system.

Case in point, you've been WRONG about damn near everything you have posted, including wrinkles. I am sorry you have to hide your own ignorance and inability to read behind pathetic flaming, though.

For some reason you have been absolutely convinced that YOU know the answers to life, the universe, and everything, while the world's brightest minds don't know those answers for sure. That's a pretty arrogant stance to take.

If you don't agree with me, fine, but stop acting as though the entire evolutionary theory were proven fact.

Do you think what constitute "science" is simply a matter of opinion?

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

Look, all I'm saying is that there are known-knowns, known-unknowns and unknown-unknowns-- Things we don't even know that we don't know.

-Samuel L. "Bad Mother Fucker" Jackson

Duo Maxwell: I thought that was Donald Rumsfeld.

I don't think you understood what I meant when I said you were cruisin' for a bruisin', DK. Drop the fucking links shit. Linking a source is a staple of the Codex, and if you have a problem with that, then argue the source, not the use of it.

no.

Although you're right here. I misthought; aging in general is caused by the gradual breakdown of cells, which cellular mutation is a part of. It wasn't just wrinkles and wrinkles aren't caused merely by cell breakdown.

Fuck your Hitchhiker's reference, nerd.

Here's this: I am convinced that you don't understand evolution properly. The world's brightest minds are also convinced of that (I asked them). Hey!

Evolution as you understand the question is proven, son. You can't use the debates of professionals in the topic about extremely specific parts of evolutionary theory to say the jury's out on it.

At least creationists have faith and religion to explain themselves. You're worse, you're intellectually lazy.

I don't know where the hell you got your education, but they need to be shut down, fast.

I think my posts speak for themselves. It's pretty ironic, you calling me "intellectually lazy."

People like you are impossible. Although funny to laugh at. But ultimately impossible. You are so absolutely convinced you have the answer because you want one so bad. For some reason you are completely unable to live with any doubt in your mind, so you viciously attack anyone who disagrees with you. Funny and pathetic at the same time. Insanely predictable too. You are probably going to write another word-by-word flamefest and then whine about me trying to psychoanalyze you. But you know what? It doesn't even take that much. You are just that transparent. You have to resort to using petty, ridiculous, unrelated flames to make any point, and you just get madder when it miserably fails.

I posted what I believed and why, you started nipping away at tiny little statements I made, very few of which had anything to do with the evolutionary theory, and then threw a fit when you couldn't even attack them correctly. The only resort you have left is to act like you are 100% correct, and pretty soon here you are probably going to sink even lower and resort to some sort of threat because of your position on these boards.

Evolution as a whole is still a theory. It has NOT been proven, and it is unlikely that it will ever be so in the near future. Not because it is right or wrong, but because of the evidence required to do so. Acting like anything else is true is either extreme arrogance or extreme stupidity. I'm not sure what catagory you fall into.

Good day.

PS: Macroevolution isn't an "extremely specific" part of the evolutionary theory. It's a rather large part. Unless of course you are going to use the whole "I don't understand anything" rhetoric.

Additional Spam:
That's strange, you using this line on me, because as I recall, kinky was the one posting the professional papers of extremely specific parts of evolutionary theory, and you were the one defending them. Nevermind that these papers didn't even say the jury was out on it...

PROOF:

Wow.

I relent then. The Simpsons supercedes all :D .

That's enough dicking around with semantics for this thread.