Do you believe in human evolution?

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by a lurker

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.

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.

Quote:

Drug resistant bacteria.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

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 am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

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

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Spike

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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.

FELIPE NO

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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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 .

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by a lurker

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

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.

Quote:

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

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:

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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.

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 .

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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.

Quote:

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.

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:

Originally Posted by sleipner

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.

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 thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by kinkymagic

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?

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 =/.

Quote:

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.

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?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by a lurker

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.

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by a lurker

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.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

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.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by kinkymagic

Is this what you were looking for?

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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by kinkymagic

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

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by FallDragon

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:

Originally Posted by kinkymagic

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
The Scientific Case for Common Descent
Version 2.87
Copyright © 1999-2006 by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.

Originally Posted by kinkymagic

How many other planets have we actually discovered?

Originally Posted by kinkymagic

Why not?

Originally Posted by kinkymagic

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.

Originally Posted by kinkymagic

Is this what you were looking for?

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

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 am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by kinkymagic

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?

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.

Originally Posted by a lurker

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Will

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'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.

Originally Posted by sleipner

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?

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 . 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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Quote:

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.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by a lurker

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.

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:

Originally Posted by a lurker

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.

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...

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Ulysses

PROOF:

Spoiler:

Wow.

I relent then. The Simpsons supercedes all .

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?