Lies, all lies.

The talibaptists and the GOPpers.

Geez don't tell Woods Hole...oh, wait, he's gone.

So maybe HG Wells and his "Time Machine" wasn't so far off in predicted two varieties of humans based on "nurture" rather than "nature"....

Morally, humans seem to be devolving as of late.

Evolution is just a theory. To learn the real skinny, become a scientologist. Trust me.


(If anyones sarcasm radar is turned off, turn it back on.)

Species do adapt to their surroundings. Fast deer live and slow ones get eaten. Smart people stop for a train and the dumb ones get killed by a train. Some people are imune to small pox and some die from small pox. That isn't quite eveloution.

Human evolution: Micro evolution, yes. Changes within the same species. Cross breeding and change of diet and environment are the causes.

Species do adapt to their surroundings. Fast deer live and slow ones get eaten. Smart people stop for a train and the dumb ones get killed by a train. Some people are imune to small pox and some die from small pox. That isn't quite eveloution.



No, not quite. It's merely the underlying principle of why it takes place.

Variation, random mutation, etc.

The fast deer didn't "get fast", it was already fast. That's why it got away. It didn't "adapt", the species did, as you correctly said. Over time, this can lead to distinct differences, wouldn't you say? This is EXACTLY what evolution is.

That isn't quite eveloution.

POSTED BY SNIPER A



No but it is Evolution.

Perhaps your kids will be able to spell or at least use a spell check.

FF for Sniper. Wait... You're serious. Yikes.

FF for B.

I think Sniper and Murphy should breed, then we can read about their offspring getting killed by trains.

Hehehe, Bleached Africans. I'm a big ole bleached African.

Sometimes evolutions takes a giant leap forward, such as when the dinosaurs disappeared. Oh, I forgot the talibaptists say dinosaurs never existed in the first place (because it ain't in the literal word of god).

Dumb all over and a little ugly on the side - Zappa

"For example, in Europe natural selection has favored genes for pigmentation like light skin, blue eyes, and blond hair. Asians also have genes selected for light skin, but they are different from the European ones.

"Europeans and Asians are both bleached Africans, but the way they got bleached is different in the two areas," Harpending said. "

Posted by Jasper

So........ How did my eyes bleach? If Africa is the cradle of civilazation, how come it is so backward? I think there is a lot about DNA we don't know. Probably will never know.

I believe we adapt but not evolve. Life did not start in a swamp as a single cell and everything evolve into what we are now. We are far too complex, even a tree is, to have been an accident of nature.

(because it ain't in the literal word of god).

~Lipzoidial

Spud always kinda shook his wee head at all the literalists in the Christian world.

Jesus is called in the bible "The Lamb of God"

Do these literalists actually worship a sheep?

Does that make mint jelly sacred or profane?

Spud aint no biblical scholar. Laws No!

Be Well.

PS: Zappa references do rawk!

"I believe we adapt but not evolve."
Guess what happens when a species continually adapts over generations, that's right, they evolve. I never understood the whole micro vs macro evolution argument as continued microevolution results in macroevolution. Acquired adaptation don't revert to their previous state when a new adaptation is acquired.


"Life did not start in a swamp as a single cell and everything evolve into what we are now. We are far too complex, even a tree is, to have been an accident of nature."

Ah the old throwing in of the intellectual towel. Unfortunately this sweeping generalized view point is contrary to years of research and thousands of papers with real data so guess again.

We are far too complex, even a tree is, to have been an accident of nature.

if we were made in God's image and evolve, does that mean we're better than God now? Osama too? Hitler? Stalin?
Wow.....

I believe we adapt but not evolve. Life did not start in a swamp as a single cell and everything evolve into what we are now. We are far too complex, even a tree is, to have been an accident of nature.

Posted by Sniper


Right......we are all one big magic trick.

"And God said POOF.......and all was as we know it"

(Man I have to learn that trick)

God isn't surperior nor does he work in ways that we are unable to expalin. He is just a magician.

Why is it so hard to believe that evolution was the design? It sure would make sense for the all knowing to use it as a form of creation wouldn't it?

Oh never mind. In fact, maybe Sniper hasn't evolved.....That isn't too hard to believe either. Do you have thumbs Sniper?

If all you so-called Christians believe the Bible is the literal word of god, why oh why do you allow Red Lobsters to remain open? Where are your protest marches condemning shrimp burritos? Selective abomination, that's what it is!

p.s. - try this next time you want to quack about evolution - read a friggin' book!

Morally, humans seem to be devolving as of late.

Well Zot if you had any clue about history you would see that isn't true. But, your statement is a typical self absorbed remark based in ignorance and self satisfaction. I will leave it at that in case you might be inspired to research the matter and educate yourself.

So........ How did my eyes bleach? If Africa is the cradle of civilazation, how come it is so backward?

That is one of the most inane statements I've ever read.

Actually there is a split happening in human evolution. Some people are getting smarter and some are getting stupider.

Sniper: Which God you talking about creating everything?
And remember, if you believ Genisis is an allegory, then you can't claim the rest of the Bible is anything but.

Guess what happens when a species continually adapts over generations, that's right, they evolve.

Posted by jpw

How many generations back for your ancestors to the one cell in the swamp? There is nothing to prove that theory. Like I said before, there is a lot about DNA we don't know.

All we are discusing here is to what extent we adapted and from what. I say trees have always been trees, man has always been man. We are arguing about the starting point of each species not how each has changed over the years.

What no tails, feathers, wings, stingers, scales, shells, pinschers, fangs, or antannae.

Damn this evolution movie is taking too long. When will we get to the good stuff?

I am looking forward to all the cool things that other evolved creatures can do.

Seems to me that as long as we have been here we would have developed wings by now.

How about one of you science boys xplainin to me how to start the process so my decendants can follow up on my evolution?

I want a wing or two how do I do that?

If Africa is the cradle of civilazation, how come it is so backward?....

....We are far too complex, even a tree is, to have been an accident of nature.

Posted by Sniper at 2007-12-11 01:35 PM"

You, calling something else "backward"? Classic! Oh and you, sir, are not "complex" by any stretch of the imagination.

FF Monte

So what marks a more evolved individual? Is it less hair (we are evolving from apes)? Hmmmm, does that mean that all bald guys are more highly evolved?

Maybe it is tolerance of heat. After all with global warming and the such, natural selection will select those who do better in the heat.

Any thoughts?

It applies to everybody, except regular Retort bloggers. Yall are going the other way. Not you Zat...

"""I want a wing or two how do I do that?"""

Wing night at the local pub.

Evolution is bullshit!

There is no serious explaination in evolution for wings, venom, or other numerous features of animals.

Tell me did the spitting cobra just decide one day to spit on its victim instead of bite it? How is it that it had glands to do this? How did the first snake develope venom?

Did it just wake up one day and say it sure would be easier to get a meal if I could bite my prey and inject it with something that would kill it.

These are impossible leaps that cannot be explained by the Theory of evolution!

Actually there is a split happening in human evolution. Some people are getting smarter and some are getting stupider.

Some are getting smarter and some are Sniper.

"Hmmmm, does that mean that all bald guys are more highly evolved?"

Yes.

Hans

"Well Zot if you had any clue about history you would see that isn't true. But, your statement is a typical self absorbed remark based in ignorance and self satisfaction. I will leave it at that in case you might be inspired to research the matter and educate yourself."

Posted by bushskank

Don't read the news much, do y'a?

These are impossible leaps that cannot be explained by the Theory of evolution!

If developing poison glands is so impossible why are there hundreds of different species who've evolved thusly?

A tree is too complex?

Damn, "Youknownothing" is the perfect nom de blog fer yas.

Ignorant and proud as Hell of the fact, apparently.

Hmmmm, does that mean that all bald guys are more highly evolved?"

Yes.

Hans ^_^

Ha! Spud had a biology teacher once who asserted the same thing many, many times.

Coincidently enuff, he was balder than a cue ball.

"An evolved position" he sed.

Spud laffed anyway.

Be Well.

So maybe HG Wells and his "Time Machine" wasn't so far off in predicted two varieties of humans based on "nurture" rather than "nature"....

~North Guy #3

Spud knows from coming to the Retort that many of the Morlocks ancestors are already posting here!

^_^

Ha!

Be Wells

Evolution is bullshit!

There is no serious explaination in evolution for wings, venom, or other numerous features of animals.

Tell me did the spitting cobra just decide one day to spit on its victim instead of bite it? How is it that it had glands to do this? How did the first snake develope venom?

Did it just wake up one day and say it sure would be easier to get a meal if I could bite my prey and inject it with something that would kill it.

These are impossible leaps that cannot be explained by the Theory of evolution!



What a simpleton. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean its not true. There is tons of evidence that explains all the tings you mention. I know its hard to wrap you mind around, but these things happen over thousands of years. So, no, the spitting cobra didn't decide to spit. But thousands of similar cobras before the spitting cobra had small changes in their venom delivery systems that eventually enabled the spitting cobra to spit. /Venom came from toxic spit, to put it simply for you, and over the years the animals with the most toxic spit lived and the others went hungry and died off and eventually the venom of today came to be. There are no impossible leaps, no matter what your cult leader tells you. You really should have learned all this in school.

Naturally bald guys are more evolved. The guys who shave their heads are neaderthals!

all those that got an "F" in High School Biology please line up behind the dinosaur and push!

Does anyone else think (like I do) that our technology will screw up evolution? For example, I need glasses to see. If I was a caveman I would be dead long before having a chance to procreate, but in this day an age I can live to a ripe old age with my bad eyes and pass on the faulty genes to any number of offspring. Same with my heart condition and so on. How is it that this is a step forward?

"These are impossible leaps that cannot be explained by the Theory of evolution!" -YouKnewWho

Not necessarily. Snakes didn't suddenly have these glands. The gland probably started as a few cells around the teeth that had a very tiny effect on the thing the snake was trying to bite, but caused it enough pain to perhaps think twice about going near the snake again. Over generations, the snakes with more of these types of cells survived longer, and were therefore able to pass down their genes more often than those who did not. If this trend continued to be effective eventually the mass of cells that did this function would be large enough to be a gland.

Especially for a cold blooded animal, quick defenses like biting take up a lot of valuable energy. So things like spitting could evolve to relieve the snake of some of this waste of energy. The snakes body would probably first spend less energy growing teeth, as the venom was sufficient as a killing defense. With smaller teeth, it would be much easier for the snake to thrust it's venom out. At first this would probably be from a very short range, but over time, as this technique must have been effective, this thrust of venom was spit.

A similar explaination can be used for wings, but I think the venom is sufficient. Speaking of which, this is not a professional explanation, just an educated one, so if I have something wrong that anybody wants to fix feel free.

You're absolutely right, YouKnewWho!

Evolution theory is insanity!

Millions of species being handcrafted in 6 days, 6000 years ago, by a giant, old, bearded and robed fellow living in the sky is SO much more logical.

Why can't millions of scientists understand that?

God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh

-voltaire

Does anyone else think (like I do) that our technology will screw up evolution? For example, I need glasses to see. If I was a caveman I would be dead long before having a chance to procreate, but in this day an age I can live to a ripe old age with my bad eyes and pass on the faulty genes to any number of offspring. Same with my heart condition and so on. How is it that this is a step forward?

I've thought about this too. I came to the conclusion that our technology is an integral part of our evolution. Survival of the fittest, for us at least, takes on new meaning with advancing technology. We don't have to worry about getting eaten by a lion any more but we do have to know to look both ways before crossing the street. Make sense?

"I've thought about this too. I came to the conclusion that our technology is an integral part of our evolution. Survival of the fittest, for us at least, takes on new meaning with advancing technology. We don't have to worry about getting eaten by a lion any more but we do have to know to look both ways before crossing the street. Make sense?"

Absolutely. There is no such thing as de-evolution as people put it. We always evolve. It is interesting that evolution has given us the power to use tools, and that these tools are now driving our own evolutionary process. The arena of evolution is now changing, but it is evolution none the less.

YKW- I am looking forward to all the cool things that other evolved creatures can do.

Like thinking? We're looking forward to you doing that too.

You guys never change. When you don't have a sensable argument for something you start with the insults and name calling.

You can't explain how a cobra decided to spit or how a bird decided to fly so you resort to name calling.

I'm sure you have an explination how my ancestors decided to have blue eyes and not brown.

And I'm sick of people saying they believe in genetic adaptation to a given environment, but they don't believe in evolution.

Evolution IS the adaptation of genes over time, or even more simply put, it's the flow of the gene pool. Ther percentage of the presence of a given gene will fluctuate with every generation. THAT IS EVOLUTION. It includes the processes of gene flow, genetic drift, migration, and mutation, which all effect the distribution of genes in a given population.

"You can't explain how a cobra decided to spit or how a bird decided to fly so you resort to name calling." -Sniper

I agree, I don't like name calling either, but both QCP and I explained how a spitting cobra could evolve from a snake.

As far as a wing. having a percentage of a wing isn't useless, so I think it's reasonable to assume that the first flying birds had arms that gave it the ability to glide just enough so that it could fall from a higher height than birds who did not possess the trait without dying. With each generation the birds with better gliding ability could fall from higher heights without dying and therefore had a survival edge (including a reproductive edge). Eventually the gliding traits (which include hollow bones as well) became so well made that the bird could fly.

Evolution is bullshit!

There is no serious explaination in evolution for wings, venom, or other numerous features of animals.

Tell me did the spitting cobra just decide one day to spit on its victim instead of bite it? How is it that it had glands to do this? How did the first snake develope venom?

Did it just wake up one day and say it sure would be easier to get a meal if I could bite my prey and inject it with something that would kill it.

These are impossible leaps that cannot be explained by the Theory of evolution!

Posted by YouKnewWho at 2007-12-11 02:34 PM | Reply |

I don't see why you need to be told anything. True enough there are mysteries for which no answer exists currently. The lack of answer does not make evolution incorrect. We can't figure out how the universe came into existance, but sure enough here it is, and just maybe some day, we will figure it out.

What perhaps it does mean though is you should aquire a research grant, find the answer and report back to us. Offer up an explanation for why cobra's spit venom, and prove it to us.

You know our theory.. got a better one?

Absolutely. There is no such thing as de-evolution as people put it. We always evolve. It is interesting that evolution has given us the power to use tools, and that these tools are now driving our own evolutionary process. The arena of evolution is now changing, but it is evolution none the less.

Posted by Incredibleplum at 2007-12-11 03:12 PM | Reply |

This is true, although I think if you asked the dinosaurs, they might disagree. :p

Sniper--how do you expect us to react? You insist on someone explaining how evolution resulted in a specific trait. And if that trait cannot be adequately explained in your opinion, then you believe that is an argument that the theory of evolution is bunk. On top of that, you recite some basic fundamental ideas of evolution, acknowledge those fundamental ideas are correct and then proclaim evolution is bunk. Whaaa? It is impossible to argue with stupid.

It is interesting that you need so much proof for evolution but are so quick to believe an invisible person created this entire earth in 6 days and a man, who was the son of God, died and came back to life.

So........ How did my eyes bleach? If Africa is the cradle of civilazation, how come it is so backward? I think there is a lot about DNA we don't know. Probably will never know.

I believe we adapt but not evolve. Life did not start in a swamp as a single cell and everything evolve into what we are now. We are far too complex, even a tree is, to have been an accident of nature.

Posted by Sniper at 2007-12-11 01:35 PM | Reply |

My god dude, the question should be how did you end up being so backward. Like the last 3 days, your trying to find new lows.

inc gave his theory of how it happened. I guess that makes it a fact to the rest of you.

That still dosen't get us from that single cell in the swamp to where we are now. Start with that single cell and tell me all the progressions to man. Lets have some facts, not jusy your idea. Better yet, tell me how that single cell came to being. Back that theory up with a bench demonstration.

If the eveloution was so good for the spitting cobra, how come there are so many other species of snakes, some with poison and some without.

I'm sure you could write a book on your version of evolution but your version lacks facts. I don't have any facts for my opinion so I guess it's a draw.

I'm sure you could write a book on your version of evolution but your version lacks facts. I don't have any facts for my opinion so I guess it's a draw.

Posted by Sniper at 2007-12-11 03:56 PM | Reply |

Holy hell your stupid....

I don't know how 100 vs 0 ends up being a draw...

Cry all you want about name calling, but you deserve every bit of it. Perhaps sympathy even...

hmmmmmmmmm...wonder when we'll all not be human anymore?

"I'm sure you could write a book on your version of evolution but your version lacks facts. I don't have any facts for my opinion so I guess it's a draw." -sniper

my version does lack facts, yes. And I have no problem with your disagreement. Skepticism is normal. I was merely trying to point out that small steps are possible between such things.

However, you state that you believe in adaptations to environments, but not evolution when the two are the very same thing. I assume you mean youd don't believe that these adaptations can lead to different species. Imagine a species of animal in a given environment. Now imagine a river dividing the environment in half. Now imagine most of the area of one side of the river changing and most of the area on the other side changing in a different way. Both species adapt to their different environments for a few million generations. When you put them back together they are unable to naturally mate. Perhaps one species became nocturnal and never actively comes across the other species, though they live in the same environment. Perhaps their DNA is so different that they can no longer produce offspring that are fertile. This is called cladogenesis, and you can look it up in just about any book on evolution.

Evolution for dummies:

In theory I have a mutation which gives me a lovely giant slong (as apposed to the merely extra large slong I possess now)

because of the extraordinary beauty and functionality of that organ I have more success and opportunity breeding because well, as I said before, I am blessed

My sons are all slong masters too and dominate the gene pool because they have more success and opportunity, on and on.

Thus all humans eventually become slong masters. Except the slong masters that were stupid and didn't run back in the cave when a dinosaur came running by looking for a treat.

Evolution is NOT for everyone.

NOT everyone has evolved.

Read Sniper's posts.

Any questions?

(Why is it that YouKnowWho continues to poke his head out of his mother's asshole every now and then yet Chair remains AWOL. Do you suck THAT bad at monitoring your own site?)

The sedentary lifestyles of many would seemingly make it logical that the elimination of our limbs will shortly ensue. After all, we could save a lot of energy by not having to grow them. We can just use our nose to push the EASY button. And if we smell danger when we're not near the EASY button we'll just roll up into a little ball and roll away, hurriedly.

What's all the worry about global warming? With all the energy we'll save by not wasting it growing arms or legs surely we can adapt/evolve to drinking dirt. That's what we all do in the end anyway (burial). Except for those of us that drink fire (Cremation).

Being the somewhat frugal person I am and not wishing to take up space unproductively I've opted for the latter.

Why do many atheists insist on burial rather than the flame? I would think the church of atheism would mandate the latter. It's better for the children, you know?

By the way, you can cross a horse and a donkey but in the end it's offspring is dead.

Funny dat be.

Right, Tater'o'drool?

"Why do many atheists insist on burial rather than the flame? I would think the church of atheism would mandate the latter. It's better for the children, you know?" -KPB

I'm an atheist, and I didn't realize that we prefered burial over any other method. Hurl me into the sun when I'm dead if you wish. Eat my dead carcass. Whatever you do to me, it won't matter, because I'll be dead. I won't know the difference. But perhaps that's just me.

Spud aint no biblical scholar. Laws No!

M-O-O-N, that spells "punctuated equilibrium!"

"the church of atheism"

One of the best things about being an atheist is I bow to no church.

You can't explain how a cobra decided to spit or how a bird decided to fly so you resort to name calling.


Nothing "decided" to do anything. Some things work, some don't. The dodo bird lived a life of relative ease: they were near the top of the food chain. Eventually, they didn't need to be able to fly to escape predators, and their wings became vestigial.

That really fucked them over when man invaded their habitat and they became easy prey to hunters and dogs. Now, no more dodos.

Now, no more dodos.

~Loch Ness Gadolmonsta

Except fer them which managed to escape their original enviroment who sailed away on boats and eventually ended up here drudging over a hot retort.

Spud imagines Jesynotgettin'it as a pissed off Dodo with vestiginal frontal lobes, a really nasty temper who has somehow evolved the ability to type (rather shabbily one might add).

Spud's got no real hard data to back that up.

Merely a spuddish hypothesis, doncha know. ^_^

Be Well.

"the church of atheism"

One of the best things about being an atheist is I bow to no church.

Posted by qcp


"Most scientists I know don't care enough about religion even to call themselves atheists."
-- Steven Weinberg

That really fucked them over when man invaded their habitat and they became easy prey to hunters and dogs. Now, no more dodos.

Posted by ness_gadol

I didn't know man invented dogs. I thought the dogs were here for a long time.

M-O-O-N, that spells "punctuated equilibrium!"

Ha! Ness finally figured out before anybody else where Spud ripped that offa.

Tom Cullen from Steven King's "The Stand".

Great book.

So-so mini-series.

Spud-points au go-go to Ness!

Woo Hoo!

Be Well.

"I didn't know man invented dogs."

Posted by Sniper

"I didn't know" again.
You're wrong, of course.

It was sort of inadvertent; the smarter wolves hanging out with the creative humans for mutual benefit. Felis domesticus came first, though.

By the way, you can cross a horse and a donkey but in the end it's offspring is dead.

Funny dat be.

Makin'Bacononthebeach',

Not to the mule it's not.

So you are aware that there are some evolutionary cul-de-sacs?

Is that cos you live on one of 'em?

Be Well.

If the eveloution was so good for the spitting cobra, how come there are so many other species of snakes, some with poison and some without.

I have read this whole thread and this individual is so full of purposeful condescending ignorance.

Evolution is a product of many things but the most glaring is environment and learned behavior.

The Japanese were a short race for years but are now speeding up in height do to a changes in how they fertilize their food and types of its intake. No more human wastes and less rice. This is in only a couple of generations.

Boy, if curling my tongue helped me get better drinking water then some would get less water and lower quality and the development of our species over time would be seen.

Felis domesticus came first, though.

~Zat

Back in Egyptian daze they used to go out hunting with their recently domesticated kitties.

They were a titch bigger back then, obviously.

The Egyptians thought they sacred.

They weren't far off.

Funny Photo. Yea, verily!! Ta!

Be Well.

"I didn't know man invented dogs."

"Nobody could have imagined..."

Be Well.

Zatoichi - thanks for the pic, that was great! FF.

"Nobody could have imagined..."


ff

Life did not start in a swamp as a single cell and everything evolve into what we are now. We are far too complex, even a tree is, to have been an accident of nature.

Posted by Sniper at 2007-12-11 01:35 PM | Reply


Didn't you post this on the last evolution thread? I think the reply to that was something to this effect...

Evolution = life from swamp
Genesis = life from mud (dust and spit)

Take your pick.

thanks for the pic


ubet

"a short race for years but are now speeding up in height"


There's an old Austin family, I'll not mention the name, three generations; I know the latest and his dad.
The grandfather contributed to the fundamental fabric of what IS Austin. The father a great UT prof. Bubba's a foot taller than his granddad.

Despite the emotional attachment each side has to this argument, nobody has all the conclusive facts in this case. The problem is that this is not something we can reproduce in the lab. The evolutionists' experiment would take 1 million years, and the creationists' experiment would require the cooperation of God.

If I understand evolution correctly, a species can change into another through very gradual changes over thousands to millions of years. The problem with this is the lack of fossil evidence. Considering the time frames involved, we should have plenty of fossils of "intermediate" creatures that are part way between one species and another. Why haven't we found plenty of these "missing links"? I would think they would have provided the absolute evidence the evolutionists are looking for.

Why haven't we found plenty of these "missing links"?

Get back to me when we've dug up the entire earth's crust.

Buddhists think all is sacred.

Max has wise eyes.

That pic did Spud's heart a world of good.

Thank you, Zat.

Be Well.

Buddhists think all is sacred.

i179.photobucket.com

Posted by Zatoichi

But if all is sacred, doesn't that mean that nothing is sacred.

Why haven't we found plenty of these "missing links"?

We already found the most important one.

"CreIntelligent Designism"

Proof positive that ID is Creationism V2.0.

C'mon, didn't you watch that Nova program yet?

S'good one!

Spud thinks of the fossil record as being akin to a jig-saw puzzle. We don't have all the pieces but every year we find a few more and the picture on the Box gets clearer all the time.

When the science of genetics came along years after the death of Charles Darwin it threatened to over-turn everything Evolutionists believed was true.

It didn't.

Instead it confirmed everything.

Wotta ya make of THAT?

Be Well.

Humans are actually devolving. We keep the sickly and malformed and those with genetic diseases alive now to pass their faulty genes on. Normally these people would have died and been removed from the gene pool.

We are going backwards in evolution.

So, here is a solution.

1. If your religion says creationism, then take that as faith.

2. Don't try to debunk evolution because your arguments are really lame and easy to counter. By saying that evolution isn't consistent with scientific evidence you make yourself (and religion) look like a fool. Evolution is a robust and useful theory.

3. The only legitimate argument that you can make is that God created the world with evidence in place as a test of faith. There is no way that a scientist can argue against that...because it is a matter of faith, not science.

End of Debate.

The grandfather contributed to the fundamental fabric of what IS Austin. The father a great UT prof. Bubba's a foot taller than his granddad.

Posted by Zatoichi at 2007-12-11 05:28 PM |


Because you're taller than your Dad doesn't make you more of a man, eh? "Bubba" makes it clear.

How bout those little fellers on the TEE-VEE? 2 dwarf parents 3 Kids. 1 dwarf and 2 (so called) normal kids. How doeth thou splain it? The purpose? So they can more easily pick the maters? What's that, their arms are shorter? The heck ya say?

I don't know anyone that doesn't believe humans or any other forms of life don't adapt/evolve but they don't become a completely different species. I do know several persons though, that don't believe everyone came from the same BEGINNING organism(Unless of course you want to call that Organsim, GOD.) Hey look there's that darn word again, Beginning. What's that? A start and an end? Alpha and Omega?


Make some more spotted moths and get back to us when it barks like a duck.

End of Debate.

Posted by eric1111 at 2007-12-11 05:49 PM

I should add this...

4. If you believe in ID, you are an absolute moron. ID is religion, not science. If you do believe in ID, is your God OK with you believing that an "intelligent-agent-that-is-
not-God" is the creator? That is what ID states.

"We keep the sickly and malformed and those with genetic diseases alive now"
-Goatman

You just described Steve Hawking.
Nice job.

It's the stupid who will be distilled out.

It doesn't take millions of years to prove evolution. Scientists HAVE observed evolution resulting in new species.

Posted by eric1111

Just exactly is that new thing?

You just described Steve Hawking.

Yes I did. Steve Hawking and millions of others.

1 dwarf and 2 (so called) normal kids. How doeth thou splain it?

Autosomal dominant inheritance that happened to side for the 25% chance twice.

"spotted moths"

Funny you should mention that.

The experiment's been repeated in the lab; Same result.

I've already posted the link to you some time back.

Therefore you are not only ignorant and stupid, but insane.

I don't know anyone that doesn't believe humans or any other forms of life don't adapt/evolve but they don't become a completely different species. I do know several persons though, that don't believe everyone came from the same BEGINNING organism(Unless of course you want to call that Organsim, GOD.) Hey look there's that darn word again, Beginning. What's that? A start and an end? Alpha and Omega?


Make some more spotted moths and get back to us when it barks like a duck.

Posted by Kris_P_Bacon at 2007-12-11 05:50 PM


Wow, that post was fucked up. Are you really using the fact that people you know don't believe in evolution as evidence?

If so, I'll counter with this- I know people that do think evolution is correct, so evolution must be true.

Just exactly is that new thing?

Posted by Sniper at 2007-12-11 05:

What are you asking?

If you are talking about observation of evolution resulting in new species, check the evolution thread from yesterday. I posted the link already.

"You just described Steve Hawking.

Yes I did. Steve Hawking and millions of others."

Posted by goatman


fascinating

And of course all the thousands of maimed from the war.
Just kill 'em.
Obviously being able to think is irrelevant.

I don't know anyone that doesn't believe humans or any other forms of life don't adapt/evolve but they don't become a completely different species.

That doesn't make sense. Enough adaptations will make an organism a new species.

It's like the electromagnetic spectrum. Or let's just take a chunk of it. Expand the visible part from red to violet until it is a mile long. Start at red and move a millimeter towards the violet end. It's still red, right? move another millimeter. Still red, right? A dozen more times. Still red?

Eventually, though you get into the green. Is green the same as red? no. At what point did the red turn green? It was first orange and yellow. At what point did you get a new color?

Adaptation is the same. Take on one characteristic to adapt. Then a few millenia later, another, but still keep the original. After a long enough time you have an organism that is difficult if not impossible to distinguish from its ancestors -- a new species.

Just exactly is that new thing?

Ever hear of MRSA?

Well said, Goat.

Make some more spotted moths and get back to us when it barks like a duck.

Will you be around in a few million years to see the result?

Ever hear of MRSA?

Posted by ness_gadol at 2007-12-11 06:03 PM

I'm sure they will skip this and move on to their next argument. I'm out, have fun...

"I'm sure they will skip this and move on"

That's OK, evolution won't.

I'm back.

I'll give you that we've found some fossils that appear to be in between some species. But still, if a lizard becomes a bird over a million years, there should have been millions of intermediate bird/lizards of various stages that lived and died. I just would have thought we would have found a lot more fossils by now. But, I might be wrong.

In general I think this debate is good. It forces both sides to examine everything. Which in the end, produces more knowledge.

Here's another question I have (seriously). Evolution says the first living thing came from dead stuff. Has anyone ever created living matter from dead matter in the lab? If not, why not?

The experiment's been repeated in the lab; Same result.

I've already posted the link to you some time back.

Therefore you are not only ignorant and stupid, but insane.

Posted by Zatoichi at 2007-12-11 05:58 PM |

Notice the Key words "in the lab"

It's still a moth you arrogant stooge.

Wow, that post was fucked up. Are you really using the fact that people you know don't believe in evolution as evidence?

If so, I'll counter with this- I know people that do think evolution is correct, so evolution must be true.





Posted by eric1111 at 2007-12-11 05:59 PM |


Wow, that post was f@@@ked up.

Read much? "I don't know anyone that doesn't believe humans or any other forms of life don't adapt/evolve but they don't become a completely different species."

Join Zat in the flamers corner.

"arrogant stooge"


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA

Thanks for the laugh.

By the way, Jesus has 5 seconds to suck my ass.

Here's another question I have (seriously). Evolution says the first living thing came from dead stuff. Has anyone ever created living matter from dead matter in the lab? If not, why not?

Posted by Frosty at 2007-12-11 06:44 PM | Reply |

The closest they got was making some amino acids form.

There was another more recent experiment where they discovered that chains of amino acids tend to naturally form helical structures similiar to DNA. But they were not trying to create life so to speak.

Times up!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA



idiot

Frosty, no one has ever been able to create life in a lab. Hey, but that doesn't keeps the science crowd from believing it happened.

This is why they put so much hope in the idea that life exists on other planets. They need something to believe in because they can't truly explain life on earth.

It's the stupid who will be distilled out.

Posted by Zatoichi at 2007-12-11 05:54 PM | Reply |

Find and watch the movie Idiocracy. You might think different.

But still, if a lizard becomes a bird over a million years, there should have been millions of intermediate bird/lizards of various stages that lived and died.

Who says there aren't fossils of them? Surely you don't think that every fossil in the world has been dug up?

Has anyone ever created living matter from dead matter in the lab? If not, why not?

No. We don't yet have the technology.

Flash back 300 years: Has man ever flown? If not, why not?

I have one parting notion for this thread.

Intelligent Design and Evolution are not mutually exclusive to one or the other.

It could be said that all the things that make evolution possible were in fact the work of god. (Not that it gives us any more evidence).

It could be, that we evolved from the primordal soup, and some few billion years later intelligent life came to our planet and decided this planet needed a humanoid slave race and thus had us built for that purpose.

It could be we developed in a primordal soup in an entirely different star system and by some means our code ended up on this planet and spread out. Maybe we were even seeded by another intelligent being. (variation on human slave race concept)

To tell you the truth I believe god created us all. But I don't discount evolution in the least. I don't even discount the idea that aliens have fucked with this planet, or our gene pool. And further the more science I learn, the more I find myself believing in a god.

And the reason why, is because when you look at these systems, the physics behind the stars and planets, the code and complexity that goes into our DNA... it is truly hard to believe this shit just assembled itself into being and actually works. Its just flat out amazing these systems even exist. At the very least the very concept stretches the limits of imagination. But to go on about the fossil record, and how did cobra's learn to spit, that shit is just funny.

Hell maybe there wasn't even a god, just some really really really old guy at the relative center of the universe that had predicted this would be a awesome wonderfull place and wanted to leave his mark in the form of living beings.

According to physics our universe may very well be the figment of someones overactive imagination.

Frosty, no one has ever been able to create life in a lab. Hey, but that doesn't keeps the science crowd from believing it happened.

This is why they put so much hope in the idea that life exists on other planets. They need something to believe in because they can't truly explain life on earth.

Posted by YouKnewWho at 2007-12-11 06:58 PM | Reply |

Snipers brother I presume... LOL... ok I'll bite this one time.


Hey, but that doesn't keeps the science crowd from believing it happened.


The science crowd doesn't believe that happened, but that doesn't keep you from believing they do.


This is why they put so much hope in the idea that life exists on other planets. They need something to believe in because they can't truly explain life on earth.


Yeah because finding life on other planets would so totally not be cool at all, what a bummer that would be ??? But yeah finding life on another planet may very well answer alot of questions about life on this one.

Time to grow up son, you need to face the fact you don't know it all. And neither does anyone else.

No. We don't yet have the technology.

Flash back 300 years: Has man ever flown? If not, why not?
POSTED BY GOATMAN
Your statement assumes the technology will become available one day. It may or may not. It still seems to make the life from nothing concept more of a theory than a fact. Regardless, I find this an interesting subject.

Cheers.

Will CERN's LHC work? Does the mysterious Higgs Boson really exist? Geraldo will be there in May 08 to find out.

"Does the mysterious Higgs Boson really exist?"

We could have answered that some time ago, but after spending $2B for a hole in the ground ...

Your statement assumes the technology will become available one day. It may or may not. It still seems to make the life from nothing concept more of a theory than a fact.

Yes, of course it's a theory. And I'm not saying it will happen. I am merely pointing out the fact that it hasn't happened does not mean it is not possible.

Posted by northguy3 at 2007-12-11 12:14 PM

So maybe HG Wells and his "Time Machine" wasn't so far off in predicted two varieties of humans based on "nurture" rather than "nature"....

We could have answered that some time ago, but after spending $2B for a hole in the ground...

...We spent another 2 billion filling it back up. Sad chapter in the history of physics. Thank you, Clinton

"We spent another 2 billion filling it back up."

wrong

Sorry Goat.

It's just full of water.

But we did have the 6th website. Ever.

Posted by Jasper at 2007-12-11 01:17 PM

"For example, in Europe natural selection has favored genes for pigmentation like light skin, blue eyes, and blond hair. Asians also have genes selected for light skin, but they are different from the European ones.

"We spent another 2 billion filling it back up."

Literary license, Zat. Obviously we didn't spend $2g filling it back up. Chill.

Obviously we didn't spend $2g filling it back up. Chill.

Posted by goatman



You on the rig?

Evolution can be observed in the algae dish, and with mutating bacteria, and the like, those with short lifepsans fast reproduction.

So, you don't need to live for a long time to observe the process.

You on the rig?

Yes, but I leave on Friday after 5 fun filled weeks. We are back in the GoM and will be on location in just a few hours and will start putting down anchors.

Third party personnel have been pouring in for two days now.

you could be in MCA...

Well said, Goat.

Posted by ness_gadol at 2007-12-11 06:04 PM |


Huh?

Both of you might want to re-read what was written.

"Adaptation is the same. Take on one characteristic to adapt. Then a few millenia later, another, but still keep the original. After a long enough time you have an organism that is difficult if not impossible to distinguish from its ancestors -- a new species."

Posted by goatman at 2007-12-11 06:03 PM |

I suppose that's kinda like your kids. A new species but still the same.

What say ye?

BTW. Your analogy started a color and ended a color.

Crossing a donkey and horse gets a genetic dead end, a mule.

Why is that?

Hmm.

Human divergence?

Harpending said the genetic evidence shows that people worldwide have been getting less similar rather than more similar due to the relatively recent genetic changes.

Genes have evolved relatively quickly in Africa, Asia and Europe but almost all of the changes have been unique to their corner of the world. This is the case, he said, because since humans dispersed from Africa to other parts of the world about 40,000 years ago, there has not been much flow of genes between the regions.

I've been thinking about the title to this thread as I've been puttering about my business tonight. I at first disagreed. I postulated that human evolution has come to a halt, in fact was devolution since we are dirtying up the gene pool by ensuring those with genetic defects stay alive and can reproduce. (the royal line descended from Queen Victoria an their hemophelia is a good example)

However, I think evolution in general is speeding up. Not for humans, but for all the other species of the planet. As we upset the ecological balance of the planet, other species are adapting to fit the new niches created. With no competition (e.g. the prey of the Californian Condor) they will move into those niches and thrive, adapting as necessary.

Just my $.02

I suppose that's kinda like your kids. A new species but still the same.

NOt at all. My kids may have a single genetic mutation that differentiates them from me and their mom. A single mutation does make him a different species. However, the cumulative genetic mutations of successive generations would.

BTW. Your analogy started a color and ended a color.

But a different one.

Evolution starts with one living thing and millions of years later another living thing. Just a different species.

Main Entry: 1species
Pronunciation: sp-()shz, -()sz
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural species
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin, appearance, kind, species, from specere to look -- more at spy
Date: 14th century
1 a: kind, sort b: a class of individuals having common attributes and designated by a common name; specifically : a logical division of a genus or more comprehensive class c: the human race : human beings --often used with the d (1): a category of biological classification ranking immediately below the genus or subgenus, comprising related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding, and being designated by a binomial that consists of the name of a genus followed by a Latin or latinized uncapitalized noun or adjective agreeing grammatically with the genus name (2): an individual or kind belonging to a biological species e: a particular kind of atomic nucleus, atom, molecule, or ion
2: the consecrated eucharistic elements of the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Eucharist
3 a: a mental image; also : a sensible object b: an object of thought correlative with a natural object





Good night.

Main Entry: 1species
Pronunciation: sp-()shz, -()sz
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural species
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin, appearance, kind, species, from specere to look -- more at spy
Date: 14th century
1 a: kind, sort b: a class of individuals having common attributes and designated by a common name; specifically : a logical division of a genus or more comprehensive class c: the human race : human beings --often used with the d (1): a category of biological classification ranking immediately below the genus or subgenus, comprising related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding, and being designated by a binomial that consists of the name of a genus followed by a Latin or latinized uncapitalized noun or adjective agreeing grammatically with the genus name (2): an individual or kind belonging to a biological species e: a particular kind of atomic nucleus, atom, molecule, or ion
2: the consecrated eucharistic elements of the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Eucharist
3 a: a mental image; also : a sensible object b: an object of thought correlative with a natural object





Good night.

Main Entry: 1species
Pronunciation: sp-()shz, -()sz
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural species
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin, appearance, kind, species, from specere to look -- more at spy
Date: 14th century
1 a: kind, sort b: a class of individuals having common attributes and designated by a common name; specifically : a logical division of a genus or more comprehensive class c: the human race : human beings --often used with the d (1): a category of biological classification ranking immediately below the genus or subgenus, comprising related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding, and being designated by a binomial that consists of the name of a genus followed by a Latin or latinized uncapitalized noun or adjective agreeing grammatically with the genus name (2): an individual or kind belonging to a biological species e: a particular kind of atomic nucleus, atom, molecule, or ion
2: the consecrated eucharistic elements of the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Eucharist
3 a: a mental image; also : a sensible object b: an object of thought correlative with a natural object





Good night.

Goatman hits the mark tonite!

Evolution starts with one living thing and millions of years later another living thing. Just a different species.

Posted by goatman at 2007-12-11 10:09 PM

Richard Dawkins proposes it is all about the Ancient Replicators and the immortal (or selfish) gene.

Genes have been perfecting ways of traveling forward in time changing and adapting in order to reproduce for millions of years now.The reason folks like sniper have conceiving of this is the tremendous breath of time involved! Remember they really want to believe that the world was created EXACTLY like the Bible said it was in 6 days and is relatively young like 6,000 years against all scientific evidence otherwise.

There are pieces of reproduced genes in your bodies that are thousands of years old maybe more!

Interesting Dat!

The Galapagos Islands are a beautiful example of species differentiation and specialization as Darwin discovered.

Of course, we are evolving! Silly humans! Life is nothing but change...you MUST adapt and Overcome!

Ideas evolve too.

I hope we evolve some good ideas soon before we wipeout here on our little mote of dust hanging here in a sunbeam in space.

The reason folks like sniper have (trouble) conceiving...

Evolution says the first living thing came from dead stuff.
no it doesn't, where did you get this, bible school?

I just would have thought we would have found a lot more fossils by now. But, I might be wrong.

there are a lot fossils, try looking at www.talkorigins.org or visit a major natural history museum (Chicago or Washintion DC)

because you didn't look doesn't mean there aren't any! is this from bible school too?

humans have changed not in all recorded history - we've been human and will continue to be human until the time we're no longer pertinent.

get used to it.

human is as human does.

at least we're at the top of the food chain.

for now.

humans have changed not in all recorded history - we've been human and will continue to be human until the time we're no longer pertinent.

Posted by nanc at 2007-12-12 01:10 AM

Did you even read the article? I guess you are correct in one way...humans were always humans and will always be humans. If evolution causes humans to "branch" the new branch wouldn't be homo sapiens anymore... Before "humans" were homo sapiens, they were something else.

Evolution says the first living thing came from dead stuff


Good grief the ignorance is breathtaking.

Evolution, of course, says no such thing.

Origin of life thoeries include the VERY observable coacervate droplet, which forms spontaneously, and can selectively absord and adsorb materials from its environment, and can reproduce by splitting.

Go back an take an course at the local community college unles you live in Kansas, of course.)

SUNFLOWER
Russ Morgan

I was born in Kansas, I was bred in Kansas,
And when I get married, I'll be wed in Kansas.
There's a true blue gal who promises she would wait,
She's a sunflower from the sunflower state

She's a sunflower, she's my sunflower
And I know we'll never part
She's a sunflower, she's my one flower,
She's the flower of my heart

SUNFLOWER
Russ Morgan

I was born in Kansas, I was bred in Kansas,
And when I get married, I'll be wed in Kansas.
There's a true blue gal who promises she would wait,
She's a sunflower from the sunflower state

She's a sunflower, she's my sunflower
And I know we'll never part
She's a sunflower, she's my one flower,
She's the flower of my heart




Lovely. I like sunflowers, too, but the woodchucks eat them.

Kansas is still a flyover state.

we know righties have a tendancy to be ignorant, they are against evolution and tend to be very ignorant on most scientific issue. including global warming. Yes, they gladly accept the benefits of science, but usually don't know science was involved. About 20,000 pig valves are inserted into humans each year saving their lives. The number of people whose lives have been saved through evolutionaty reseach is huge. Though evolutionary biology is the primary source of most of our medicines, they deny evolution. I guess it's good to be a dumb rightie, use what they develop without having to accept it.

even people in Kansas voted out Board of Education members who did not acknowledge evolution.

So if your still not on board, youre thicker than the worst Kansas has to offer.

Letter from Texas University Biology Professors
Defending Biological Evolution as a Central Pillar of Modern Science Education

an excerpt:
A massive body of scientific evidence supports evolution. All working scientists agree that publication in top peer-reviewed journals is the scoreboard of modern science. A quick database search of scientific publications since 1975 shows 29,639 peer-reviewed scientific papers on evolution in twelve leading journals alone2. To put this in perspective, if you read 5 papers a day, every day, it would take you 16 years to read this body of original research. These tens of thousands of research papers on evolution provide overwhelming support for the common ancestry of living organisms and for the mechanisms of evolution including natural selection. In contrast, a search of the same database for "Intelligent Design" finds a mere 24 articles, every one of which is critical of intelligent design3. Given that evolution currently has a score of 29,639-while "intelligent design" has a score of exactly zero-it is absurd to expect the TEA's director of science curriculum to "remain neutral" on this subject. In recognition of the overwhelming scientific support for evolution, evolution is taught without qualification and intelligent design is omitted at every secular and most sectarian universities in this country, including Baylor (Baptist), Notre Dame (Catholic), Texas Christian (Disciples of Christ) and Brigham Young (Mormon).

Evolution education is more than an academic question. Biotechnology is a key player in our economy, and biotech firms move to places with well trained biologists. Evolutionary biology has made fundamental contributions to drug synthesis, medical genetics, and our understanding of the origins and dynamics of diseases. Principles of evolution are at the basis of human genomics and personalized medicine and are applied daily by people working in medicine, agriculture, engineering, and pharmaceuticals. In contrast, anti-evolutionary ideas like intelligent design have yet to produce any medical or technological advances.

Letter from Texas University Biology Professors
Defending Biological Evolution as a Central Pillar of Modern Science Education

an excerpt:
A massive body of scientific evidence supports evolution. All working scientists agree that publication in top peer-reviewed journals is the scoreboard of modern science. A quick database search of scientific publications since 1975 shows 29,639 peer-reviewed scientific papers on evolution in twelve leading journals alone2. To put this in perspective, if you read 5 papers a day, every day, it would take you 16 years to read this body of original research. These tens of thousands of research papers on evolution provide overwhelming support for the common ancestry of living organisms and for the mechanisms of evolution including natural selection. In contrast, a search of the same database for "Intelligent Design" finds a mere 24 articles, every one of which is critical of intelligent design3. Given that evolution currently has a score of 29,639-while "intelligent design" has a score of exactly zero-it is absurd to expect the TEA's director of science curriculum to "remain neutral" on this subject. In recognition of the overwhelming scientific support for evolution, evolution is taught without qualification and intelligent design is omitted at every secular and most sectarian universities in this country, including Baylor (Baptist), Notre Dame (Catholic), Texas Christian (Disciples of Christ) and Brigham Young (Mormon).

Evolution education is more than an academic question. Biotechnology is a key player in our economy, and biotech firms move to places with well trained biologists. Evolutionary biology has made fundamental contributions to drug synthesis, medical genetics, and our understanding of the origins and dynamics of diseases. Principles of evolution are at the basis of human genomics and personalized medicine and are applied daily by people working in medicine, agriculture, engineering, and pharmaceuticals. In contrast, anti-evolutionary ideas like intelligent design have yet to produce any medical or technological advances.

Linnaeus. Linnaeus. Don't you get "no respect?"

Phylogenics. Claudistics. Taxonomy. All old stuff?

If there is so much contention between two groups of "scientists" concerning origins and evolutionary paths, what's a layman to do? Are we to be followers of phenotype or genotype methodology for classification?

Posted by nanc at 2007-12-12 01:10 AM at least we're at the top of the food chain.

for now.

Rather a bold assertion. In what way are we at the top of the food chain? There are extremophiles better able to survive under certain extreme conditions. As a bioform, how are we better adapted to survive? There are viruses and other life forms that can lie dormant and then resume their biological function?

After we die, and sometimes when we're living, there are creatures for whom we provide a feast. We are "the food" and not "the phage," so to speak.

Posted by nanc at 2007-12-12 01:10 AM

at least we're at the top of the food chain.

for now.

dinosaurs never existed in the first place (because it ain't in the literal word of god).

Posted by Lipzoidial at 2007-12-11 01:28 PM | Reply

Quite the retarded and uninformed post. Dinosuars are described in the literal Word of God. Go read Job 40 & 41. It describes both land-dwelling dinos (chapter 40) and ocean dinosaurs (chapter 41)

And please, don't be embarassed.

Many people who don't know shit about Scripture feel quite confident to comment on it like an expert. You're just one more.

for VERNON'S benefit:
40:10. Behold behemoth whom I made with thee, he eateth grass like an ox.
original Hebrew: Ecce Behemoth quem feci tecum faenum quasi bos comedet

Behemoth... In Hebrew, behema, which signifies in general an animal;
but many authors explain, that here it is a translation for an elephant.

VERNON probably thinks the earth is 6000 years old.