Actually found the link.

National Geographics: Evidence for evolution is overwhelming

I agree. Last Tuesday's Massachusetts elections proves that evolution is happening, and quickly too.

Why does it even matter? Those who believe in evolution believe. Those who don't, won't. Should evolution still be taught? Yes. Will everyone still believe it? No.

Nobody is going to read this article in Nat Geo and say "oh, so it IS true" if they didn't believe it otherwise.

not believing in evolution doesn't make it any less real.

i agree with you though... fools will be fools

I believe in evolution, but I also believe in God. The 2 can co-exist.

...they never lost their finchness...

All energy in the universe appears to be in a process of running down - evolution would have you believe the opposite is true. Take entropy for instance.

We, as a species, have so fucked up evolution that it really doesn't matter anymore. If a species is weak, we make laws to protect it. If someone is sick, we cure them regardless. Survival of the fittest is no longer a factor.

"I believe in evolution, but I also believe in God. The 2 can co-exist."

as do i.

"All energy in the universe appears to be in a process of running down - evolution would have you believe the opposite is true"

couple things.. evolution is not energy.

And energy is not running down as New Stars are still forming.

Entropy means chaos... but out of chaos comes "Emergence"

and evolution is just "emergence" at the DNA level.

Another example of "emergence" is when thousands of birds all of a sudden start flying together with no leader.

Just as planets form out of dust. Our DNA uses "emergence" to constantly improve itself.

Emergence is not something science can fully explain.

Call it God's hands if you would.

" Survival of the fittest is no longer a factor."

I disagree.

It is happening at our cellular level.

When they prove that one species has miraculously changed up into another, I too may believe that the two can co-exist. So far, no proof.

....I too may believe that the two can co-exist....

no you won't... you are a "true believer". You will only believe it if it says so in your book of magic...the Bible.

correct me if I am wrong but you fall into this camp:

"God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so."

That is like believing in magic. Have you ever even taken a biology course? Once you see the mechanisms of evolution in action you can easily see how the two can co-exist.

Life is a miracle and it is indeed evolving.

enjoi

-D

All energy in the universe appears to be in a process of running down - evolution would have you believe the opposite is true. Take entropy for instance.

#7 | Posted by nanc at 2010-01-22 12:37 PM

What an interesting post.

You use the Second law of Thermodynamics, entropy, but you completely ignore the First law.

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only changed from one state to another.

When they prove that one species has miraculously changed up into another...

and btw - that proof is already out there if you would just care to look.

Many species have already "miraculously" turned into other species.

It is called divergence.

But it takes millions of years.

I would also like to address Kranei's thought that we are fucking up evolution. I say nay nay! We ARE evolution. And unfortunately the Earth is undergoing a MASS extinction of species in which 50 percent or more will die out. It is our duty to try and preserve as much as we can for future generations.

"When they prove that one species has miraculously changed up into another, I too may believe that the two can co-exist. So far, no proof"

What??

You have millions of years to wait?

You are asking to prove by an impossible experiment and proves the little knowledge of the evidence and science in general you have.

They HAVE prooved by looking at skeletal and perserved human fossils that we have evolved even in the last several thousand years but to become a seperate species that we are today would require million yea old fossils.

Oh wait we have those too that prove of early humanoid species. But you still think its all lies.

Ignorant on purpose.

Why does it even matter?

Because as I have pointed out... 50% of the species on Earth are about to die out forever. You gonna just sit by and let it happen? Are we going to teach our children that we all popped out of the dust magically and that if we all be good and pray hard enough and send money to Pat Robertson everything will be fine?

Or are we going to try and understand the processes involved in forming this planet and the species that evolved into what we are today and learn to be good stewards of our Planet? We need to understand that evolution is a process that can be understood and assisted and harnessed. From that knowledge comes the power to control and improve your environment. You think your TV came from denying that electrons exist and in believing that lightening came from God? WE don't have to wait for a God to solve the problems. He is not going to do that for you. WE can use the natural mechanisms of evolution to help us and our future generations. But not if we don't try and understand them. We have already made huge medical advances based on our current understandings and will continue to advance as that understanding increases.

Or we could just throw up our hands and say God did it.

Everything is illuminated by the past. We are what we are because of what came before us.

So are we going to teach our children to believe that we are magic based beings who popped out of a hat or are we the result of a natural and understandable process that has taken millions of years?

Think about it.

It matters.

Micro or Macro?

"Micro or Macro?"

made up

not real

no difference.

Jebus hates eviloution, it aint in the BIBLE so GOD hates it HE made the earth 6000 years ago

#19 | Posted by warwolf at 2010-01-22 03:17 PM

Look at that, evolution is proved true! Warwolf has evolved from a Krill into a Shill!!!

Call the presses.

Non one says that things do not evolve, it is the manner and degree to which they evolve that is in question.

"it is the manner and degree to which they evolve that is in question."

no its not

except those that don't look at the evidence and don't understand millions and billions of years

All energy in the universe appears to be in a process of running down - evolution would have you believe the opposite is true. Take entropy for instance.

Even the fundies Answers in Genesis don't use the 2nd law of thermodynamics argument because it is a bad one.

Please try and keep up at least with you sides talking points.

Non one says that things do not evolve, it is the manner and degree to which they evolve that is in question.

It's still evolution then, no?

micro v macro, which is a false distinction made by Creationists once backed into a corner, is a matter of time scales. If you acknowledge one, you must acknowledge the other.

Bush's fault.

Donner, I clearly stated that evolution should be taught. You can't force someone to believe something they won't believe.

And if you still don't believe in evolution, read Richard Dawkins new book. After, you will no longer have any doubt.

"They HAVE prooved by looking at skeletal and perserved human fossils that we have evolved even in the last several thousand years but to become a seperate species that we are today would require million yea old fossils."

Honest question:

If human have been evolving for millions of years, including unknown numbers of evolutionary dead ends, where are all the skeletons?

There should be billions of skeletons; every time you plant a shovel in the ground you should hit some ancient skull.

But no, the entire 'proof' is based on a handful of bones.

Vern? 107 people die every min. why aren't you constantly seeing dead people?

It takes pretty special circumstances to prevent bones (human and otherwise) from disintegrating. They do so slower than soft tissues, but they do rot and decompose in most instances. A body winding up in just such an environment that the bones are preserved is a rather unique event.

Want proof? Talk to anyone who's ever had to relocate graves. Ask them just exactly what they found to move of people who died 30, 80, or 150 years ago.

There should be billions of skeletons; every time you plant a shovel in the ground you should hit some ancient skull.

But no, the entire 'proof' is based on a handful of bones.

#26 | Posted by vernon

Vernon doesn't understand the process of fossilization?

But Vern is a fossil!

Wow, irony incarnate.

Be Well.

Just testing to see if I'm still blocked....

There is no evidence for evolution anyway.... but there is design, not random chance...

There is no evidence for evolution anyway...

There is nothing but evidence for evolution.

but there is design, not random chance...

There is no evidence at all for ID.

That's why Spud refers to proponents of ID as IDiots.

"Creationists make it sound like a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night."

Isaac Asimov

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"

~Douglas Adams

Be Well.

global warming is gods wrath for allowing gay marriage...

Vernon...There should be billions of skeletons; every time you plant a shovel in the ground you should hit some ancient skull.

Spud...Vernon doesn't understand the process of fossilization?

Vernon doesn't understand a hell of a lot of things that are mentally challenging, but let's hope that it is just his sense of humor in this case and he's just messin' with us all. I'd hate to think anyone was that mentally deficient that they cannot see what Darwin did with out the tools of modern science, especially considering what mankind is doing with DNA these days.

It is our duty to try and preserve as much as we can for future generations.

#14 | Posted by donnerboy at 2010-01-22 01:04 PM |

I thought it was the duty of all liberals to embrace change.

If evolution of humans is true, we should find a lot of hominid fossils!

Hominid Species:
Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Orrorin tugenensis
Ardipithecus ramidus
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus afarensis
Kenyanthropus platyops
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus garhi
Australopithecus aethiopicus
Australopithecus robustus
Australopithecus boisei
Homo habilis
Homo georgicus
Homo erectus
Homo ergaster
Homo antecessor
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo floresiensis
Homo sapiens sapiens

Creationists don't know about these, so to them they don't exist.
Note of caution: to those that don't look, there is no evidence!

it is the manner and degree to which they evolve that is in question

Only to people who don't know what they're talking about.

If evolution of humans is true, we should find a lot of hominid fossils!
Hominid Species:
Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Orrorin tugenensis
Ardipithecus ramidus
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus afarensis
Kenyanthropus platyops
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus garhi
Australopithecus aethiopicus
Australopithecus robustus
Australopithecus boisei
Homo habilis
Homo georgicus
Homo erectus
Homo ergaster
Homo antecessor
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo floresiensis
Homo sapiens sapiens
Creationists don't know about these, so to them they don't exist.
Note of caution: to those that don't look, there is no evidence!
#35 | Posted by VMA224 at 2010-01-23 12:12 PM

Seriously, florensiensis, neanderthal, erectus & habilis appear to be so distant in evolution and yet recent in our paleontology that it's difficult to grasp why the technology hasn't explored the oceans to look at recent societies, our physical, technological and societal evolutionary parents.

I just re-upped my subscription to National Geographic.

It is our duty to try and preserve as much as we can for future generations.

#14 | Posted by donnerboy at 2010-01-22 01:04 PM |

I thought it was the duty of all liberals to embrace change.

#34 | Posted by Washboard at 2010-01-23 10:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

This is in the Top-Ten Dumbest things ever posted on the Retort.

I thought it was the duty of all liberals to embrace change.

#39...Ditto that.

"If human have been evolving for millions of years, including unknown numbers of evolutionary dead ends, where are all the skeletons?

There should be billions of skeletons; every time you plant a shovel in the ground you should hit some ancient skull.

But no, the entire 'proof' is based on a handful of bones.

#26 | Posted by vernon "

What would you expect from a guy who is still in denial about the existence of she-males even though the evidence smacks him in the face every night?

Random chance is the stupidest dogma modern mind has conceived. Blind dogma!

Recent discoveries by Grahm Handcock and a number of other mathematically talented historians are already looking into several underwater archeological sites that predated even oral history by possibly tens of thousands of years based on ocean depth studies.

Civilization has always gathered by the sea so it stands to reason that early civilizations could have built cities that are now under water.

I have a set of three VHS videos titled the 'Quest for the Lost Civilization'. It concerns a theory that pyramids and temples around the world are close related by the math used to build them and their geographical locations. Having personally visited several of those sites I can only say his work is fascinating and very well researched and documented. Although Hancock dwells to much in the supernatural for my taste, he is surprisingly accurate in his mathematical analysis, which is all based on math that even an amateur would understand.

I have always felt that if the earth is 4 billion years old, many highly intelligent species might have evolved and gone extinct in the past without leaving a technological footprint like humans do.

Random chance is the stupidest dogma modern mind has conceived. Blind dogma!

I'm sure you would say the same thing about lightening strikes or Brownian motion. Certainly everything is cause and effect, but there is no way things like the formation of snowflakes can be called anything else but random chance.

"Random chance is the stupidest dogma modern mind has conceived. Blind dogma!

#42 | Posted by takitez"

takitnasty, natural selection has little to do with random chance and everything to do with adaption to the environment. maybe you should get an education to understand the world we live n just a bit better?

seriously vern, are you not aware of erosion? the geologic deposits that are all around you, including those with fossils, are only a fraction of a percent of all the depositions in earth history. the earth is not a static unchanging rock.

you see all those houses on the cali coast built on marine terraces that are falling into the ocean? when they finally go, will you say they never existed because there is no foundation in the ground as evidence?

i've never heard of a more asinine argument against evolution. well, maybe 'fossils are there to test your faith' is perhaps more so.

intelligent design. good gravy!

if something intelligent designed everything it would have to be made up of matter. it would have to be made of molecules, atoms, a brain, etc. in some shape or form. therefore, it would have to exist. it would have to exist physically. therefore, it would have to take up space somewhere, so "god" or "intelligent design dude" would have to have some kind of physical characteristics, otherwise we are talking about intelligent air.

when are you going to grow up and let go of your imaginary friend? i kicked mine to the curb when i was 5.

#5 | POSTED BY CHICKENRANCHER
"I believe in evolution, but I also believe in God. The 2 can co-exist."

Why is that so hard for some people to get?

#42 | POSTED BY TAKITEZ
"Random chance is the stupidest dogma modern mind has conceived. Blind dogma!"

"Blind dogma" is redundant.

#26 | POSTED BY VERNON
"based on a handful of bones."

Handful of bones.

Yeah.

And the Grand Canyon is a ditch.

Amazingly, Vern, the most compelling evidence against evolution is in your mirror.

#43 | POSTED BY RINGMASTER
"Recent discoveries by Grahm Handcock..."

I enjoy Graham Hancock. I like his synthesis of various ideas, schools of thought, and scientific disciplines. He's definitely a good read, provided you have a shaker of salt nearby. However, he far too often "leads the witness", and enjoys the classic History Channel blunder of "could it be that...", or "it is possible that..." That sort of thing.

But I still read and enjoy all of his books. At the very least, it's good food for thought, and he does occasionally present some compelling ideas, arguments, and evidence. He just wants too much for his ideas to be true, and for the reader to follow him.

Kind of like faith, that way.

Amazing. Vernon apparently "thinks" that all skeletons of every thing on the planet don't turn to dust. He also doesn't seem to understand how fossils are made, and why not every set of bones is preserved for thousands of years.

There should be billions of skeletons; every time you plant a shovel in the ground you should hit some ancient skull.

Wow. What a moron.

Random chance is the stupidest dogma modern mind has conceived. Blind dogma!
#42 | Posted by takitez

....... religion is stupider........

#26 | Posted by vernon

Bacteria work on a molecular level. They literally bust molecules to free up carbon and oxygen. Depending on the conditions the calcium in the bones can accelerate their own degradation by changing the Ph as they break down. Digestion lowers the Ph and calcium raises it. A balanced Ph is needed for a fast digestion. High Ph prohibits bacterial growth. Zat could probably tell you the optimum Ph in areas where true bones, not just fossils have been found.

I am presently reading Richard Dawkins' new book, The Greatest Show on Earth - The Evidence for Evolution. I also subscribe to the DEVO philosophy of de-evolution. Are we not men?

What's really strange is that people like TakitEz & Vernon proudly show their ignorance, they wear it like a badge. They are unaware that the "Dark Ages" are over (they lost, but insist on dragging us down)!

Species adapt, not evolve. There is a huge difference. Cows have always been cows and man has always been man.

Evolution would have you believe nothing of the sort . In fact evolution, being a theory and not a person, would have you believe nothing. More importantly, evolution has nothing at all to do with energy, just the capacity of living things to multiply, adapt and change in order to survive the environmental conditions in which they live.

Clarification: This is a reply to comment #6
Evolution would have you believe nothing of the sort . In fact evolution, being a theory and not a person, would have you believe nothing. More importantly, evolution has nothing at all to do with energy, just the capacity of living things to multiply, adapt and change in order to survive the environmental conditions in which they live.

Non one says that things do not evolve, it is the manner and degree to which they evolve that is in question.

It's still evolution then, no?

micro v macro, which is a false distinction made by Creationists once backed into a corner, is a matter of time scales. If you acknowledge one, you must acknowledge the other.

Thank You Klifferd,
Babydoc

Find it kind of ironic that those who deny evolution do so with "where's the proof?" and claim creationism is the reason, which also has no proof....

personally, I believe in the science, but my "big" question is if evolution is a result of necessary change based on survivial, how'd birds evolve gizzards? Considering there are many less weird ways of breaking down food to digest, it seems like a pretty convoluted mutation and how'd they break it down prior? Eat rocks like they think dino's did?

Also, BillyChan, not sure if you're trying to be amusing or not, but the fact that they dont grow as high after cutting them regularly isnt evolution, its you cutting them and not having enough time to grow as high. Stop cutting the grass and you'll see them grow higher. (really not sure why I bothered to explain that...probably went over your head.)

Loh

"Eat rocks like they think dino's did?"

strong evidence that the ancestors of birds are dinosaurs!

"Species adapt, not evolve. There is a huge difference. Cows have always been cows and man has always been man."

then, dear Dark Ages fan, explain all those hominid findings. Use your bible if you wish. Explain the use of pig heart valves in humans (saved my life)

I've never doubted evolution. But I have suggested that it doesn't appear to be as random as some would have us believe and I've been attacked for it on this site. Funny thing is, I wasn't saying this in order to support any kind of faith as I'm not religious. I just know that random mutations are pretty much always bad and that gradual mutation in some cases seems impossible. Just one example - moving from a two chamber to a four chambered heart randomly and in small steps would be almost impossible and every being that had a heart that was some kind of intermediate step would probably bleed to death internally before it ever came close to passing on its genes. I think people who are completely unwilling to accept that we in fact have very little idea how evolution really works are just as rigid and unreasonable in their beliefs as creationists.

To LOHOCLA ...but the fact that they dont grow as high after cutting them regularly isnt evolution, its you cutting them and not having enough time to grow as high.
Uhhhh, no. They flower at about the same time in their growth cycle. A short dandelion doesn't mean it is young. They don't flower until they are a certain age. At the beginning of summer you see a canopy of yellow flowers about 6 inches off the ground. By the end, there is no longer a canopy, it is more like a carpet of yellow. The short flowered dandelions are the same age as the taller ones. What is so fucking hard to understand about this?

I heard that Jesus had a pet dinosaur. Evolution must be a myth then.
-----John Bacon-----

Sully... moving from a two chamber to a four chambered heart randomly and in small steps would be almost impossible and every being that had a heart that was some kind of intermediate step would probably bleed to death

"The biggest problem as I see it, is that in order to deny evolution you must deny the scientific method."

I've also seen people who claim to be pro-evolution denying the scientific method by refusing to acknowledge what they don't know. That was my point.

Thanks for the link.

What a fool.

What has earth and sun rotation got to do with evolution proof
All a hoax

The evidence for scientific conspiracy without evidence is overwhelming.

It is impossible to make all left racemic isomer proteins from a mixed solution
IT IS NOT POSSIBLE by chance or by scienc using the best techniques we have.

furthermore every failed ATTEMPT at building a proteint makes wasted protein 'rejects"
2x10^100 grams worth for each insulin molecule made

that means the earth would be filled with garbage DEXTRO proteins to a depth of 100 miles before one correct L isomer cell could be produced.

this isnt theory this is known fact

but they just ignore it cause they just dont want godn and they want to die.
and they will

stuborn, aint they/

evolution CANNOT work because it DID NOT
We
have MIllIONs of species and they always make the same species.

We should have decamillions of missing links and there is not even one

they have to fake one every year (see natinal geographic for the last yearly faked missing link, they publish these constantly because they are fools

Did they find any fossils?

"that means the earth would be filled with garbage DEXTRO proteins to a depth of 100 miles before one correct L isomer cell could be produced.
this isnt theory this is known fact"

Link please.

Provide the religious experiment (verifiable and reproduceable)that will show as much value to humanity as evolution and you would have something.

Religion starts with the answers. All questions must be modified so the answer agrees with your already "known" answer.
Science starts with the question. Answers (even uncomfortable ones) must be allowed if they fit available evidence. You also must be willing to change the answer as new information comes to light.

"The scientific method makes one assumption, and one assumption only: the Universe obeys a set of rules. That's it. There is one corollary, and that is that if the Universe follows these rules, then those rules can be deduced by observing the way Universe behaves."
-----badastronomy.com-----

"We should have decamillions of missing links and there is not even on"

Another flat earth believer.

Maybe you don't realize the amount of fossil evidence we have.

Maybe you ignore it.

Decamillions?

you also don't think life decays after it dies.

Fossil evidence means something extraordinary happened to preserve the body.

Most creatures like it or not turn into fertilizer.

Even with that extraordinary detail we have millions of fossil evidence that backs evolution over the billions of years life has existed.

These time frames are a little hard for a moron to understand but please do keep up.

Uhhhh, no. They flower at about the same time in their growth cycle. A short dandelion doesn't mean it is young. They don't flower until they are a certain age. At the beginning of summer you see a canopy of yellow flowers about 6 inches off the ground. By the end, there is no longer a canopy, it is more like a carpet of yellow. The short flowered dandelions are the same age as the taller ones. What is so fucking hard to understand about this?
^^^

Guessing for me, the hard to understand part is that they start out each summer longer than at the end. Can buy adapting, which is what they're doing, but not evolving since each generation starts the same and "then" adapts.

Good luck with that. Personally I hate those damn things. :)
Loh

Good luck with that. Personally I hate those damn things. (dandelions)

I ate them growing up. My grandmother picked them and put them in salad. They aren't too bad. Kind of bitter like endives or chickory. Sometimes she'd stew them with bacon fat like turnip greens.

"the hard to understand part is that they start out each summer longer than at the end"
Just a guess here, but I think if all my neighbors mowed at about the same rate as I, I wouldn't be getting "un-adapted" seeds blown into my yard. If my yard was under a dome I am guessing all the flowers would eventually be short enough to survive the wrath of my blade.
(It's a moot point though, since I totally went berzerk on them last season and got rid of all of them. Lets see 'em adapt fast enough to survive "Roundup".

"But make no mistake: the weeds will win; nature bats last.
-----Robert M. Pyle-----

Good point Goatman.
Plus they make a pretty good wine, if you've got the time to make it. (It takes an ass-load of them to make any decent amount)

"What contemptible scoundrel stole the cork from my lunch?"
-----W. C. Fields-----

And just what was the point of humans? Seams the earth was better off before humans, so yes humans were created...it just took time to do it. Creation? Evolution? The only difference is the timetable. Just does not make a lick of sense for humans to have evolved; the only totally useless creature on this planet. Not important for the furtherance of life on this blue ball. Of course we all might evolve into something better but damn that is a long way off. Have fun kids, me thinks you are all wrong but then we are a very arrogant bunch now are we not?

moving from a two chamber to a four chambered heart randomly and in small steps would be almost impossible and every being that had a heart that was some kind of intermediate step would probably bleed to death internally before it ever came close to passing on its genes.

What makes you think that?

Just because YOU can't determine how something survived at an intermediate step doesn't mean it didn't exist.

Biology is full of amazingly elegant solutions to problems. Don't short change it by thinking you can think of them all.

I think people who are completely unwilling to accept that we in fact have very little idea how evolution really works are just as rigid and unreasonable in their beliefs as creationists.

You're absolutely right. Our body of data is most certainly incomplete and that's why some are still looking.

Just does not make a lick of sense for humans to have evolved

I'd ask how you came to that conclusion, but given the rest of your post I think I'll pass.

I see RichardRhine is back at it with his L- vs D-isomer amino acid BS.

Were you too drunk last time you brought that up to remember how badly it went for you?