Interesting article.

The debate isn't about animals with certain traits being able to reproduce and spread those traits quicker and become dominant.  The debate is about did all of life evolve from a single or multiple primitive organisms into every living creature that is on this planet?

The finches beaks have gotten smaller over time.  According to Darwin the Finch may eventually evolve into an entirely different species. And these finches you see today were at one time a different species. That is where the leap takes place.  There has been zero fossil evidence (so far) to prove that it is even remotely possible.  

According to Darwin, those finches were at one time singled celled primitive organisms floating aimlessly in the water.  Over millions of years and through random mutations the primitive creature now has a beak, feathers, eyes, toes, a heart, digestive system, etc.  The chances that every mutation would be advantagous to the creature seems impossible.

Hey, I don't know how the hell we got here.  I don't think we have even figured out how the pyramids were made.  The one thing I do know is that we aren't as smart as we think we are.

... and so will your understanding as you read a bit more and learn what you are talking about.    

Harry

No Billy you can't LOL, when I wanted to LOL first!

MSD caught me at a bad time, while I'm simultaneously working on 3 AIDS papers. I even opened a window to write something, but unfortunately nothing 'evolved' on the screen last night.

As a holding action at this point, I would simply note that Billy's description of evolution argues that it occurs only through random mutations. Although it is true that the mutations themselves are random, there is a little something called "natural selection pressures" (otherwise known in the lay press as 'survival of the fittest), which act to conserve those mutations which are positive for the species (i.e., enhance reproduction). It is the combination of random mutations and natural selection which, over a sufficiently long time-scale (i.e., not 'millions' of years, but 'billions' of years) that gives rise to all lifeforms on Earth.

To get us on the same page, it would be helpful to know if Billy is a full-fledged intelligent-designer/creationist? For example, does he subscribe to Earth being ~6000 years old as set out in the Old Testament? This becomes a very different argument, if he subscribes to God creating life as set out in the Bible.

-- Modified on 7/14/2006 6:28:53 AM

to where our ears are non functioning so that we needn't be nauseated or enraged by the unremitting lies and bullshit spewed by our political leaders.

And just to show that we 'evolutionists' don't walk in lock-step, I submit NOSCTRADAMEUS as exhibit "A" to refute the late Stephen Jay Gould's thesis that evolution wasn't necessarily progressive (i.e., going 'somewhere').

... what do you think junk dna is?  Where do you think sickle cell enemia came from?

Harry

I am definitely NOT a creationist nor a believer of evolution as the reason for our "origin".  The point of my last comment was maybe we will never know.  Maybe we'll never come remotely close to knowing.  We're just not as smart as we think we are.  Some things will forever remain out of our grasp.

My problem with evolution is that the theory came before science could prove or disprove it.  Now we know just how complex a living organism is.  I read about something called a Fagellum in our bodies.  It has 30 different parts that have to work in perfect syncronicity for it to work.  I can't understand something like that could just naturally "evolve" into existing and working so perfectly.  That is a relatively simple part of our body.  

People keep talking about "a missing link".  For evolution to be true, there would be dozens or hundreds of links for each species.  Paleontoligist have not found one "link" yet.  

 

You're right. It is impossible. Most mutations are either useless or harmful to the creature. But in natural selection, those creatures with harmful mutations die out without passing on their genes, so the harmful mutations don't get passed on.

The one in a million good mutation (I'm guess at the number) that will give the creature an advantage over his peers will have a greater chance of passing on his genes and mutation.

As for zero fossil evidence of one species turning into another, please stop listening to creationists for a few days a listen to the other side.

If you're looking for a fossil which is half man and half ape, you'll never find it. You will also not find anything about a "missing link" in any real discussions of evolution.

I've always maintained that people who disagree with evolution are the people who don't understand it.

I think the crux of your arguments against evolution focuses on your following quote:

"...Maybe we weren't meant to know all of the answers..."

However, the above is only a fragment, the complete quote should read:

"...But Baron Von Frankenstein, maybe we weren't meant to know all of the answers..."

This is right before the villagers, bearing pitchforks and torches, storm the castle to kill Frankenstein's "monster".

Scientists don't really much care about whether people were intended to know something or not...we study things because they're interesting and because we're curious.

"Some things will forever remain out of our grasp."

And this you know how? If we could time-transport people from two thousand years ago to our time, they would (mistakenly) think us Gods.
Give humans a billion years of time, and who knows what we can come up with.

"My problem with evolution is that the theory came before science could prove or disprove it."

This indicates that you have a fundamental misperception of what science is, and how it is accomplished.

Here's a link to a short primer on the subject:

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

"...I read about something called a Fagellum in our bodies.  It has 30 different parts that have to work in perfect syncronicity for it to work.  I can't understand something like that could just naturally "evolve" into existing and working so perfectly.  That is a relatively simple part of our body..."

The 'Fagellum' that you are referring to is spelled Flagellum, and is not a part of the human body. It functions as a 'motor' to propel some single-celled organisms, and is remarkable because it looks, on electron microscopy. to be something that could be found in a car. Flagella are frequently brought up by creationists as something which is 'far too complex to have arisen or evolved spontaneously'. It's true that it does have a large number of components that need to be assembled. However, each of the individual components have multiple functions, and early living organisms, over a very long (~1 billions years), simply appropriated (hijacked) the various components to make something new.

"...People keep talking about "a missing link".  For evolution to be true, there would be dozens or hundreds of links for each species.  Paleontoligist have not found one "link" yet..."

You really must broaden your horizons and read more than just creationist web sites:

For the 'missing links' that are no longer missing in human evolution, please see:

http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/top10_missinglinks.html

For found 'missing links' in other animal lines, please see:

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2006/jun/18/ben_bova_some_good_news_world_science_and_some_bad/?perspective
 



-- Modified on 7/15/2006 3:59:21 PM

I've never been on a creationist websight.  I have read books by Paleontologists who were far less diplomatic than I have been on the subject.  

What I inderstand about science is you base your theories on the evidence you have found so far.  Darwin based evolution on very little evidence.  150 years later there has been nothing new to support it.  It seems that the scientific community is working in reverse.  They have a theory and now are trying to find anything that would support it.

And yes, I think that we can be too arrogant and believe we have all the answers.  The argument seems to be Creationism vs. Evolution.  Are we so sure that it is one or the other.  Both theories have nothing behind it other than people willing to argue over it.

I was aware of that fossil evidence listed on both websights and they have been debunked.  Animals that share a resemblence to another animal is not a link.  You must know that Lucy is a total hoax.

There seems to be a lot of discussion about "missing links" in text books.  

I've always maintained that people who support evolution aren't very interested in evidence.

And the links to the scientific articles debunking the evidence for 'missing links' are found where?

I need to shout this...I AM NOT A CREATIONIST!  I learned about evolution in HS and college and assumed it was 100% fact (as it was taught to me).  I was shocked to learn about the lack of evidence.  I am viewing evolution objectively.  This is not a God vs. Science thing to me.  The proof of one does not disprove the other.

1)"The Piltdown Man"-  It had the head of a human and the jaw of an ape.  From 1912 until the 1050s it was called difintive evidence.  Carbon dating proved it was a 1,000 year old human with the altered jaw of a modern orangutan.

2)The Peppered Moth experiment- This was supposed to prove natural selection.  Scientists place moths in different environments to show how their physical traits directly affected their survival. It was later shown that the scientist rigged the experiments by placing the moths in parts of the trees and times of the day where/when they were most vulnerable. The moths with the "non-dominant" traits are doing just fine to this day now that they're not being spoon-fed to birds anymore by "scientists". The NY Times exposed this.  

3)Haeckel's embryonic drawings-  Haeckel made embryonic drawings from his research of different vertibrates that showed how almost exact all of these different species looked in early embryonic stages.  This was "proof" how we all came from the same source.  It was in text books for almost a century.  These drawings were totally bogus and debunked in the 1990s "Anatomy nd Embryology" magazine by Embryologist Dr. Richardson.  The NY Times also cited this.

4)The urban legend that Darwinists kept citing of a computer program that showed how an eyeball evolved from light sensitive cells.  This never existed.  Explaining how things like eyeballs and bat radar evolved from almost nothing is a major problem for the theory.

5) Correction:  Lucy was not a "hoax".  She was a poor example of a fossilized ape.  It is now widely accepted in the scientific community that it was an error.

Why would such an unquestionable theory have such a stunning lack of evidence and a lot of intentional hoaxes?
I don't have weblinks.  Just a library card.

The only discussion about missing links are about transition fossils between apes and man. Evolution says that there is no such thing.

Please define the term "missing link".

but you no seem to read so good (for the dim-witted, it was a deliberate grammatical error).

I never called you a creationist. I simply said to stop listening to them for a while and listen to the other side. Creationists have been pushing the same bullcrap about lack of evidence (amongst other rhetoric) for a long time. You can't find evidence if you refuse to look. Evidence is sparse, but it's there. Several recent findings were even discussed on this board.


On a side note, your statement of "the chances that every mutation would be advantagous to the creature seems impossible" shows that you have an incomplete understanding of evolution.

-- Modified on 7/15/2006 10:46:22 PM

who knows nothing about what he is talking. OK, so you are not a creationist...but you talk like one and use the same stupid arguments. From the way you talk about evolution, you show that you do not understand it. Either you were toking up in high school or you went to a Christian school that fucked it up for you. Either way, go back and learn the truth about what the theory says. Right now, you are just debunking straw men.

As opposed to telling me how "fucked up" my understanding of it is, why not elaborate?  Explain to me how it works and back it up with evidence.  Otherwise, does it really matter one bit what you think?    

BTW, the creationist's argument does come from science.  Paleontologists, biologists, etc.  If you're such a brilliant guy why don't you explain to us how an eyeball evolved?  I will congratulate you when you do because you would be the first.

Science is usually very skeptical.  This theory consists of 150 years of a lot of excuses but no evidence.

We will go with the term "transition fossil" over the really cool sounding "missing link". LOL

Please locate a transitional fossil for me.  Good luck!

First of all, you are a liar. Only a religious nutjob would be so vociferously defending a cockamamie unscientific theory with such vehemence. All of your arguments come directly from these religious websites. It is pointless to give evidence because you are insane.
Secondly, you are stupid. You have no idea what the scientific method entails and I have no intention of cutting and posting entire books and peer reviewed studies just so you can sit back and say "only God can make a banana."
My advice to you is to go on believing whatever it is that you believe but put a low profile on your ignorance.

...must be a case of "convergent evolution".

Fossil of fish discovered with non-rigid neck, arm bones in its fins, and rudimentary hand bones.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/science/05cnd-fossil.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5090&en=43e5c9ecb1dd0cd6&ex=1301889600&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss



Bird discovered which looks like modern birds, but does not have hollow bones and still has claws at the end of its wings.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003064797_fossil16.html


There was one more which came out about 2 months ago. Can't remember exact details about it.

You caught me!  I'm a 'religious nutball" who goes on hobbying websites to argue with random guys about  evolution.  My evil plot has been discovered.

It has always seemed to me that people reply with personal attacks when they run out of constructive things to say.  And let's be real Bender, there is nothing in this world you could possibly educate me on.  Here's a suggestion: As opposed to "cutting and pasting" you should try reading a book.  You would like them.  Some even have pictures!

I was easy on you and only brought up FOUR Darwinian hoaxes.  If you would like I'll bring up 10 more.  I will also explain how every great new animal you discover always ends up being a dead end.  Things such as carbon dating always prove this.  I replied with examples and you reply by calling me names.  Brilliant!  If I had absolute faith in a theory that has not produced one solid bit of evidence in 150 years I would also resort to argue the same way.

While you're sitting there being so smart try to figure some stuff out for me.  
1)How did DNA randomly mutate?  I hear it's pretty complex stuff.
2)How did radar and sonar evolve in animals?  
3) How did an eyeball mutate from nothing?
4)Explain the Cambrian Period that showed a sudden explosion in new life forms.  A spit in the face of evolution

Now it's your turn to reply by googling some random website link.  Way to show your advanced knowledge.  If you can't answer the above four questions you shouldn't feel bad.  No one else can. But who needs conclusive evidence when it comes to science?  I always thought scientists did ,but apparently not.  

BZ- Out

people aren't interested in arguing with you.  You can believe anything you like.  If you want to think the sun rotates around the moon, knock yourself out.  I just don't give a tiny rat's turd.

a lightweight such as yourself about anything. Your first question proves you do not know anything because evolution is not random. You really need to sue your high school for malpractice.

-- Modified on 7/16/2006 8:38:46 PM

But you will take some of your precious time to post another wise ass remark? I see you have no answers.  Not one.  It seems that wise ass remarks are all you ever have to offer.  It must be a byproduct of being so smart.

Let me end this argument by again saying I am not a Creationist.  I've just read alternative sources and have an open mind.  Nothing wrong with being skeptical.

-- Modified on 7/16/2006 8:58:42 PM

discussing anything with a liar and an idiot. Get this through your head. Your questions are strawmen. They contain assumptions that Darwin's theory never made. They contain false premises. You are reading non-scientific writing that tries to refute science. That is not open minded, that is stupid.

What was Darwin's theory then?  And more importantly, where is the evidence to support it? We both know that answer has been on hold for 150 years.  

Have you ever won a debate with the "idiot, stupid, and liar" strategy?  It seems to be the only bullet in your gun.  The only thing that is "pointless" is you keep replying back with NOTHING to say.  You have all of the answers but too "busy" to give any.  

I know it must be difficult for an intellectual mind like your's to not get the last word in.  But give it a try this time.

I've never defended Creationism and never will.  The ironic part is it takes about as much blind faith to support either of these theories.

You linked me to a website.  You truly are brilliant.

everything is hearsay, so there's no sense in teaching anything.   Who really understands calculus, anyway?

You accept the details of evolution, ie that a particular species would adapt to its environment because the maladapted are always dying (they don't EVOLVE, they DIE OUT).

However, you don't think this could possibly have accumulated over what, 4 billion years, so that a complex organism could arise from basic organic molecules?

And the reason is because you just don't think it could happen.  You're pretty sure species evolve, you just don't believe that it could go from amino acids to humans in 4 billion years.  Because you're a statistician, and you know it couldn't happen.  Or maybe you're a gut-feeler, and you feel in your gut that it couldn't happen.

That's OK.  Personally, how we got here does not affect my life, and so I just don't give a damn.  

OTOH, some people have a compelling psychological need to know, so they come up with ideas, ideas like "My God Created The Whole World In Seven Days, And If You Don't Believe That, I'll Kick Your Ass.  PS:  I'm Also My God's Sole And Exclusive Agent And Attorney-In-Fact, So You Have To Pay Me Lots Of Money."

Ho-hum.  Seen all that before.  Not interested, thanks anyway.

Nobody's here to educate you.  Nobody's obliged to answer your questions.   Some questions and some PsOV are so fucking dumb that NOBODY is interested.

Your argument that evolution is basically hearsay is basically accurate.  So is every other branch of knowledge that you personally have not observed, ie, virtually all of the universe; and it applies in spades to creationism.

So what's your point, that you haven't read wikipedia?  Do you think you're clever, or something?

So scientists got duped. Your examples are not the only ones, and chances are, scientists will continue to be hoaxed. However, your arguments showed the strengths of the scientific method. You can fool some of the people now, but eventually, the scientific method will catch up and expose you.

It's been answered many many many many many times before. It's just that some people refuse to listen to the answer, and keep asking the same tired question over and over and over again.


Let's see if I can do this strictly from memory:

- We'll start with one light-sensitive cell. Light sensitive cells exist. Some micro-sized creatures exist today that have just one light sensitive cell. I can't think of their names off the top of my head, but I don't think you can argue that point.

- Now, let's get a whole bunch of light sensitive cells together. This too also exists today. There are certain species of starfish which have light-sensitive cells all over their bodies. The cells are not bunched together, they're distributed all over their bodies.

- Now we put all those cells together into one cluster. This exists in many insects. It's called a compound eye. Each individual cell only sees shades of light and dark, not a picture. But since they're now clustered together, the creature can see shapes and movement.

- Now specialize each cell to see individual colors instead of just shades of gray, and put a whole lotta them together. We now have about 85% of a human eyeball.

Ok, you got me. I don't remember how the lens developed. There is an explanation, I just don't remember it. However, I got about 85% of the eyeball explained. The eye can work fairly well without the lens.

Interesting that forum member Billy Zabka would say that there is no proof of evolution. I posted two examples of recent fossil evidence in this thread and the original poster of this thread  posted living evidence.

Darwin came up with evolution about 150 years ago, but DNA was only recently discovered (relatively speaking). DNA pretty much proved evolution. DNA mutates every day. I'm not going to get into a discussion about how it happens because it takes too long to explain. Suffice to say it happens.


Hey, Billy, I noticed that you totally ignored all my points in this thread. The only point that you challenged was when you thought I called you a creationist (which I did not). My challenge to you is to address my points about evolution without the name-calling, going off on tangents, and arguing points which were never made and/or are irrelevant to this discussion.

It gets a little tiring arguing with several different people at once over this issue.  It started to get very redundent. It also seemed to "prove" to people that I was a creationist because I continued to reply. That being said, I apreciate the tact you have taken on this thread.  You have kept things "above board".

My absolutle last reply:  I will just say I find a lot of Darwinian evidence a big reach.  Your eyeball explanation is a huge reach.  Light sensative cells eventually evolve into the complex eyeball. How?   What about the holes in the skull?  When did they start to evolve in the head for the eyeball to fit?  These very rare fossils that are found that have unusual appendages are not transitional fossils.  Darwinists see an extra couple of bones and just assume they will evolve into legs.  A huge leap.  

My problem is scientists are supposed to be skeptics.  I always thought that was a good thing. They have lowered the bar when it comes to evolution.  Any unusual find is immediately held up as "proof".  That is how they are easily fooled with hoaxes.  The "Lucy" find was disgraceful.  They beleieved what they wanted to believe.  They also tend to ignore other finds that hurt their theory.  The Cambrian period discovery and the huge discovery in China of fossils preceeding the Cambrian period.  They both showed an explosion of life in a period of 5-10 million years.  It is ignored in science books.

I have absolutely no problem with evolution being taught in schools.  I don't like the way it is mandated to be the ONLY theory taught.  The ACLU will sue and intimidate any school that tries to teach anything else.

all math is just a theory.  I think that we should teach alternate theories, so that anybody who can justify their answers are also equally valid.

For example, 7 times 7 is 666, because it says so in my translation of the Holy Book.  Evil evil evil.

is that from the Department of Redundancy Department?

...Hey, it worked in Star Trek!

-- Modified on 7/18/2006 5:48:18 PM

all knowledge is BS unless you personally see it and believe it.   You know, a sort of academic  affirmative action, all theories are equally valid, and just a matter of opinion.

We should not be discriminating against folks who believe that 2+2=22, or 87, or whatever else they have observed or believe.  After all, I can show you that if you take 2 2s and jam them together, they are in fact 22, and I don't know how anybody could believe anything else.

Billy's got an idea for a racket, and we're stupid if we don't listen up, and see what fools buy in, and see if we can't fuck that demographic before he does.

and yer mind's so open the wind whistles through.

If you think the world has to be the result of some sort of intelligent design, then it seems that from the world's condition, the Creator must have pulled it right out of his ass.

Actually, Billy's attitude fits in well with George "the decider" Bush. In this instance, if I "decide" that there is no evidence for 'missing links' or 'transitional forms', then there are none... no matter what you may think of as evidence.

And, by the way, I will 'decide' what's science and what's not. I particularly like this one.