the great HOAX of 'Evolution'

[Dave Toast]

Erm, Bird, it's true that my surname is Dennett. And it's true that there aren't many Dennetts around. But me and Daniel C. aren't related, at least not biologically. I am however a geologist which, as you might imagine, grants me a certain considered perspective on the evolutionary big picture.

[Iolaus]

Zarathustra,

How we got here? What a silly question. No matter what metaphysical answer you manage to choak out of the cosmos, the reality is: YOU WILL NEVER KNOW. Get over it...we never got here, WE ARE HERE. Of course you could say it was due to some god, intelligent design or the easter bunny, as all are as equally plausable as the other, but then, you'd be back where you started. What you'd then have to ask yourself is: how did god get here, or intelligent design?..STUCK AGAIN. Looking to metaphysics to provide answers to the great questions, is like riding a merry-go-round i.e. you always RETURN to the place you started. LIFE IS A WONDEROUS MYSTERY. Celebrate THAT; love life MORE than its meaning...ULTIMATE TRUTH = A WONDEROUS MYSTERY - WOW!

It isn't necessarily true that we'll never know. Perhaps we will. There's something very peculiar about the human situation here. Some say we're a prison planet. I say we're in hell. the not knowing is a huge part of the deal.

Just because I maintain curiosity and haven't given up, doesn't mean I don't celebrate the wonderous mystery.

Dave,

I would not have made the assumption ;you were related to D Dennett just because you have the same last name. I rather thought I remembered you alluding to it. I must have misunderstood.

[Faust]

I want to bring the hoax of evolution discussion back, I still feel many here are delusionally clinging to evolution when the evidence so far is not really evidence.

In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve.

except 'evolution' would mean some sort of progress or direction into higher complexity, something that 'change' doesn't mean at all.

The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next.

except this isn't really evolution, it is merely variance in which any random variance that is suitable for the environment is carried on. This doesn't change the species something that evolution tries to prove, it doesn't change the fixed number of chromosomes, and neither is it universal because in one part of the earth, one variance would be favoured over the other, and vice versa in another part of the earth. So there's no evolution of species into newer species, and as long as the environment and society keeps changing which it does, 'natural selection' isn't going to have an objective direction.

Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions.

biological evolution doesn't exist. Variance in genetics does not morph a species into something else. As far as I know, blood types aren't a determining factor in ensuring survival and reproduction. All blood types function as blood. There's no such thing as 'successive alterations' which would lead from say bacteria to bigger things, if that was the case the whole DNA and reproduction wouldn't work. There's no way nor any real reason as far as natural selection is concerned, for bacteria to 'evolve.' It's physically impossbile, bacteria reproduce by dividing themselves, and copying their DNA. Bacteria don't suddenly say "develop an arm" and reproduce it, nor would it help them to survive if they did. Nor would there be any proper starting place for evolution. If anything, the brain would have to be the first thing to appear, because it controls everything else, and no bacteria or dandelion or whatever can suddenly produce a brain out of successive variations, those variations have nothing to do with developing a brain.

[Faust]

Evolution makes perfect sense to me. Even the ouside radiation alters the state of our genes ever so slightly. We all have 4 or 5 mistakes in our genes, and if we mate with someone with the same mistakes in their genes, we create a mutation. If the mistakes in our genes were to multiply over time, we would create more, and more mutations. I believe that it is these mutations, combined with survival of the fittest that create evolution.

*yawn* and you believe that ice creams fall from the sky. The fact that simple radiation and random mutations change our genes show that there's no objective evolution caused by any pressures which would lead to organisms of higher complexity. Those mutations in most cases result in deformities and other changes that are not advantageous to our survival whatsoever such as all those neurological disorders and genetic disorders causing fucked up shit that ain't any good. If the mistakes in your genes would multiply over time you would cease to be a human. DNA can only handle so many 'mistakes', beyond a limited number it will fail to reproduce because it needs a set of specific instructions to be able to work. We don't even create more and more mutations, this isn't happening in the gene pool. These mutations don't have anything to do with 'survival of the fittest,' they are purely random and don't take into account the pressures of the environment. If that was the case we wouldn't have autism, and parkinson's, tourette's, etc...

[Faust]

Whilst evolution is an observable phenomenon in nature, history and biology

rightttt, show me this evidence, show me the link between bacteria into evolving into other organisms.



http://www.darwinismrefuted.com

[Pincho Paxton]

Evolution makes perfect sense to me. Even the ouside radiation alters the state of our genes ever so slightly. We all have 4 or 5 mistakes in our genes, and if we mate with someone with the same mistakes in their genes, we create a mutation. If the mistakes in our genes were to multiply over time, we would create more, and more mutations. I believe that it is these mutations, combined with survival of the fittest that create evolution.

*yawn* and you believe that ice creams fall from the sky. The fact that simple radiation and random mutations change our genes show that there's no objective evolution caused by any pressures which would lead to organisms of higher complexity. Those mutations in most cases result in deformities and other changes that are not advantageous to our survival whatsoever such as all those neurological disorders and genetic disorders causing fucked up shit that ain't any good. If the mistakes in your genes would multiply over time you would cease to be a human. DNA can only handle so many 'mistakes', beyond a limited number it will fail to reproduce because it needs a set of specific instructions to be able to work. We don't even create more and more mutations, this isn't happening in the gene pool. These mutations don't have anything to do with 'survival of the fittest,' they are purely random and don't take into account the pressures of the environment. If that was the case we wouldn't have autism, and parkinson's, tourette's, etc...

So, what are you saying? We have always been humans, and all of the other animals, have always been what they are now? God created Neaderthal man? How did Neanderthal man communicate with God, and a snake? How did the snake lose it's communication skills if evolution cannot really change anything, and how did the snake lose its legs? You see, even the bible includes changes in evolution.

[zarathustra]

Faust,
Yawn...Evolution = adaptation. End of story...In relation to the West and concerning one aspect: the evolutionary processes at work in the structure and function of human society...its sooo obvious, I don't think there's a need for further explanation, but if you want, I will...

The problem with all this, of course, as Goethe knew, is that there was a danger that men would become 'slaves to their own creations (Faust)...'but that's another story.

As for the bible: its a crock of s--t!

z

[Iolaus]

Faust you disappeared for a long time, and before you left I asked the same question, mostly out of curiosity as to your take on things. That is, what's your guess as to how things work, how did life forms come about?

It is obvious that the theory of evolution is the biggest boondoggle in history but it does leave some questions.

There is an incredible lesson here so far as enlightenment, the shedding of delusion, the advice of Bodhidharma to learn to see the machinations of the mind when one realizes the monumental structure of willful ignorance and silliness that is the theory of evolution. The majority of those arguing here will not abandon their beliefs no matter how good your arguments are, or what websites and books you point them to. It is all about human nature, not about facts, or logic, or thinking for oneself.

Some people who have perhaps thought for themselves in one or two areas, or who have taken a minority approach in some way, are under even stronger delusion because they (lazy fools! cowards!) think that such a minor positionality entitles them to forever consider themselves as independent thinkers, as people who prefer truth to the groupmind.

But it ain't so.

[zarathustra]

Boondoggle... that's rich...'lazy fools, cowards'...that's even richer!

What is lacking in the context of many of the arguments ( for the want of a better word ) expressed in this forum is EVIDENCE. People just shoot off at the mouth about this and that: personal beliefs, subjective truths, prejudices, wishful thinking, bla, bla, bla...Apart from a few - myself included - when it comes to arguing philosophically I DO present some evidence for my point of view. At the very core of 'philosophical thinking' is ARGUMENT( WHICH MAY BE A REVELATION TO MANY HERE ) that is what distinguishes it from sermonizing, art or poetry. The idiots who say there is no evidence for evolution do nothing when they make such a stupid statement but consolidate their own ignorance as well as reveal it to others...So, once again, I will attempt to present evidence for my point of view. Whether you accept in or not is up to you. If you don't, then you should elucidate your reasons - evidence - for holding such a position - or shut the f--k up...

1. Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty. However, high degrees of certainty can be reached. In the case of evolution, we have HUGH AMOUNTS of data from diverse fields. Extensive evidence exists in all of the following different forms . Each new piece of evidence tests the rest.
* All life shows a FUNDAMENTAL UNITY in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism.
* Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life.
* Different lines of EVIDENCE give the same arrangement of the tree of life. We get essentially the same results whether we look at morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits.
* Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record.
* The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and INCONSISTENT WITH SUDDEN CREATION.
* Many organisms show rudimentary, VESTIGIAL characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight.
* Atavisms sometimes occur. An atavism is the reappearance of a character present in a distant ancestor but lost in the organism's immediate ancestors. We only see atavisms consistent with organisms' evolutionary histories.
* Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution. For example, as embryos whales and many snakes develop hind limbs that are reabsorbed before birth.
* The distribution of species is CONSISTENT with their evolutionary history. For example, marsupials are mostly limited to Australia, and the exceptions are explained by continental drift. Remote islands often have species groups that are highly diverse in habits and general appearance but closely related genetically. Squirrel diversity coincides with tectonic and sea level changes. Such consistency still holds when the distribution of fossil species is included.
* Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions.
* The same principle applies on a molecular level. Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm.
* When two organisms evolve the same function independently, different structures are often recruited. For example, wings of birds, bats, pterosaurs, and insects all have different structures. Gliding has been implemented in many additional ways. Again, this applies on a molecular level, too.
* The constraints of evolutionary history sometimes lead to suboptimal structures and functions. For example, the human throat and respiratory system make it impossible to breathe and swallow at the same time and make us susceptible to choking.
* Suboptimality appears also on the molecular level. For example, much DNA is nonfunctional.
* Some nonfunctional DNA, such as certain transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous viruses, show a pattern of inheritance indicating common ancestry.
* Speciation has been observed.
* The day-to-day aspects of evolution -- heritable genetic change, morphological variation and change, functional change, and natural selection -- are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent.

Furthermore, the different lines of evidence are consistent; they all point to the same big picture. For example, evidence from gene duplications in the yeast genome shows that its ability to ferment glucose evolved about eighty million years ago. Fossil evidence shows that fermentable fruits became prominent about the same time. Genetic evidence for major change around that time also is found in fruiting plants and fruit flies.

The evidence is EXTENSIVE and CONSISTENT, and it points UNAMBIGIOUSLY to evolution, including common descent, change over time, and adaptation influenced by natural selection. It would be preposterous to refer to these as anything other than FACTS.


z

[Faust]

We have always been humans, and all of the other animals, have always been what they are now?

is that so hard to fathom???

God created Neaderthal man?

neanderthal was nothing but a regular human with a regular human bone structure.

How did Neanderthal man communicate with God, and a snake?

wtf are you talking about?

How did the snake lose it's communication skills

wtf???

how did the snake lose its legs?

why would you think it had legs you wacko??

You see, even the bible includes changes in evolution.

like?

[Faust]

Yawn...Evolution = adaptation. End of story

no it's not the end of story. A blithering idiot like you thinks everything is simple and easy so he says 'end of story.'

the evolutionary processes at work in the structure and function of human society...its sooo obvious

oh my, you still don't see the difference between 'evolution' and simple 'change' do you? Human society changes, it doesn't necessarily 'evolve' into something better.

The problem with all this, of course, as Goethe knew, is that there was a danger that men would become 'slaves to their own creations (Faust)...'but that's another story.

no the problem is that jackasses like you don't actually know what biological evolution is trying to claim.

[Faust]

That is, what's your guess as to how things work, how did life forms come about?

i'm still thinking about it. I entertained the idea of a supreme being creating life out of nowhere, it IS possible, it's just that we don't know if that's what happened. I guess part of the answer comes from doing enclosed experiments to see if life comes from non-life. There was one where they put meat into a closed jar, and apparently over time there were no larvae or bugs on it, but an opened jar did have it.

It is obvious that the theory of evolution is the biggest boondoggle in history but it does leave some questions.

it is quite a big boondoggle theory, one that the 'rationalists' 'rationalize' themselves to eternity about it.

There is an incredible lesson here so far as enlightenment, the shedding of delusion, the advice of Bodhidharma to learn to see the machinations of the mind when one realizes the monumental structure of willful ignorance and silliness that is the theory of evolution. The majority of those arguing here will not abandon their beliefs no matter how good your arguments are, or what websites and books you point them to. It is all about human nature, not about facts, or logic, or thinking for oneself.

I would keep this quote for myself if I were you, it's so well worded.

Some people who have perhaps thought for themselves in one or two areas, or who have taken a minority approach in some way, are under even stronger delusion because they (lazy fools! cowards!) think that such a minor positionality entitles them to forever consider themselves as independent thinkers, as people who prefer truth to the groupmind.

yup.

[zarathustra]

Faust, instead of frothing at the mouth, try reading the evidence dahh? After all, isn't that what seperates us from the beasts - our capacity to assess and reason? You might agree. You might not. You might even learn something! The points I outlined above are where the PROOFS of my argument lie. If you have issue with it, go there, do some research...but if you choose not to see it, then its YOU who are the ignoramus. If you constructed a reasonable argument for your point of view, in relation to these points, I might even be prepared to consider what you have to say i.e. your proof and conclusions, seriously.

But at the moment, you sound like a blithering idiot ' full of sound and fury - signifying NOTHING...'

z

[Pincho Paxton]

We have always been humans, and all of the other animals, have always been what they are now?

is that so hard to fathom???

God created Neaderthal man?

neanderthal was nothing but a regular human with a regular human bone structure.

How did Neanderthal man communicate with God, and a snake?

wtf are you talking about?

How did the snake lose it's communication skills

wtf???

how did the snake lose its legs?

why would you think it had legs you wacko??

You see, even the bible includes changes in evolution.

like?

So you haven't read the Bible? Ok so what you are saying is that a supreme being created life, but was not the God in the Bible, it was one that you made up yourself.

[Faust]

Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty

are you absolutely certain about this?

All life shows a FUNDAMENTAL UNITY in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism.

what the hell do you mean 'unity'??? Different species aren't unified because they can't breed together, which is why evolution is rubbish. You can keep breeding the best strains of cows for millions of years under different selection pressures and you'll still end up with cows, not giraffes, this is why evolution is rubbish.

Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life.

what the fuck are you talking about? This is so vague and meaningless. Each species has their own unqiue gene pool in which variations exist, and which only this gene pool can be used to breed the same species. Those variations don't 'morph' the species into another, they're just variations of the same species and they always will be. As such gene pools of species cannot be breeded together, which is why evolution is rubbish.

Different lines of EVIDENCE give the same arrangement of the tree of life. We get essentially the same results whether we look at morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits.

no we get the same idiots as you who spew pseudo-intellectual rubbish

Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record.

HA! which ones??? Have you READ http://www.darwinismrefuted.com ? It debunks those so called transitional forms for the rubbish that they are. And that famous 'reptile bird' what it is? That's a forgery. There's only 6 of those ever known in the world even though if it's a transitional form there should be millions, and only 2 of them have those wings, which look like chicken wings. There's many anomalies in that fossil, and it's still genetically and biologically impossible to breed two different species. Those fossils infact are just the same thing as another small dinosaur. Some people in Germany decided to make millions (which they did) by adding chicken feathers to them.

The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and INCONSISTENT WITH SUDDEN CREATION.

no they don't because those fossils don't show transitional forms because it's impossible to breed together two entirely different species.

Many organisms show rudimentary, VESTIGIAL characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight.

HA! If they don't need those, then why the hell would they keep them??? Seems counter to natural selection to me. This is like when evolutionists said the whale is proof because it had a 'pelvis' and thus it's a vestigial structure, when in fact it needs that pelvis to fuck.

Atavisms sometimes occur. An atavism is the reappearance of a character present in a distant ancestor but lost in the organism's immediate ancestors. We only see atavisms consistent with organisms' evolutionary histories.

pftttt. Atavisms aren't characters of distant ancestors, they're still just variations in that gene pool that come up now and again. A 6th toe isn't an atavism, that's just a little booboo in the DNA. once again, you missed the point that 'atavism' is from 'PREVIOUS ANCESTORS' which means, the same gene pool and the same species, no 'morphing' of previous species into new ones.

Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution. For example, as embryos whales and many snakes develop hind limbs that are reabsorbed before birth.

probably because they need those as embryos. This is like the 'gills' fallacy of the human embryo, when it's not even gills but something else for some other function I don't remember now.

The distribution of species is CONSISTENT with their evolutionary history. For example, marsupials are mostly limited to Australia, and the exceptions are explained by continental drift. Remote islands often have species groups that are highly diverse in habits and general appearance but closely related genetically. Squirrel diversity coincides with tectonic and sea level changes. Such consistency still holds when the distribution of fossil species is included.

too bad all this is no proof whatsoever of species morphing into newer ones, or cows popping out giraffes. Marsupials are limited to Australia because they can't swim. Those same species are genetically close because they have a small gene pool on a small island, thus concentrating the gene pool, this isn't evolution. Squirrel diversity coincides with tectonic and sea level changes what?????

Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions.

oh jeez, this is the Classical Piss Poor Argument for Evolution hypothesis. Yeah it 'predicts' which means it's probably wrong. Similarity in structures can be used to support the hypothesis of 1 creator with 1 substance that created everything. Those aren't 'new' structures that have 'adapted' from older structures, they were ALWAYS like that. Human hands, bat wings, whale flippers, and more forelimbs are not that similar whatsoever. They're bone structure, muscle, and countless other things are entirely different. And still, this doesn't prove that species create entirely new ones. What's funny is that evolutionists don't even know the direct lineage of these things. What came first? The whale started hanging out on the beach, so it grew arms from its flippers?? Jeez it was able to breathe that easily? Or...the bat, came about when some creature started flapping his arms trying to fly? And eventually the one with the wing arms flew?? or, the whale started running like a horse, and eventually adapted and miraculously turned his flippers into strong horse legs???

The same principle applies on a molecular level. Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm.

ha, are you sure about this?? No wonder evolutionists think that humans' genes are 99% identical. Yet the science says otherwise, humans can be 10 to 12% genetically different from each other!! :

http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/ ... N=39304975

When two organisms evolve the same function independently, different structures are often recruited. For example, wings of birds, bats, pterosaurs, and insects all have different structures. Gliding has been implemented in many additional ways. Again, this applies on a molecular level, too.

no, it shows that you're a blithering idiot who thinks he knows what he's talking about. different structures are often recruited what are you talking about??? Do you still deny that different species cannot breed together???

The constraints of evolutionary history sometimes lead to suboptimal structures and functions. For example, the human throat and respiratory system make it impossible to breathe and swallow at the same time and make us susceptible to choking.

yeah cause we were ALWAYS LIKE THAT, wtf is your stupidity not seeing this? This is not proof of evolution, you're merely stating the obvious.

Suboptimality appears also on the molecular level. For example, much DNA is nonfunctional.

anddd this proves evolution how???

Some nonfunctional DNA, such as certain transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous viruses, show a pattern of inheritance indicating common ancestry.

what pattern of inheritance???

Speciation has been observed.

actually it hasn't. Not one bit. It has been shown however, that when species are divided into smaller groups, those small groups have increasingly smaller gene pools due to their small size, resulting in inbreeding, which progressively makes them weaker and sicker. Hardly 'evolution.'

from http://www.sedin.org/propeng/shatter.htm

the 13 "species" of ground finch on the island are in fact members of the same species who breed fertile offspring and who differ merely in diet and beak shape.

Darwinist make many claims of observed speciation. These claims vanish when examined closely and are seen as no more than pseudo- speciation. In some cases, it is merely subspecific variation being passed off as speciation. In others it is cases of freak degenerative mutations which play no evolutionary role.

The day-to-day aspects of evolution -- heritable genetic change, morphological variation and change, functional change, and natural selection -- are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent.

no it doesn't. Variation occurs in each species according to that specific gene pool of the species, and these variations don't at all have functional change that turns arms into wings. You can breed cows for millions of years in every selection pressure and they will STILL breed cows, not giraffes, not whales, not bats.

For example, evidence from gene duplications in the yeast genome shows that its ability to ferment glucose evolved about eighty million years ago.

or maybe it was always able to do that?

Fossil evidence shows that fermentable fruits became prominent about the same time. Genetic evidence for major change around that time also is found in fruiting plants and fruit flies.

links please.

The evidence is EXTENSIVE and CONSISTENT, and it points UNAMBIGIOUSLY to evolution, including common descent, change over time, and adaptation influenced by natural selection. It would be preposterous to refer to these as anything other than FACTS.

actually no it wouldn't. It would be very smart, intelligent, honest, and clear-headed, and much too humorous at that!! To know that these 'facts' are nothing but the opposite. I'll say it again: you can keep breeding cows for millions of years and you'll end up with cows. Maybe you can try breeding them with whales or bats, when you do tell me the results.

[Faust]

Ok so what you are saying is that a supreme being created life, but was not the God in the Bible, it was one that you made up yourself.

I never 'stated' that I 'believe' a supreme being created everything. I said that it was just a possibility and that I can understand it.

One I made up myself?? the idea of the Supreme Being is not exclusive to the God in the bible you jackass. Ever heard of Deism?

[Iolaus]

Zarathustra,

Boondoggle... that's rich...'lazy fools, cowards'...that's even richer!

People who rest on their laurels regarding the search for truth (more a process of unravelling than of adding) are indeed lazy fools.

What is lacking in the context of many of the arguments ( for the want of a better word ) expressed in this forum is EVIDENCE. People just shoot off at the mouth about this and that: personal beliefs, subjective truths, prejudices, wishful thinking, bla, bla, bla..

I made no pretense of presenting any tedious argument against Darwinian evolution on this thread. Been there, done that. I merely am a spectator throwng a little moral support Faust's way. I have an interest in the subject for several years, have read many books, and have spent hundreds and quite probably thousands of hours going over articles on the net and watching and participating in discussions with intelligent and informed people.

The vast majority of people who make your type of comments and arguments are very uninformed and do not begin to undersand how far things have moved from such trite little points. Most of these opinions are not on the mertis of the evidence, but based upon emotional preferences.

[zarathustra]

Alternative theories:

One day the universe went pop and here we all are...

Or one day god said let there be life and there was...

Or one day, a star exploded and we all crawled out of the primal soup perfectly formed - forever the same!

Or one day aliens landed on earth and left a bunch of people behind to experiment on: ' we'll give 'em the theory of evolution,' said the chief alien,' that'll really confuse 'em...'

Ha! ha!

I reckon your rancor and your ignorance have definitely 'evolved' - I can't believe that you've always been this IGNORANT AND STUPID!


z

[Iolaus]

Faust,

i'm still thinking about it. I entertained the idea of a supreme being creating life out of nowhere, it IS possible, it's just that we don't know if that's what happened. I guess part of the answer comes from doing enclosed experiments to see if life comes from non-life. There was one where they put meat into a closed jar, and apparently over time there were no larvae or bugs on it, but an opened jar did have it.

I don't think too much of the closed jar experiment because they boiled the contents of the jars which might render the elements unsuitable as building blocks for life. But I'm not sure if that's true. Perhaps on the molecular level that is not so. After all, everything was once very hot. At any rate, they killed everything in the jars-the microbes that are everywhere. I am quite sure that there is no spontaneous generation of life.

It seems to me that there has to be a conscious intelligence infusing this universe. There's just no other way for things to be as they are. I think there is an unfolding of life and complexity, but all the evidence points to it happening in spurts. Gradual, random evolution just isn't true. So there is something driving evolution, perhaps it is cyclic. It is possible that the intelligence resides in the DNA, or communicates with the DNA, but not in the way Christians envision, with a god in a labcoat and tweezers tinkering away. DNA is a code and their is no complete separation of anything. Codes can be reprogrammed.

[Iolaus]

zarathustra, you are a complete fool. You're out of your element here.

And, if you were interested in the topic, you would go read up on it. I have no respect for people who mistake thinking something with knowing something.

No use bothering with him Faust. He seems more like a sock puppet than a real person.

[David Quinn]

This thread only confirms my view that those who oppose the theory of evolution don't really understand it. I've never met an anti-evolutionist who doesn't project his own major misunderstandings onto the theory, before tearing into those misunderstandings. This thread only offers more of the same.

Faust's understanding of evolution, in particular, is woeful - on a par with the Jehovah's Witnesses.

-

[zarathustra]

DQ at last we agree on something!

Don't worry Iolaus, armegeddon's on time...I'm sure you'll be among the 'choosen' to ascend into heaven, where all your questions will be answered, and all us evolutionists and atheists will burn in hell forever!!


z

[Carl G]

I love this place. Victor comes on, asking for evidence and calling people morons and idiots, and suddenly everyone's doing it. It's a definite improvement over the moribund opinion and belief based culture that this supposedly dangerous logic-based thinking messageboard has become. There's some evolution for you.

[zarathustra]

Dogs (Canis familiaris), wolves (Canis lupus & rufus), and coyotes (Canis latrans) are considered separate species and yet they can interbreed. And their offspring are not infertile. Species are really constructions of the human mind, just like language and other systems of thought, that allow us to talk about and make some kind of sense of the world. Through the process of adaptation and evolution relationships between organisms are constantly in flux, so that some "species" are in the process of splitting, while some populations that had become separated may be back in situations where they can interbreed. "Species" cannot come into being instantly, so there is always a process - evolution - going on. In other words, nature is not nearly so neat as we sometimes make it out to be.

z

[Iolaus]

David,

This thread only confirms my view that those who oppose the theory of evolution don't really understand it.

This is such a tiresome old line. If evolution theory is so hard to understand that even people with PhD's and years study somehow fail to 'understand' it when they begin to disagree, then perhaps it does not belong in the school curriculum at all, and should be reserved for just a few grad students.

Funnily enough, what I find is that those who try to argue in favor of evolution begin at a very elementary level and have no clue whatsoever what the real arguments are about.

Carl,

It is very, very rare for me to call someone a fool. But I stand by it. He isn't capable of real conversation.

Zara,

I'm sure you'll be among the 'choosen' to ascend into heaven, where all your questions will be answered, and all us evolutionists and atheists will burn in hell forever!!

This certainly proves the above. Pointless trash. You have wasted your time and mine, and this is the level of discourse with you.

Species are really constructions of the human mind,

Oh, my!!!