GENIUS FORUMS

That post does nothing more than display your total ignorance of the subject. Best to keep such ignorance to yourself, really.

Oh I'm sorry Dan, would you like me to believe in evolution?

Would that make you a happy chappy? Maybe that's nothing.

How about if the whole world believes in evolution, then would you be a happy fellow?

I bet you would for sure..because then life would make sense.

At least a proper scientific theory tries not to assume too much.

A faith on the contrary encourages to dive into a sea of assumptions, causing one to sink deeper each time when opening ones mouth making proclamations. The observer on the beach would call it "suicidal drowning".

prince wrote:Oh I'm sorry Dan, would you like me to believe in evolution?

Not really. That would be rather unscientific. I'd like you to have a better understanding of what it is you're attempting to deny. Your current level is insufficient for such.

Would that make you a happy chappy? Maybe that's nothing.

Your ignorance is not harmless.

How about if the whole world believes in evolution, then would you be a happy fellow?

You do know, right, that scientific theories do not require "belief"?

I bet you would for sure..because then life would make sense.

Evolution makes sense because the evidence for it is overwhelming.

What evidence? Come on I am all ears!!!

Convince me, shit for brains.

You do realise you are talking with God.

prince:

There is no transition possible, because in order for it to transform, it has to cease being what it is, therefore it would cease the lifeform of that which it's supposedly attached to. It's impossible.

Where's the rest of the evidence? All the bits in-between?

I'm certainly open to the idea of evolution, but my instinct tells me it's wrong, and I trust my instinct above a textbook.[/quote]
-----
Carmel:

No it's not impossible. A life form doesn't necessarily "cease being what it is". Some fish evolved to become amphibians, while other fish remained fish, but acquired through adaptation specific characteristics/survival mechanisms. I gave you only one example of transitional fossil evidence, there are many others.

There are volumes upon volumes of evidence which support evolutionary theory; fossils records, genetic evidence, carbon dating tests, among others.

If you really are "open" to the idea of evolution there are plenty of resources available for you to learn more about it. I find it to be an awkward subject to discuss in forums because the information becomes too fragmented and does not present in a cohesive way. It's rather like math in that regard, one has to learn the basics, then build upon that knowledge.

prince wrote:You do realise you are talking with God.

God told me evolution is true. Go figure.

prince wrote:What evidence? Come on I am all ears!!!

Convince me, shit for brains.

You do realise you are talking with God.

Go to that website and learn something.

prince wrote:You evolved from slime? Ok I accept that!. I know I didn't.

I don't know - you don't seem quite as slimey as when I first met you. You could have evolved some in these last few years.

Funny, Elizabeth, coming from someone whose avatar is a frog :)

And Dan, I'm suspicious of the Evolution 101 website, created as it is by the University of California Museum of Paleontology with support provided by the National Science Foundation and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.

I don't trust mainstream academia, science, or the medical establishment to present an objective case. I didn't think you did either.

What do you think of this essay?

Mutation-natural selection could no more build the vast, intricate networks in living creatures than a beaver could build the Hoover dam.

Evolutionists assume evolution is true, then write endlessly about when and where it happened, rates and lineages, etc. But if macroevolution is physically impossible in the real world, and it is, then all the rest is fantasy. There are only two possibilities. Either every part of every living thing arose by random chance, or an intelligence designed them.

It is now clear that the theory of evolution's only mechanism for building new parts and creatures, mutation-natural selection, is totally, utterly, pathetically inadequate. In spite of overwhelming evidence that the theory of evolution is dead wrong, many are not ready to throw in the towel. They desperately hope that some natural process will be found that causes things to fall together into organized complexity. These are people of great faith. And they are so afraid of connecting God with science that, like the Japanese Army of World War II, they would rather die than surrender. Unfortunately, the staunchest defenders sit in places of esteem and authority as professors, scientists, and editors, and have the full faith of the news media. The public is naturally in awe of their prestige.

But once the facts are understood it becomes obvious that the theory of evolution is long overdue for the trash can, and to perpetuate it is fraud. Perhaps it made sense for what was known when On the Origin of Species was published in 1859, but not today.

Evolutionists assume evolution is true

No, they don't, it's just that all other theories are lightyears behind in explaining power. And there ended the need to waste more time on the essay.

Here's some other development: Are humans still evolving? Absolutely, says new analysis of long-term survey of human health

After adjusting for factors such as education and smoking, their models predict that the descendents of these women will be slightly shorter and heavier, will have lower blood pressure and cholesterol, will have their first child at a younger age, and will reach menopause later in life.

"The take-home message is that humans are currently evolving," said Stearns. "Natural selection is still operating."

Also, some people should be aware that natural selection is not considered the one and only source of evolution. For example: BGC (biased gene conversion) has sped up the rate of evolution in certain genes.

This process increases the rate at which certain mutations spread through a population, regardless of whether they are beneficial or harmful.

Other sources are invasive genes from bacteria and viruses (see Dawkin's work for an introduction to this) which could spread through a population with some degree of disregard for good or harm to it. Discoveries in this field have already made Darwin's "tree" model obsolete. Evolution theory is flexible and adaptable :-).

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Here's some other development: Are humans still evolving? Absolutely, says new analysis of long-term survey of human health

Your link:

NESCent is supported by the National Science Foundation (Grant # EF-0423641), Duke University, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and North Carolina State University

Like I said, I don't trust mainstream academia or science, or government to investigate objectively or tell the truth. I did hear of that study of women which stated that on average they would be 2/3 of an inch shorter 400 years from now and a couple pounds heavier. I actually don't consider that evolution.

Carl,

What kind of "science" would you accept?
...because there are no scientific journals with titles like: "Science for the Self-Taught", "Rogue Scientist", or "Science; Anti-Establishment Style!"

Science is science. If it's real science then the scientist's beliefs or lack thereof have absolutely no bearing on the outcome of the test. Also, though nearly 100% of scientists believe in evolution, 40% of scientists are theists, so creationists really can't claim an "anti-God" bias. If a fossil is 65 million years old, radioactive dating tests could be performed repeatedly by both theists and atheists. The results won't change.

You won't accept science from a University or The National Science Foundation, yet you post a link to what is essentially an opinion-editorial(op-ed) piece. It's dodgy, myopic and contains several logical fallacies...

So what do you think of the link you posted. Do you agree with it? fully? partially?

Carmel,

Thanks for the balanced reply. The answer is, I don't know. I am not biologically minded, thus a full scale study of the subject is beyond my capability. I thus have no opinion of the essay to which I linked. I only see that it makes an opposing point, one which I have heard elsewhere as well. I believe there are intelligent voices on the opposing sides, with worthwhile arguments, and that accurate conclusions are not yet reached (hence evolution theory).

What I do know is that there is ample reason to distrust mainstream outlets of information, being that they are linked to a central group of controllers with an agenda. The agenda is self-serving, that is to say, it is not in service to the common person, to humanity. So I ask questions.

After all, those are the same outlets which promoted flat worldism once upon a time, earth centrism, and more recently sold the fairy tale that fluoride is good for you, and that aspartame is safe to ingest. It is the same science establishment that tells us that jet fuel can melt steel in skyscrapers, and denies the true age of the Sphinx according to the evidence. It is the same academia that turns out a nation of illiterates, and doctors who know and care little about health.

Carl,

Thanks for the somewhat wacky reply. :)

First evolution- The word "theory" within the scientific community has an entirely different meaning than it does to a layperson.

Theory: Scientific definition

"A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis...
...the biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas, a theory explains an entire group of phenomena."

So, evolution is both fact and theory. It will never be a law because it doesn't fit the criteria of being a single action.
--
You have it completely backwards with regard to the flat earthers and earth centrics. That mentality describes the ignorance of creationists, not the scientists. It was a scientist, Galileo, who proposed that the earth revolved around the sun and he was subsequently jailed for being a Christian heretic.

I really don't believe that the entire scientific community is part of some mass agenda. The only agenda is see is that of religionists who feebly and unsuccessfully try to discredit evolution
in an effort to impose their values upon others.

Why would only apply your cynicism to "mainstream" scientists and not the creationists with an obvious agenda?

Robert wrote:

prince wrote:You do realise you are talking with God.

God told me evolution is true. Go figure.

No, I never said evolution was true.

Why would I?

Dan Rowden wrote:

prince wrote:What evidence? Come on I am all ears!!!

Convince me, shit for brains.

You do realise you are talking with God.

Go to that website and learn something.

Learn what exactly? that i evolved from slime..haven't we already established that you did, (ie. have no soul) this is it for you Dan, one life, no soul! Enjoy it while you can.

Okay Carl, I'll explain why evolution makes sense without using any scientific references at all - just stuff that you and I both likely are familiar with.

Dog breeding is kind of like evolution, but it has happened since humanity started keeping decent records, so we can see roughly what happened. Some people took some dogs that they liked certain things about, bred the dogs, culled the puppies that did not have the desired traits from the parents, and continued to breed the rest until they reliably came out with the same kind of dog from each litter.

Here you may say "Aha! Intelligent design!" and it did take human intelligence to put together breeds that humans like - however, the dog DNA didn't know that it was being selected because people liked it. All the DNA knew is "this is what we have, so this is what we mix together." If you take that to a larger scale, and what gets removed from the gene pool are specimens that just don't work out (like people who thought they could fly, so they jumped off cliffs - or somehow otherwise the specimen was just not medically viable) and you find that those traits that work best survive. Intelligence does tend to work out pretty well for any species, so if you want to call that intelligent design, you could have a point.

Back to dogs - we know that dogs came from wolves, and are still closely related enough that they can produce offspring - but, as people rapidly became aware a few years after the wolf-hybrid fashion got popular, wolves and dogs are very different animals. We can see for ourselves how centuries of breeding have separated these animals.

When we look at apes, we see about as much difference between the other great apes and us as we see differences between dogs and wolves. When we look back on our history, if we look past the wars, the next thing that we see of great concern is the consideration of that which separates man from beast. This may have been an even greater concern as we get closer back to the split of humans and other apes. Humans can get snobbish about who they are to be seen with, and seem far more selective about who they mate with than other species. Even today, the hairy-backed male is usually considered less attractive than the man without a hairy back. Perhaps this sexual selection goes all the way back to how humans split off - including the shallow cosmetic preference of less hair. The hairier beings may have been forced to choose between not procreating, and going off with the other hairy specimens. Indeed, the earliest philosophers - those unphased by the shallower things in life, and perfectly content to ponder things while wandering the forest, while the less hairy apes concerned themselves with looks, and arranging their environment, and making elegant displays to impress their mate - well the unphased, hairy, forest wanderers unconcerned with proper society to separate them from the beasts - they may well be the forefathers of those who wander the forests or live in the zoos today.

Wolves and dogs have shorter lifespans than humans and other apes, and their generations turn over more rapidly, so we can see the change in them that we can not see so easily in ourselves. Furthermore, whereas dogs were specifically focus-bred, other than Hitler's breeding program, humans have had less to select for since society came into being. Already, the Beluga whale, with an average IQ of 155, is more intelligent than humans, with an average IQ of 100. As natural selection continues in what little of the natural world is left, humans and our tendency to protect the weak may become the most idiotic animals on Earth. How's that for intelligent design? Our ability to build and use complex machinery is more of a viable trait than sheer intelligence for now - although we may also poison the planet for all species with this "viable" trait of ours.

Whatever animal you look at, you will probably see similarities to us. Two eyes, two nostrils, even fish tend to have 5 larger, longer bones or strips of cartilage in each of their front fins and 10 at their tail fin. The heart, lungs, and other internal organs are usually much the same. Do you think that God just got lazy, or do you think that maybe all of us animals might be related?

Aha, ahahahahahaha! what a stupid fucking question, did God get lazy...

He clearly didn't since humans are far more advanced than any other animal.

Except Dan, God made him on a lazy day off and forgot to give him a soul.

El wrote:the Beluga whale, with an average IQ of 155, is more intelligent than humans, with an average IQ of 100. As natural selection continues in what little of the natural world is left, humans and our tendency to protect the weak may become the most idiotic animals on Earth. How's that for intelligent design?

BRAWNDO has what plants crave, it has electrolytes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0O7_3o3BrI

I think that you have to throw Mutation into the Evolution mix. Although evolution makes 50% sense, it does not complete the whole story. Some of the huge crocodiles, and sharks had advantages over the creatures that they evolved into. In a heard of wildebeests the smallest are attacked. The fact that everything is scaling down on average to 6ft suggests mutation to me, and mutation isn't really evolution, it's more random. Something must be slowly breaking down our structures... maybe external radiation.

[quote="Pincho Paxton"] mutation isn't really evolution, it's more random. Something must be slowly breaking down our structures... maybe external radiation.[/quote]
-----------------
You're right that mutation isn't evolution, but it is a subset of evolution. It's just one of many variables that contribute to the whole Theory.

You're right about radiation. Radiation, in the form of terrestrial(Radon), and cosmic(x-rays and gamma rays--not to be confused with solar rays), can cause chromosomal aberrations which can lead to gene mutation. Excessive free radicals(H202) in the body can also cause chromosomal aberrations/gene mutation.

We do have some tolerance to low levels of radiation via an adaptive process called "hormesis". Changes only occur when exposure reaches a certain threshold.

Pincho Paxton wrote: Some of the huge crocodiles, and sharks had advantages over the creatures that they evolved into.

Part of current evolution theory is the notion that developments go downstream, rarely upstream, or even impossibly so. Meaning the new trait, once reached temporary dominance or once reached a certain threshold, gets permanent priority in terms of genetic recombination. This way a superior older quality can easily disappear without external reason for it and even traits that have become useless can still remain competitive comparing to older traits, all at the genetic level. Nature rewarding novelty?

daybrown wrote:Its not the kind of work a few boys in the pub with a few pints in them is capable of given a month, much less a single night.

Probably never be solved in the local bar. Maybe the owner of the establishment would consider dumping
a few pints of beer on the floor and see if the liquid forms into a malt circle .. minus the alcohol.

PS - Be interesting to see a snow-circle when flying over Antarctica.