The moth experiment has been discredited. They discovered that their were two kinds of moths. It's not astounding that the dark moth that could not be seen would live while the one that stuck out like a sore thumb was picked off by predators.

Fruit flies was interesting, but again, it only shows natural selection.

It does, fuck, thats messed everything up :winkwink:

Thank you for your drive-by wisdom. :winkwink:

lol

http://www.str.org/free/commentaries...n/phnotsci.htm

It's funny how the religious try to insult science by calling it, of all things, "religious".

So you're claiming no such thing as intelligence exists? :glugglug

Oh Mike... even the seven-day creationists agree that the peppered moth is an example of a species adapting to its environment.

You're reaching here.

Do they still give out longest thread prizes?

I'm not going to make excuses for those who have not read the entire thread. Assholes are assholes.

However, when the entire scientific community says "this is the best explaination we have of X," it's kind of arrogant to tell the entire scientific community that they don't know what they're talking about. I'm not going to tell me doctor he doesn't know what he's doing. These men and women spend their entire lives educating themselves on a subject that we get MAYBE one year of basic education in, and many of us don't even get that. Yet we're going to tell them that we know better then them?

I hope so :thumbsup

Tell me, what are "Greg's" scientific credentials?

That explains exactly what a creationist does 180. We are what we accuse others of being.

BTW, these same creationists (usually preachers) tell biologists, geologists and physicsts that they know these subjects better then these entire scientific communities combined. Who is really trying to explain things a certain way at all costs?

Sorry, when their best explanation requires more assumptions than I can count I won't accept it at face value.

Do you really find it possible that there is a person alive today that can tell you X happened 10 million years ago and be correct? These guys are so enlightened that they can trace things to millions of years? Carbon dating or not, I can't make myself just believe them because it's the best explanation they have.

In 1492 a sailor called Christopher Columbus went sailing to discover new lands. The wisest and cleverist scientist of the day said he would fall off the side of the earth because it is flat. He didnt. They were wrong :glugglug

I stated 3 conditions in this beginnging of the thread upon which I would agree with the evolution as the explanation of all life as we see it and experience it today. If all these were met I would have no problem with it.

But when you talk about millions of years, you're asking for mass extrapolations, each of which come into question.

wow this thread got long!

Cop out. I've read up on molecular biology, pondered it, asked questions and moved on. It's not a subject I think about very much anymore because it doesn't have much bearing on computers. It has some bearing on fitness and nutrition, but not in an evolutionary sense. I don't remember it that well and you would learn a lot more if you learned it on your own. If I spent a shit load of time researching it and reporting to you, you wouldn't learn much if you learned anything without just blowing off my work. Sorry, but that's happened way too often to me on public forums. I've done my studying and learning, you haven't and it's your turn to do it if you want to understand the subject, because you obviously don't understand it now.

And impossible to prove or disprove which is my hang up with the entire thing.

It evolved :glugglug

So you are saying evolution is impossible because it's been happening for too long? :eek7

Scientists can't be wrong according to these guys. Because just about all scientists are in agreement on a theory that is interesting and does provide hope for explanations (which is the bedrock of science), they cannot be wrong. You know, it is possible for everybody on earth to be wrong about something and a handful of people to be right.

Let's just summarize this by saying evolutionary theory is tentative. It holds promise and is the most likely explanation for what we see in the world. It is not absolutely certain, but worth investigating for years to come.

I'll just choose God as my end all to this topic and leave it at that. :winkwink:

Holy folks.

It's quite simple.

There is such a thing as intelligence, please don't deny it - and there are different levels of intelligence.

There are also things called comprehension, logic, and analysis skills.

If you lack in any of the 4 above then it will be hard for you to accept evolution.

I could counter ever argument in that it's a baseless reply because they're ignoring facts that were already put out in the thread.

Not being educated doesn't mean it doesn't exist - though that's 50% of American's problems. I wish Gore had run. Kerry was too soft.

Matt

No I said if those 3 conditions could be met it's very possible.

EXACTLY!!! The darker moth survived better and perpetuated itself more in the are with darker trees, and vice versa. It was all about natural selection. Therefore it was NOT discredited, it was a display of natural selection. AGAIN, you've shown us that you really need to get educated in this subject if you want to discuss it and claim it is not scientific.

There have been LOTS of experiments with fruit flies which showed evolution through natural selection. Pesticide companies do it constantly.

Sure they can. Lamarck was wrong.

There are lots of discarded scientific theories... because they have been falsified by other scientists.

The consensus of the scientific community...not the entire scientific community...and I have told doctors that they did not know what they were doing...on several occasions...and I was proved to be correct...and yet I do not have any formal medical training.

BTW...the scientific community is in flux in almost all areas of science (if not all)...and often discard parts of an old theory with what becomes to be deemed a better theory...thus what is accepted today may not be accepted at a later point in time.

READ THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE.

You know the thing Im most supprised about is that the thread turned into a discusion about evolution and not the fact that 50% of Americans dont beleive it and dont want it taught in schools.

That frightens me. It looks like the religious wacos are taking over America.

Not true, only uneducated peasants believed the earth was flat. The earth was proven to be round over 2,000 years before columbus sailed.

This is a myth. The earth was known to not be flat since ancient Greece. Educated people of Columbus' day already knew this.

it would take me a year to read through this thread now! :helpme

"Jinx" ;-)

I call "bullshit" on your strawman argument! No one said that. The rest is null and void as a result.

They just never went away.

The grecians got the idea of a round earth from the egyptians, who were able to measure the earth's circumfrence from a well at the equator and the length of a shadow cast by a pole. The measurement wasn't exact, but it was pretty damn close.

Point conceded. But the point I was trying to make is that what we think today isnt what we think tommorow, however clever we are.

To that end, the fact that Americans are turning to blind religious faith instead of science, is a worry. The most worrying part is that Biology teachers are under preasure not to even teach evolution in some places. Thats not healthy. It seems they are going backward not forward, as the recent election I think showed.

Seeing all those religious extremists on telly is a worry.

OK folks, it's way passed my bedtime. It's been fun and keep fighting the good fight. Just don't go for religious propoganda.

"In religion, to question is herasy. In science, to question is required." - Anonymous

You should re-read this thread and put down the points people stated.

I'm curious though - assuming you're right, and 'evolution' doesn't exist ... who or what started the first micro-organism?

Did it just happen? Well, you need amino acids, and in the right environment, given MILLIONS or BILLIONS of tries, at some point they might combine, make a chemical reaction, and become living. And well, they did combine, and now after trillions of more alternate environments the strongest species have thrived.

Dinosaurs used to be the thriving species until (many theories still) their food source shrunk due to climate change so less food, or a big rock smashed into the earth throwing dust into the air, blocking out the sun for 2-3 years, which is why some believe alligators / crocs / etc. still exist from those times because it is known now (from research / observation) that their species can live without eating for 2, 3 even 4-5 years depending on their size WITHOUT FOOD; because they drop their heartrate.

So anyway, that's one case of evolution - alligators survived most other dinosaurs / species from the dinosaur age because of how their species evolved into (reptiles, cold blooded, which allowed them to almost stop their heart and conserve energy). Them surviving is evolution; they're alive now, and the other species are not (most of them anyway); that's what evolution is.

Mike - I think you're not understanding the definition of evolution.

Matt

Erastothenes did that. He was Greek but lived in Alexandria which was technically Greek at the time because it has been conquered by Alexander - hence the name. Did an Egyptian do this before him?

Nysus, will tackle this later. It's late here:(

CET, Colin, Stock, Johnny, guys, nice discussion. I'm happy you can take what I gave you and support your arguments. Let us keep questioning.

I will re-iterate. Science is the key as far as I'm concerned. I ONLY take issue with evolutionary theory. None of us are going to the stake because none of us are religious. This was merely a learning exercise. Thanks, and g'night phew:thumbsup

Same here. Heading to the gym. Thanks for the discussion. See ya all later.

Mike, try this book and let me know what you think. "The Ancestor's Tale" by Dawkins. Brand new.

oh what i posted was already said.

And 51% of them voted for Bush !

:glugglug

it was a good thread. :)

Whenever there is another evolution thread we should just link to this one and save people the trouble.

:glugglug

This has been my longest thread so far :)

Thanks everyone, shame I couldnt push it over the ten page mark

Okay, cool!

Just keep in mind, evolution doesn't require science, evolution is a definition of a process that says,

1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.

2. a) The process of developing. b) Gradual development.

3. Biology. a) Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species. b) The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.

4. A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.

5. Mathematics. The extraction of a root of a quantity.


A definition doesn't require belief or not, it's just a definition of describing something, what all of the above states.

Good old Google for evolution resulted in this URL;

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evol...efinition.html

A quote from 1986 pretty well describes all variations of evolution;

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. 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."

- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

Hope this helps some.

Matt

Perhaps you should read more about science. The only scientists who reject evolution are the Christian ones. Evolution is 100% proven.