Support NeoGAF

[FunkyMunkey]

Lol.

I mean, the other posters in this thread are doing a much better job at being patient with your willful ignorance than I would be, so I'll leave them to it. Just wanted to use pictures to illustrate how you are wrong.

A cell is FAR more complex than a (super)computer. Posting a pic of a plant cell and going "lol" as if you proved a point is ridiculous. Not only are you attempting to sum up a cell using it's parts only, you're ignoring all signal transduction, chemical pathways, and even DNA synthesis(a staple of biology). >>> Even the nuclear pore complex alone is on par with a computer. The functions of/in a cell are where complexities lie, not structure(though, even some structures are amazingly elaborate).

Talk about willful ignorance. smh

 

[BronzeWolf]

A cell is FAR more complex than a (super)computer. Posting a pic of a plant cell and going "lol" as if you proved a point is ridiculous. Not only are you attempting to sum up a cell using it's parts only, you're ignoring all signal transduction, chemical pathways, and even DNA synthesis(a staple of biology). >>> Even the nuclear pore complex alone is on par with a computer. The functions of/in a cell are where complexities lie, not structure(though, even some structures are amazingly elaborate).

Talk about willful ignorance. smh

It still is ad ignorance.

Just because we don't understand something it doesn't mean it's impossible

 

[Mael]

Scientists can't even come close to creating a "simple" cell from scratch, yet Evolutionists believe that life was supposedly formed by chance.

Dear god that's the single worst start of a post I've seen in Gaf yet...
I guess magnets validate the whole theory which says that the world is ruled according to what's seen in Harry Potter

 

[Chuckie]

I guess magnets validate the whole theory which says that the world is ruled according to what's seen in Harry Potter

Fucking magnets, how do they work?

 

[Scrow]

Fucking magnets, how do they work?

you can't explain that

 

[Mael]

Fucking magnets, how do they work?

Don't you see? It's magic!!!!1!1!
And since it's magic and there's magic in Harry Potter too, that means that the TRUE Bible is actually the one written by JK Rowling!

Repent from your sins and go buy the Dvds now!

 

[Mgoblue201]

We have many examples where animals have net positive mutations? There is not one example found in any science literature! There is not example of a random mutation adding genetic information. Yet evolutionists believe that through random mutations you can get a cell to an ape.

As long as you're quoting Behe, I think it's a good idea to revisit a debate between Behe, the great champion of ID, and Abbie Smith, a graduate student who was pressed to find a novel adaptation. First, as I tried to impress upon you in the previous thread, "new information" is a meaningless creationist buzzword. Sickle cell is a result of a simple point mutation; instead of glutamic acid, the hemoglobin uses the amino acid valine. This is surely not a "loss of information". Stop conflating the changes that occur to a genotype with the manifestation of the phenotype. Sickle cell is not a great example of evolution in action; there are better ones. But first we must make that distinction.

Now, you can read the first part of Abbie Smith's response here. In it she uses the VPU gene of HIV as an example of evolution. She explains how much it has changed:

Ah, Michael Behe, you might try to talk your way around Vpu now (though you were evidently unaware of its existence moments ago) by insisting that it is not *new* new. “Sure it’s new in chimpanzees, but its not *new* in HIV-1!” Sorry, you’ll find no escape with that limp-wristed, ad hoc parry. SIVcpz Vpu and HIV-1 Vpu act in different ways, biochemically, which is predictable enough when you do something as simple as comparing amino acid sequences. For instance, if you compare a laboratory strain gag to SIVcpz gag, you get a similarity of ~75%.3 Not too shabby. On the other hand, if you compare the subunit portion of env (the gene I use to create phylogenetic trees because it’s the most variable between viruses) you get an AA similarity of only ~59.5%.

The amino acid similarity between HIV-1 Subtype B Vpu and SIVcpz Vpu is ~37%. Ah but that study was published in 1990. Perhaps things are different now? I found the AA sequence of NL4-3 (lab standard Subtype B) and several recently entered SIV cpz sequences at the Los Alamos National Laboratory HIV Sequence Database4 – I got the same numbers. Highest was ~39% AA sequence similarity.

And she explains the differences in function:

In humans, there are two functions of Vpu5 – one is inducing the degradation of CD4 molecules. CD4 is the host cell receptor HIV needs for infection. Removing CD4 from the cell surface prevents superinfection (more than one virus infecting the same cell) and helps prevent newly released viruses from turning around and infecting the same cell (also prevented by an HIV maturation step involving protease). To put this the simplest way possible, Vpu involves the evolution of at least two protein-protein interaction sites – one to interact with CD4, one to interact with the pathway that degrades the CD4.

The second function is to act as an ion channel in the host cell plasma membrane.6 Five Vpu proteins come together to form a Na+K+ viroporin.7 This has been shown to assist in particle release, making the cell charge more conducive to the release of new particles. This involves the evolution of more protein-protein interactions – the individual Vpu proteins must interact to form the pentamer, plus an action site that can be used to block ion flow.8

Viroporin capabilities have not been found with SIVcpz Vpu. Knowing what we know about Vpu, this is not surprising. If you scramble the transmembrane region of HIV-1 Vpu (the portion responsible for the ion channel formation), viral release is crippled.9 And when you compare AA homology between SIVcpz and HIV-1 Vpu in the transmembrane region is unremarkable (roughly two) – that’s as good as a ‘scramble’. So theoretically, ion channel formation evolved in HIV-1 when it infected humans to overcome a species specific and cell specific host factor.10 Though the list of viroporins discovered is continually growing, the evolution of a viroporin de novo is not menial task.

This seems like a pretty significant biochemical change in HIV-1, to me.

But the ‘pathetic’ evolution doesn’t stop there. The feature both Vpus have in common, CD4 degradation, is carried out in completely different ways. HIV-1 Vpu requires two casein kinase II sites. You could almost call it irreducibly complex – if you dont have both CKII sites, CD4 isn’t degraded. Yet some SIVcpz Vpus have only one CKII site, and instead utilize a simple string of negatively charged amino acids in place of the second site.11 Different ways of performing similar tricks with totally different amino acids. I think that’s biochemically significant as well.

Ah, Michael Behe, you might try to talk your way around Vpu NOW by saying, “Vpu might be *new* new in HIV-1, but its not *NEW* *new* new. It hasnt changed in HIV-1 since humans acquired it!”

Alas, ‘same number of genes that work in the same way’ goes beyond the differences between HIV-1 Vpu and SIVcpz Vpu. HIV-1 is divided into three groups, M, N, O. Group M is the one making a mess of the world right now, and is further divided into Subtype A, B, C, etc, and circulating recombinant forms of the subtypes (Subtype AG, for instance). Two relatively well characterized subtypes are Subtype B and C. Subtype C HIV can be defined by its Vpu, as it is so different from the other subtypes.12

For instance, Subtype C Vpus are characteristically longer than the others, have key phosphorylation sites shifted, have an extra CKII site, and its tertiary structure is totally different (Subtype B Vpus have an Mr of 43,000 in an SDS-PAGE gel, while Subtype C is 34,000). But what does this mean, biochemically?

It turns out that one of the biochemical differences is that Subtype B Vps have a Golgi retention signal in the second alpha-helix of the cytoplasmic domain.13 This means that Subtypes B Vpu prefers (if you will excuse me personifying a virus) to be in the Golgi, helping degrade CD4, while Subtype C Vpu prefers to be in the plasma membrane, assisting with the release of new viruses. Michael Behe, if you don’t understand the epidemiological and clinical significance of this ‘pathetic’ evolution, well, that might explain why you aren’t doing HIV research.

A bit technical, but you should be able to grasp the premise if you are so fervent in affirming how much you understand the problems of evolution.

I would also like to discuss the Dawkins weasel program, since you brought up the erroneous 747 argument to begin with.

 

[Lesath]

Teaching about religions in an anthropological way (the same way you would teach about history, politics or other country's cultures) is acceptable, a good idea even. Religion has had a huge impact on our culture, historically and continuing into the future. Obviously they should not give special treatment to religions and teach that one of them is true.

But again, as an atheist, I'm fine with teaching them about religions. I went to a catholic school, but I think the education I got about religions there was instrumental in my understanding them as I got older (and eventually leaving them).

I approve of religious studies as a history course. If you place your faith in a book, then you should know the history of that book. A History of God is incredibly elucidating.

 

[Nocebo]

The chance of life forming by chance is virtually impossible.

Virtually impossible? Meaning not completely impossible, right? If that's not a huge concession on your part I don't know what is. lol

 

[SmokyDave]

I don't understand the Evolution 'debate'. There's nothing to debate. It's like arguing over whether the earth is carried on the back of a turtle or not.

It's 2011. We ought to be making lifelike robots or perpetual motion machines or exploring Mars or something.

 

[Scrow]

I don't understand the Evolution 'debate'. There's nothing to debate. It's like arguing over whether the earth is carried on the back of a turtle or not.

It's 2011. We ought to be making lifelike robots or perpetual motion machines or exploring Mars or something.

basically this:

 

[Nocebo]

I think creationists need a lesson in probability:
When tossing a coin the probability of getting 10 heads in a row is "1023 to 1 against" I believe. Small chances right?
However if you toss a coin often enough the chances of a string of 10 heads appearing is 1:1... If you keep flipping coins the initial chances are even reversed. The chances of it not happening become 1023 to 1 against.

 

[Mael]

I don't understand the Evolution 'debate'. There's nothing to debate. It's like arguing over whether the earth is carried on the back of a turtle or not.

It's 2011. We ought to be making lifelike robots or perpetual motion machines or exploring Mars or something.

Seriously I think that's just a huge prank USA use to entertain us.
At this point for us it's like arguing that gravity is false or something, it's funny in a trainwreck kind of way

 

[Zzoram]

I don't understand the Evolution 'debate'. There's nothing to debate. It's like arguing over whether the earth is carried on the back of a turtle or not.

It's 2011. We ought to be making lifelike robots or perpetual motion machines or exploring Mars or something.

There is nothing to debate on the validity of evolution now that the pile of evidence is so huge, only on some of the finer details that most people will never hear or care about.

The word debate is only brought up by evangelicals trying to make it seem like creationism is somehow on the same level as evolution.

 

[Raist]

Why do people bother replying to Vizion28?
Troll or not, he's the textbook example of a blind creationist. It's hopeless.

 

[Jasup]

It's 2011. We ought to be making lifelike robots or perpetual motion machines or exploring Mars or something.

Every scientific and technological advancement has already been accurately described ages ago in [insert holy book], as people will point out every time after new things have been discovered.

When I was a teen I was told how accurately the Bible described how life evolved on Earth. It got everything right apparently, and theory of evolution thus proved the Bible to be true.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Every scientific and technological advancement has already been accurately described ages ago in [insert holy book], as people will point out every time after new things have been discovered.

When I was a teen I was told how accurately the Bible described how life evolved on Earth. It got everything right apparently, and theory of evolution thus proved the Bible to be true.

I can't tell if this is a joke post or not. Like I know people who do believe shit like that.


In case it's not, genesis bungled the order of creation something horrible.

 

[Jasup]

I can't tell if this is a joke post or not. Like I know people who do believe shit like that.


In case it's not, genesis bungled the order of creation something horrible.

That was the point, there are people who do believe things like that. That's why we can't have nice things.

For example people claim that because Genesis 1:9 "And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. " clearly describes Pangea and Genesis 10:25 "And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan." says the earth was divided = PLATE TECTONICS IN THE BIBLE!

Why evolution proved genesis was because the order in the bible of which came first was apparently right: First came the creatures in the sea and then the creatures that flew (insects I presume) and after that the large land animals and cattle. Human came last and Fossil evidence was told to support this. And we didn't have to bother ourselves with the time scale because for God one year is a blink of an eye. It's inconsistent, I know, but that's what the priest said back then.

That said, this was in Finland where the majority don't really bother themselves with religion. Neither do I. The role of Church of Finland is pretty much ceremonial and people are largely members of the church because of tradition. This causes the church to adopt popular notions in science (theory of evolution for example), and find justifications for it in the Bible. People here by and large know the earth is old and life has changed over time, so adopting a young earth creationst view would potentially cause massive loss of members for the church - it's an unpopular opinion.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

It says, specifically, birds came at the same time as fish, before land creatures. Flying insects did not exist before land dwelling creatures existed, neither did birds. It also implies (very horribly) that the stars did not exist until after the Earth existed.

 

[Jasup]

It says, specifically, birds came at the same time as fish, before land creatures. Flying insects did not exist before land dwelling creatures existed, neither did birds. It also implies (very horribly) that the stars did not exist until after the Earth existed.

Minor inconsistencies don't affect the big picture, besides you can't claim 100% certainty with any of your arguments. I win!

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Minor inconsistencies don't affect the big picture, besides you can't claim 100% certainty with any of your arguments. I win!

IF HUMANS EVOLVED FROM MONKEYS THEN WHY ARE THERE STILL MONKEYS AROUND TODAY?

 

[Nocebo]

I'm pretty sure flying insects are never mentioned or implied during genesis. Only "the creatures that move along the ground, " can be interpreted as also including certain insects. But the only flying creatures mentioned are only birds specifically as far as I can tell.

Also seed bearing land plants and fruit bearing trees before there was anything in the water seems a tad out of place?

Upon reading again it seems God had only created "the birds in the sky", implying flightless birds were not created by God.

 

[Meadows]

I haven't read any of this thread but I'm gonna presume it went terribly. Carry on.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

I'm pretty sure flying insects are never mentioned or implied during genesis. Only "the creatures that move along the ground, " can be interpreted as also including certain insects. But the only flying creatures mentioned are only birds specifically as far as I can tell.

Also seed bearing land plants and fruit bearing trees before there was anything in the water seems a tad out of place?

Yes, massively so. But I already mentioned Earth existing before the stars did, which is the biggest bungle in the whole thing. The only matter that existed prior to stars was hydrogen, i.e. it is physically impossible for a rocky planet to form prior to not only stars, but stars going supernova (necessary to create heavy elements, metals etc).

I once had someone try to justify this as "oh, that's not when the stars were created, that's when they became visible in the earth's sky!"

Mental Gymnastics champions.

 

[Shanadeus]

IF HUMANS EVOLVED FROM MONKEYS THEN WHY ARE THERE STILL MONKEYS AROUND TODAY?

That is a very good point.

Maybe those monkeys are accursed jews?
Certainly makes a lot more sense then EAVULTOOTION.

 

[Nocebo]

...

True but I thought we were only limited to mistakes concerning evolution here.

I don't understand why some people kept reading the bible when there are so many horrible mistakes on the first page. You'd think normal behavior would be to throw such a book in the trash. Unless it had a disclaimer on it saying it was a work of pure fiction.

 

[Jasup]

I'm pretty sure flying insects are never mentioned or implied during genesis. Only "the creatures that move along the ground, " can be interpreted as also including certain insects. But the only flying creatures mentioned are only birds specifically as far as I can tell.

Not during genesis no, but Leviticus described winged, four legged creatures such as grasshoppers. And yes, it says insects have four legs.

Upon reading again it seems God had only created "the birds in the sky", implying flightless birds were not created by God.

Your translation differs from mine that says God created "all species with wings".

 

[Nocebo]

Not during genesis no, but Leviticus described winged, four legged creatures such as grasshoppers. And yes, it says insects have four legs.

Does it describe them in relation to being created by God though?

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Not during genesis no, but Leviticus described winged, four legged creatures such as grasshoppers. And yes, it says insects have four legs.

 

[Chuckie]

And yes, it says insects have four legs.

.

While we all know they have eight!

 

[Nocebo]

It's also funny that Genesis doesn't appear to mention the creation of any water plants...

 

[Tesseract]

what if god is a programmer and evolution is, like, his release notes.

 

[Jasup]

Does it describe them in relation to being created by God though?

I guess so, grasshoppers are one of the few exceptions of winged, four legged creatures that are not an abomination, so I guess they are created by God... It's in the laws of what animals you can and can't eat.

Also before that the bible mentions winged creatures (or birds depending on the translaton) you can't eat. These include bats. And again, depending on the version of the bible you use bats are considered as birds.


But this is going too much off the topic. The point I originally wanted to make is that you can use holy books to back up even contradictory claims. And that's the problem.

 

[Monocle]

Why do people bother replying to Vizion28?
Troll or not, he's the textbook example of a blind creationist. It's hopeless.

Because the purpose of debating isn't necessarily to persuade the opposition, but to persuade the audience. Also, it's a good idea to periodically review one's knowledge and assumptions, and debates provide an excellent context in which to do both.

 

[José Mourinho]

I do not subscribe to evolution. I have no other theory's to bring to the table ,sorry. I don't know what happened. Pretty sure it's not this though.

I guess my main problem is that to change something for the better I can understand why that would happen with thought, or reason. As people, if we need to do something we figure it out. The idea that animals mutate at random and it all works out for the best. eg, Giraffe is whatever it started out as, X millions of years later, has big long neck for eating off the top of tress just like it needs to. How handy. Just seems very far fetched.

In a way, I envy religious people. Their theory offers them something. And contrary to popular belief they aren't all thick. What does evolution offer anybody? Truth, Maybe.

Lastly, for me. I appreciate what the OP tried to do with this thread, it would seem breaking it down to it's most basic level would help. I find it has the opposite effect.

Images like this just make me think, nah (assuming I've got it right). Why the top perfectly evolved (at the time) land mammal had any reason to re-enter the water baffles me and that's were I think the clutching of straws begins. But that's my whole "deal", for me the lack of reason is the big thing. Clearly most people here can get by that.

At the end of the day though, it's cool. What do you guys loose out on my lack of my belief? nothing. So eh... cool.

 

[Dead Man]

Because the purpose of debating isn't necessarily to persuade the opposition, but to persuade the audience.

Good answer!

 

[Boozeroony]

Meh. Arguing with religious zealots about evolution serves no purpose.

*grabs Dawkins' Greatest show on earth*

 

[Boozeroony]

Because the purpose of debating isn't necessarily to persuade the opposition, but to persuade the audience. Also, it's a good idea to periodically review one's knowledge and assumptions, and debates provide an excellent context in which to do both.

I stand corrected!

 

[Monocle]

I do not subscribe to evolution. I have no other theory's to bring to the table ,sorry. I don't know what happened. Pretty sure it's not this though.

I guess my main problem is that to change something for the better I can understand why that would happen with thought, or reason. As people, if we need to do something we figure it out. The idea that animals mutate at random and it all works out for the best. eg, Giraffe is whatever it started out as, X millions of years later, has big long neck for eating off the top of tress just like it needs to. How handy. Just seems very far fetched.

In a way, I envy religious people. Their theory offers them something. And contrary to popular belief they aren't all thick. What does evolution offer anybody? Truth, Maybe.

Lastly, for me. I appreciate what the OP tried to do with this thread, it would seem breaking it down to it's most basic level would help. I find it has the opposite effect.

http://darwiniana.org/whale1.gif
Images like this just make me think, nah (assuming I've got it right). Why the top perfectly evolved (at the time) land mammal had any reason to re-enter the water baffles me and that's were I think the clutching of straws begins. But that's my whole "deal", for me the lack of reason is the big thing. Clearly most people here can get by that.

At the end of the day though, it's cool. What do you guys loose out on my lack of my belief? nothing. So eh... cool.

So your primary (or was it entire?) basis for rejecting evolution consists of your personal incredulity? Evolution makes sense when you understand a bit about how it works. How many books about evolution have you read?

Good answer!

Thank you, good sir.

 

[Dead Man]

I do not subscribe to evolution. I have no other theory's to bring to the table ,sorry. I don't know what happened. Pretty sure it's not this though.

I guess my main problem is that to change something for the better I can understand why that would happen with thought, or reason. As people, if we need to do something we figure it out. The idea that animals mutate at random and it all works out for the best. eg, Giraffe is whatever it started out as, X millions of years later, has big long neck for eating off the top of tress just like it needs to. How handy. Just seems very far fetched.

In a way, I envy religious people. Their theory offers them something. And contrary to popular belief they aren't all thick. What does evolution offer anybody? Truth, Maybe.

Lastly, for me. I appreciate what the OP tried to do with this thread, it would seem breaking it down to it's most basic level would help. I find it has the opposite effect.

Images like this just make me think, nah (assuming I've got it right). Why the top perfectly evolved (at the time) land mammal had any reason to re-enter the water baffles me and that's were I think the clutching of straws begins. But that's my whole "deal", for me the lack of reason is the big thing. Clearly most people here can get by that.

At the end of the day though, it's cool. What do you guys loose out on my lack of my belief? nothing. So eh... cool.

Natural selection. Really, look it up and read about it. It's the mechanism you are looking for.

 

[Raist]

I do not subscribe to evolution. I have no other theory's to bring to the table ,sorry. I don't know what happened. Pretty sure it's not this though.

I guess my main problem is that to change something for the better I can understand why that would happen with thought, or reason. As people, if we need to do something we figure it out. The idea that animals mutate at random and it all works out for the best. eg, Giraffe is whatever it started out as, X millions of years later, has big long neck for eating off the top of tress just like it needs to. How handy. Just seems very far fetched.

There is no thought involved. What you see is the result of billions of years of "trial" and error, not careful plans. What doesn't work is eliminated from the face of the earth. I think what causes this kind of reaction is the "tree of life" because there's too much hierarchy involved in that view, plus it gives the feeling that there's a "top spot". Actually it's more like a 'tridimensional" tree, spreading in every single direction.

Images like this just make me think, nah (assuming I've got it right). Why the top perfectly evolved (at the time) land mammal had any reason to re-enter the water baffles me and that's were I think the clutching of straws begins. But that's my whole "deal", for me the lack of reason is the big thing. Clearly most people here can get by that.

At the end of the day though, it's cool. What do you guys loose out on my lack of my belief? nothing. So eh... cool.

You have to think about population dynamics, and competition. The whale's ancestor probably was very successful on earth, but at some point either something changed or competition became too tough. So some mammals basically said "fuck it" and tried to find food in the sea, for instance. And they gradually adapted to that new environment, because at first they sucked at it (even if in the end it was better for them as they had less competition).

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

The idea that animals mutate at random and it all works out for the best. eg, Giraffe is whatever it started out as, X millions of years later, has big long neck for eating off the top of tress just like it needs to. How handy. Just seems very far fetched.

Erm. You seem to be misunderstanding the most important part of all of this.

Mutations usually produce bad or neutral changes. Occasionally, a change is *slightly* for the better. This increases the chance of that organism surviving and reproducing. It's something that is so blindingly obvious that it's amazing it took until Darwin for people to think about it - those organisms with the traits helping them to survive and reproduce will end up surviving and reproducing more than others. Conversely, organisms that have negative traits will have a lowered chance of surviving and reproducing.

If something is born with a really bad trait, that makes them die as a child or something, then there is a 0% chance of surviving and reproducing. This system eventually makes it so that those organisms that are best adapted to surviving and reproducing are the ones that stick around.

What you are saying is essentially that it's an unbelievable coincidence that the world seems suited to the specific abilities that animals have, when the opposite is really true. It's the animals adapting to their environments. This is like being amazed about a puddle of water perfectly conforming to a hole in the ground - the water shifts to meet any shape the hole takes. Likewise, when the environment on Earth changes, so too do the organisms that live on it.

 

[KHarvey16]

I do not subscribe to evolution. I have no other theory's to bring to the table ,sorry. I don't know what happened. Pretty sure it's not this though.

I guess my main problem is that to change something for the better I can understand why that would happen with thought, or reason. As people, if we need to do something we figure it out. The idea that animals mutate at random and it all works out for the best. eg, Giraffe is whatever it started out as, X millions of years later, has big long neck for eating off the top of tress just like it needs to. How handy. Just seems very far fetched.

In a way, I envy religious people. Their theory offers them something. And contrary to popular belief they aren't all thick. What does evolution offer anybody? Truth, Maybe.

Lastly, for me. I appreciate what the OP tried to do with this thread, it would seem breaking it down to it's most basic level would help. I find it has the opposite effect.

Images like this just make me think, nah (assuming I've got it right). Why the top perfectly evolved (at the time) land mammal had any reason to re-enter the water baffles me and that's were I think the clutching of straws begins. But that's my whole "deal", for me the lack of reason is the big thing. Clearly most people here can get by that.

At the end of the day though, it's cool. What do you guys loose out on my lack of my belief? nothing. So eh... cool.

Genetic variations can be random, natural selection most certainly is not.

 

[Chuckie]

Natural selection. Really, look it up and read about it. It's the mechanism you are looking for.

Will it explain that confusing picture for me?

 

[José Mourinho]

Meh. Arguing with religious zealots about evolution serves no purpose.

*grabs Dawkins' Greatest show on earth*

In like 1 million years the writings of Darwin will have evolved him into a god and Dawkin's will be written about as his Jesus Christ. Everybody will worship their truth and pray to them. A new theory will appear and everybody will turn on evolution. If you believe in it, you'll be called a fool. If you don't, you'll also be called a fool. People will bitch to keep the new theory out of schools. And the world will keep spinning.

I jest. Damn no smilies!

 

[Dead Man]

Will it explain that confusing picture for me?

Maybe. Depends on what part confuses you.

Edit: Missed your wink, doh!

 

[trineo_feo]

I do not subscribe to evolution. I have no other theory's to bring to the table ,sorry. I don't know what happened. Pretty sure it's not this though.

I guess my main problem is that to change something for the better I can understand why that would happen with thought, or reason. As people, if we need to do something we figure it out. The idea that animals mutate at random and it all works out for the best. eg, Giraffe is whatever it started out as, X millions of years later, has big long neck for eating off the top of tress just like it needs to. How handy. Just seems very far fetched.

In a way, I envy religious people. Their theory offers them something. And contrary to popular belief they aren't all thick. What does evolution offer anybody? Truth, Maybe.

Lastly, for me. I appreciate what the OP tried to do with this thread, it would seem breaking it down to it's most basic level would help. I find it has the opposite effect.

http://darwiniana.org/whale1.gif[IMG]
Images like this just make me think, nah (assuming I've got it right). Why the top perfectly evolved (at the time) land mammal had any reason to re-enter the water baffles me and that's were I think the clutching of straws begins. But that's my whole "deal", for me the lack of reason is the big thing. Clearly most people here can get by that.

At the end of the day though, it's cool. What do you guys loose out on my lack of my belief? nothing. So eh... cool.[/QUOTE]
You do not understand evolution at all. That's why you can't accept it.

 

[TacticalFox88]

This thread is just....wow. I hope I NEVER run into an evolution denier. ;_; This....is...too much. My poor heart can't take much more

 

[Mael]

I guess so, grasshoppers are one of the few exceptions of winged, four legged creatures that are not an abomination, so I guess they are created by God... It's in the laws of what animals you can and can't eat.

Also before that the bible mentions winged creatures (or birds depending on the translaton) you can't eat. These include bats. And again, depending on the version of the bible you use bats are considered as birds.

Can we play count the leg?
Seriously they had terrible vision when they made the bible or what?

Images like this just make me think, nah (assuming I've got it right). Why the top perfectly evolved (at the time) land mammal had any reason to re-enter the water baffles me and that's were I think the clutching of straws begins. But that's my whole "deal", for me the lack of reason is the big thing. Clearly most people here can get by that.

At the end of the day though, it's cool. What do you guys loose out on my lack of my belief? nothing. So eh... cool.

Huh? It's not far fetched to assume that some mamals had to reenter the water to survive if there wasn't enough for them to survive above the water.
Seriously it's kinda like a company that decide to branch out of their core competencies and then are forced to reenter their core product line because the new core in which they branched out wasn't profitable enough.
Even with a flawed economical analogy it doesn't seems much of a problem.

 

[Chuckie]

Maybe. Depends on what part confuses you.

Edit: Missed your wink, doh!

Haha no I do kind of mean it. I understand natural selection and all, thats not really the problem. It's just that with 'graphs' like that I am thinking: What am I looking at.. which ones died, which one lived at the same time. You see the example with the coloured bunnies is clear and understandable for me. But the ones with the killerwhale isn't.