@Dutchess_III Don’t you know that God also created the theory of evolution just so only the true believers get to go to heaven?? Otherwise it would be waaaay too overcrowded up there.

Evolution is the process by which species change and diverge over time.

It is based on a couple of things: Sexual selection and Natural selection.

Sexual Selection is easily demonstrated by looking in a mirror. Perhaps your father has blue eyes and your mother brown. It is most likely that your eyes are brown, because brown is a dominant gene.

Every time a male and female come together to make offspring, bits of the female DNA combine with bits of the male DNA. Dominant traits will win over recessive traits. And occasionally, mutations occur. Those mutations can positive, neutral, or negative.

A mutation is negative if it causes the animal to die before it can create offspring of its own. It is positive if it enables the animal to create more viable offspring than other members of the species. Most mutations are neutral – neither positive or negative enough to have much effect (like your developing brown eyes or hanging earlobes or one toe longer than the other).

Sexual selection can be taken far enough to change species quite dramatically. For instance, if there is a species of bird whose females are attracted to males with long tails, they continue to breed with the long-tailed males and not the short-tailed males. Thus the gene for longer tails moves forward until the tails begin to grow so long that the male bird can no longer fly away from predators – the positive trait becomes negative.

Natural selection comes into play outside the breeding cycle. Gazelles run quickly to escape from predator cheetahs. Because of this, only the fastest cheetahs can catch a meal and survive long enough to breed. Of course, the cheetahs are catching the slowest gazelles, so the fastest gazelles live to breed. Thus, the average speed of both species is constantly rising.

When these types of mutations and natural selection combine over lots and lots of time and many, many generations, we end up with species that their forefathers and foremothers wouldn’t recognize at all.

…I think that’s enough to get the conversation started.

^^^^^^^^ Niiiiiiiiice ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I think much of the incredulity stems from our inability to perceive tiny incremental changes and their accumulation over vast lengths of time.

Languages also evolve. Obviously the mechanisms for the evolution of languages are not like biological evolution (@Seek_Kolinahr goes into that), but I think the analogy is still useful.

We have a pretty good idea that different languages share a common heritage. Mutually unintelligible languages would be like distinct species that cannot interbreed. Closely related and mutually intelligible languages would be like species that can hybridise (Scandinavian languages, Czech and Slovak).

We also know that language changes from one generation to the next. We can all communicate with people who speak the same language, and we understand the previous generation of speakers. However, if we were to go back in time a few hundred years, we’d probably struggle to understand a lot of what’s being said in English, and the further back we’d go, the less intelligible English would be to us. Yet, there was never a point at which one generation did not understand the next or previous generation of native speakers.

Every organism gets to a point where it says ” I’m gonna do it my way!”
If adaptation is not working it then becomes necessary to take a giant leap. Certainly not for mankind these days. lol

According to Scientology, it’s the work of the invisible aliens who brought us to this planet from Hubbardsanus. ;-)

Theistic Evolution
If it’s good enough for Billy Graham…

We need a return to devolution, back into the puddle mud puppies.
Evolve better next time. haha

@Coloma You really have a thing for puddles…you must really miss your hot tub! ;)

There are two “sizes” of evolution: micro and macro. Microevolution is when there are small changes over short periods of time (centuries). Macroevolution is when there are large changes (like forming new species) over large periods of time (many millions of years).

In a way, these are the same thing, just over different timescales. Let’s start with the short-term version.

There are a few main points:

1) There is variation between different individuals. No two animals (of the same species) are exactly alike.

2) Much of this variation is inherited from parents and passed on to children. Children have similar traits to their parents. This is all due to the passing of DNA.

3) There are limited resources. Life is a competition for survival. Individuals must compete to find enough resources for survival, or to find a suitable mate.

4) An individual’s traits affect its chances of reproduction. An animal that is more adapted to the environment will be able to find food more easily, be able to defend itself, will better avoid predators, etc.

The main idea is that, given a population of animals, the individuals more adapted to their environment will produce more offspring than those who are less adapted. As a result, the next generation will be, on average, more adapted.

——-

Let’s say that you had a species of moth, which was mainly light-colored, but some individuals were dark-colored:

LLLLLLLLLLDDDDDD (38% dark)

Due to a recent change in the environment, the light-colored moths are more likely to be eaten than the dark-colored moths. Let’s say that half of the light moths die, while only a third of the dark moths die.

LLLLLDDDD (44% dark)

Now, all of the moths reproduce:

LLLLLLLLDDDDDDDD (44% dark)

Hopefully this (much simplified) example has helped you to see the basic mechanics involved for a single generation. You can see how the the proportion of dark moths has increased. If given enough time, there will no longer be any light moths. The species has evolved slightly to fit the environment.

Now, this example is actually based off of a documented event. During the industrial revolution, pollution darkened the color of trees and caused the light-colored peppered moth to die while the dark-colored version of the peppered moth was able to survive. Wiki: Peppered Moth Evolution.

Now, my example has a very clear distinction between between the dark and light groups, but that is not usually the case. More likely, one of the groups has a 57% chance of death before reproduction, while another group has a 56.5% chance of death. The differences are really small, but over enough time they can eventually change the species.

——-

Macroevolution is the consequence of microevolution. Let’s say that you have an original species. It is then separated into different groups, each of which occupies a different environment. This is basically what happened to the Darwin finches. The birds traveled from mainland South America onto the Galapagos Archipelago, a group of several islands. The finches were thus divided into separate groups because there was not much travel between islands.

Now, since the environment is different and the groups are isolated (independent), the different groups will evolve separately. On one island, the birds with long beaks might be more likely to survive. On another island, a short powerful beak might give better odds.

Eventually, the single species will diverge into several different species, because the groups will no longer be similar. This was the result.

———

Now, this still leaves a hole yet to be explained: birds can evolve into other birds, but how to bigger changes occur (lizards -> birds for example)?

The explanation is that people tend to be unable to comprehend the amount of time involved.

People first developed farming around 10,000 years ago.
Earliest human remains: 400,000 years ago
The first hominids arrived 2,000,000 years ago.
Dinosaurs went extinct around 65,000,000 years ago.
Dinosaurs appeared around 230,000,000 years ago (lasted about 165 million years until extinction).
The first vertebrates appeared 380,000,000 years ago.
Earliest life was about 4,000,000,000 years ago.

Here is a chart that is somewhat to-scale.

Here is a neat example: Crocodiles are more closely related to birds than to lizards. At first this might seem impossible, but their common ancestor species lived literally a hundred million years ago, in the form of dinosaurs. There was never a half-bird-half-crocodile.

——-

Second, people tend to underestimate the complexity of the evolutionary tree. Many people imagine it as a very linear process. It is not. There are dozens upon dozens of branches at every step.

For example, take the evolution of horses. This is what people imagine: image. Now, this isn’t completely incorrect, but there is a lot of stuff left out. It gives the impression of one group of animals. In reality, a more accurate diagram is this image. Notice how there are over 20 different labels on the diagram, each of which is an entire genus (not species, each genus contains many species).

——-

I am literally running out of time to type this, so that’s all for now.

Another point is that evolution does not cause simple organisms to become more complex. Amoebas and sharks have been pretty much the same for millions of years. It is just that their niche has not required change.

The niche for humans required us to develop intelligence, etc. to survive.

@RocketGuy

That could be confusing.

It clearly did make simple organisms become complex. It’s the only thing that ever has. It just doesn’t require significant change. Random mutation is rare and usually negative or neutral.

Just as we weren’t “required” to develop intelligence. Developing intelligence was a positive mutation.

I see a lot of attention given to the evolution of the animal/organism and little mentioned about the influence of the environment has on not only the animal/organism but also how the constantly changing virus and bacteria that are ever opportunistic towards ensuring their own survival often putting significant pressure on the host animal/organism. Viruses have done more carnage to species than any other evolutionary pressure. (For the record that is a gut check recollection from my year of studying pandemic flu and too busy exercising to offer a solid link)

Either way there is more than a few million years of evolutionary evidence scientist have in their data bases and that data is “billions and billions” (Said in my best Carl Sagan voice) more data than contained in the King James Bible. I know theists would argue quality over quantity but I personally get more jazzed by the thought of some microbe on the back of a meteor crashing into a virgin Earth ocean giving birth to a microscopic Genesis of life on earth than, God taking a much needed break on the 7th day.

mBill-ee-yuns and mBill-ee-yuns.

^_^

I need Cosmos on DVD. My VHS tapes are all burnt out.

—@Seek_Kolinahr (golf clap) for a much better Carl Sagan… BTW I taped Cosmos on Beta! ;)

I taped Ninja Turtles on Beta.

Beta was awesome. My dad bought one when I was a kid, along with a bunch of used movies. Conan the Barbarian was one of them, and I loved it. Beta was awesome. Evolution is a fucking lie.

Evolution works on the mechanism of mutation plus selection. Nothing can evolve without changing the code which determines its design.

The Toyota Camry mutates when the designer changes the existing code into something other than what it was previously. 2014 models offer optional hand stitched Corinthian leather seats. That didn’t just happen miraculously. It happened because the designer intentionally modified the previous code to include Corinthian leather. Selection is left to the public to decide. If the public likes the new Corinthian leather seating, and purchases it, then selection is positive, and the mutation survives… THEN AND ONLY THEN do we have evolution.

If the public does not like Corinthian leather, or thinks the price is not worth it, then the mutation dies, AND NO EVOLUTION HAS OCCURRED. Perhaps extinction. But not evolution. And it’s not an ON/OFF thing. Evolution can happen in degrees.

Genetics works exactly the same way. The code which designs an organism must change, and nature must select it as positive and beneficial for the organism in that environment (natural selection). Evolution cannot occur unless both a mutation and positive selection happen first.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Not quite true. As mentioned above, neutral selection, and nearly neutral selection is also important (and from what has been seen, probably more important, simply because of probabilities). Neutral selection is when a mutation occurs and it does nothing, but becomes ‘fixed’ in a population as a simple result of chance (the creature with the mutation simply happens to mate more for unrelated reasons). Nearly neutral selection is something with a small positive or negative effect, not large enough to particularly affect survival, which again becomes fixed as the result of chance instead of positive selection. From current evidence, it seems like these mechanisms are more likely than straight positive selection. Not that it doesn’t happen, of course, these just happen more.

Agreed with @BhacSsylan – Neutral can also be a not very good thing that is triggered after breeding has begun. Like, for instance, genes for heart disease and cancer. As long as it lets you live long enough to have babies, it will continue to be passed along.

Richard Dawkins’ The Greatest Show on Earth is a great book for normal people like us. I read it myself so I’m vouching for it.

There’s nothing wrong with not understanding evolution as it seems complicated, but there are easily explainable parts and Dawkins is really good at this.

^ LOVE that book so much.

@Seek_Kolinahr Such a massive light bulb came on when he explained the Lenski experiment. I also loved how he explained the process of determining how closely related species are by DNA (by heating them up and seeing when they break apart).

Like, um, a big old lover’s spat @Blackberry? :D

The demonstration of circular species was really cool to me. And the “islands” – when he explains how something like an earthquake or a drought can separate a species long enough for them to deviate into two or more distinct species.

@Seek_Kolinahr Well, neutral is not necessarily good or bad. It can be good too, by introducing variability that is then useful later for positive selection. And the prevalence of heart disease may not be from neutral selection, it could be the result of previous positive selection for another trait, and simply not been weeded out.

Our girl is IN the house. I sent her a link to this.

@Dutchess_III Yeah, fortunately DNA doesn’t have to mess with divorces and getting yelled at :)

Just so you know these are coming from Charles Darwins theory on why evoulution isn’t true.

Fact one,

Scientific Fact No. 1 – Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong


Help! I can’t fly. My head is too big, and my wings are too small.

The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more consistent basis. However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have many laughable flaws. One of the best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment. The wing was much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary natural selection concept that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of generations improving a wing that was useless? The theory of evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a species. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage and the opposite from natural selection. According to natural selection the members of the bird species with the smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the largest numbers. According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly. Evolution is simply nonsense. This is so funny. We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists actually believe this nonsense.

Fact number 2.

Scientific Fact No. 2 – Species Without a Link Proves Evolution is Wrong

The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution. This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic and scientific proof. Evolutionists line up pictures of similar looking species and claim they evolved one to another. Humans are a great example. There are hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes. Petrified skulls and bones exist from these creatures. Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture. This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species. They never do this with giraffes and elephants. These pictures are placed in all evolutionists’ text books to teach kids this nonsense. The picture is simply a grouping of individual species that does not prove evolution

^ Please link to your source. Also, rather than posting the content, it would be helpful to quote and mix in your own thoughts/reasoning on the topic.

Fact number 3.
Scientific Fact No. 3 – Single Cell Complexity Proves Evolution is Wrong

Scientists a century ago believed the smallest single living cell was a simple life form. The theory developed that perhaps lightning struck a pond of water causing several molecules to combine in a random way which by chance resulted in a living cell. The cell then divided and evolved into higher life forms. This view is now proven to be immature to the degree of being ridiculous. The most modern laboratory is unable to create a living cell. In fact, scientists have been unable to create a single left-hand protein molecule as found in all animals.

I will do that as soon as I finish posting all 10 of these.

Please stop.

Fact number 4.

Scientific Fact No. 4 – Human Egg and Sperm Proves Evolution is Wrong

The evolutionist ignores the problem surrounding the human female egg and the male sperm in the evolutionary theory. The female egg contains the X-chromosome and the male sperm contains either an X-chromosome for the reproduction of a male or a Y-chromosome for the reproduction of a female. The female eggs all develop within the ovaries while she is a baby (fetus) within her mother’s womb. Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring. Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent change. Females cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons.

Fact number 5.

Scientific Fact No. 5 – DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong



The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed.

Fact number 6.

Scientific Fact No. 6 – Chaos From Organization Proves Evolution is Wrong

The second law of thermodynamics proves that organization cannot flow from chaos. Complex live organisms cannot rearrange themselves into an organism of a higher form as claimed by evolutionists. This is scientifically backwards according to the second law of thermodynamics that has never been proven wrong. Scientists cannot have it both ways. The second law of thermodynamics is proven to be correct. Evolution lacks any scientific proof. Evolution is simply an empty theory.

Fact number 7.

Scientific Fact No. 7 – Chromosome Count Proves Evolution is Wrong

There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Man could not evolve from a monkey. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation. Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible. Evolutionists prove that getting a college education does not impart wisdom.

Fact number 8.

Scientific Fact No. 8 – Origin of Matter and Stars Proves Evolution is Wrong

Evolutionists just throw up their hands at the question of the origin of matter because they know something cannot evolve from nothing. They stick their heads in the sand and ignore the problem. The fact that matter exists in outrageously large quantities simply proves evolution is wrong. The “Big Bang” theory doesn’t solve the problem either. Matter and energy have to come from somewhere.

Fact number 9.

Scientific Fact No. 9 – Lack of Life on Mars Proves Evolution is Wrong

Two NASA two land rovers named Spirit and Opportunity explored Mars during 2004. The topography shows obvious signs of past liquid rivers flowing in numerous places. The rovers have proven that water was once abundant on the surface of Mars, but they have not been able to find any signs of life or any signs of past life on the planet. Mars has a proven history of flowing water on the surface and an atmosphere suitable to support life forms. The planet has had all of the conditions necessary to provide the “spark” of life according to the evolutionary theory, yet there is no life on Mars. The river beds and river banks show no signs of vegetation or trees. The ground has no fossils and no organisms. The place is absolutely sterile.

Fact number 10.

Scientific Fact No. 10 – Radio Silence from Space Proves Evolution is Wrong

Mars is not the only place that shows no signs of life. The entire universe lacks any sign of life. There are no radio signals that can be related to intelligent life forms. None of the billions of galaxies has been found to emit any intelligent radio signals. Scientists have been pointing every type of radio telescope possible into space for several decades in hopes of finding an intelligent signal. No signs of life beyond Earth have been found. We are alone

Link to these facts http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread163678/pg1

A new species is highly impossible to just evolve.

oops, all ammo is spent.

No it’s not @GloPro

It’s just @Seek_Kolinahr is’nt on here.

@Dutchess_III I don’t believe evolution is true because for a species to just evolve is IMPOSSIBLE, it is like getting pregnant with no sperm.

Oh wow these are bad.

1. There were never any ‘wing buds’. There were arms the allowed farther and faster jumping, providing survival advantages from outrunning predators and catching prey (we now have several examples of proto-bird dinosaurs).

2. They make those list for every animal we have been able to trace. This is blatantly false.

3. There are many theories for abiogenesis (a distinct field from evolution). A cell, like all other versions of ‘irreducible complexity’, is not irreducibly complex. RNA, in the presence of naturally forming lipid micelles, could for the basis of life.

4. This makes no sense at all. Literally, no sense. Try again.

5. This shows a complete lack of biochemical understanding. DNA error checking is very good, but it is absolutely not perfect, and the existence of cancer proves it.

6. This shows a lack of understanding of thermodynamics now. Evolution is perfectly consistent with the second law. We are not in a closed system, we have a constant input of energy from the sun.

7. Mating with different chromosome counts is possible. A resulting odd chromosome animal will be infertile (such as a mule), but not from even-number hybrids. There are also partial-chromosome possibilities.

8. This is the wrong field, and has nothing to do with evolution. Ask a cosmologist. Try again.

9. The fact that life may have been possible and didn’t has no bearing on it’s possibility, only it’s probability. Also, we do not know there is/was no life on mars, just that we have not found it.

10. Completely incorrect. First, again, this is abiogeneisis, wrong field. And at the very least, our own signals have only reached a few light years. Out galaxy is over 100,000 light years long. It will take another hundred millenia for our signals to reach the other side, at which point they will probably be too weak to see. Why would we believe the same would not be true of another species? And that is only our galaxy, a minuscule spec in a unimaginably vast universe. And again, a lack of life would only speak to abiogenesis’ probability, not possibility.

Before this arguement goes any farther we are waithing for @Seek_Kolinahr

Don’t feel like taking on the biochemist?

No but the arguement started off between me and seek.

Also, look up parthenogeneis.

No matter what I WILL NEVER EVER stop believing in God because 4 years ago I was told I had 3 months to live and 4 years later her I am. Standing up for my personal Savior.

And what I believe in.

You can’t have both?

Theistic Evolution

I don’t believe in evolution at all.

It is like this wooly mammouths are extinct right? Yes they are. So people who believe in evolution think that one day they will just evolve. That’s not even possible.

Hmmm, no, I’m pretty sure no one here believes that will happen. That isn’t an example of evolution. An elephant existing today MAY be an example of evolution from mammoths. I don’t know, but it seems feasible.
Even @KNOWITALL told us the egg came before the chicken because dinosaurs lay eggs, then out came a feathered Dino. I can’t find that thread at the moment, but I will… Searching.

@crushingandreaming
I suppose you also do not believe that dogs evolved from wolves.
They, ahem, ewolved, so to speak.

@crushingandreaming What are you talking about? If evolution involves natural selection, some animals die out. Dodo birds, mammoths, sabre tooth tigers, dinosaurs. Lots of factors make some animals die, some of which, unfortunately, we’re responsible for. Not those prehistoric animals, but I’m sure there’s at least 500 types of butterflies we never discovered that no longer exist…still, I don’t see your point about the mammoths. Evolution doesn’t just mean that one animal becomes another.

Granted though, if elephants evolved from mammoths, I don’t really understand how, must be two separate animals in the same family that were never directly related to one another? Was there any other type of pachyderm things during then?

“the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. ”
(Genesis 2:7)
Came out of the Bible.

You’re going on the premises that we assume the Bible to be literal and true. We don’t. That’s easy enough to argue.

I mean, you say nothing can come out of nothing, except according to the Bible, that’s exactly what happened. Man came from “dirt,” which doesn’t have the compounds or environmental conditions to make that even remotely possible.

OH, and most of us have read the Bible so we’ll all recognize any quote you may make from it. I spent most of my life believing as a Christian, until….8 years ago? After decades of frustration when no one could answer my questions without making some ridiculous stuff up. When I realized, none of it made any sense

@Symbeline here is the timeline and species evolution for an elephant. Yes, mammoth is in there, but there are many others before and after, as suspected.

It works because soft quilted paper is always going to be nicer than wiping your arse with a rock.
Rock, paper, how about some scissors to trim ya massive bush caveboy?

Hey I am quoting My opinion E-V-O-L-U-T-I-O-N is F-A-L-S-E.

@BhacSsylan ”...neutral selection, and nearly neutral selection is also important…”

Remember I said “it’s not an ON/OFF thing. Evolution can happen in degrees.”

@Seek_Kolinahr “Neutral can also be a not very good thing that is triggered after breeding has begun. Like, for instance, genes for heart disease and cancer. As long as it lets you live long enough to have babies, it will continue to be passed along.”
_

That, to me is devolution. An alternative to extinction or evolution. Like picking up a bad habit. It may not kill or harm immediately. But long term paves a path towards extinction.

Note I do not use “devolution” as synonymous with backwards evolution or decreased complexity. The species is not more primitive. But a mutation has arisen which decreases likelihood of adapting to any environment, not just the one at hand. And certainly it provides no benefit for challenging any pressure from any system. It hurts the long term potential of the organism. How can this be called “neutral” in any way? Has nature really selected for this? Or does it just take a little longer for the extinction event to arrive?

@crushingandreaming
You do not even know what the theory of evolution says.
Your opinion of evolution is, quite simply, worthless.

@crushingandreaming But listen to others and what they are saying. Refute what they say. You can’t just use a head-in-the-sand approach. WHY is anything others say back to you false? You shouldn’t just say “nuh-uh” here are more articles. Say, @Dutchess_III, I hear you, but consider THIS in relation to THAT. That is what makes a good debate. You can do it!

Read through and see the side conversations going on around you. That’s why we enjoy this.

Okay but just say it’s easier to agree than disagree but I completly disagree because the theory of evolution is not possible for a new species to evolve is completly impossible.

examples of speciation

Your lack of imagination does not disprove evolution.

It’s not imposible.

Let’s ask a few simple questions, one at a time, that your Bible should be able to answer.

Why do humans have exactly the same characteristics as other mammals, especially similar to Great Apes?

We are’nt similar to apes.

Humans are apes.

“Don’t you know that God also created the theory of evolution just so only the true believers get to go to heaven?? Otherwise it would be waaaay too overcrowded up there.”

Prove it @ragingloli

Fact number whatever.

Folks, Remind yourself that you are debating a 14-year-old, if she is telling the truth, who has no debating skills, no understanding of modes of inquiry and no experience with critical thinking.

She was being sarcastic. Raggie doesn’t believe God created anything. She doesn’t believe in God.

@gailcalled…she requested this debate.

@crushingandreaming
Have a look at this phylogenetic tree:
http://www.bioss.ac.uk/~dirk/genomeOdyssey/PhyloHumanApes.gif
This illustrates the points at which the various subgroups of primates split into separate forms (by the way, this is all demonstrated by genetics).
Going from this, since every species in this part of the tree is classified as an ape, and since humans are part of this tree, humans are also classified as apes.

And @Dutchess_III no I did’nt request this Debate sorry.

So, how are we different from apes, physically?

@gailcalled You have no right posting my age unless you ask me first thanks.

@crushingandreaming
You posted your age in your first question. It is public knowledge by now.

@ragingloli Yes but it was me she has no right plagrizing my age.

if they would read they can see that themselve.

Apes are not skeletally structured to walk upright as a primary mode of ambulation. Structurally, their hips are aligned for walking mostly on all 4s.

@crushingandreaming
did you ask for permission before you copy pasted the walls of text?

You can’t plagarize someones age!! You can only plagiarize their works, like you did above @crushingandreaming.

That’s a very minor difference @GloPro. And they do spend quite a bit of time standing up.

@GloPro
Humans are not perfectly adapted to walking upright either. Hence why humans so often develop back problems with increasing age.

Maybe take a gander at this for a visual @GloPro.

Oh, and BTW, @crushingandreaming you just alienated yet another person who might have been a defender. That would be @gailcalled.

Ape DNA has been discovered by evolutionists to only be about 95% matched to human. Not the greater than 98% that has been touted for years.

And yes, they stand on two legs a lot. So does my chihuahua. That doesn’t mean that the skeleton is structured for ambulation on two legs as a primary position. It would cause health complications if they always ran around on two legs.

@ragingloli no doubt. My back is just starting to become a problem. I’ve tried walking on all 4s, but it just doesn’t work for me.

But that is a minor difference @GloPro. Ostriches aren’t designed to fly. Doesn’t mean they aren’t birds.

The twins both started walking recently. Neither of them would pass the drunk test!

To all evolutionists, on behalf of @crushingandreaming, I will repost my above link and ask that you specifically look at #3.

Evolutionists have theorized the possibility that apes might not have come from the same creation as hominids.

I believe fully in evolution. I also believe, given the emotional maturity and level of debate experience, that I will try to show a healthy debate to our new friend. She’s gotten us all excited, so I hope she sticks around.

@Dutchess_III 5% difference in DNA structure is actually quite large. I just discovered by googling ‘DNA closest to human’ that mice are 92% compatible. I certainly know some rats, but we aren’t that similar to mice, now are we?

You have a link for me @GloPro?

The mice number was also calculated in the same manner as apes, and thus is most likely likewise lower, and 8% is still much more than 95%, so I’m not sure of your point. Also, your second link only leads to the same article. And what do you mean as ‘the same creation’? That doesn’t sound like a biologist’s statement at all.

Also also, in many ways we are quite similar. That is why they’re used as models in medicine so frequently.

Haha, it was such a minor article I didn’t link that one. I can go back. But I will link this:

Keeping in mind that your original question was physical differences between us and apes, there are several. I think most noteable are the feet of an ape have opposable thumbs, like hands, along with the skeletal structuring I mentioned previously. I also just learned that apes have brown sclera (the white around a human iris), which is thought to disguise where an ape is looking while hunting or fighting. The frontal lobe of the brain is not as developed, and human vocal cords are unique to humans, period. Did you know Primates can drink and breath at the same time? Completely different sets of pipes. Fascinating.

You may argue these are minor differences, but I disagree.

Also also, this is from a long time ago (though it just got much easier to scroll through. Thanks mods!):

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies you said “Remember I said “it’s not an ON/OFF thing. Evolution can happen in degrees.”” in response to me mentioning neutral and nearly neutral selection. you did say degrees, but you also said “Evolution cannot occur unless both a mutation and positive selection happen first”. This is false. Neutral selection explicitly occurs in the absence of positive selection.

I found this in Wikie. Of special interest to me was where it said “The human genome has been sequenced, as well as the chimpanzee genome. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, while chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans have 24. Human chromosome 2 is a fusion of two chromosomes 2a and 2b that remained separate in the other primates.” I don’t know what those chromosomes control (and really busy right now) but could have made all of the difference in the world.

All of those things are in the first article that I linked, twice.

Here is a link to How are animals and humans alike

@crushingandreaming You now have copied and pasted 2 of my posts without my permission and without even attributing my words to me….this young lady is not only plagiarism but it is outright copy-write infringement and I could have you arrested and thrown in jail! Wait….you’re too young to go to jail. Go stand in the corner I am giving you a time out!!!

Actually I could care less and glad to see you are having fun with this. Just don’t try so hard when it’s clearly a no win situation…state your opinion(s) and call it a day! ;)

Okay. Thank’s @Cruiser

Sorry I missed them @GloPro! I’ll go look.

I saw the question was “How does evolution work”. My response it does’nt.

doesn’t

Responding, “It doesn’t” isn’t close to a reasonable and documented argument. Quoting great gobs of the bible, a book written by many authors and translated by many translators over many periods of time, is also not acceptable evidence.

You said you were going to come here with “proof,” which is something that supports your opinion. Your opinion alone is not proof.

It’s like me saying, “In my opinion there is no such thing as a platypus.” Doesn’t make it right.

@Dutchess_III You have to admit that she’s at least got the guts to try if nothing else! :)

Thank’s @KNOWITALL

Grant her that! And it was really unfair. I mean, some of us have college degrees in biology and other sciences. Most of us have had college level science classes. But she was sure she could hold her own!

I’m curious. As a teacher I know you have to have science credits to graduate and have the state acknowledge your graduation. What kinds of things are you learning in your 8th grade science curriculum @crushingandreaming?

Uhm We are doing physical science. @Dutchess_III

Well, that includes biology. I was just curious as to what they teach.

BTW, this is for you. When you see things like this it’s really easy to feel like it’s magic. But it isn’t. It’s really simple physics.

Cool thanks and stuff like fossils adaption and stuff like that

Might check out more of the videos on that page. It’s groovy, man!

May I ask what they teach you about fossils? The youngest are about 12,000 years old. I’m just curious how they reconcile that with a young earth theory.

Removed by me.

Uhm well we had to something more like guessing what they are after they have been in the rock

Oh. Well, that sounds like fun.

OK, lets go back to the0 pendulum link. Do you know why it did what it did?

Something to do with how the air effects them?

Good guess, but that’s not the answer. Ok, think of it this way. If you have a small metal ball at the end of a string that is 6 inches long, and another metal ball, same size, same weight, on the end of a string that is a mile long, which would swing the fastest?

the one on the 6 inch string.

Hmmm, I’m terrible at science, but I’ll give this a guess, too.
Would one swing faster than the other, or would they still swing at the same speed? With one having a shorter leash, it would simply change direction first?
OR would the one with the longer pendulum swing attain a faster speed because it has had more time moving in one direction, giving it a longer time to attain higher speeds?

But the bigger question is: How do I link those balls to evolution?

@GloPro Yeah. We’re gettin’ there! But anyone please feel free to jump in.

Yep @crushingandreaming. So if you look at the pendulum, the strings holding the balls at the front are longer than the ones at the back. The strings get progressively shorter as you move to the back. And I’m pretty sure they get the same amount shorter with each string. Pulling a number out of thin air (which means I’m not researching but I could find the answer if I did) let’s say each string is exactly ½ an inch shorter than the one in front. This is important in creating the synchronization.

So what you have, like @GloPro, are the balls all going at the same speed, but the shorter strings reach their arc faster and head back the other way.

Also, what is important, is with each arc the balls slow down at the same rate. For clarity, lets say that with each swing, the next swing is only half of the previous string (again, not correct, but I’m trying to paint a picture.)

Let’s go back to our 6” and 1 mile string. On the return arc the 6” string will only go 3 inches. The 1 mile string will only go ½ a mile.

Next arch, 6 inch string goes 1.5 inches, the 1 mile string goes ¼ mile, and so on.

Well, every so often those arc difference line up just right to create the fascinating images we see.

And that is physics. Everything can be measured and explained. Everything.

Cool thanks.

Now I’m curious as to how much they actually slow down with each arc so I’m going to ask Fluther!

Haven’t looked yet, but I’m betting that’s the thread I already commented in.

Here’s the Q I posted about the arc, if you want more information
http://www.fluther.com/169438/in-this-pendulum-wave-video-in-details-by-how-much-do/

Thanks it showed up under my questions for you.

I knew I should have written ground rules for her. Unfortunately I’m currently battling cubital tunnel syndrome – a sad side effect of my genetic trait of small spaces for my nerves to travel through. If you want a good example of how imperfect human creation is, there’s one small one.

Yea I don’t believe you.

Don’t believe whom @crushingandreaming? You don’t believe she has cubital tunnel syndrome??

I’m an overall example of imperfect humans. I was born with a congenital hip defect. When I was 6 months old, the doctor showed my mom that he could turn the leg all the way around, 360, like the exorcist, because the ball of the ball and socket in my hip was underdeveloped. I wound up in a pillow splint for the next 6 months. I still have the baby shoes with the bar between them so I couldn’t walk.

When I was in 4th grade my eyesight started going bad. My prescription changed every 6 months. I was on a path of total blindness, until I got contacts in HS. It stopped the progression of the astigmatism.

My teeth were really horrible too. I mean, bad bad. Wore braces for 3 years.

If it hadn’t been for science, I wouldn’t have lived all that long. I’d have been a blind, crippled person with nasty teeth. No doubt I would have been treated as though I was retarded. Instead, I wound up like this at my best.

I’m very sorry about that.

Let us remind ourselves of the recent Bill Nye- Ken Hamm debate on evolution vs. creationism.

Source

“Ham had nothing to lose. When you exist on the cultural fringe and make your living by antagonizing established authority, there’s no form of media attention you don’t love. All Ham had to do was sit still for two-and-a-half hours, sound vaguely professional, and pander occasionally to his base.

Sure, if you listened closely, what Ham was saying made absolutely no scientific sense. But debate is a format of impressions, not facts. Ham sounded like a reasonable human being, loosely speaking, and that’s what mattered.”

”...when it comes to guys like Ken Ham, you can’t really win. If you refuse to debate them, they claim to be censored. If you agree to debate them, you give them a public platform on which to argue that, yep, they’re being censored. Better not to engage at all, at least directly.”

Oh, no. I’m fine! Thank goodness for science.

I did pass that congenital hip defect onto one of my granddaughters though. But she’s fine now. But she wouldn’t be if her parents just said, “It’s God’s Will!” and walked away.

That’s right.

And she is adorable!

Ooh, let’s see:

Nearsightedness, Gallbladder disease, congenital deformation of the feet, cubital tunnel syndrome, clinical depression, arthritis…

Yep, thank Science.

if nothing else, @crushingandreaming has inherited some evolutionary traits that enable her to garner ongoing huge amounts of attention.

@Seek_Kolinahr: “No good deed goes unpunished” is a Chinese proverb. Even if it isn’t, it should be.

My biggest issue is that I am a genetically recessive child. My parents, and grandparents, have black hair and brown eyes, among other dominant traits. I came out blond and green eyes, among other recessive traits. I guess I could pretty much predict what my kids would look like, cause I have nothing but recessive genes to give!

On the contrary, @GloPro – you have expressed recessive traits, but you have dominant traits in your genetic makeup. Your kids are more likely to end up dark haired and dark eyed, depending on the traits of your partner.

My grandkids are all OVER the board genetically!

My height is an expressed recessive trait. My brother and sister are both nearly 6 feet tall. I’m 5’1, maybe 5’2. My husband is 5’10. My son got the taller genes.

Ahhh, I thought the only way I could end up so recessive is if both of my parents contributed the green eye gene, meaning that’s all I have to contribute?
That’s what I mean about predicting. Unless my baby daddy also had green eyes, my genes aren’t winning that battle.
side note, I also came out AB- which is the most rare blood. I’ve always thought I was an anomaly all around.

A + A = A
A + O = A
A + B = AB
B + B = B
B + O = B
O + O = O

Positive plus positive equals positive.
Positive plus negative equals positive.
Negative plus negative equals negative.

B is much more rare than A, so for an A to happen to breed with a B, and both be RH-, is what leads to AB- to be so rare.

@GloPro Yes, both of your parents did contribute a gene for green eyes. That’s the only way you could have wound up with them.

No, if your baby’s father even HAS the gene for green eyes, even if his eyes are brown, there is a chance your baby will have green eyes.

My Mom had brown eyes, my dad had green eyes. Out of three kids, one of us had brown eyes, but two of us wound up with bright blue, blue eyes. That means that some ancestor in my dad’s past, AND in my mother’s past, had blue eyes. They both carried the gene.

Huh. And I was about to pimp myself out to be a surrogate that could help you grow the baby you wanted. You guys saved me. You’re the best.

LOLL!! So glad to hear that @GloPro!

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies The Toyota Camry mutates when the designer changes the existing code into something other than what it was previously. 2014 models offer optional hand stitched Corinthian leather seats.
That is the rub, a whole lot of people will believe the Camry will just mutate for no reason at all when no designer even touched it, much less designed the Camry in the first place; all the seats, switches, leather, chrome wheels, etc. materialized from nowhere and assembled themselves on their own.

I was going to say, creationist would jump on that, saying somebody made the changes! The changes didn’t just happen! But a Camry is not a living thing. There is no comparison, so that argument would be invalid but they wouldn’t accept that.

@Hypocrisy_Central: “That is the rub, a whole lot of people will believe the Camry will just mutate for no reason at all when no designer even touched it, much less designed the Camry in the first place; all the seats, switches, leather, chrome wheels, etc. materialized from nowhere and assembled themselves on their own.”

Yes, they do.

How does it feel to intentionally misrepresent a position?

@Hypocrisy_Central Also, no one would ever believe the Camry would spontaneously change. Where do you get the idea that they would?

^ He knows what he is doing, and it’s entirely dishonest.

@hominid
It is OK to lie, as long as you lie for Cheesass

Well, Jeebus made the man that made the Camry, and let him think he had free will when he thought of the evolution to leather seats. Jeebus is clever that way.

If Jesus didn’t want us to have luxury vehicles, he wouldn’t have made cows out of leather.

Haha.

@hominid How does it feel to intentionally misrepresent a position? How does it feel to intentionally misrepresent a position?
I didn’t, I worked with the analogy. But if you can’t read the tea leaves, let’s be blunt; some people believe in some spontaneous change of things, animals, etc. when there is no entity that spawns the change or designed what is being changed

The mixing of genetic material spawns the change. It’s called mutation.

A Camry is not an animal. It is not alive. It doesn’t have a living molecular, DNA structure that CAN change for what ever reason.

You need to go see my Fox question. We humans introduced different foxes to each other, but we left it at that. Biology took over from there, just like it does in nature. If change isn’t even possible the foxes would not have changed.

@Seek_Kolinahr Well, mixing and/or mutations.

@Hypocrisy_Central “some people believe in some spontaneous change of things, animals, etc. when there is no entity that spawns the change or designed what is being changed”

And let’s be blunt, by ‘some people’ you mean the vast majority of scientists who have studied it.

I’m just now reading the updates, and wow this thread has really taken off.

To be honest, I can’t bring myself to read it. It seems to be mostly Wall O’ Text and people begging for the WoT to stop.

I think I made a decent point. You put two Camrys in a room alone for a week, neither of them is going to change. Ever.

You put two foxes, of the opposite sex, in a room together, they’ll have puppies that bear the traits of both of them, with no outside intervention. Yes, the humans put them in the room together, but they could have just as easily met in the wild. You carry that on for generations and slowly the species DOES change. Humans intervening just means the species changes quicker, as @Seek_Kolinahr‘s cabbage / kale / Brussels sprouts diagram showed.

Humans aren’t MAKING them change, we’re just selecting traits that we want to be dominate then leaving them alone for a bit. Nature does the rest.

In nature it happens accidentally. It’s the exact same thing.

This is in social, why were we moderated?

Was it in response to the flame bait comment? They usually remove all comments associated with a modded comment to reduce confusion.

Stuff in Social can get moderated too, if it gets too bad.

Everyone attention: All those who believe in evolution theory, we are dealing with a real theist. Therefore, like most theists, there’s absolutely no way you can talk her round to believing “atheist” things! You’d better give your opinions rather than debate because this kind of argument will bring you nowhere and even only bring harm.

@crushingandreaming OK, I know you believe in Christ. I saw how you support your argument that evolution does not exist. I’m not going to say which is right and which is wrong and I won’t argue with you. You can believe in Christ or any blablabla things you posted. I myself believe in the evolution theory, following no religion myself.

Evolution is not an “atheist thing”. Theism is not necessarily incompatible with understanding – and accepting/believing – evolution.

Yes, because throwing up your hands is always a lovely idea. You do your thing, we’ll do ours.

@Mimishu1995 I guess you haven’t got to know how a theist thinks.

The Bible (and many more religious books) claims that all beings are created by God. So the evolution theory turns this fact around. How can a theist who faithly believes in Christ accept what goes against their belief in God? Imagine you’re a theist like that, can you accept it?

I have seen many theists who refuse to believe anything scientific, let alone the evolution theory. There’s one Buddhist who firmly believes that this world is created by Buddha and Buddha created people. To him there’s no such thing as revolution. The space belongs to Buddha and Buddha alone, he rules absolutely everything. There’s no way anyone can turn his mind around.

I don’t like arguing with theists because I know the argument will get nowhere.

You put two foxes, of the opposite sex, in a room together, they’ll have puppies that bear the traits of both of them, with no outside intervention. Yes, the humans put them in the room together, but they could have just as easily met in the wild.
Now that would be a good experiment if it were possible, take the last six foxes of a given species, all he same sex, place them in a room, pen, enclosure, etc. and see if evolution comes to the rescue, realizing the species is about to go bye-bye and adapt some way for puppies (or whatever they have) to materialize to keep the species going.

There are plenty of theists who accept evolution. There are different paths they may take. And I do feel it is worth the effort to try to explain evolution to those who do not understand. I would rather live in a world where more people understand and accept science.

Just stop, @Hypocrisy_Central. You’re not even trying anymore, just throwing out random non-sequiturs that have nothing to do with evolution.

@hominid yeah, but how about those who insist on their belief and not science like this jelly? How are you to deal with them? Arguing all day?
It just feels like you’re dismissing their belief altogether.

I am not convinced that this person is playing it straight with us. But if she is, she has clearly never been exposed to any of the concepts that have been discussed here. It is easy to disbelieve in something you know nothing about. If she were to understand what evolution is, and still chose to reject it, I would be somewhat more comfortable with it. But she lacks even the most basic understanding.

You can’t know for sure right? Although she sounds like a bit “not playing straight” to us.

I have a theist friend and I got so tired of arguing with him about religion vs sciene that I swore I’d never argue with any theists.

@crushingandreaming ” I don’t believe evolution is true because for a species to just evolve is IMPOSSIBLE, it is like getting pregnant with no sperm.”

Hmmm I’m not entirely sure why, but that sounds really familiar. Maybe from a book that you hold dear to your heart or something like that?

@Dutchess_III “A Camry is not an animal. It is not alive.”

Alive-ness has nothing to do with evolution. There is no law of the universe that states that something must be alive to evolve, or that everything alive must evolve. The Toyota Camry evolves because the designers modify the code to intentionally make it different than it was last year. If it’s not the same as before, and the reason it’s not the same is because someone changed the manufacturing instructions (code), then that’s evolution, regardless if it’s alive or not.

Some would argue that although the Toyota Camry may not be alive in a biological sense, that it’s concept is indeed alive, and trying to survive. Forces us to consider what the word “alive” actually means.

“How’s that project coming along?”… “Oh it was going nowhere, so we had to kill it.”

@Dutchess_III “It doesn’t have a living molecular, DNA structure that CAN change for what ever reason.”

First of all, who said that DNA structure can “change for what ever reason”?

DNA is exactly like English, or Chinese, or Pig Latin. It’s just a language that communicates instructions to a receiver. In this case, RNA. It is not random or arbitrary.

“A goal for the future would be to determine the extent of knowledge the cell has of itself, and how it utilizes this knowledge in a “thoughtful” manner when challenged.”
Barbara McClintock Gifts of Speech

James Shapiro writes:
“The conventional view is that genetic change comes from stochastic, accidental sources: radiation, chemical, or oxidative damage, chemical instabilities in the DNA, or from inevitable errors in the replication process. However, the fact is that DNA proofreading and repair systems are remarkably effective at removing these non-biological sources of mutation.”

“Evolutionary genomic change occurs largely by a process of Natural Genetic Engineering.”

”…the degree to which these genome reorganization activities are not random is poorly appreciated. Non-randomness is evident at three levels: mechanism, timing, and sites of action.”

“These examples make it clear that natural genetic engineering occurs episodically and non-randomly in response to stress events that range from DNA damage to the inability to find a suitable mating partner.”

“Molecular genetics has amply confirmed McClintock’s discovery that living organisms actively reorganize their genomes (5). It has also supported her view that the genome can “sense danger” and respond accordingly (56).”

Here’s a link to the original paper. Sorry it’s dead for some reason

Here’s a book he wrote on the subject

@Dutchess_III “We humans introduced different foxes to each other, but we left it at that. Biology took over from there, just like it does in nature.”

I create concepts that turn into living thriving businesses because I let it go and let others take it to where it will go beyond me. Sometimes the others control and direct the venture precisely. And other times the business seems to take a life of it’s own and start showing profit in an area completely unexpected, uncontrolled, and even unknown.

That’s no different than humans controlling fox mating, or fox nature controlling fox mating. Get this… If you can author code, then you can control anything… such as “Put that boy fox in a room with that girl fox and see what happens”.

Code doesn’t have to be precise to get a result. It just has to be.

@Dutchess_III “If change isn’t even possible the foxes would not have changed.”

If change wasn’t possible, then we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Everyone on this thread is enacting a change upon the cosmos with every keystroke they make to light every phosphor on our monitors… (and every bit of it representing thought… cause that’s what code does).

But change is not equal to evolution. The universe does not evolve. It changes, but it does not evolve. There must be a code to manipulate in order for evolution to take place. The universe has revealed no code to us. And rightly so. Because if the universe revealed a code, then that would mean it can SPEAK… and that would mean it was alive and intelligent enough to communicate with the humans it created. And that would give credence to ancient myth and folklore of whispering streams, talking trees and burning bushes that instruct Moses to hike across a continent with a few million of his closest friends.

But although the cosmos reveals no code, the DNA “structure” as you call it does reveal a code. It’s a six billion letter novel that instructs RNA how to build a human being. It’s so specific… as in (NOT RANDOM), that it can be used in a court of law against you after your next crime spree.

@Dutchess_III to @Hypocrisy_Central “Also, no one would ever believe the Camry would spontaneously change. Where do you get the idea that they would?”

That is a completely valid hypothesis from the general Atheist camp. Because since both the Camry and Humans ONLY evolve when code changes, and since Atheists believe that genetic code can change randomly, then there should be no reason why Toyota Camry code couldn’t change randomly either.

Sounds crazy? Let me tell you how it could happen… Copying errors…

The head designer at Toyota says “These seats stink!”, and tells his secretary to copy the memo and send to all seat stitchers. But there is a squashed fly on the copy machine bed, and it happens to fall upon the word “stink”, and just by chance, the copies come out looking to spell “stink” as “pink”.

Oh no! All 2015 Toyota Camry’s will be a-fitted with PINK LEATHER SEATS! Sure to be a collectors item. Order now before someone changes the code back to Cinnabar.

The real mystery is how anyone could believe that a six billion letter code which leads to life capable of discussing the subject to the moon and back could possibly believe that code could have been written by random copying errors. I mean really. What the fuck kind of miracle would that be?

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies
Natural selection. The really bad stuff dies.

Please think about that comment for a moment @ragingloli.

“The conventional view is that genetic change comes from stochastic, accidental sources: radiation, chemical, or oxidative damage, chemical instabilities in the DNA, or from inevitable errors in the replication process.”

That’s “really bad stuff”. But some folk want to believe it brings forth life?

Does not compute.

Not all of it is affects an organism negatively. The majority of these mutations are neutral, some are negative, and some are positive.
It is quite amazing that you have so much trouble grasping really simple concepts.

The proposal of the neutral theory was followed by an extensive neutralist-selectionist controversy over the interpretation of patterns of molecular divergence and polymorphism, peaking in the 1970s and 1980s. The controversy is still unsettled among evolutionary biologists.

Yes, such a simple concept.

@Hypocrisy_Central Put foxes of the same sex in a room and see what happens? That’s just dumb. However, a theist may very well say “If we pray hard enough puppies will appear.” I mean, that’s how everything else was made, right? Just appeared out of no where.
On the one hand your argument was non-nonsensical, and you acknowledged that with your sarcasm.
On the other, if God is real, it should work.

I was a theist for most of my life. I never had a problem reconciling evolution with my faith. My biggest argument was, “How dare you presume to put God into a man-made size box that you can understand? How dare you say God couldn’t or wouldn’t do that?”

@Dutchess_III A theist may very well say “If we pray hard enough puppies will appear.”
That’s what annoys me the most about theists. I don’t like to follow any religion partly for that reason.

My biggest argument was, “How dare you presume to put God into a man-made size box that you can understand? How dare you say God couldn’t or wouldn’t do that?”
Yeah and many people just think like that. If God was real how the hell was he so understandable like that?

Yes, some theist dismiss evolution as being “impossible and ridiculous,” in spite of the evidence to support it, yet turn around and say that God made things out of absolutely nothing and they have no problem believing that.

@Dutchess_III
That is because they think that “god is god” and he can do whatever he likes.
What they fail to realise, is that the universe is the universe, and the universe does not care what humans think is impossible.

^^ That is because they know there are things impossible to be achieved but they still want to that they create a “God” for them to do those things with ease.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Because since both the Camry and Humans ONLY evolve when code changes, and since Atheists believe that genetic code can change randomly, then there should be no reason why Toyota Camry code couldn’t change randomly either.
The head designer at Toyota says “These seats stink!”, and tells his secretary to copy the memo and send to all seat stitchers
That is what I Am pointing to, quite a few do not believe there was ever a head designer much less a Camry that had a designer. The material that makes the fenders randomly assembled themselves into fenders, and not just any fenders but fender that were perfect for the design of the Camry, same with the material for the windows, the rubber for the tires, every diode on the circuit board and even the circuit board’s assembly itself; all these elements randomly created themselves perfectly to design a Camry then randomly but correctly assembled themselves in proper order to make a Camry all with no designer. The memo would mean nothing because no one would be initiating it or no one to send it to; the car built itself perfectly for no reason, or direction.

@Dutchess_III Put foxes of the same sex in a room and see what happens? That’s just dumb.
If it is so dumb then it should be easy for you to debunk. So, what is your debunking hypothesis? Surely you have something? No…..oh I guess that is why you waste time with a quip than an answer because you have none to give.

My biggest argument was, “How dare you presume to put God into a man-made size box that you can understand? How dare you say God couldn’t or wouldn’t do that?”
I don’t, that is the job of many unbelievers. They want to assume where and how all this came to be or who He is going to grant access to heaven to, even when He clearly stated in His word; yet people dare to presume He meant other than what His Word said. It is the ungodly people that try to put my Lord into a box they can understand, control, and accept.

Yes, some theist dismiss evolution as being “impossible and ridiculous,” in spite of the evidence to support it, yet turn around and say that God made things out of absolutely nothing and they have no problem believing that.
I love science, it proves undeniably that there is a God for those who can read the sign, but many refuse to see God in everything even when it redacted slaps them in the face.

Hippy Central, what is wrong with you? Can you honestly not see the difference between a living organism that has DNA that CAN and HAS mutated and a car?

And you’re asking me to to prove the fact two mammals of the same sex can’t reproduce? If I put you in a room with another man and you had sex, could one of you get pregnant?

What is wrong with you?

I’m a theist and I believe in the evolutionary theory, it doesn’t conflict with any biblical teachings to me. Apes are cool, I like bananas, no big deal.

Even Catholics are OK with evolution. Aren’t they the original Christians, studying the same Bible?

@Dutchess_III And you’re asking me to to prove the fact two mammals of the same sex can’t reproduce?
I thought the question was in English, but now that you have reiterated it, how would that be? If evolution is all about adaptation for the survival of the species would evolution choose to mate beings that have zero chance of furthering the survival of that species? It is not that hard of a question, especially not for you doyens of evolution

Evolution is not a being who makes decisions. The reproductive process just worked out the way it did. If one animal can’t reproduce then that animal’s genes do not get passed on.

@RocketGuy I think Greek Orthodox are the original theists, but I may be wrong. Where’s ET when we need him? :)

And you know that some Christians don’t think we Catholics are even close to the same because Catholics don’t take Bibles to mass, they transcribe it into little weekly booklets- lol, oh, and we worship Mary and the saints and all that stuff…lol (My So Baptist family about stroked out when I converted.)

I don’t think so. I think it started in Rome…let’s research, shall we?!

As far as the original Christian theists, that would be Peter, Paul and Mary. Wait. Peter Paul and Mary sang Puff the Magic Dragon. I meant Peter, Paul, Luke and those guys. The 12 apostols (sp).

It kind of looks like Catholicism and Greek Orthodox started at about the same time, in the 4th Century.

@Dutchess_III I just read a book about some Greek Orthodox immigrants, apparently they had a lot of marriages that were too close, like brother and sister, which created some hermaphrodites, etc..

Evolution at work! LOLL!!

You guys crack me up!

http://www.isna.org/

@Dutchess_III “Can you honestly not see the difference between a living organism that has DNA that CAN and HAS mutated and a car?”

Cars have DNA too. So do toasters and Ice Cream. Their DNA also mutates. DNA is just a set of plans to build something. Plans change, as they say. RNA is the factory that constructs a physical manifestation from the idea represented by the instructions from the DNA plans.

All the physical manifestations are the result of ideas represented by instructions. Without the instructions, none of these physical manifestations would ever exist.

The question that @Hip is asking, is who wrote the instructions? Instructions have never been known (or shown) to exist without first an idea of mind to create them from. An anonymous author has never been excuse to claim that instructions can write themselves without an idea behind them first.

Infinite regression.

Then that author would need an author. And that author an author.

Occam’s Razor calls bullshit.

By the known laws of our physical universe, perhaps. But the realm of ideas is not shackled by materialistic laws. That shouldn’t be such a tough swallow. Many theorize universes and dimensions beyond our own, bubbles and foams filled with infinite universes stranger than can be told. Hardly anyone I’ve read who promotes such concepts insists they all bow to the standards of our existence.

We already have one example of phenomenon which exist beyond our physical reality. The phenomenon of ideas and thought. How they mutate and expand just upon the merit of being noticed. Never dwelling in a physical space. Always represented by physical objects, descriptions, code… But never actually being seen. Like the wind.

Would anyone like to disagree with Carl? There just might be something beyond us which doesn’t require time based judgements upon infinite regression. There is no shame in suggesting that a state of is-ness does not suffer lower dimensional notions such as regression, or projection, or current, or concepts of present or anything else which is time based… a concept unto itself which we barely construct, and lesser understand.

Appeal to authority fallacy. Carl Sagan is no more privy to the hidden workings of the universe than you or I. Besides, not discounting possibilities is not the same as endorsing belief in them.

Stating that something must follow X rule, and then stating in your next breath that something else doesn’t is special pleading fallacy.

Care to tack on any others?

The fallacy is claiming fallacy against a non existent argument.

I’ve made no formal argument. I’ve just presented what I know to be factual as presented by others who are respected in the scientific community. That doesn’t mean their presentations are true. But it would please me if anyone could debate their presentations for the purpose intended, rather than lobbing logic bombs upon an argument that was never presented.

So, although you believe that Carl isn’t any more “privy” than we are, please comment upon this video at the 5:00 mark, where he discusses the tesseract.

Do you believe the tesseract really exists, or not?

No can do. Bad internet connection, can’t watch videos.

I have no idea what a tesseract is.

Just out of curiosity I looked up tesseract. It’s a geometric figure.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies But it would please me if anyone could debate their presentations for the purpose intended, rather than lobbing logic bombs upon an argument that was never presented.
No you didn’t, you did not just say that. Do you know where you are, here in Fluther it is all about defusing or debunking the question with logic that was never introduced instead of dealing with the facts of the question or comment.

So, although you believe that Carl isn’t any more “privy” than we are, please comment upon this video at the 5:00 mark, where he discusses the tesseract. So, although you believe that Carl isn’t any more “privy” than we are, please comment upon this video at the 5:00 mark, where he discusses the tesseract.
You need to ask one of the talking heads, scientist they believe in, then you will get some traction. ~~

@Dutchess_III “It’s a geometric figure.”

It is not a geometric figure. It is a mathematical proof. The object you see on the wiki page, and Carl Sagan video is not a tesseract. Those are shadows of tesseracts that we can see in our dimension. The real tesseract cannot be seen by humans in 3D space. The tesseract, the real one, is in the fourth dimension, never to be witnessed by humans.

What you see here is the projection of a tesseract from another dimensional realm.

o.

My head, my head, I think I am having an aneurism.