Evolution. One is a scientifically derived theory that hasn't been disproved. The other is a belief with no supporting evidence that doesn't stand up, IMHO, to any rigorous review (sorry ID folks).

UK.

burgerstein said: This idea is so important. I think failure to understand this is why most people that doubt evolution doubt evolution. I know it's a little old, but slimebeast's argument's flaw was primarily based on that reasoning error. It was a sophisticated version of, "If people are evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" As Morbo would say, "Evolution does not work that way!!!" Evolution is not linear, nor does it have a purpose. Survival of the fittest is not a goal, it's a result. When you come to understand evolution not in terms of goals or advancements, but instead in terms of results and causes, that's when you actually understand evolution. Evolution doesn't have a goal, it has a result. As someone said earlier, Microevolution and Macroevolution are just buzz words. Species are just concepts, they aren't quantitive or measurable traits, just some things we agreed on to make easier to know wich animals we're talking about. Evolution is evolution, no matter the scale. Edit: Canada, Evolution.

That's what we need to be telling people more often. Most assume that we evolved from chimpanzees, but we didn't. They are just the closest species to us. The classes in the US and everywhere need to address that issue with more detail!

Khuutra said: WessleWoggle said: First, at CHYUII, There's more races than the human race... I'm not saying any one race is better or worse, because there's large genetic variation between individuals. I never said evolution was a linear process. Different races can be more or less evolved in different areas. Darker people have skin that is better for sun protection. When white man invaded native peoples, some died because their immune systems weren't as evolved. Khuutra, you seem to contradict youself. "Different races can't be more or less evolved. That's stupid and it's racist."  "our ancestors had to fill separate evolutionary niches in order to adapt best to their environments." Is being more evolved somehow different from being more adapted to your environment? Also, why don't you believe in the concept of devolution? Over generations of inbreeding, or exposure to substances or radiation that can damage DNA, animals can become less adapted to thier environment. Or maybe that's called something different than devolution. You are not 'more' or 'less' evolved in anything, ever, because evolution is not linear, it's branching. We evolved to fill different niches. That's not a  linear process. At all. That implies that, if the whole thing happened over again, we'd evolve in roughly the same way - but we wouldn't, the idea is ridiculous. Black people are not evolved "more" to protect from the Sun - they're just evolved to fill the niche of an environment with a Hell of a lot of Sun. People in Norway are not. That's not more or less evolved - that's just fulfilling different niches. Acknowledging that there are differences between races is not racist, just the idea that one can be more highly evolved. We can't. Nothing is more highly evolved than anything else. We just evolved into different niches. "Is being more evolved somehow different from being more adapted to your environment?" Yes. The first example doesn't exist, and the second example means that you live to pass on your genes instead of dying. You're right - that's not called "devolution". That's evolution too. That's why evolution doesn't work linearly - it's not always advantageous, and the vast majority of the time results in death or even extinction.

Technically, evolution leads only to extinction, since as time passes and there are enough mutations, the species in question change to something else than what they originally were.
Also, there's certain aspect of causality involved, since the evinronment usually drives the mutations to an extent.

About the skin colour, considering humans, it's actually the white skin colour that is the adaptation. Or, how many white skinned apes do you know. Outside of Donkey Kong, that is.

i a catholic but i beleive in the theory of evoloution,Finland.

NKAJ said: i a catholic but i beleive in the theory of evoloution,Finland.

Being a catholic and supporting evolution aren't in contrast to each other. Actually the opposite would be in contrast to catholism, since Vatican has given its support to evolution.

http://ldolphin.org/wmwilliams.html

This is a book on evolution from 1928... This guy is so clueless, it's a great read, it's so funny. The logical fallacies, horrible math, and misrepresenting of facts is hilarious... What's even more funny is some creationists give this link out when asked for proof evolution is false.

NJ5 said: CHYUII said: NJ5 said: If we were intelligently designed, our designer wasn't very intelligent... Evolution happens every day, all around us. Almost everyone accepts that, some people just have difficulty seeing it in a larger timescale. Sign me up for evolution. Portugal.   Give me an example of how unintelligently we were designed. Ask a woman once a month. Or... urinary infections due to proximity of the anus and urethra in women. That's just great design. That's not even getting into all the chemical imbalances in our brain causing mountains of psychiatric illnesses. If we were designed, our body is the work of a bad engineering intern with a bad work ethic, not a supreme being. (some of you probably know who I'm paraphrasing from)

@ NJ5

 

 

Theology First

If you want Theology, there is no reason to suggest that a designer would create humans “perfectly”. What I mean is that all through religious practice, humankind has been seen as less than or dependent on the gods they worship. So, it is a Straw Man argument to say that there cannot be a Designer because everything (in your opinion) is not correct. I challenge you to find a religion that in its source book says that man is perfect.

 

Perfection is more a requirement of Evolution than anything.

 

I find your reasoning odd. If we are all so flawed, NJ5, how is it, (evolutionarily speaking) that Macro believers always put humankind a t the top of the tree of life? As a kid I have been subject to all of the waxes of Origin of Species thumping science teachers who went on and on about the wondrous designs of the human body that allowed us to rise above our animal cousins. So, if our form allows us to be, not kings of the planet, but gods- how can you say that we are flawed?

 

 

1) You Criticize Poor Design-

You know it is easy for a man, who has built nothing to stand back a criticize another’s work and say, “Nah, it could be better.” But what do you say? You say: “If we were designed, our body is the work of a bad engineering intern with a bad work ethic, not a supreme being.”

 

My challenge is to you NJ5 is to make something better. All the chemicals in our bodies is known to you (or easily able to be looked up) and you could probably pop over to the store or buy the chemicals over the Internet. Create a Blog where you make a “better man” than man. Show us how easy it is to solve the things that you mention.

 

This argument reminds me of the guy who goes on and on about a woman that he loves but as soon as she leaves him he just calls her all kind of filth & bile. We humans who are at the top of the evolutionary tree/scheme are now a piece of junk? REALLY? REALLY? How very interesting. I think that you are trashing it to make your faith look better.

 

 

2) Respect Is Due.

As to times of the month… I challenge you to look at a book about all that is happening during that cycle. All of the biological functions that are kicking in and out, in order to create a habitable home for an egg, are a fantastic feat of engineering. While you dump on its design, I know that there are women who gloat in such things (and would be angry at your words).

 

And if not for that design, you would not be here.

 

 

3) Things To Consider While Frankensteining.

The problem is, where are you going to put them? Most critics (like with most things in life) like to point out flaws but then never give us solutions to the problem. You can say you can move them further apart but where? I just wrote HS about the Coccyx/tailbone its not too far from one of the parts you mentioned the coccyx is a very important part for the attachment or muscles that have to do with locomotion, it also is important to our balance. So, you cannot move that up any further.

 

With the coccyx as our starting point, what can we say now?

 

Our “bowels rest in the bowls of our hips” my anthropology teacher would say as she went on about the superior human anatomy. We carry the weight of our organs in that bowl and women have to carry the weight of children in the cradle of her hipbone.

With our heads we eat, after swallowing food must pass through a series of organs to be processed the food is then sent down through our torso to be processed and separated. Waste products are expelled at the other end of our torsos.

Our torsos are equipped with muscles that allow us to flex, move, bend, and support our upright posture. The muscles of our abdomen connect to the front of our hipbones. Our groin and thigh muscles hinge there as well.

So where are you going to put these things? In the arm and legs? Or maybe the head? (talk about contamination, and some of our insults would not be as funny).

 

4) Longevity Rate, Can’t Be All Bad-

Do you know that despite what you say about women they tend to out live their male counterparts, year after year? So, for you to say what you did takes a lot of moxie, since you are probably going to die before them. So if it is all survival of the fittest then why is it that women beat us all of the time? So, apparently the problem is not as big as you have speculated.

 

5) CHYUII’s Conclusion-

So, why in all of the wonders of evolution has this problem not been fixed? Can it be that it is of optimal design? In order that we may walk upright and explore with our hands males and females have to be able to walk upright. Now where are we going to put those organs?

 

6) SILLINESS-

Go to a NOW meeting, say what you said to me, and see what happens.

Or tell that too Holly Barry, Kierra Knightly, Scarlett Johansen- ect.

Better yet, make that your pick-up line.

 

 

Oh, it almost slipped my mind…

The Brain-

 

And there you go again attacking one of the things that make us what we are (If not the MOST depending on your particular evolutionary model). IF not for our brains, there would be nothing that separates us from our animal cousins.

 

Think about this how are we having this conversation. Is your computer a peace of junk, even if it is an old model is it just forced piece of trite? With the brain, we split the atom- make cars, live outside of the whims of nature; we explore the universe, and create works of art.

And you call it junk? Let your monkey or chimp cousins make a computer for you.

 

With our brain we save lives, and get this..! We even create medicines that allow us to make up for those chemical deficiencies.

Pyramid Head said: im going with science as its slightly more credible than a book written by random people 2000 years ago, then found in a cave hundreds of years later. evolution may not be 100 percent right yet, however given the size of the universe, the creation thing is arrogant and self centered wishful thinking in my eyes. evolution baby.

@PH

 

I not sure what Book you are talking about but from what I know about the Jewish Sacred writings are the OT of the Christian Bible so how can that part of the Bible be lost in a cave if the Jewish priest were using it since around 1300 to 1400 BC?

 

As to the Christian New Testament the other part of the Bible that deals with Christ, the writing of his followers are were written before 70AD, The Letters of the New Testament where in circulation from church to church in Asia Minor and even old manuscripts of those letters were found in Egypt before 70 AD. So, when where these Holy Books locked away?

 

 

If you are talking about the Koran/ Recitation, Muhammad, it was recorded 610 to 632.

 

If Buddhism ‘s Tripitaka or Pali, the scripture were spread by mouth and then recorded in script, around 250 BC.

bdbdbd said: Oh, i just noticed you had a microevolution-macroevolution discussion going. The macroevolution argument you see from creationists, is only a rhetoric "trap" to jam the discussion. Basically the demand to prove macroevolution would be to prove it doesn't happen via microevolution. @Manus Justus: I'd remember reading a couple of years ago about a study/studies concerning atom spins and delayless information transport, where the results referred back to causality. Can't remember what study it was, or where i specifically read it.

We have had some good times bdbdbd, remember Eternal Darkness? Sigh...

But, i can't disagree with you more.

MACRO and MICRO are words in use by scientist. It is a way to specify specifically what you mean. Even if you buy all of the theory of evolution, it is good to have to different defintions for the 2 different processes.

Just like with Stem Cell there are Adult and Embryotic, but they are all Stem cells.

And it only makes sense, take a simple math problem:

You say M=M+M+M+M

Add if I told you the value of M was 8 the problem would be false.

but it clarifies by saying M=m+m+m+m

Macro = mini-Micros

The Micro only talks about the Gene Expressions in organisms and mutations and Natural Selection. This is proven science the rest is unproven speculation.

Read Highwaystar's article about Mammal/ Whale evolution.

and my comments.

Somebody start a Evolution and Intelligent Design Thread.
See you tomorrow.