Again, people love to criticize evolution and demand more evidence or proof, but when asked to show any evidence that ID can be tested with the scientific method, the question gets dodged... That is why ID should never be mentioned in a science classroom, regardless of opinions about evolution.

Again, people love to criticize evolution and demand more evidence or proof,
but when asked to show any evidence that ID can be tested with the
scientific method, the question gets dodged... That is why ID should never be
mentioned in a science classroom, regardless of opinions about evolution.


Who's talking about intelligent design? Certainly not I, as I've made it clear
that I don't accept it.

Your last sentence should have said, "regardless of scientific evidence
against evolution." The religion of evolution shouldn't be taught in schools,
either. Religion in the sense that it takes so much faith to want it to be true
despite the lack of evidence.

Who's talking about intelligent design? Certainly not I, as I've made it clear
that I don't accept it.

Your last sentence should have said, "regardless of scientific evidence
against evolution." The religion of evolution shouldn't be taught in schools,
either. Religion in the sense that it takes so much faith to want it to be true
despite the lack of evidence.

I remember you stating well back that you don't support ID. On a curious side note, what is your best explanation that accounts for the diversity of species on this earth?

I remember you stating well back that you don't support ID. On a curious
side note, what is your best explanation that accounts for the diversity of
species on this earth?

God. That's not ID. ID, although based on science, isn't sufficient, i.e. the
intelligent designer can be anything.

However, my disbelief of evolution is not founded on religion, but science,
or the lack thereof. Certainly some will start trying to make my beliefs to be
those of religious hacks and they'll assuredly become very unscientific and
caustic in their attacks in their attempts to discredit me, but without avail.

I once believed evolution to be true until professors of zoology, biology and
other sciences couldn't answer or discuss the critical questions, "where's
the link", without eventually getting angry or tell me to sit down and let
someone else talk.

When answers to teachings of indoctrinations aren't sufficiently supplied I
will not climb into the box of acceptance as a good little automaton. I look
for answers.

God. That's not ID. ID, although based on science, isn't sufficient, i.e. the
intelligent designer can be anything.

However, my disbelief of evolution is not founded on religion, but science,
or the lack thereof. Certainly some will start trying to make my beliefs to be
those of religious hacks and they'll assuredly become very unscientific and
caustic in their attacks in their attempts to discredit me, but without avail.

I once believed evolution to be true until professors of zoology, biology and
other sciences couldn't answer or discuss the critical questions, "where's
the link", without eventually getting angry or tell me to sit down and let
someone else talk.

When answers to teachings of indoctrinations aren't sufficiently supplied I
will not climb into the box of acceptance as a good little automaton. I look
for answers.

I see. I believe creationism and intelligent design branched away from each other a long while ago. I won't tell you to sit down but I'm still curious. In your opinion, what constitutes an organism to be a separate species?

Is it based on morphology or genetics? Or maybe something else?

Purne, I am a Biology teacher and would like to ask you a question.
What is your position on homologous and analogous structures in animals and humans. I am talking about the presence of pelvic bone remnants in whales, tail bones in humans, the similarities in skeletal structures in different animals, the similarities in embryos of different mammals (up to a certain time of development). I believe that religion and evolution can coexist as we can't know the mind of God, we only have the stories written by man to figure it out.
I am not trying to be confrontational, just trying to figure out your side of this discussion.

Purne, I am a Biology teacher and would like to ask you a question.
What is your position on homologous and analogous structures in animals
and humans. I am talking about the presence of pelvic bone remnants in
whales, tail bones in humans, the similarities in skeletal structures in
different animals, the similarities in embryos of different mammals (up to a
certain time of development). I believe that religion and evolution can
coexist as we can't know the mind of God, we only have the stories written
by man to figure it out.

I am not trying to be confrontational, just trying to figure out your side of
this discussion.

Going back to evolution, and not involving religious thought, we do find
similarities, homologous systems, i.e. hands, feet, joints, but the similarities
end there. The same goes with analogous, i.e. bats and birds. However, I
don't have a position. My question is, and always will be, "where's the link"
or where's the critter it supposedly evolved from? It's going to be in the
fossil record if it happened.

F'rinstance, as for what is called the tail bone (cocyx sp.) in humans,
where is the progressive or sequential interconnection from the previous
being or species that had a tail? Did the tail simply disappear all at once?
The change would have happened incrementally. There is nothing.

By the way, this isn't true only with humans but with every species on
Earth.

In your opinion, what constitutes an organism to be a separate species?

Is it based on morphology or genetics? Or maybe something else?

That's a good question, which I don't have an answer, only speculation.
But that doesn't make me an evolutionist LOL.

It's probably the genetics. I read some time ago, Nature, about how the
genes are similar in different species but they are complete different
species.

It was suggested that while the genes were similar they worked differently.
Perhaps it had something to do with how the molecular structure of genes
used the proteins.

I don't know.

That's a good question, which I don't have an answer, only speculation.
But that doesn't make me an evolutionist LOL.

It's probably the genetics. I read some time ago, Nature, about how the
genes are similar in different species but they are complete different
species.

It was suggested that while the genes were similar they worked differently.
Perhaps it had something to do with how the molecular structure of genes
used the proteins.

I don't know.

I'm glad you read the science publication Nature. There is a debate between scientists on what constitutes a species. Since mankind came up with the idea of species and tries to organize organisms into an arbitrary system of species; there's interest in generating a concrete classification system.


For example, it is much like how astronomers debated on what constituted a planet. Finally, the IAU settled on this:

(1) A "planet" is a celestial body that: (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.

(2) A "dwarf planet" is a celestial body that: (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, (c) has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit, and (d) is not a satellite.

Although it made Pluto lose its status as a planet, Pluto is still Pluto.

Anyways, back on topic. Species work much like this in that its hard for biologists to agree what constitutes a species. I believe genetics is going to be the final say in this debate. Previously, it was based on physical characteristics (that was thrown out) and the inability to mate (thrown out, think of a male chihuahua and a female St. Bernard; they're still dogs but they can't feasibly mate).

I think they're still hammering out what genetic similarity there needs to be for one to be in the same species. It maybe 99.9% similar or down to 95% similarity, it's hard to peg this number down. Biology is complex; there are viruses that can insert its DNA into an organism's chromosome and that alone will change the genetic percent identity.

I do agree with you that I believe differences in species are based on genetics. Do you agree that species is an arbitrary definition that mankind coined?



You are correct that genes can be similar across species. Some genes that are similar across species do work similarly across species. Other genes that are similar across species don't work similarly across species. It depends on where the gene is expressed and when the gene is expressed. Really simplified example: a gene that encodes for hormones may be activated in this organism (we can call it bugger) at age 1. So bugger matures and becomes a reproductive adult after age 1. In humans, let's say this similar gene gets activated around age 13. This is an example of a gene that is similar across species but doesn't work similarly across species.

I hope I didn't lose anyone.

Prune, I appreciate and understand your thought process on evolution as many of my students think the same way. I know there is not a single fossil that can connect a modern species with an evolutionary link, but I do wonder if it is possible that there may have been other changes in anatomy that may have occured. We don't know for sure what any of the prehistoric creature looked like for sure. It is all just conjecture and guesses based on the rock left behind.

I also agree with another poster who stated that not all animals will be turned into fossils, due to the complexity required for that to happen.

I am not sure genes will be the correct answer to determine evolutionary relationships due the fact we can't recover all of the possible dna from fossils.

So in its own way evolution is a form of religion that requires faith to follow what is being found.

Eventually we will all find out what the real truth is, we just won't be able to tell anyone else.

So in its own way evolution is a form of religion that requires faith to follow what is being found.

Eventually we will all find out what the real truth is, we just won't be able to tell anyone else.

What does that mean? That our brains are too tiny to come to grips about the origins of life?

In that one area, being able to figure things out and with each century advancing far beyond the previous, we have evolved mentally. Maybe not emotionally but eventually as far as knowing anything we seek to know I give humans a fair amount of credit.

No. I'm saying that evolution has yet to be proven. Intelligent design has
more going for it than evolution, i.e, there isn't any proof of one speicies
evolving into another. Not that it's right, it's just that evolution hasn't been
proven and ID has more going for it. I'm not giving an answer to anything. I
simply don't have a reason to believe that evolution has ever happened or
is happening.

Michael Behe. (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2230)

I accept his philosophy.

Sorry... Somehow I got that you were an ID supporter after you supported Intelligent design. How silly of me.

As for evidence against evolution, I would love for you to show me that. You can claim not enough evidence for it, but I have never seen any compelling evidence against it. Its the only theory I have ever heard that does not involve god, or some designer... And since the designer either evolved, or was designed themselves ID /Only/ leads back to god did it.

Your last sentence should have said, "regardless of scientific evidence against evolution." The religion of evolution shouldn't be taught in schools, either. Religion in the sense that it takes so much faith to want it to be true despite the lack of evidence.

If the rules of science were applied, and it has been vetted via the scientific method, it might be a theory you don't agree with but it isn't religion. It should be taught in science class.

As for religion in schools, I do think that they should be discussed in history or other classes, definitely. Because of curriculum and the law it is likely all the major world religions would have to be covered. Still okay with me, but I would think a lot of other parents here in Oklahoma would probably freak out about that.

On to the other issues... I think I have a better understanding of your viewpoint after your last couple of messages. Basically, we have x number of fossil records which, to me, looks like they show a progression of evolution and are the links. You're saying you would want to see x^10 or the like, which would fill in more of the gaps and give you more confidence in the theory.

I guess my thought is that as time goes by, and more and more fossils are recovered, eventually we will get there but it will take a long time. That's pretty apparent just based on the number of fossils discovered each year. But many things in science are like this... so instead of waiting for data sets you make estimates, look at data and do statistics, do some pattern recognition and so on. My thought is that if you apply these techniques like you would on other issues they are saying that is where the data is taking us.

Sorry... Somehow I got that you were an ID
supporter after you supported Intelligent design. How silly of me.

As for evidence against evolution, I would love for you to show me that.
You can claim not enough evidence for it, but I have never seen any
compelling evidence against it. Its the only theory I have ever heard that
does not involve god, or some designer... And since the designer either
evolved, or was designed themselves ID /Only/ leads back to god did
it.

I am not a supporter of intelligent design. Period. Your description of ID is
incorrect. You're starting to talk in circles.

You're the one on this thread who is ignoring the absolute facts that links,
in any species and over any period of time, have not been found.

You provided a link to some things but what you ignore is the fact that
not a single one of your examples has any proof of evolving from another
species. Every single one of them were of their own.

In your own words I can only say, "Wow, there's all this evidence that
evolution is bunk and you close your eyes to it. Wow!"

I guess my thought is that as time goes by, and more and more fossils are
recovered, eventually we will get there but it will take a long time. That's
pretty apparent just based on the number of fossils discovered each year.


But every fossil that's found belongs to an already discovered species or is
a species of it's own kind. I don't see it changing.

With all of the excavating that's been going you shouldn't be able to help
but find the graduated increments from species to species. Even if there
are species that don't fossilize, there are assuredly more than not that did.

If humans at one time had a tail, then there should be evidence and the
evidence of the tail gradually disappearing.

But every fossil that's found belongs to an already discovered species or is
a species of it's own kind. I don't see it changing.

With all of the excavating that's been going you shouldn't be able to help
but find the graduated increments from species to species. Even if there
are species that don't fossilize, there are assuredly more than not that did.

If humans at one time had a tail, then there should be evidence and the
evidence of the tail gradually disappearing.

Careful Prune your making sense.
This generation is not used to that.

But every fossil that's found belongs to an already discovered species or is a species of it's own kind. I don't see it changing.

With all of the excavating that's been going you shouldn't be able to help
but find the graduated increments from species to species. Even if there
are species that don't fossilize, there are assuredly more than not that did.

If humans at one time had a tail, then there should be evidence and the
evidence of the tail gradually disappearing.

No matter what is found it is going to be its own species, either already existing or a new one. So I'm not sure that statement makes sense. I mean what on earth are you looking for then? If some trans-species hybrid was found, which I believe many have been, they would be classified as their own species. So I don't see see where that argument is headed?

Like I've said, they have found graduated evolutionary lines, they have been classified as homo erectus, homo neaderthal, etc. All you are really asking for are discoveries of more species that fill in the gaps in between these already transitional species, right?

Tails... human embryos have tails. Every year a few children are born in this country with tails. They are surgically removed. Lots of pictures of this on the internet. People that don't know what they are talking about will argue they are just tumors, but infrequently these tails do include invertibrae and cartilage and are *mobile.*

What if I showed you a partly ape-like mostly human creature that crafted tools and musical instruments, and buried its dead but was still covered in hair/fur and had the forehead, eyes, and lips of an ape and was hunched over like an ape. Would that do it for you? Surprise... it's called a Neanderthal. To me that is a missing link. You are not asking for something that hasn't already been discovered, all you are asking for is more links in between the already discovered links.

Careful Prune your making sense.
This generation is not used to that.

Feel free to enter the discussion if you have something to add.

Prune, if what you're looking for is a transitional human, then don't the following fossil reconstructions meet your criteria....

Neanderthal:

http://media-2.web.britannica.com//eb-media/93/79493-004-AF8BCAAA.jpg

Homo erectus:

http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/images/homoerectus.JPG

Homo habilis:

http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/images/interior13/9780300100471/Homo_habilis_male_72dpi.jpg

That top one is Prune on the way to the showers after a tough gig.

Can we accurately link Neanderthal (pictured above) to Cheech Martin?

That top one is Prune on the way to the showers after a tough gig.

LOL. All kidding aside, a lot of evolutionary history can be traced through genetics now. There's great research in bacterial and viral genetics that can be used to monitor minor genetic mutations that can accumulate. Most of these mutants are fatal, some are neutral, and very few are beneficial. Sometimes, these beneficial mutants lend a competitive advantage over their nonmutant neighbors.

You can see these mutations accumulate over multiple generations (some bacterial species only take 25 minutes to double their population) and you can see evolution (on a small scale) occur in human observable time.

That top one is Prune on the way to the showers after a tough gig.

Oh my.

Is it just me or does Neanderthal man look a little bit like former OU Coach Schnellenberger?

The top picture, I told you I had my dad's yearbook from Altus HS, class of 1929. Don't make me bring it out.

Prune, if what you're looking for is a transitional human, then don't the
following fossil reconstructions meet your criteria...


No.

No.

Then how would you describe a transitional human and what kind of fossil evidence do you believe would meet your criteria?

Also a second question, regarding the above proto-humans what would you personally classify them as just out of curiosity? Humans? Apes?

Then how would you describe a transitional human and what kind of fossil
evidence do you believe would meet your criteria?

Also a second question, regarding the above proto-humans what would you
personally classify them as just out of curiosity? Humans? Apes?

They aren't transitional. They are species of their own kind.

This is my scientific evaluation of evolution. There is nothing that provides
evidence of a species, you can select any species upon the face of the
Earth, evolving into a completely different species. This is the true subject
of evolution.

This is the problem that exists with the [sic] religion of evolution. According
to evolution, species are supposed to evolve into other species. There is
no evidence whatsoever that this has ever happened.

I've honestly been convinced that evolution is nothing more than a theory
that can't be proved. Yes, I'm impressed with the findings of
anthropologists, but they don't prove that evolution exists. They do prove
that each species is of it's own kind. That means that there isn't any proof
whatsoever of any species evolving into another species.

Stan, I am refering to the fact that we all will die and then we will find out if there is a god or not, and that will answer the question of evolution versus creation (ID).

I see those models in pictures above and wonder what actual pieces they found to construct the full models?

I see those models in pictures above and wonder what actual pieces they found to construct the full models?

Educated guesses based on similarities to related species. It's similar to finding a bicycle with no wheels. Since you find bits and pieces of it and it looks like a bicycle, you can guess that the missing parts should resemble complete specimens. Meh, poor analogy but it is Monday.

Educated guesses based on similarities to related species. It's similar to finding a bicycle with no wheels. Since you find bits and pieces of it and it looks like a bicycle, you can guess that the missing parts should resemble complete specimens. Meh, poor analogy but it is Monday.

I gotcha.

I'm just wondering what was actually found to build the whole model.

They have found entire skeletons or most of entire skeletons for each of those three species. I'd have to look into it but if I had to guess I would think that they probably took a skeleton and did something similar to what forensic scientists do when they do a 'facial reconstruction' of a victim.

They have found entire skeletons or most of entire skeletons for each of
those three species. I'd have to look into it but if I had to guess I would think
that they probably took a skeleton and did something similar to what forensic
scientists do when they do a 'facial reconstruction' of a victim.

You are exactly right. They've done exactly what you said.

However, there isn't a link, make that the evil graduated progression, that
shows a species evolving into another species.

That's where I have the problem with evolution. So far, all they have is a
species and another completely different species. But absolutely nothing
that shows one species (you can name any of the tens of thousands of
species currently discovered) evolving into another species.

Personally, I believe that the theory of evolution (aka the wishful thinking
of evolution) should be called the extrapolation of transformation.

Scientifically, evolution doesn't exist.

Anyways, for those who are interested in seeing evolution occur in real time, you don't have to look very far.

The current flu strain, H1N1, appears to be a new virus that consists of genetic rearrangements from different strains. The H stands for hemagglutinin which is a structural protein on the virus that is responsible for attaching the virus to your cells. The N is a neuraminidase which assists the virus in mobility across your mucus. There are different H and N proteins (H1, H2, N1, N5, etc.) and each strain infect different groups of animals.

Our immune system can develop antibodies that are specific to these flu strains, specifically to the H and N proteins. Viral particles that are blocked by antibodies do not get to infect cells and produce more progeny. Thus, their H and N types do not survive this selective pressure. However, strains with minor mutations in their H and N surface proteins do not get blocked and they produce more progeny. This is why doctors recommend new flu vaccinations every year as the virus mutates enough to escape vaccination surveillance.

As a virus, the influenza virus undergoes rapid mutations and also undergoes gene transfer. These mutations can be genetically sequenced and you can trace viral lineages if you have the supporting data. The influenza virus gets dangerous if it infects an organism with another flu virus. The resulting progeny can swap out H and N types which can result in a more infectious virus or a dud virus.

As stated before, H proteins prefer different sets of organisms. A few H1 strains infect pigs very well but these same strains do not infect humans well. Through genetic sequencing of the current H1N1 strain that is circulating, researchers have found that the H1 in swine flu matches H1 strains commonly found in pigs. However, other genes on this H1N1 strains appeared to have come from human influenza strains and bird flu strains.

This mismatch of genes from human, avian, and pork strains lends this H1N1 strain an unusual combination. As the H1 protein on this strain is rarely seen by humans, this H1N1 strain is overwhelming younger adults' immune systems and killing them (evolutionary fitness in which the virus is not killed off easily). The N1 and other genes on this strain allows this flu virus to be transmitted from human to human (another fitness characteristic as a strain that does not transmit easily from human to human cannot spread).

Scientists and doctors can isolate samples from human patients, track its genetic history, and see the evolution of this virus. As this is a strain that has never been seen before, it is very certain that this virus resulted from a recent combination of different flu strains. Genetically speaking, this H1N1 should be different enough to be classified as a new strain.

These genetic changes is not enough to classify this H1N1 strain as a new species. But if you can add enough time (decades), there will be enough genetic differences that you can classify these strains as new species. You see similar events in the divergence of dogs from wolves and this:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/images/mustardselection.jpg

Mutations in genes and selection for these genes lead to progeny that can vary dramatically from their ancestors. In the above picture, the evolutionary force that drives these vegetables are human breeders. These plants may share similar genes however there are enough genetic differences to reflect their physical change. And domestication of these vegetables have only occurred in the last thousand years. More time will increase divergence between these veggies and their mustard ancestors.

I'm not keepin track of all this discussion, but I'm seeing the discussion of evolution now and the first thing that came to mind was the dinosaurs. We still have them today, they've evolved. I know that Pigeons was evolved from a huge dinosaur. Is that what everyone is talking about, evolution, and not anymore on human creation?

If you can prove evolution in lower forms of creatures or even plants, then as a theory or model, evolution is in play.

Some seem hung up on the monkey to man premise, mainly because it runs counter to the Genesis story, and thusly, instead of discussing evolution as a model, we've sidetracked onto human beginnings.

Those with a vested interest in creationism seem to be going out of their way to deny evolution as a working model, such as building museums in Kentucky and the like.

My question is why?

Why, if you have faith and your faith is strong, is there a need to challenge science? Why push to have a faith based theory taught in classrooms? Faith should mean you have an unquestioning trust in your beliefs. Faith means that in spite of evidence to the contrary you still hold on to your strong beliefs.

My expectation is that if you're fighting hard, using spurilous arguments to deny scientific findings is that you've got questions about your faith. You're taking time away from believing what you believe to tell others what they believe is wrong. That's called doubt.

If you can prove evolution in lower forms of creatures or even
plants, then as a theory or model, evolution is in play.

The operative word is IF.

I'm not keepin track of all this discussion, but I'm seeing the discussion of evolution now and the first thing that came to mind was the dinosaurs. We still have them today, they've evolved. I know that Pigeons was evolved from a huge dinosaur. Is that what everyone is talking about, evolution, and not anymore on human creation?

Not all. Scientists who study dinosaurs, birds, or reptiles may be more involved in this aspect of evolution. My field of study is within bacterial pathogens and viruses where I can keep track of evolution in a timescale that's manageable (my lifetime!).

Anthropologists are more involved with the human aspects of evolution, ie when did we last share a common ancestor with the modern apes, who are our ancestors, and the rise of modern human traits. I know botanists who are involved in studying the evolution of some modern crop plants.

The modern corn is a very interesting plant. It can't survive in the wild without our intervention as the seeds (corn kernels) do not fall off the cob easily. Also, as the seeds are so densely packed..any seeds that do germinate will be subjected to intense competition from its siblings. The corn's insatiable thirst for water and nutrients also prevents it from surviving in the wild. The corn's hardy ancestor, teosinte, is still around. Teosinte is a grass that is adapted to drier and tougher conditions. The kernels are fewer and it stands a better chance of getting dispersed and germinating. There has been so much divergence that corn and teosinte are considered separate species.

http://www.truth-saves.com/images/corn.jpg

I will say in Prune's defense that he is right about evolution. It can NEVER be proven although we can observe it in action. But this is how theories in science work. The theory of gravity and the theory of relativity can never be proven despite all of the convincing evidence. The theory of continental drift or any other number of theories can never be proven. However, these theories are constantly used by scientists regardless of their unproven nature. This is because in science, you can never say "I know everything there is to know about this, I will stop looking for any more mysteries". Theories get revised constantly (as Darwin didn't have access to modern genetics and DNA as units of inheritance).

As a working theory, the theory of evolution is our best working model of how new species arise, how viruses escape our immune system, how modern crops arise from their ancestors, how methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is threatening hospitals, and how everything related to life works.

I see in your illustrations the male corn is sticking its little thingees out while the female corn is more demur.

How did the teosinthe get from its ancestral state to modern corn? Did it evolve on its own or did we help it along? Was Iowa State University its intelligent designer?

Is there a pro-extinction crowd that refuses to accept evolution?

The term "extinction" was first coined by anatomist Baron Cuvier in the late 1700s. The term refers to the destruction of a species. Prior to Cuvier's theory, extinction was thought impossible and even during his lifetime most naturalists held strong to the belief that extinction was an unprovable theory. These were the Prunes of that day. Even when fossils were being discovered during that time most other scientists believed the organisms still lived somewhere on the earth. It took a century for other scientists to comprehend and run with Cuvier's theory. Now it is accepted and understood that many species have gone extinct.

Darwin was almost a century after Cuvier. Darwin's theories go hand-in-hand with Cuvier's. We're now a little more than a century removed from many of Darwin's theories which the overwhelming majority of the scientific community accept.

"Adaptation" which was posed in the 17th century by natural theologians John Ray and William Paley is a precursor to "Natural Selection." "Adaptation" states organisms change or adapt to their environment to become better suited for survival in their habitat. This has been an observable and recordable theory. "Natural selection" explains the mechanism by which species adapt and survive.

The ironic thing is so much of our lexicon in other fields have been lifted from Darwin's theories. The argumentative psychological term "nature or nurture" was lifted by Sir Francis Galton and placed into accepted debate. The term "survival of the fittest" was coined by Herbert Spencer when referring to natural selection but has been used by economists to promote laissez-faire economics.

OY Vey!

Those are nice thoughts. I wish I could comment more but I'm very busy,
musically.

Before I leave for a few daze, I want to tell everyone that I don't think they
are idiots for not agreeing with my phenomenal knowledge of science and
1931 muscle cars.

I have appreciated everything that's been discussed.

I'll see you later!

Have fun, musically speaking!

Teosinte's gradual evolution has been shaped by humans. That's the great thing about evolution as it can be left alone and let nature take care of the selective pressure or humans can come in and select for certain traits.

Native Americans were the people who were involved in the evolution of corn. Through a gradual process of domestication and selecting for varieties with bigger ears, more kernels, and kernels that don't fall off the cob..you get the modern corn.

Have fun, musically speaking!

Teosinte's gradual evolution has been shaped by humans. That's the great thing about evolution as it can be left alone and let nature take care of the selective pressure or humans can come in and select for certain traits.

Native Americans were the people who were involved in the evolution of corn. Through a gradual process of domestication and selecting for varieties with bigger ears, more kernels, and kernels that don't fall off the cob..you get the modern corn.

But they call it "maize".

Earlier I made reference to statistics in science. I happened to stumble upon this and found it interesting....

"Biologists view species as statistical phenomena and not as categories or types. This view is counterintuitive since the classical idea of species is still widely-held, with a species seen as a class of organisms exemplified by a "type specimen" that bears all the traits common to this species. Instead, a species is now defined as a separately evolving lineage that forms a single gene pool. Although properties such as genetics and morphology are used to help separate closely-related lineages, this definition has fuzzy boundaries.[1] However, the exact definition of the term "species" is still controversial, particularly in prokaryotes,[2] and this is called the species problem.[3] Biologists have proposed a range of more precise definitions, but the definition used is a pragmatic choice that depends on the particularities of the species concerned.[3]"

But they call it "maize".

Is maize and corn even the same thing?? Related, I know, but ??

It's the same thing. Native Americans and latinos call it maize. We call it corn.

Either side that states they 100% have the answer....will probably be proved to be the biggest fools of all.

Especially when the spaceships come back.... :LolLolLol

http://bp0.blogger.com/_JcxonRkmibQ/Rne6Psd1gQI/AAAAAAAAAQI/YBTXQ2TBgNQ/s400/jesusdino2

Faith in the Bible isn't scientific. That's the whole point. If it was a proven fact, then everyone would believe and there would be no faith at all. Faith is the point.

Faith in the Bible isn't scientific. That's the whole point. If it was a proven
fact, then everyone would believe and there would be no faith at all. Faith is
the point.

I contend that evolution, since it can't be proven (see my posts) requires
something other than science in order to keep the desire of wanting it to be
real.

There are scientists who will admit that evolution is a farce but they continue
to preach it because they refuse to accept the alternative.

I contend that evolution, since it can't be proven (see my posts) requires
something other than science in order to keep the desire of wanting it to be
real.

There are scientists who will admit that evolution is a farce but they continue
to preach it because they refuse to accept the alternative.

Nah, we don't preach about it. We stand by the theory because of laboratory, genetic, and biochemical evidence for micro-evolution AND morphological, genetic, and fossil evidence for macro-evolution.

Most biologists will stand by evolution, but its not a conspiracy. There are scientists who don't believe in evolution but they're mostly in engineering and physics. I hate to quote wiki, but here is the trend you observe in engineers and evolution-rejection: Salem hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_hypothesis)

We just refuse to accept the alternative because it is untestable, it requires faith (you really don't want to have faith in an experimental drug and hope it works, you test it with rigor), and there is no strong evidence for any alternative. Believe me, give biologists definitive proof that evolution is false and biologists WILL drop evolution as a theory.

Nah, we don't preach about it. We stand by the theory because of
laboratory, genetic, and biochemical evidence for micro-evolution AND
morphological, genetic, and fossil evidence for macro-evolution.


Here we go again. Evolution has not been proven.

Nor has gravity, relativity, or plate tectonics been proven. It is how science is done.

But evolution has not been disproven either ;)

Nor has gravity, relativity, or plate tectonics been proven. It is how science is done.
But evolution has not been disproven either
Gravity has been proven. We have the Law of Gravity. It is observable and repeatable. Evolution has not been proven, and scientifically disproving it is a relatively new field of study -- one that most evolutionists try to discredit before even hearing the evidence.

That said, I believe evolution will not survive the advance of information. Before long, it will become too implausable to believe that the evolution of species was left to random mutations and natural selection.


Anyways, for those who are interested in seeing evolution occur in real time, you don't have to look very far.

The current flu strain, H1N1, appears to be a new virus that consists of genetic rearrangements from different strains. The H stands for hemagglutinin which is a structural protein on the virus that is responsible for attaching the virus to your cells. The N is a neuraminidase which assists the virus in mobility across your mucus. There are different H and N proteins (H1, H2, N1, N5, etc.) and each strain infect different groups of animals.
Let me know when the H1N1 flu strain evolves into a bumblebee or a lizard. For now, it's still a flu virus. When it evolves into something other than a virus, I'll consider that as evidence of macroevolution.

Gravity has been proven. We have the Law of Gravity. It is observable and repeatable. Evolution has not been proven, and scientifically disproving it is a relatively new field of study -- one that most evolutionists try to discredit before even hearing the evidence.

That said, I believe evolution will not survive the advance of information. Before long, it will become too implausable to believe that the evolution of species was left to random mutations and natural selection.


Let me know when the H1N1 flu strain evolves into a bumblebee or a lizard. For now, it's still a flu virus. When it evolves into something other than a virus, I'll consider that as evidence of macroevolution.

As far as I know, the theory of gravity falls under the theory of relativity with Einstein's modification. But you also have to understand that the semantics behind the word theory in science holds a different meaning than theory in common usage. Theories in science have good observational evidence, strong reasoning for its proof, and experimental data to back it up.

That's a common misconception about evolution. The H1N1 flu strain won't evolve into a lizard or a bumblebee. It can evolve into other flu strains. Just like there are many different species of ants, beetles, grasses, etc. Given enough time, it'll be a radically different virus. One different enough that it may not have characteristics of the influenza family. Besides, when I was quoting H1N1, it's a time scale we can see in human years. We can look at genetic sequences from H1N1 and see that it is a product of avian flu, swine flu, and human flu. It's a good example of micro-evolution.

The information age has given scientists access to genomic sequences. We find dog DNA and wolf DNA to be fairly similar. This correlates with their skeletal shapes and the general hypothesis that dogs were domesticated from wolves. That's one of the examples of macro-evolution I can think of now.

The theory of gravity is flat out incorrect in some instances. That is why the theory of relativity came to be. The theory of relativity is lacking in some respects. Such is why fields such as quantum mechanics have come into existence. All of these theories do change over time, but it is more like we build on what is already there and further tweak it. It is not real common that something would get completely thrown out.

You are exactly right. They've done exactly what you said.

However, there isn't a link, make that the evil graduated progression, that
shows a species evolving into another species.

That's where I have the problem with evolution. So far, all they have is a
species and another completely different species. But absolutely nothing
that shows one species (you can name any of the tens of thousands of
species currently discovered) evolving into another species.

Personally, I believe that the theory of evolution (aka the wishful thinking
of evolution) should be called the extrapolation of transformation.

Scientifically, evolution doesn't exist.

I'm told that Darwin's "Evolution of the Species" doesn't even mention humans, at least through the first 450 pages. It's all birds and lizards and frogs and plants.

The alternative is the busy, busy, busy, busy God theory. God makes the wolf, likes the dna, sprinkles a little red color in the mix and brings out the fox, then keeps the same dna in the lab then goes for the dog.

Same thing with the Cro-Magnons, the Neanderthals, Homos Erectus and humans. One group is brought out, created from nothing, allowed to romp around and then die out and then a whole new specie is brought forward from nothing. Is that the way it works? Here's another question for those favoring the busy God theory. When a specie dies out and many do each century, why wouldn't God bring them back? He's already got the formula, tried and true. Surely there was a use for that specie.

Under this assumption, how many new creatures are ushered into existance every century? Or every millenium. The biologists on the board could probably answer that.

"dinosaurs"

Here's a link to the "missing link". How often do you get to say that? Missing Linky (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Missing-Link-Scientists-In-New-York-Unveil-Fossil-Of-Lemur-Monkey-Hailed-As-Mans-Earliest-Ancestor/Article/200905315284582?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15284582_Missing_Link:_Scientists_In_N ew_York_Unveil_Fossil_Of_Lemur_Monkey_Hailed_As_Ma ns_Earliest_Ancestor)

Accuracy of Fossils and Dating Methods (ActionBioscience) (http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html)