Chromosome challenge

[Terumo]

Originally posted by: dgevert
#1, creation ISN'T backed by any form of credible science. There is no logic or fact that provides the basis of their arguments. Their arguments are PURELY religiously and politically motivated.

And Evolution is NOT fact, it's a theory. Theories change. What we believe today about evolution could be turned upside down in 50 years with a new discovery. The problem with Evolutionist (and Creationist) True Believers is they believe their belief is the undisputed "truth" as XYZ is some fact. No. We don't know why we exist, where we descended from actually, and probably never will.

Frankly, I'd rather be analysing spectrographs than arguing if man was created or evolved. It really doesn't matter in the scheme of things, as we exist.

#2, both sides claim their view is right, but which side is based on credible science? Evolution. Which side is based on the claims of liars like "Dr." Kent Hovind, "Dr." Ken Ham, and Glenn Morris? Which side continues to use arguments even after they've been refuted dozens of times? Which side is motivated PURELY by their religious and political beliefs?

That's the problem: there is no "credible science". I don't know what they're teaching kids in school/college these days, but if they don't understand the politics of science they're clueless in what is considered "credible" in science today. It's a popularity contest now, which side has the most PR folks, not the best science itself. Man's ego is now more important than the persuit of pure and unbiased science (well, it never really existed -- Newton, for example, was a total egotistical cad).

And when you mention political beliefs, look into the politics of the scientific Establishment. They're fudging geniune science as it is. Crap they're doing typing on guestimates -- did you know that? It's why our evolutionary tree looks so messed up. Instead of going down the list to eliminate doubts, they just say, "cranium of XYZ is larger, so it must be male" log it as such and shelf the specimen.

But for the lay public, it's all "facts". These PR a-holes brainwashed a whole new generation. Same type that believes the "Big Bang" theory IS the fact of the creation of the universe. Hogwash. The red shift problem there alone disqualifies it, but as long as no one talks about it it's okay. That was known 60 years ago, with hard science.

Please don't dupe anyone anymore about what "fact".

#3, medical science would be nowhere near where it is today without evolutionary biology. And as far as who excuses it...guess what...it's the creationists there, too. They just chalk it up to man's sinful nature, and claim that natural tragedies are some god's wrath.

What crap is that? Evolutionary biology made medicine?? Medicine was made often by pure mechanics and trial and error. Did you know that? Medicine is more mechanical, as the body is basically a biochemical mechine. It's why surgical techniques outpace the biochemical side of medicine. The can repair and heal injuries and diseases physically faster than repairing them with a pill. MDs are mainly very fancy mechanics (same can be said of DVMs).

Crap, creationists are MDs too. Makes no difference if they believed God created everything or nothing, they're highly trained mechanics.

To claim that both sides stand on any form of equal footing is idiocy.

No, the idiocy is claiming ANY side is more intelligent or better. As long as man has a puny mind, he will never understand the universe or his place in it. That's reality. Everything else is BS, to defend beliefs that may turn on it's head tomorrow.

We will never know the unknown. It's why religions exist, it's why humans will believe a God created everything. And no one can PROVE they're wrong, anyway.

EDIT: 100th post -- YAH!

 

[AUGrad]

Originally posted by: Gilby

Originally posted by: AUGrad
Having said these things, I find myself wanting to doubt the evolutionists more than the creationists. I haven't seen one creationist on this board say anything along the lines of "that's just the way it is. If you don't agree, you must be stupid." This is a dogmatic response more appropriate in the defense of dogma than of science. Evolutionists that say these things are hurting their position more than they are helping it.

Can you think of a better resonse to a group that, despite repeatedly being shown evidence, claims that none exists? Can you think of a better response to a group that repeately makes false claims with no more backing than those false claims? There really are only two possibilities. Stupid tends to be a lesser evil than unethical.

There really are two possibilities with you too: 1. closed-minded and dogmatic. 2. Sphincter. I'm not sure which of these is lesser.

Most of the creationists, here at least, seem to be reasonibly asking for a discussion of fact, but noone on the evolution side seems to have patience for this. That's a shame.

Why don't you try reading a thread before responding. The opening post of this thread dealt with evidence on the genetic level.

And was refuted later.

Now, on to my questions. If they seem simple and ignorant, I have already admitted to that, so please don't bother to reply just to tell me that they are. That would classify as troll behavior.

Yeah, you are exhibiting troll behavior, but I'll try to be nice anyway. Your post suggests that you really don't know the first thing about the sciences that you are trying to critique (which reflects pretty poorly on your teachers throughout the years, I guess.) Your questions on evolution might best be answered by introductary college-level biology, geology and astronomy texts. You're basing your arguments against biology, geology and astronomy on your own ignorance and incredulity--that reflects very poorly on you. If you do want to get over your ignorance, and aren't merely trolling, but don't want to hunt down college textbooks, try www.talkorigins.org/. It handes a lot of the questions that are frequently asked from a position of ignorance. It also happens to cover a lot of the unethical and misleading "information" you might get from a creationist when you ask your questions.

I don't recall posting a critique of the sciences, only a critique of the attitudes of the other posters and questions about the sciences which I admittedly am not strong in. Since you sent me to a USENET ARCHIVE site of all places (now there's a source of facts), I'll from here on out consider you nothing but a less-than-credible hack. You make me want to be a creationist, if for no other reason than to let me disagree with you.

Don't bother replying, I'm outa here. I think I'll go bug one of our biology professors for the answers. At least I know they have studied real science.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Terumo

Originally posted by: dgevert
#1, creation ISN'T backed by any form of credible science. There is no logic or fact that provides the basis of their arguments. Their arguments are PURELY religiously and politically motivated.

And Evolution is NOT fact, it's a theory.

Evolution, the change in allele frequencies over time, is an observed
fact from bacterial development of antibiotic resistance to the
emergence of new plant and animal species that we've observed.

Natural selection is a theory that explains the fact of evolution,
much like gravity is theory that explains the fact that objects fall
towards other massive objects. There have been alternate theories that
have attempted to explain the fact of evolution, such as Lamarck's
theory of acquired characteristics, which have been disproven.

Creationism is not a theory, but rather a myth. Creationism offers no
testable predictions and cannot be falsified. If the world appears
old, the Creationists can say that it's because God made it appear
old. There's no way to disprove it, as any evidence fits Creationism.

Frankly, I'd rather be analysing spectrographs than arguing if man was created or evolved. It really doesn't matter in the scheme of things, as we exist.

Why is the evolution debate important? Look at what history shows us
when dogma trumps scientific fact: google for Lysenkoism, which is how
the dogmatic Soviet interpretation of Lamarck's failed theory lead to
the starvation and death of millions of Russians in the 20th century.

That's the problem: there is no "credible science".

You might want to actually look at the field of evolutionary biology before saying something like that. There's a vast peer-reviewed literature in the scientific journals on evolutionary biology.

It's a popularity contest now, which side has the most PR folks, not the best science itself. Man's ego is now more important than the persuit of pure and unbiased science.

As far as what the American public believes or American K-12 schools teach, yes, the creationism vs science debate is a rather odd popularity contest, one that doesn't exist to a noticeable degree anyplace else in the world due to the peculiar nature of American fundamentalist Christianity. When we turn to what scientists actually research, however, we find that the peculiar American debate doesn't exist, though there are plenty of debates of actual scientific relevance.

#3, medical science would be nowhere near where it is today without evolutionary biology. And as far as who excuses it...guess what...it's the creationists there, too. They just chalk it up to man's sinful nature, and claim that natural tragedies are some god's wrath.

What crap is that? Evolutionary biology made medicine?? Medicine was made often by pure mechanics and trial and error.

Animal tests (and the particular animals we choose for them) would make little sense if we weren't closely related. Antibiotic and other drug resistances wouldn't exist without evolution. Epidemiology relies heavily on natural selection to understand how and why diseases spread and how and why some become particularly virulent. Evolution is also involved in drug development and bioinformatics.

It's why surgical techniques outpace the biochemical side of medicine. The can repair and heal injuries and diseases physically faster than repairing them with a pill. MDs are mainly very fancy mechanics (same can be said of DVMs).

Whether surgery is more efficacious than drugs, physical therapy, or other forms of treatment depends on the type of ailment. Surgery works well for a variety of acute problems, but not so well for the majority of chronic issues. It's also worth noting that surgeons make up only a small fraction of all MDs, so focusing exclusively on them ignores most of medicine, as a field of study and as people experience it.

No, the idiocy is claiming ANY side is more intelligent or better. As long as man has a puny mind, he will never understand the universe or his place in it. That's reality. Everything else is BS, to defend beliefs that may turn on it's head tomorrow.

We will never know the unknown. It's why religions exist, it's why humans will believe a God created everything.

If you're that skeptical, then no one can convince you of anything.

And no one can PROVE they're wrong, anyway.

Of course, that's precisely why creationism isn't science: no matter what the facts are, creationism agrees with them, as an intelligent designer with arbitrary power can produce any result.

 

[Terumo]

Originally posted by: cquark
Evolution, the change in allele frequencies over time, is an observed
fact from bacterial development of antibiotic resistance to the
emergence of new plant and animal species that we've observed.

But when one can't observe it it's a what? The unknown.
If it's an unknown it can't be a fact, let alone known to exist.
Man hasn't seen a new species (naturally) evolve, so it's not observable.

Natural selection is a theory that explains the fact of evolution,

There is no fact in evolution. It's called a theory because it's what?? Ever changing.

much like gravity is theory that explains the fact that objects fall
towards other massive objects. There have been alternate theories that
have attempted to explain the fact of evolution, such as Lamarck's
theory of acquired characteristics, which have been disproven.

And if you knew physics (or astrophysics) you'll learn that physics also is plaqued with the problems evolution is going through. It can't explain -- let alone OBSERVE -- what's missing in the puzzle. Man may never observe or even fathom those missing pieces (our brains, let alone senses won't detect it -- and if man can't detect it by using his noggin or senses, it's what again?? The Unknown).

Creationism is not a theory, but rather a myth.

Says who? Another man? When did man have even the right declare another belief a myth anyway, when the accuser can't explain the unknown?

Dogmatism is dogmatism it knows no master, and as much as Evolutionist True Believers claim religious folks are fanatics and delusional, they too became what they claim to hate in others. Extremism is bad.

Creationism offers no testable predictions and cannot be falsified. If the world appears
old, the Creationists can say that it's because God made it appear
old. There's no way to disprove it, as any evidence fits Creationism.

Petty tail chasing. Creationists claim that Evolutionists can't find the "missing link", Evolutionists claim "prove to science (or me) if God exists". Both locked in a battle where there's no answer -- as time erases it.

Why is the evolution debate important? Look at what history shows us
when dogma trumps scientific fact: google for Lysenkoism, which is how
the dogmatic Soviet interpretation of Lamarck's failed theory lead to
the starvation and death of millions of Russians in the 20th century.

All it tells me is that you're a True Believer of the Church of Evolution, and that you can read and even be brainwashed to even claim Evolution is a fact. Evolution can be a process to something else UNSEEN. Problem with man's mind it's too linear, and Science is in danger of following it straight to the very end, while Mankind itself evolves beyond it's limits.

You True Believers got yourself in a box, and like the Creationists won't even admit it. At least with Creationists they can make up a way to get out, but for so-called scientists who tout FACTS and PROOF will be locked in until they die.

Socialism would fail because it relies on the goodness of man. Unfortunately man is a greedy SOB, and if there's money and power to be had, he'll do what he can to get it -- always at the expense of others. It's yet another theory that's good to read about and debate, but in practical use a disaster.

You might want to actually look at the field of evolutionary biology before saying something like that. There's a vast peer-reviewed literature in the scientific journals on evolutionary biology.

Since you might not know, my speciality is forensic anthropology. No need to point to me about EB. Furthermore, don't skip past the politics side of the scientific Establishment. EB is plagued with non hard scientists, it's basically half biologists/biochemists and half of those with degrees in the humanities (sociology; cultural anthropology, etc.).

Perhaps you need to REALLY check the fine print??

As far as what the American public believes or American K-12 schools teach, yes, the creationism vs science debate is a rather odd popularity contest, one that doesn't exist to a noticeable degree anyplace else in the world due to the peculiar nature of American fundamentalist Christianity. When we turn to what scientists actually research, however, we find that the peculiar American debate doesn't exist, though there are plenty of debates of actual scientific relevance.

Oh, now you pretend to speak for the entire American public? How do you have such EVIDENCE of your hypothesis? You don't have anything to back it up, and won't.

Radical Christianity is no different than True Believers of Evolution. To point fingers on Christians for their beliefs is no different than Christians doing the same. It's but tail chasing, bigotry begetting bigotry.

This whole argument need no exist, but some people need bones to gnaw on -- at least it's more comfortable than facing The Unknown.

Animal tests (and the particular animals we choose for them) would make little sense if we weren't closely related.

:shakes head:

Tell me is a cat related to humans? How far away are they to primates? I'm asking you this because your IDEA is wrong. Animal tests aren't conducted solely because the animals are related, they are chosen due to availability and peculiar DIFFERENCES.

One project is being done by the University of Ohio Veterinary School on alleviating nonregenetative anemia. They choose cats because of their particuliar hypersensitivity to any changes to their blood via medicine or biochemical manipulation.

Don't tell me or others that animals are picked because they're related to us, that's rarely the reason. Just look at lab rats, they don't get cancer on their own, they have to be introduced to cancer. We use them to study neithertheless.

Antibiotic and other drug resistances wouldn't exist without evolution.

Adaptation does not equate to evolution. You are mixing terms.

Epidemiology relies heavily on natural selection to understand how and why diseases spread and how and why some become particularly virulent. Evolution is also involved in drug development and bioinformatics.

Again you're mixing terms. Tell us, where's the new species that emerges from this adaptation??

Consult a biology dictionary for the correct term. Then read how it's different from Evolution.

Whether surgery is more efficacious than drugs, physical therapy, or other forms of treatment depends on the type of ailment. Surgery works well for a variety of acute problems, but not so well for the majority of chronic issues. It's also worth noting that surgeons make up only a small fraction of all MDs, so focusing exclusively on them ignores most of medicine, as a field of study and as people experience it.

Why doesn't it work well on chronic illnesses? Because of the limits in treating the illness. But the solution will be more mechanical than biochemical in the next 100 years (stem cells and all are time consuming processes and reserved for long term illnesses and diseases). As evident in the cat anemia project, involving extension surgery to administer the genetic treatment.

There will always be fewer surgeons, as it's a very specialized field of study and incredibly unforgiving.

If you're that skeptical, then no one can convince you of anything.

Good!! I'm not interested in being converted by The Church or The Church of Evolution.

Of course, that's precisely why creationism isn't science: no matter what the facts are, creationism agrees with them, as an intelligent designer with arbitrary power can produce any result.

....And round and round it goes, to nowhere (one side blames the other side and vice versa)....

:shakes head:

 

[Gibsons]

Just look at lab rats, they don't get cancer on their own,

Yes they do.

Newton, for example, was a total egotistical cad

Funny.

 

[Terumo]

"Yes they do."

"Funny."

:roll eyes:

How about answering my post? I love to see how much SCIENCE you know that's practical and not read in some book?

Too many people take talkorigins like an Evolutionist's bible.

 

[Peter]

You generalize, you choose to consequently ignore factual argument, you make up your own "facts", and when cornered, you revert to personal insult. Rolling eyes really isn't up to YOU.

I return the question: How many books do you take your ideas from? One? Bit thin.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Terumo

Originally posted by: cquark
Evolution, the change in allele frequencies over time, is an observed
fact from bacterial development of antibiotic resistance to the
emergence of new plant and animal species that we've observed.

But when one can't observe it it's a what? The unknown.
If it's an unknown it can't be a fact, let alone known to exist.
Man hasn't seen a new species (naturally) evolve, so it's not observable.

Yes, we have. Check the scientific literature:

Ahearn, J. N. 1980. Evolution of behavioral reproductive isolation in a laboratory stock of Drosophila silvestris. Experientia. 36:63-64.

Barton, N. H., J. S. Jones and J. Mallet. 1988. No barriers to speciation. Nature. 336:13-14.

Baum, D. 1992. Phylogenetic species concepts. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 7:1-3.

Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.

Breeuwer, J. A. J. and J. H. Werren. 1990. Microorganisms associated with chromosome destruction and reproductive isolation between two insect species. Nature. 346:558-560.

Budd, A. F. and B. D. Mishler. 1990. Species and evolution in clonal organisms -- a summary and discussion. Systematic Botany 15:166-171.

Bullini, L. and G. Nascetti. 1990. Speciation by hybridization in phasmids and other insects. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 68:1747-1760.

Butters, F. K. 1941. Hybrid Woodsias in Minnesota. Amer. Fern. J. 31:15-21.

Butters, F. K. and R. M. Tryon, jr. 1948. A fertile mutant of a Woodsia hybrid. American Journal of Botany. 35:138.

Brock, T. D. and M. T. Madigan. 1988. Biology of Microorganisms (5th edition). Prentice Hall, Englewood, NJ.

Callaghan, C. A. 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American Biology Teacher. 49:3436.

Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Species usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.

Clausen, J., D. D. Keck and W. M. Hiesey. 1945. Experimental studies on the nature of species. II. Plant evolution through amphiploidy and autoploidy, with examples from the Madiinae. Carnegie Institute Washington Publication, 564:1-174.

Cracraft, J. 1989. Speciation and its ontology: the empirical consequences of alternative species concepts for understanding patterns and processes of differentiation. In Otte, E. and J. A. Endler [eds.] Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. pp. 28-59.

Craig, T. P., J. K. Itami, W. G. Abrahamson and J. D. Horner. 1993. Behavioral evidence for host-race fromation in Eurosta solidaginis. Evolution. 47:1696-1710.

Cronquist, A. 1978. Once again, what is a species? Biosystematics in agriculture. Beltsville Symposia in Agricultural Research 2:3-20.

Cronquist, A. 1988. The evolution and classification of flowering plants (2nd edition). The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY.

Crossley, S. A. 1974. Changes in mating behavior produced by selection for ethological isolation between ebony and vestigial mutants of Drosophilia melanogaster. Evolution. 28:631-647.

de Oliveira, A. K. and A. R. Cordeiro. 1980. Adaptation of Drosophila willistoni experimental populations to extreme pH medium. II. Development of incipient reproductive isolation. Heredity. 44:123-130.

de Queiroz, K. and M. Donoghue. 1988. Phylogenetic systematics and the species problem. Cladistics. 4:317-338.

de Queiroz, K. and M. Donoghue. 1990. Phylogenetic systematics and species revisited. Cladistics. 6:83-90.

de Vries, H. 1905. Species and varieties, their origin by mutation.

de Wet, J. M. J. 1971. Polyploidy and evolution in plants. Taxon. 20:29-35.

del Solar, E. 1966. Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive and negative phototaxis and geotaxis in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US). 56:484-487.

Digby, L. 1912. The cytology of Primula kewensis and of other related Primula hybrids. Ann. Bot. 26:357-388.

Dobzhansky, T. 1937. Genetics and the origin of species. Columbia University Press, New York.

Dobzhansky, T. 1951. Genetics and the origin of species (3rd edition). Columbia University Press, New York.

Dobzhansky, T. and O. Pavlovsky. 1971. Experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila. Nature. 230:289-292.

Dobzhansky, T. 1972. Species of Drosophila: new excitement in an old field. Science. 177:664-669.

Dodd, D. M. B. 1989. Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 43:1308-1311.

Dodd, D. M. B. and J. R. Powell. 1985. Founder-flush speciation: an update of experimental results with Drosophila. Evolution 39:1388-1392.

Donoghue, M. J. 1985. A critique of the biological species concept and recommendations for a phylogenetic alternative. Bryologist 88:172-181.

Du Rietz, G. E. 1930. The fundamental units of biological taxonomy. Svensk. Bot. Tidskr. 24:333-428.

Ehrman, E. 1971. Natural selection for the origin of reproductive isolation. The American Naturalist. 105:479-483.

Ehrman, E. 1973. More on natural selection for the origin of reproductive isolation. The American Naturalist. 107:318-319.

Feder, J. L., C. A. Chilcote and G. L. Bush. 1988. Genetic differentiation between sympatric host races of the apple maggot fly, Rhagoletis pomonella. Nature. 336:61-64.

Feder, J. L. and G. L. Bush. 1989. A field test of differential host-plant usage between two sibling species of Rhagoletis pomonella fruit flies (Diptera:Tephritidae) and its consequences for sympatric models of speciation. Evolution 43:1813-1819.

Frandsen, K. J. 1943. The experimental formation of Brassica juncea Czern. et Coss. Dansk. Bot. Arkiv., No. 4, 11:1-17.

Frandsen, K. J. 1947. The experimental formation of Brassica napus L. var. oleifera DC and Brassica carinata Braun. Dansk. Bot. Arkiv., No. 7, 12:1-16.

Galiana, A., A. Moya and F. J. Alaya. 1993. Founder-flush speciation in Drosophila pseudoobscura: a large scale experiment. Evolution. 47432-444.

Gottleib, L. D. 1973. Genetic differentiation, sympatric speciation, and the origin of a diploid species of Stephanomeira. American Journal of Botany. 60: 545-553.

Halliburton, R. and G. A. E. Gall. 1981. Disruptive selection and assortative mating in Tribolium castaneum. Evolution. 35:829-843.

Hurd, L. E., and R. M. Eisenberg. 1975. Divergent selection for geotactic response and evolution of reproductive isolation in sympatric and allopatric populations of houseflies. The American Naturalist. 109:353-358.

Karpchenko, G. D. 1927. Polyploid hybrids of Raphanus sativus L. X Brassica oleraceae L. Bull. Appl. Botany. 17:305-408.

Karpchenko, G. D. 1928. Polyploid hybrids of Raphanus sativus L. X Brassica oleraceae L. Z. Indukt. Abstami-a Verenbungsi. 48:1-85.

Kilias, G., S. N. Alahiotis and M. Delecanos. 1980. A multifactorial investigation of speciation theory using Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution. 34:730-737.

Knight, G. R., A. Robertson and C. H. Waddington. 1956. Selection for sexual isolation within a species. Evolution. 10:14-22.

Koopman, K. F. 1950. Natural selection for reproductive isolation between Drosophila pseudoobscura and Drosophila persimilis. Evolution. 4:135-148.

Lee, R. E. 1989. Phycology (2nd edition) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

Levin, D. A. 1979. The nature of plant species. Science 204:381-384.

Lokki, J. and A. Saura. 1980. Polyploidy in insect evolution. In: W. H. Lewis (ed.) Polyploidy: Biological Relevance. Plenum Press, New York.

Macnair, M. R. 1981. Tolerance of higher plants to toxic materials. In: J. A. Bishop and L. M. Cook (eds.). Genetic consequences of man made change. Pp.177-297. Academic Press, New York.

Macnair, M. R. and P. Christie. 1983. Reproductive isolation as a pleiotropic effect of copper tolerance in Mimulus guttatus. Heredity. 50:295-302.

Manhart, J. R. and R. M. McCourt. 1992. Molecular data and species concepts in the algae. Journal of Phycology. 28:730-737.

Mayr, E. 1942. Systematics and the origin of species from the viewpoint of a zoologist. Columbia University Press, New York.

Mayr, E. 1982. The growth of biological thought: diversity, evolution and inheritance. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. McCourt, R. M. and R. W. Hoshaw. 1990. Noncorrespondence of breeding groups, morphology and monophyletic groups in Spirogyra (Zygnemataceae; Chlorophyta) and the application of species concepts. Systematic Botany. 15:69-78.

McPheron, B. A., D. C. Smith and S. H. Berlocher. 1988. Genetic differentiation between host races of Rhagoletis pomonella. Nature. 336:64-66.

Meffert, L. M. and E. H. Bryant. 1991. Mating propensity and courtship behavior in serially bottlenecked lines of the housefly. Evolution 45:293-306.

Mishler, B. D. 1985. The morphological, developmental and phylogenetic basis of species concepts in the bryophytes. Bryologist. 88:207-214.

Mishler, B. D. and M. J. Donoghue. 1982. Species concepts: a case for pluralism. Systematic Zoology. 31:491-503.

Muntzing, A. 1932. Cytogenetic investigations on the synthetic Galeopsis tetrahit. Hereditas. 16:105-154.

Nelson, G. 1989. Cladistics and evolutionary models. Cladistics. 5:275-289.

Newton, W. C. F. and C. Pellew. 1929. Primula kewensis and its derivatives. J. Genetics. 20:405-467.

Otte, E. and J. A. Endler (eds.). 1989. Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer Associates. Sunderland, MA.

Owenby, M. 1950. Natural hybridization and amphiploidy in the genus Tragopogon. Am. J. Bot. 37:487-499.

Pasterniani, E. 1969. Selection for reproductive isolation between two populations of maize, Zea mays L. Evolution. 23:534-547.

Powell, J. R. 1978. The founder-flush speciation theory: an experimental approach. Evolution. 32:465-474.

Prokopy, R. J., S. R. Diehl, and S. H. Cooley. 1988. Oecologia. 76:138.

Rabe, E. W. and C. H. Haufler. 1992. Incipient polyploid speciation in the maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum, adiantaceae)? American Journal of Botany. 79:701-707.

Rice, W. R. 1985. Disruptive selection on habitat preference and the evolution of reproductive isolation: an exploratory experiment. Evolution. 39:645-646.

Rice, W. R. and E. E. Hostert. 1993. Laboratory experiments on speciation: What have we learned in forty years? Evolution. 47:1637-1653.

Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1988. Speciation via disruptive selection on habitat preference: experimental evidence. The American Naturalist. 131:911-917.

Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1990. The evolution of reproductive isolation as a correlated character under sympatric conditions: experimental evidence. Evolution. 44:1140-1152.

Ringo, J., D. Wood, R. Rockwell, and H. Dowse. 1989. An experiment testing two hypotheses of speciation. The American Naturalist. 126:642-661.

Schluter, D. and L. M. Nagel. 1995. Parallel speciation by natural selection. American Naturalist. 146:292-301.

Shikano, S., L. S. Luckinbill and Y. Kurihara. 1990. Changes of traits in a bacterial population associated with protozoal predation. Microbial Ecology. 20:75-84.

Smith, D. C. 1988. Heritable divergence of Rhagoletis pomonella host races by seasonal asynchrony. Nature. 336:66-67.

Soans, A. B., D. Pimentel and J. S. Soans. 1974. Evolution of reproductive isolation in allopatric and sympatric populations. The American Naturalist. 108:117-124.

Sokal, R. R. and T. J. Crovello. 1970. The biological species concept: a critical evaluation. The American Naturalist. 104:127-153.

Soltis, D. E. and P. S. Soltis. 1989. Allopolyploid speciation in Tragopogon: Insights from chloroplast DNA. American Journal of Botany. 76:1119-1124.

Stuessy, T. F. 1990. Plant taxonomy. Columbia University Press, New York.

Thoday, J. M. and J. B. Gibson. 1962. Isolation by disruptive selection. Nature. 193:1164-1166.

Thoday, J. M. and J. B. Gibson. 1970. The probability of isolation by disruptive selection. The American Naturalist. 104:219-230.

Thompson, J. N. 1987. Symbiont-induced speciation. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 32:385-393.

Vrijenhoek, R. C. 1994. Unisexual fish: Model systems for studying ecology and evolution. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 25:71-96.

Waring, G. L., W. G. Abrahamson and D. J. Howard. 1990. Genetic differentiation in the gall former Eurosta solidaginis (Diptera:Tephritidae) along host plant lines. Evolution. 44:1648-1655.

Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. 46:1214-1220.

Wood, A. M. and T. Leatham. 1992. The species concept in phytoplankton ecology. Journal of Phycology. 28:723-729.

Yen, J. H. and A. R. Barr. 1971. New hypotheses of the cause of cytoplasmic incompatability in Culex pipiens L.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Terumo

Natural selection is a theory that explains the fact of evolution,

There is no fact in evolution. It's called a theory because it's what?? Ever changing.

You don't seem to understand the meaning of theory in science. While in vernacular American English, a theory is an uncertain fact, that is not the meaning of the term theory used in science.

Facts and theories are completely different things. Facts are data, like the observations of speciation, fossils, DNA evidence, and so forth. Theories are explanations for facts.

And if you knew physics (or astrophysics) you'll learn that physics also is plaqued with the problems evolution is going through.

I have a PhD in theoretical physics. Go ahead and tell me what problems you've found.

Creationism is not a theory, but rather a myth.

Says who? Another man? When did man have even the right declare another belief a myth anyway, when the accuser can't explain the unknown?

There's a clear demarcation between a theory and a myth. For an explanation to be a theory, it must be falsifiable and should make testable predictions (like natural selection's prediction of a genetic material that works like DNA decades before DNA was discovered.)

There is no way to disprove Creationism, as any evidence fits the explanation. Creationism makes no testable predictions.

Dogmatism is dogmatism it knows no master, and as much as Evolutionist True Believers claim religious folks are fanatics and delusional, they too became what they claim to hate in others. Extremism is bad.

I didn't make any of the accusations you imply I did above. I'm not the extremist here.

Creationism offers no testable predictions and cannot be falsified. If the world appears
old, the Creationists can say that it's because God made it appear
old. There's no way to disprove it, as any evidence fits Creationism.

Petty tail chasing. Creationists claim that Evolutionists can't find the "missing link", Evolutionists claim "prove to science (or me) if God exists". Both locked in a battle where there's no answer -- as time erases it.

You didn't understand what I said.

I didn't claim that the creationists needed to prove anything.

The problem with Creationism isn't as simple as lack of evidence. Read what I said above in my previous post and the current one again and if you still don't undersand, why don't you ask some questions instead of being so dogmatic about me being wrong?

You True Believers got yourself in a box, and like the Creationists won't even admit it. At least with Creationists they can make up a way to get out, but for so-called scientists who tout FACTS and PROOF will be locked in until they die.

You're very dogmatic in your postings about your position and the impossibilty of others' positions, have you noticed, True Believer?

Adaptation does not equate to evolution. You are mixing terms.

No, evolution is the change in allele frequencies over time. You are the one who is ignorant of biology and misusing scientific terminology.

Tell me is a cat related to humans? How far away are they to primates?

Yes, quite closely. Humans share about half your DNA with lettuce; cats are much more closely related, and our closest primate relatives have little more than 1% DNA difference.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: Terumo
"Yes they do."

"Funny."

:roll eyes:

How about answering my post? I love to see how much SCIENCE you know that's practical and not read in some book?

Too many people take talkorigins like an Evolutionist's bible.

I discovered a gene thought to be the cause (in part) of a rare childhood disease. I even used some evolutionary theory to do so. Turns out the gene seems to be required for development of B and T cells. Whether that's "practical" or not is an open question I suppose.

Can't say I've ever really looked at the talkorigins site, though. I'm not sure why you mentioned it here.

As for answering your post, I was merely pointing out one blatant mistake that one with your degree of arrogant certitude shouldn't be making.

 

[dgevert]

Originally posted by: Terumo
"Yes they do."

"Funny."

:roll eyes:

How about answering my post? I love to see how much SCIENCE you know that's practical and not read in some book?

Too many people take talkorigins like an Evolutionist's bible.

Yeah, it's not like the authors at TalkOrigins don't know what they're talking about. None of them hold degrees in biology. Oh...wait...they do...

Well, it's not like their opponents, the creationists, don't have the same...oh, wait...they don't...

Well, regardless, they still just make a bunch of assertions and claims and never back them up...except for the mere fact that they provide references to articles published in peer-reviewed journals whenever they add new articles to their website.

So yeah, it's exactly comparable to the creationists and their Bible...except not.

Now, let's try to get this back on target. I'm tired of trying to correct the ignorance of those arguing against evolution here. The chromosome challenge still stands.

 

[Terumo]

Originally posted by: Peter
You generalize, you choose to consequently ignore factual argument, you make up your own "facts", and when cornered, you revert to personal insult. Rolling eyes really isn't up to YOU.

I return the question: How many books do you take your ideas from? One? Bit thin.

lololol

Don't you "get it"? Evolution and Creation are but generalizations. Neither side has the answers, and probably never will. It's basically a forlourn hope endeavor of answering: what came first, the chicken or the egg?

You'd love to pigeonhole others into 2 camps. Ain't happening with me, as I don't adhere to either.

 

[Terumo]

Originally posted by: cquark

Yes, we have. Check the scientific literature:

Actually you haven't. Copy and pasting from talkorigins, means nothing. Talkorigins is like the Christian Coalition -- True Believers to the extent of tin foil craziness.

Makes it worse when folks goto college and get brainwashed into believing things like THEORIES are FACTs. A theory can never be a fact, as facts rarely if ever changes. Theories are designed to change as new information becomes known -- either the hard way, by politics, or even fudging.

Bad enough Einstein fudged his theory of relativity due to peer pressure (just one example of man's interference into pure science, based on ego, bias and stupidity). Now you're trying to just do the old trick of posting a zillion links to make your opinion look educated. Doesn't fly (especially when sometimes outright false papers that even got the past the editors and accepted by peers pass peer review, but later found to be forgeries).

Never sell your soul to The Church or The Church of Evolution, as neither has the answers and probably never will find them. As long as man has his imprint on it, it'll be warped to his own design -- just like Christians (and all other religions) done with God's image.

Man's next step in evolution is to learn to accept he can't manipulate the universe. He has to accept some things will never be known -- at least on this side of the equation. Our origins is one of them, as it's really something we don't need to know.

 

[dgevert]

Terumo, do not lecture us on evolution and scientific fact and theory, when you so clearly know so little about it.

 

[Terumo]

Originally posted by: dgevert

Originally posted by: Terumo
"Yes they do."

"Funny."

:roll eyes:

How about answering my post? I love to see how much SCIENCE you know that's practical and not read in some book?

Too many people take talkorigins like an Evolutionist's bible.

Yeah, it's not like the authors at TalkOrigins don't know what they're talking about. None of them hold degrees in biology. Oh...wait...they do...

Well, it's not like their opponents, the creationists, don't have the same...oh, wait...they don't...

Well, regardless, they still just make a bunch of assertions and claims and never back them up...except for the mere fact that they provide references to articles published in peer-reviewed journals whenever they add new articles to their website.

So yeah, it's exactly comparable to the creationists and their Bible...except not.

Now, let's try to get this back on target. I'm tired of trying to correct the ignorance of those arguing against evolution here. The chromosome challenge still stands.

Pause to think why I know about talkorigins. It's because like any fanatics of a religion, they run to their house of worship and try to brow beat others into conversion. It's becoming like spam on Evolution/Creation threads. Almost like only an AIbot is needed to carry the thread on.

***One the left side is the True Believers of Evolution
On the Right side are the True Believers of Creation***

Your hatred of the bible or Christians and probably anything and anyone else who doesn't believe your gospel is noted. But do you take 2 minutes to reflect the image you portray? You've become what you claim you hate in the other belief.

Mockery doesn't convert people, neither does spam. Only IDIOTS will pass on knowledge under a knife. And because so many idiots are willing to dig their graves fighting our origins, we should never know of it. It causes too much division and derision to be useful to mankind itself.

Believe me, if I somehow discovered that "missing link", I would bury it forever. Some knowledge man need never know -- as man would abuse and exploit it, perhaps leading to our extinction.

Man can be a very ugly creature, give him opportunity and power to do as he pleases, he'll not only destroy himself, perhaps the universe itself if he could.

 

[Terumo]

Originally posted by: dgevert
Terumo, do not lecture us on evolution and scientific fact and theory, when you so clearly know so little about it.

Don't deflect, I know science since I was 10 years-old writing to Kitt Peak National Observatory. While you were playing with Matchboxes or what not, I was spending sleepless nights observing variable stars, and tracking them. My first love is astronomy, and you have zero idea of what I do or don't know.

So take these cookie cutter replies and take them back to Talkorigins where the spam belongs.

Besides, I don't value copy and paste artists views very much -- especially on a topic like this, even the brain dead could do that. You True Believers prove nothing than you can be actually trained monkies.

I'll be here, dgevert. But no conversion is possible, and no scapegoating will work. I'm not even a Christian for you to nail to a cross.

BTW, don't put up a challenge if you guys can't deliever (at least original content). Laziness is a poor debate anyhow.

 

[dgevert]

Originally posted by: Terumo
Pause to think why I know about talkorigins. It's because like any fanatics of a religion, they run to their house of worship and try to brow beat others into conversion. It's becoming like spam on Evolution/Creation threads. Almost like only an AIbot is needed to carry the thread on.

It's "becoming like spam" because creationists raise the same wrong objections OVER and OVER again, because everyone of 'em doesn't know what they're talking about, and TalkOrigins is a convenient site because it's already ANSWERED those objections. TalkOrigins exists because we don't believe it necessary to reinvent the wheel for every religious nut who thinks that because they have faith in god, the scientific evidence is no longer valid...

***One the left side is the True Believers of Evolution
On the Right side are the True Believers of Creation***

I'm a "True Believer?" Why, because I refuse to describe the debate as something it's not? Because YOU can't accept scientific fact, I'm the dogmatic one? That's ridiculous. The FACT of the matter is that common descent - commonly referred to itself as evolution - is a FACT. Whether you like it or not. Whether your faith agrees with it or not. For the last frigging time, the THEORY of evolution is the explanation of this phenomenon. What's next, will you try to claim I'm a "True Believer of Gravity" because I refuse to let some nutjob tell me that it's just a theory that gravity exists?

Your hatred of the bible or Christians and probably anything and anyone else who doesn't believe your gospel is noted. But do you take 2 minutes to reflect the image you portray? You've become what you claim you hate in the other belief.

Oh, nice. Where have I EVER said or indicated I hate Christianity? The only ones who bring religion into this are the creationists.

Mockery doesn't convert people, neither does spam. Only IDIOTS will pass on knowledge under a knife. And because so many idiots are willing to dig their graves fighting our origins, we should never know of it. It causes too much division and derision to be useful to mankind itself.

Who said I care about converting people? I don't give a crap about whether some creationists want to stick to faith over fact. What I care about is when those same idiots want to inject that dogmatism into science.

Believe me, if I somehow discovered that "missing link", I would bury it forever. Some knowledge man need never know -- as man would abuse and exploit it, perhaps leading to our extinction.

Man can be a very ugly creature, give him opportunity and power to do as he pleases, he'll not only destroy himself, perhaps the universe itself if he could.

So the search for fact and scientific truth means nothing to you. Duly noted. I know not to deal with you in the future past my response to the drivel you posted below this post.

 

[dgevert]

Originally posted by: Terumo
Don't deflect, I know science since I was 10 years-old writing to Kitt Peak National Observatory. While you were playing with Matchboxes or what not, I was spending sleepless nights observing variable stars, and tracking them. My first love is astronomy, and you have zero idea of what I do or don't know.

Astronomy? This is a biology debate. Your attempt to puff yourself up is duly noted, and summarily rejected. Sorry.

So take these cookie cutter replies and take them back to Talkorigins where the spam belongs.

Already addressed this. Why reinvent the wheel for every moron who thinks that evolution is an evil, incorrect idea because their preacher told them so?

Besides, I don't value copy and paste artists views very much -- especially on a topic like this, even the brain dead could do that. You True Believers prove nothing than you can be actually trained monkies.

Well, when a creationist comes up with a [new] objection that can't be dealt with with pre-existing material, I'll respond to it originally.

I'll be here, dgevert. But no conversion is possible, and no scapegoating will work. I'm not even a Christian for you to nail to a cross.

Your 'conversion' is not my problem, nor is it my goal. Besides, with the capacity for critical thinking that you've already shown, I hardly want you on my side anyway.

BTW, don't put up a challenge if you guys can't deliever (at least original content). Laziness is a poor debate anyhow.

Tell that to the creationists who *still* haven't addressed the original challenge.

Now, with that little off-topic jaunt dealt with, I will not respond to any further attempts to derail the discussion from the original challenge. I ask those on my side to also further ignore drivel posted by the likes of Terumo until the other side can deal with the evidence of common descent posted in my original post.

 

[Jack31081]

dgevert...what exactly are you expecting? creationists to come in here and admit they've had it wrong all this time?

I'm not religious in any sense of the word, but here's an easy creationist solution to your problem:

"God created chimps, and God created humans. That their DNA bears the resemblance noted in your original post is irrelevant."

I mean, come on. When God created everything, there's no argument you can put against it, because the reply can always be boiled down to, "It doesn't change the fact that God created everything" or "So?"

Nothing you say can disprove creationism...that's the point. Sure, evolution is true, and shows relationships between species, but that doesn't prove that God didn't create everything in those seven days. It only shows that it might not have happened that way. Evolution provides another possible answer, it does not discount the original answer.

 

[Peter]

The fun thing to ask a creationist is, "how do you know it hasn't happened five seconds ago?"

 

[Gilby]

Actually you haven't. Copy and pasting from talkorigins, means nothing. Talkorigins is like the Christian Coalition -- True Believers to the extent of tin foil craziness.
q]

Funny, I was just wondering what size your tinfoil hat was.

You're an absolute loon, plain and simple. From your writing, likely an adherent to the "ideas" of Velikovsky.

And that's most of the problem when it comes to legitimate ideas (in science, sure, but also in history and the like) being challenged by nutcases like Terumo. There's no question that we landed on the moon. Multiple times. But you've got those that say otherwise. If you ignore them, they claim that they're being marginalized by a vast conspiracy that wants to keep alternate ideas--truths--down. If you debate them, you legitimize their insanity as a real alternative that deserves to be discussed. Biology/Astronomy/Geology (and any other science that is decried by the Creationists--it's any of them that give problems to their fantasy) have the same problem with the creationists. Holocaust deniers (they call themselves "revisionists," of course) offer the same problem to Historians. There's nothing valid to any of these "alternatives," but you're basically screwed no matter how you respond to them.

I guess I'm optomistic enough to realize that anyone actually reading this thread comes away with a realization that listening to Terumo is not good for one's sanity. She may have tried to come off, at first, as a skeptic, but there is a huge difference between skeptic and loon--being able to accept basic science. When offered a large list of scientific citations from scientific journals, she responded, "Actually you haven't. Copy and pasting from talkorigins, means nothing. Talkorigins is like the Christian Coalition -- True Believers to the extent of tin foil craziness." Yes, I quoted it above, but it bears repeating. Upon offered citations to the very evidence she claims doesn't exist, she derides any and all science as "True Believers..."

Loon.

 

[Gilby]

Originally posted by: Jack31081
dgevert...what exactly are you expecting? creationists to come in here and admit they've had it wrong all this time?

Well, Terumo isn't a creationist. She follows some sort of non-scientific "-ism," that science rightly dismisses, and has a huge problem with science that has possibly even led to some slight mental instabillity because of this.

I'm not religious in any sense of the word, but here's an easy creationist solution to your problem:

"God created chimps, and God created humans. That their DNA bears the resemblance noted in your original post is irrelevant."

Which actually, of course, ignores the issue. We see shared mistakes in our DNA and that of close relatives. We see an awful lot of things that match with what we'd expect from the predictions made by the prevailing theory.

I mean, come on. When God created everything, there's no argument you can put against it, because the reply can always be boiled down to, "It doesn't change the fact that God created everything" or "So?"

Which is all fine and dandy. If creationists are willing to come right out and say that the evidence is against them, but it doesn't matter as Yahoo-Wahoo (2pts for whoever gets that reference) can cook the books and make things look however he wants, there would actually be no debate--mostly as that argument doesn't try to be scientific. Ultra-Orthodox Jews are very much creationists and indeed believe that the evidence out there is very much a test of their faith. They're not trying to get that idea taught as science.

 

[Gibsons]

Yahoo-Wahoo (2pts for whoever gets that reference)

Yahweh?

 

[Terumo]

Originally posted by: dgevert
It's "becoming like spam" because creationists raise the same wrong objections OVER and OVER again,

Just like you with Evolution. Look at your own reflection and see what you can project.

because everyone of 'em doesn't know what they're talking about,

You're not God, and since you're not, you don't know if everyone else doesn't know what they're talking about. You're assuming too much and have the ego of Donald Trump to even think that anyone who thinks differently than you is dumb.

You're a carbon copy of a fundie.

and TalkOrigins is a convenient site

For the brain dead and lazy. Drives Evolution/Creation threads to AIbot style events. In the effort to convert the world to accept Evolution, you've become a lay preacher, sprouting the same type of falsehoods and using sleight-of-hand tactics to "win". Winning is everything, not that what's right is right, let alone what's appropriate.

And what's appropriate is to accept there's always 2 sides to everything -- point/counterpoint; positive/negative; black/white. If you can't accept that, you've plunged into the world of fanaticalism, which brought the world the fundies.

because it's already ANSWERED those objections.

It did not. It'll never will. There is no answer to a question we don't know an answer too, let alone know where to look (remember observation? Science can't see the unknown, and it's plagued of it's own limitations to be useful. Another branch of science/philosophy will replace it in the future, because science will be venturing into answering the unknown -- which requires more tools that what's limited in conventional science).

You're trapped in a box, de. And the box is our puny minds and our very essence of being human.

TalkOrigins exists because we don't believe it necessary to reinvent the wheel

No, because the lay public is too lazy to keep up and subscribe to journals and attend conferences (which are more thorough than dry and sometimes stupid manuscripts) and even understand 1 ounce of what's said.

You fell into the trap of convience, and trying to pass it off as learnt. You guys are no more than copy and paste plagarists, back slapping yourself for a brilliance you don't even possess. You'll notice those who have the knowledge aren't on some internet forum debating the topic, because it's actually pointless (same goes for ordain ministers on Creation). It doesn't serve science (or religion), and it muddles understanding because lay folks don't study the fields to really understand what they're talking about.

for every religious nut who thinks that because they have faith in god, the scientific evidence is no longer valid...

You have no ability to judge, because you're not God yourself. If you're an Atheist who thinks God is in everyone, go do some curing and fly, show us God powers....lololol

You're in the same boat as everyone else, and everyone has an opinion of the matter. No one is more right, or wrong, as 99.9% of those arguing have really no clue what they're saying here. Even with my study of physical anthropology, I won't even claim to know how and where we came from -- nothing discovered is factual enough.

I'm a "True Believer?"

Yep, complete with your Talkorigins bible -- your warehouse of information, no different than a Christian's bible. And you use it in the exact same manner.

I'm just waiting on the witch hunts and burning at the stakes craziness next. Every fanatical faction goes to that extreme, because they can't accept there's what? Two poles to everything.

Why, because I refuse to describe the debate as something it's not?

No, because you're like the hundreds of others who plague Evolution/Creation threads. You add little content beyond some "scripture". You notice I don't use any, and I got you on the ropes angry as hell? It's because I've been debating on these topics online for over 8 years, and what said was said on thousands of forums all over the internet, and to trip you guys on your robes is so easy with an unknown you can't answer with science. Guess what that is? What's the counter-point, that pole, of Science?

:chuckle:

Because YOU can't accept scientific fact,

No such thing. Even Science doesn't claim facts, just good probabilities. That's the mindset of lay believers, which hard scientists can pick up quickly to tell if there's an actual colleage in the mist.

I'm the dogmatic one? That's ridiculous.

No, you and your comrade-in-arms are doing exactly what fundies do, and do the same bitchy commentary too. Do you guys actually think you're Einstein incarnate, or even God? As you act like you're either Him, or trying to put words in His mouth -- or mock Him.

Science is your religion. And you've become a fundie of The Church of Evolution. Complete with cross, rosary beads and Hail Mary's provided by the Deacons of Talkorigins.

You True Believers are no different than who you mock, and no different in the mindset. Creationists are brainwashed with the bible and their belief, and you TCOE members are too.

The FACT

Opinion. As all here are opinions, no one knows the unknown. Logic 101.

of the matter is that common descent - commonly referred to itself as evolution - is a FACT.

Only what's observable (which haven't been observed as we haven't been alive long enough to watch true evolution of higher life). Specialization is not Evolution, and that's a common mistake you TCOE members try to pass off as Evolution.

Whether you like it or not.

Frankly, I careless.

Whether your faith agrees with it or not.

You're really locked in a box. If anyone question your belief they're automatically Christians....lololol

I'm a Deist, de. We have no bibles, no churches and no clergy. It's a personal belief system, without the problems of organized religion. I'm very comfortable in both God creating the universe, and Evolution being an extension of His creation. Like watching a plant grow. I'm free to use science, without the pitfalls, but I also very much believe in a Higher Being, and have no need for gold, bibles or temples -- or preaching His gospel (He'll answer for Himself).

Worst you can do is trample on God with your ideas, but God's a Big Boy, and He handles His own, like making our origins a mystery to all. You can't accept that, you'll spend your days holding on Science as your religion instead, refusing to see that your human mind can't fathom everything. Meanwhile, I'm content in accepting I will never know everything, and what I want to know isn't censored by fundies like you TCOE members.

For the last frigging time,

No this will go on ad naseum, because it's a wonderful board seeder, and because man's not evolved beyond his primitive nature.

the THEORY of evolution is the explanation of this phenomenon. What's next, will you try to claim I'm a "True Believer of Gravity" because I refuse to let some nutjob tell me that it's just a theory that gravity exists?

The nutjob is you, de. You're thumping your bible, and probably ready to have a heart attack when someone questions the logic of your belief. Your reaction is an example of a fundie, extreme, limiting and all acid.

Get used to the idea we all have to share one world together. No side has a monopoly on knowledge and wisdom, afterall.

Oh, nice. Where have I EVER said or indicated I hate Christianity? The only ones who bring religion into this are the creationists.

Your language reveals it. Especially your mockery of a very important belief of Christians. Either you hate their belief so much beyond reason, or you like sociopathy to belittle something because it makes you feel like God to do so (and devoid of conscience enough to treat your fellow man like a toad). Your replies here added nothing to the content of our origin, just one sided propaganda from TCOE.

Who said I care about converting people?

Your actions reveal it. You're like the thousands of other TCOE members who are busy trying to enlighten the world of your religion.

It's not about a debate/discussion about our origins, but indoctrination of only one idea.

I don't give a crap about whether some creationists want to stick to faith over fact.

You very much so, as you wasted all this time and energy to fight over the unknown.

What I care about is when those same idiots want to inject that dogmatism into science.

And the Creationists can say the same about TCOE doing the same about Creationism.

Remember that everything has a pole??

If you're really science minded, you'd accept there's always another side to balance the whole. And Creationism isn't really your polar opposite (it's a convienent enemy that's vocal), your opposite is philosophy.

Love Heigler

So the search for fact and scientific truth means nothing to you. Duly noted.

It means a lot to me, especially everytime I look at the night sky. But some knowledge we're not ready for as a species, yet. We can't handle the news. Man lives on hope, and if hope is taken away (we're truly on borrowed time; an accident; bastards of the universe; knowledge is used to kill on will who species, etc) our species will cease to exist.

Knowledge is a two edged sword, and that sword can wipe out our whole existence too. Because it's so finite, man must be ready to grasp and handle the news of something of that nature. Today and in the next 300 to maybe 500 years, man is not ready for that information. Man must reach inside himself to fix his problems before he can digest what is in store for him.

Life is a journey. We'll see only pieces of the puzzle as we evolve into a higher being ourselves.

I know not to deal with you in the future past my response to the drivel you posted below this post.

Ah, logic. Get's them everytime. Works well with fundies of all stripes.

 

[Terumo]

Originally posted by: dgevert
Astronomy? This is a biology debate.

Nice try at deflection. No cigar.

Astronomy, along with cosmology, is around to answer the larger question of the existence of the universe. Much more complicated than one species in a sea of species.

Very much on topic!!

Your attempt to puff yourself up is duly noted, and summarily rejected. Sorry.

Can't help it if all you can do when questioned, is go "duh". Once the bible of Talkorigins is removed, you TCOE members babble like idiots, as that's all you have of your message -- words written from someone else.

Already addressed this. Why reinvent the wheel for every moron who thinks that evolution is an evil, incorrect idea because their preacher told them so?

Abusing Occam's Razor is like trying to abuse Godwin's Law -- it goes nowhere.

And every moron is a fundie. Look in the mirror.

Well, when a creationist comes up with a [new] objection that can't be dealt with with pre-existing material, I'll respond to it originally.

By what, calling them morons? Real good use of brain cells, how many did it take? One?

Your 'conversion' is not my problem, nor is it my goal.

It is, because you are here. I'm here to pick over the remains of a very dead topic -- the forensic anthropologist in me. A little brain matter here, a little offal there, and maybe a choice bone in the mass disaster.

Besides, with the capacity for critical thinking that you've already shown, I hardly want you on my side anyway.

Pause to think for a moment what I'm applying, de. It makes TCOE members run in circles, time after time.

Remember Science is linear?

It's amusing to watch Ph.Ds pull their hair out, because they're locked in a box so tight they can't even breathe. I love theories, and I love testing them too.

Tell that to the creationists who *still* haven't addressed the original challenge.

Why would they? Why here? Who ventures to a computer site, de? If you want folks who are Creationists go where the lions are, not in the safe confines of a comfortable home to beat your chests. Looks like the work of weenies.

Now, with that little off-topic jaunt dealt with, I will not respond to any further attempts to derail the discussion from the original challenge. I ask those on my side to also further ignore drivel posted by the likes of Terumo until the other side can deal with the evidence of common descent posted in my original post.

Thing is I accepted the challenge and you're miffed. All what's left is to attack the messenger, which means what in debates? You lost the debate.

Logic 101, Logic 101.