Creation vs. Evolution

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Futher
Do you believe in the theory of evolution... that we evolved from a primitive being? Or do you believe that God put the first humans here and then....blah blah blah....?

Creationism is a bullsh!t explanation for Fundies like Falwell and Bin Laden.

 

[Tominator]

Originally posted by: EdipisReks
talkorigins has pretty damn good discussions on this topic. by the way, evolution is an irrefutable fact. all creatures evolve, and they are evolving around us. if you look closely enoug, you can even see it happen. it is simply the mechanism of this evolution that is under debate. well, it's not really a debate when only one side actually has facts, but whatever.

edited to linkify my linkie.

Ignorance reigns eternal....

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Tominator

Originally posted by: EdipisReks
talkorigins has pretty damn good discussions on this topic. by the way, evolution is an irrefutable fact. all creatures evolve, and they are evolving around us. if you look closely enoug, you can even see it happen. it is simply the mechanism of this evolution that is under debate. well, it's not really a debate when only one side actually has facts, but whatever.

edited to linkify my linkie.

Ignorance reigns eternal....

You must be talking about those who believe in religion

 

[Moonbeam]

Naturally the eating of meat was borught up to show our evolution away from a veretarian based diet in out distant past. Meat is a consentrated food source replete with fat. However our primate evolution left us with teeth unsuitable to ripping and tearing through the tough hides of animals. With the development of tool making, the sharp-edged flint in particlar and the use of fire, the modern steak became a reality. By eating meat, originally carcass meat, and smashing bones to extract marrow, sufficiently greater energy was acquired to propell modern man into existance. We have not forgotten and still love our steak.

 

[speed01]

Originally posted by: Ameesh
i think im the only one on this board who likes my steaks medium-well

No you're not.....

 

[Legendary]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Naturally the eating of meat was borught up to show our evolution away from a veretarian based diet in out distant past. Meat is a consentrated food source replete with fat. However our primate evolution left us with teeth unsuitable to ripping and tearing through the tough hides of animals. With the development of tool making, the sharp-edged flint in particlar and the use of fire, the modern steak became a reality. By eating meat, originally carcass meat, and smashing bones to extract marrow, sufficiently greater energy was acquired to propell modern man into existance. We have not forgotten and still love our steak.

Could it be? A thread has been un-hijacked?!@

 

[boi]

Dang guys, you are making me hungry.

 

[Ameesh]

horse + donkey = mule!

 

[The Sauce]

Hey Tominator, please refer to my sig. Thank you...

 

[jjones]

I prefer a steak rare to medium rare; nice and juicy and a little bloody. Add some grilled onions, a salad and a baked potato and I'm good to go.

 

[idNut]

Originally posted by: 911paramedic
Here we go again...

(Sigh)

 

[AvesPKS]

Originally posted by: datalink7

Originally posted by: AvesPKS

Originally posted by: datalink7
Since we are on the subject of steak, I thought I would ask this question. Does ANYBODY get their steak either "rare" or "black"? Both seem like poor choices to me.

Are you kidding? Black I can understand...but rare is the best. I like my steak raw and bloody...just hot enough to kill the bacteria.

Oh I like it juicy, but rare seems like it is almost still alive

Medium-rare r0x0rs your b0x0rs.

Yeah, it depends on where I am. If I'm grilling it, I'll usually go medium-rare...just enough to be bloody. But at, say, Outback or Lone Star, most of the time I'll tell them to cook it as little as possible. A lol depends on how it was seasoned.

 

[tk149]

Originally posted by: Ameesh

Originally posted by: Dufusyte
I believe in the art of breeding, which has been practiced for centuries, such as horse breeding, dog breeding, sheep breeding, etc., whereby certain traits can be emphasized in a kind of animal.

However, I do not believe that a horse can ever be bred into something that is not a horse, nor a dog into something that is not a dog.

Breeders have been conducting an "experiment" in this regard for countless centuries. If it were possible, I believe they would have done it by now.

I do not see any scientific evidence that a horse can be bred into a non-horse.

(show me the data)

read this

IIRC, Natural evolution takes 100,000 years or more. Humans have been breeding dogs and cats for what? 5,000 years at most? And the point of that breeding was not to create a different species, it was just to get more desirable traits in the same species. Therefore, I believe that it would be impossible for humans to have created a new species by now (not counting modern genetic manipulation).

BTW, Interesting read, Ameesh:
The difficulty in identifying the finches is rooted in precisely what makes them so interesting and important - the evolutionary process. If we believe that two species share a common ancestor, then as one traces the species back in time, they should become closer and closer in form. At the branch point, the species should become ambiguous. That is precisely the point at which we find the Darwin's finches. They are in the process of separating, but they haven't completely done so at this point in time. The definition of the term "species" includes the presence of a fertility barrier between individuals of different species. In the case of Darwin's finches, those barriers are not completely formed yet, and there is a certain amount of documented hybridization between species. This also contributes to the ambiguity of the birds.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: Snatchface
They did a study on this at my old University, polling random people in the Binghamton, NY area. They found that like 95% did not believe in evolution. Hard to believe that there are that many retards concentrated in such a small area.

well it was in binghampton. not exactly the intellictual capatial of teh world


<- beleives in Evolution

 

[Moonbeam]

The way it worked see is that God said let there be fog, and he ran that one througy it's paces and got moss, then He tried let there be water and got mud and so on till he tried light. Then he let that sim run in his mind a few days till he got up to about 6000 of our years ago. Then he actualized the sim. Everything you see is only 6000 years old in our years but it looks billions of years old and it looks like we evolved because we evolved in God's mind.

 

[Dudd]

Originally posted by: TheEvil1
well it was in binghampton. not exactly the intellictual capatial of teh world

<- beleives in Evolution

I just find this post to be absolutely hilarious. Drink much?

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: Dudd

Originally posted by: TheEvil1
well it was in binghampton. not exactly the intellictual capatial of teh world

<- beleives in Evolution

I just find this post to be absolutely hilarious. Drink much?

actually im compleatly sober at the moment

just cant spell and dont care about it

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: jjones
I prefer a steak rare to medium rare; nice and juicy and a little bloody. Add some grilled onions, a salad and a baked potato and I'm good to go.

Mmmmm... pour a cold pint o' porter right next to it and that would be just about perfect.

btw, my answer? BOTH

Disprove that, if you can.

 

[Siddhartha]

Do I believe in evolution?
No.
Do I think it is the best explanation of how life around us got to be the way it is?
Yes.
Do I think someone will come up with a better explanation?
Yes

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: Pepsi90919

Originally posted by: Dufusyte
I believe in the art of breeding, which has been practiced for centuries, such as horse breeding, dog breeding, sheep breeding, etc., whereby certain traits can be emphasized in a kind of animal.

However, I do not believe that a horse can ever be bred into something that is not a horse, nor a dog into something that is not a dog.

Breeders have been conducting an "experiment" in this regard for countless centuries. If it were possible, I believe they would have done it by now.

I do not see any scientific evidence that a horse can be bred into a non-horse.

(show me the data)

wtf? since when did horse+horse=not a horse? and btw what are you talking about?

i'm going to turn your argument around completely and say that the art of breeding (choosing the best traits to carry on to new generations) portrays evolution on a smaller scale. a pure pred species of dog, for example, has certain traits that are retained when bred with another of the same breed. start mixing things around and you start having different traits. the different pure breeds start to get very distinct qualities.

Microevolution, which produces organisms of varying qualities, has been demonstrated quite well (consider the variety of dogs, or the traditional example of the peppered moth). It should be considered at least a scientific theory, if not a law. Microevolution can happen because the genetics of an organism give it a certain amount of flexibility. Over time, various different traits can become expressed, causing the same species of organism in different locations or under different conditions to change.

Macroevolution is the process by which new information is added to the DNA of an organism, causing it to change radically. The most commonly used explanation for how this could happen would be through mutations of the DNA. There is only a small problem with this hypothesis; that is, no one has ever observed a beneficial mutation that added new information to the DNA. Some mutations can be considered beneficial: consider the various blind cave fishes; the lack of eyes could be explained by a mutation, and it could be beneficial. The fish would not gain any advantage by having eyes, yet without eyes, it has one less thing to get infected or damaged as it swims through dark underwater caves. Nevertheless, this mutation, although it can be considered beneficial, does not demonstrate a case where information has been added to DNA.

 

[datalink7]

I can't believe it... I'm gone for a couple of hours taking a midterm and a bunch of threadcrappers come in and crap all over my steak thread :|

Can't believe this was allowed to happen