Thunderfoot > Ben Stein

[JS80]

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Fayd

Originally posted by: silverpig
Marked for later, but I really liked him. Oh well.

and because he might believe in intelligent design is CLEARLY a reason why you CAN'T like him now.

funny that.


why is it I can believe in science, evolution, and such and NOT have a problem with people who believe in creationism, intelligent design, god farted and there was life, or any other belief you might want to create.....and yet so many others take such things so personally.

it's pathetic imo.

this thread reminds me of when bill nye was debating an atmospheric physicist from MIT that global warming was real and a problem. and everybody on this dumb board was saying how stupid the atmospheric physicist was and how bill nye was making him look the fool.

the fact that so many of you can treat others with a different take on a situation than yourselves with such venom is disgusting to me.

We have a natural tendency to not like people who are willfully stupid, grossly ignorant, or in this case intellectually dishonest. It's especially bad when someone like Ben Stein pushes his false beliefs to an uneducated public. 49% of Americans are already creationists, and this crap will embolden them. Unfortunately for civilization they vote, just like Muslim extremists do in the middle east.

This

I also personally dislike Religion because it is slowing down our country developmentally. Alll this Religious Bullshit is hampering our ability to find new cures to diseases with Stem Cell research, Giving women the ability to make a choice what to do with their own bodies, keeping drugs like MJ Illegal, and poisoning the minds of our children saying that the world was created in 7 days, and humans walked with dinosaurs.

Wait so you think Stem Cell research is illegal and abortion is illegal in the US? Wow congrats you've been brainwashed by the liberal propaganda.

 

[jonks]

I just don't get how people do not see the difference between

1) coming up with an explanation first, and then trying to fit facts and observations to support it, and

2) putting together observations and facts to reach an explanatory theory

could the difference be any more stark?

I love FSMism but exactly how is it different from any real religion?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: JS80
Wow you guys' comprehension suck. He's not even denying evolution. He is merely stating the fact that if someone in academia questions the theory of evolution because of the fact it does not explain origin of life that he is in effect blacklisted and ruined by the atheists who run academic dogma. He is merely stating he wants fairness.

Our reading comprehension skills suck? Evolutionary theory describes how organisms adapt and change over time, leading to new species. It says nothing about how life originated because it's not a theory that tries to describe how life originated. Gravitational theory doesn't seek to explain why water feels wet. Does that make it wrong? Atomic theory doesn't discuss how light moves in a vacuum, so it's obviously false. The theory of relativity doesn't tell me why my family does stupid things, time to throw that one away.

Your belief that evolutionary theory should try to explain the origin of life does not mean that evolutionary theory is trying to explain the origin of life. It is not, it has never claimed to, and it never will. Evolution does not seek to answer the question "Where does life come from?;" it answers the question, "Why is there such a diversity of life?"

 

[SphinxnihpS]

What really irks me here, is that CHRISTIANS are the ones responsible for saving all of the scientific data that had been amassed prior to the Dark Ages, and are now one of the groups leading charge to discredit science because some of the dumber ones think it countermands their entire basis for morality.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: OrByte
evolution is theory. Just like everything else.

and everybody chooses a side based on faith.

But please, dont let me stop you from looking down at everyone else that doesn't believe what you believe.

Evolution is a theory in the same way that gravity is a theory. You're basically arguing that because atomic theory has theory in the title, atoms don't exist. This line of argument is absolutely wrong, and you should feel ashamed that you are using it.

For everyone who said Ben Stein is advocating ID but not creationism, the two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, proponents of ID almost universally believe that God is responsible in some way for the creation of the first life (in addition to guiding human evolution). Just because it's not a literal Biblical interpretation doesn't mean that it's not creationism. I'd say that it was obvious that Ben Stein is arguing that God played a role in the initial creation of life; why else would he spend time blasting the theory of evolution for not explaining how life originated?

No I am not ashamed. We all use the facts to support our own assumptions. I believe God is the creator of everything. Others believe that randomness is the creator of everything. I have a problem with accepting that, but that doesn't mean I go out belittling those that think differently.

feel free.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: JS80
Wow you guys' comprehension suck. He's not even denying evolution. He is merely stating the fact that if someone in academia questions the theory of evolution because of the fact it does not explain origin of life that he is in effect blacklisted and ruined by the atheists who run academic dogma. He is merely stating he wants fairness.

Our reading comprehension skills suck? Evolutionary theory describes how organisms adapt and change over time, leading to new species. It says nothing about how life originated because it's not a theory that tries to describe how life originated. Gravitational theory doesn't seek to explain why water feels wet. Does that make it wrong? Atomic theory doesn't discuss how light moves in a vacuum, so it's obviously false. The theory of relativity doesn't tell me why my family does stupid things, time to throw that one away.

Your belief that evolutionary theory should try to explain the origin of life does not mean that evolutionary theory is trying to explain the origin of life. It is not, it has never claimed to, and it never will. Evolution does not seek to answer the question "Where does life come from?;" it answers the question, "Why is there such a diversity of life?"

You just proved my point. You either did not watch any of Ben Stein's full clip (unedited by thunderfoot) or you really really suck at comprehension.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: OrByte
No I am not ashamed. We all use the facts to support our own assumptions. I believe God is the creator of everything. Others believe that randomness is the creator of everything. I have a problem with accepting that, but that doesn't mean I go out belittling those that think differently.

feel free.

Ah, see, I don't have a problem with someone who believes God is the creator of everything. I personally disagree, but I can still see eye to eye with you. But when you say "evolution is only a theory," you are using the exact same argument that proponents of ID use to say it should be taught in science classes. That's where I draw the line. You misuse the word theory in the scientific sense as though it were the same as you and your drinking buddies coming up with a theory about why women act the way they do. The scientific use of the word is different than our colloquial application, and that divide needs to be recognized.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS
What really irks me here, is that CHRISTIANS are the ones responsible for saving all of the scientific data that had been amassed prior to the Dark Ages, and are now one of the groups leading charge to discredit science because some of the dumber ones think it countermands their entire basis for morality.

maybe I'm one of the dumber ones although I dont wish to discredit science.

atomic playboy's clear definition of what evolutionary theory attempts to prove has helped me understand the issue better and helped me understand where my opinions fit in the matter.

thank you.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: JS80
Wow you guys' comprehension suck. He's not even denying evolution. He is merely stating the fact that if someone in academia questions the theory of evolution because of the fact it does not explain origin of life that he is in effect blacklisted and ruined by the atheists who run academic dogma. He is merely stating he wants fairness.

Our reading comprehension skills suck? Evolutionary theory describes how organisms adapt and change over time, leading to new species. It says nothing about how life originated because it's not a theory that tries to describe how life originated. Gravitational theory doesn't seek to explain why water feels wet. Does that make it wrong? Atomic theory doesn't discuss how light moves in a vacuum, so it's obviously false. The theory of relativity doesn't tell me why my family does stupid things, time to throw that one away.

Your belief that evolutionary theory should try to explain the origin of life does not mean that evolutionary theory is trying to explain the origin of life. It is not, it has never claimed to, and it never will. Evolution does not seek to answer the question "Where does life come from?;" it answers the question, "Why is there such a diversity of life?"

You just proved my point. You either did not watch any of Ben Stein's full clip (unedited by thunderfoot) or you really really suck at comprehension.

Then we can agree that Ben Stein is an idiot for even bringing it up. The theory of evolution does not claim to answer where life came from. Anyone who uses that as an argument against evolution is a fool.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: OrByte
No I am not ashamed. We all use the facts to support our own assumptions. I believe God is the creator of everything. Others believe that randomness is the creator of everything. I have a problem with accepting that, but that doesn't mean I go out belittling those that think differently.

feel free.

Ah, see, I don't have a problem with someone who believes God is the creator of everything. I personally disagree, but I can still see eye to eye with you. But when you say "evolution is only a theory," you are using the exact same argument that proponents of ID use to say it should be taught in science classes. That's where I draw the line. You misuse the word theory in the scientific sense as though it were the same as you and your drinking buddies coming up with a theory about why women act the way they do. The scientific use of the word is different than our colloquial application, and that divide needs to be recognized.

I 100% agree. And I will remember this particular point for conversations I am sure will one day come.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: OrByte
atomic playboy's clear definition of what evolutionary theory attempts to prove has helped me understand the issue better and helped me understand where my opinions fit in the matter.

thank you.

Holy Crap. AP for PotY

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS
What really irks me here, is that CHRISTIANS are the ones responsible for saving all of the scientific data that had been amassed prior to the Dark Ages, and are now one of the groups leading charge to discredit science because some of the dumber ones think it countermands their entire basis for morality.

maybe I'm one of the dumber ones although I dont wish to discredit science.

atomic playboy's clear definition of what evolutionary theory attempts to prove has helped me understand the issue better and helped me understand where my opinions fit in the matter.

thank you.

You're welcome. Let us share a drink and get metaphysical :beer:

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Fayd

Originally posted by: silverpig
Marked for later, but I really liked him. Oh well.

and because he might believe in intelligent design is CLEARLY a reason why you CAN'T like him now.

funny that.


why is it I can believe in science, evolution, and such and NOT have a problem with people who believe in creationism, intelligent design, god farted and there was life, or any other belief you might want to create.....and yet so many others take such things so personally.

it's pathetic imo.

this thread reminds me of when bill nye was debating an atmospheric physicist from MIT that global warming was real and a problem. and everybody on this dumb board was saying how stupid the atmospheric physicist was and how bill nye was making him look the fool.

the fact that so many of you can treat others with a different take on a situation than yourselves with such venom is disgusting to me.

We have a natural tendency to not like people who are willfully stupid, grossly ignorant, or in this case intellectually dishonest. It's especially bad when someone like Ben Stein pushes his false beliefs to an uneducated public. 49% of Americans are already creationists, and this crap will embolden them. Unfortunately for civilization they vote, just like Muslim extremists do in the middle east.

This

I also personally dislike Religion because it is slowing down our country developmentally. Alll this Religious Bullshit is hampering our ability to find new cures to diseases with Stem Cell research, Giving women the ability to make a choice what to do with their own bodies, keeping drugs like MJ Illegal, and poisoning the minds of our children saying that the world was created in 7 days, and humans walked with dinosaurs.

Wait so you think Stem Cell research is illegal and abortion is illegal in the US? Wow congrats you've been brainwashed by the liberal propaganda.

Did you actually read what tenshodo13 wrote? It says nowhere in there that anything is illegal. Learn to read, and what's up with trying to spin this against the "liberal propaganda", which is utterly laughable. Honestly, where do you come up with this stuff?

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: kranky
I don't know if Ben Stein is right or wrong, but I do know that he has done a lot more research on the topic than any of those in this thread who are using their "jump to conclusions" mat.

Of course Ben Stein is wrong. If we followed his way, every dumbass crackpot will be able to officially call his 'theory' of how we came about "science", without passing any actual rigorous scientific process.

This movie caters to the very dumb asses in this country that are bringing our country down in the biotechnology race.

Wow you guys' comprehension suck. He's not even denying evolution. He is merely stating the fact that if someone in academia questions the theory of evolution because of the fact it does not explain origin of life that he is in effect blacklisted and ruined by the atheists who run academic dogma. He is merely stating he wants fairness.

Wrong, he is stating a lie. All these cases he says are because the people believe/push ID is the reason they did not get tenure, jobs, etc... are false.

You can read it here.

The REAL facts

Click on a persons name under The ?Expelled? for the real facts.

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: JS80
Wow you guys' comprehension suck. He's not even denying evolution. He is merely stating the fact that if someone in academia questions the theory of evolution because of the fact it does not explain origin of life that he is in effect blacklisted and ruined by the atheists who run academic dogma. He is merely stating he wants fairness.

Our reading comprehension skills suck? Evolutionary theory describes how organisms adapt and change over time, leading to new species. It says nothing about how life originated because it's not a theory that tries to describe how life originated. Gravitational theory doesn't seek to explain why water feels wet. Does that make it wrong? Atomic theory doesn't discuss how light moves in a vacuum, so it's obviously false. The theory of relativity doesn't tell me why my family does stupid things, time to throw that one away.

Your belief that evolutionary theory should try to explain the origin of life does not mean that evolutionary theory is trying to explain the origin of life. It is not, it has never claimed to, and it never will. Evolution does not seek to answer the question "Where does life come from?;" it answers the question, "Why is there such a diversity of life?"

You just proved my point. You either did not watch any of Ben Stein's full clip (unedited by thunderfoot) or you really really suck at comprehension.

Then we can agree that Ben Stein is an idiot for even bringing it up. The theory of evolution does not claim to answer where life came from. Anyone who uses that as an argument against evolution is a fool.

^^ Summed up perfectly, and JS80 just got WTFpnwd.

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: JS80
Wow you guys' comprehension suck. He's not even denying evolution. He is merely stating the fact that if someone in academia questions the theory of evolution because of the fact it does not explain origin of life that he is in effect blacklisted and ruined by the atheists who run academic dogma. He is merely stating he wants fairness.

Our reading comprehension skills suck? Evolutionary theory describes how organisms adapt and change over time, leading to new species. It says nothing about how life originated because it's not a theory that tries to describe how life originated. Gravitational theory doesn't seek to explain why water feels wet. Does that make it wrong? Atomic theory doesn't discuss how light moves in a vacuum, so it's obviously false. The theory of relativity doesn't tell me why my family does stupid things, time to throw that one away.

Your belief that evolutionary theory should try to explain the origin of life does not mean that evolutionary theory is trying to explain the origin of life. It is not, it has never claimed to, and it never will. Evolution does not seek to answer the question "Where does life come from?;" it answers the question, "Why is there such a diversity of life?"

You just proved my point. You either did not watch any of Ben Stein's full clip (unedited by thunderfoot) or you really really suck at comprehension.

I find it funny that you claim other peoples reading comprehension suck when you yourself simply make up statements that people never said and attack these illusionary statements.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Fayd

Originally posted by: silverpig
Marked for later, but I really liked him. Oh well.

and because he might believe in intelligent design is CLEARLY a reason why you CAN'T like him now.

funny that.


why is it I can believe in science, evolution, and such and NOT have a problem with people who believe in creationism, intelligent design, god farted and there was life, or any other belief you might want to create.....and yet so many others take such things so personally.

it's pathetic imo.

this thread reminds me of when bill nye was debating an atmospheric physicist from MIT that global warming was real and a problem. and everybody on this dumb board was saying how stupid the atmospheric physicist was and how bill nye was making him look the fool.

the fact that so many of you can treat others with a different take on a situation than yourselves with such venom is disgusting to me.

We have a natural tendency to not like people who are willfully stupid, grossly ignorant, or in this case intellectually dishonest. It's especially bad when someone like Ben Stein pushes his false beliefs to an uneducated public. 49% of Americans are already creationists, and this crap will embolden them. Unfortunately for civilization they vote, just like Muslim extremists do in the middle east.

This

I also personally dislike Religion because it is slowing down our country developmentally. Alll this Religious Bullshit is hampering our ability to find new cures to diseases with Stem Cell research, Giving women the ability to make a choice what to do with their own bodies, keeping drugs like MJ Illegal, and poisoning the minds of our children saying that the world was created in 7 days, and humans walked with dinosaurs.

Wait so you think Stem Cell research is illegal and abortion is illegal in the US? Wow congrats you've been brainwashed by the liberal propaganda.

Did you actually read what tenshodo13 wrote? It says nowhere in there that anything is illegal. Learn to read, and what's up with trying to spin this against the "liberal propaganda", which is utterly laughable. Honestly, where do you come up with this stuff?

JS80 is a big fox "news" fan and everything that he does not like falls into the "liberals" fault.

 

[GasX]

religion and science are not incompatible.

Believe in a higher power is not the same as believe in a 4000 year old planet...

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Fayd

Originally posted by: silverpig
Marked for later, but I really liked him. Oh well.

and because he might believe in intelligent design is CLEARLY a reason why you CAN'T like him now.

funny that.


why is it I can believe in science, evolution, and such and NOT have a problem with people who believe in creationism, intelligent design, god farted and there was life, or any other belief you might want to create.....and yet so many others take such things so personally.

it's pathetic imo.

this thread reminds me of when bill nye was debating an atmospheric physicist from MIT that global warming was real and a problem. and everybody on this dumb board was saying how stupid the atmospheric physicist was and how bill nye was making him look the fool.

the fact that so many of you can treat others with a different take on a situation than yourselves with such venom is disgusting to me.

We have a natural tendency to not like people who are willfully stupid, grossly ignorant, or in this case intellectually dishonest. It's especially bad when someone like Ben Stein pushes his false beliefs to an uneducated public. 49% of Americans are already creationists, and this crap will embolden them. Unfortunately for civilization they vote, just like Muslim extremists do in the middle east.

This

I also personally dislike Religion because it is slowing down our country developmentally. Alll this Religious Bullshit is hampering our ability to find new cures to diseases with Stem Cell research, Giving women the ability to make a choice what to do with their own bodies, keeping drugs like MJ Illegal, and poisoning the minds of our children saying that the world was created in 7 days, and humans walked with dinosaurs.

Wait so you think Stem Cell research is illegal and abortion is illegal in the US? Wow congrats you've been brainwashed by the liberal propaganda.

Did you actually read what tenshodo13 wrote? It says nowhere in there that anything is illegal. Learn to read, and what's up with trying to spin this against the "liberal propaganda", which is utterly laughable. Honestly, where do you come up with this stuff?

JS80 is a big fox "news" fan and everything that he does not like falls into the "liberals" fault.

Oh... that explains a lot then.

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: QED
Damn, that guy's voice is annoying. It doesn't take much creativity (or intelligence, for that matter) to take someone's statement out of context and pretend to be smarter by attacking the statement as it stands alone.

I have no idea what Ben Stein's true stance on evolution is, even after watching that video (since it was just one statement after another chopped up, spliced, and served up on a nice strawman platter for the annoying Brit to devour), other than I seem to get the hint that he wasn't a big fan of Darwin.

Which is why, i'll actually watch the movie before calling Stein an idiot. In an interview I saw him do, he was taking a stance that we aren't completely sure about evolution, and it makes no sense how someone gets shouted down whenever they say that.

I happen to believe that the commonly accepted theories about evolution and global warming are correct. I just don't see why everyone reacts so violently when you make the statement that we aren't 100% sure about either of them. In my view, unless you do have incontrovertible proof, there's always room for debate and discusion.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: QED
Damn, that guy's voice is annoying. It doesn't take much creativity (or intelligence, for that matter) to take someone's statement out of context and pretend to be smarter by attacking the statement as it stands alone.

I have no idea what Ben Stein's true stance on evolution is, even after watching that video (since it was just one statement after another chopped up, spliced, and served up on a nice strawman platter for the annoying Brit to devour), other than I seem to get the hint that he wasn't a big fan of Darwin.

Which is why, i'll actually watch the movie before calling Stein an idiot. In an interview I saw him do, he was taking a stance that we aren't completely sure about evolution, and it makes no sense how someone gets shouted down whenever they say that.

I happen to believe that the commonly accepted theories about evolution and global warming are correct. I just don't see why everyone reacts so violently when you make the statement that we aren't 100% sure about either of them. In my view, unless you do have incontrovertible proof, there's always room for debate and discusion.

If you bring scientific proof to the table then there will be a debate. Bringing something that is more based on religion then there is no debate.

Expelled Exposed

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: QED
Damn, that guy's voice is annoying. It doesn't take much creativity (or intelligence, for that matter) to take someone's statement out of context and pretend to be smarter by attacking the statement as it stands alone.

I have no idea what Ben Stein's true stance on evolution is, even after watching that video (since it was just one statement after another chopped up, spliced, and served up on a nice strawman platter for the annoying Brit to devour), other than I seem to get the hint that he wasn't a big fan of Darwin.

Which is why, i'll actually watch the movie before calling Stein an idiot. In an interview I saw him do, he was taking a stance that we aren't completely sure about evolution, and it makes no sense how someone gets shouted down whenever they say that.

I happen to believe that the commonly accepted theories about evolution and global warming are correct. I just don't see why everyone reacts so violently when you make the statement that we aren't 100% sure about either of them. In my view, unless you do have incontrovertible proof, there's always room for debate and discusion.

Scientifically speaking, it's very rare for any scientist to be 100 % sure about anything. It is this very skepticism which is now being prayed upon by the ID pushers in an attempt to disguise philosophy and religion as science. The problem here is that creationists make up some bullsh!t idea and try to pass it off as scientific when it's not, then complain when their idea gets exposed for the sham that it is and try and make it into some kind of free speech statement.

If someone wants to discuss ID, then that's fine - but it doesn't belong in the science class, it belongs in religion / philosophy. It fails even the most basic tenets of scientific methods. Before they started to try and force ID into the public school system nobody gave two sh!ts about it. Now that they are trying to force their way into the public school systems and teach our kids this bullcrap it's time to get angry about it and stop it dead in it's tracks. People were too complacent with it in the beginning which is why it got as far as it did.

 

[Juddog]

Good article that points out flaws from "expelled":

http://www.sciam.com/article.c...ant-you-to-know&sc=rss

 

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Elementary question:

I've been puzzled by the concept of vertical evolution. I know microevolution has been observed and is a fact, but from what can science make the leap to drastic morphological adaption? I know it takes places with small changes over time (Ma's & Ga's), but if it's never been seen (and I don't mean on a microscopic or intra-species level, a.k.a microevolution). Since we can't stick around that long, is the assumption founded in an acceptance of Darwin's theory based on what makes the best sense currently? We either came from a common template or a common ancestor, and science follows the common ancestor theory because that's what has been agreed upon as the best explanation for diversity, right?

I don't know what you mean by vertical evolution, but google "speciation", "darwin finches", and "biogeography"

Vertical evolution = macroevolution

I understand what speciation is and I've heard of Darwin's Finches and the peppered moths. Perhaps you didn't understand my phrasiology, but that's what I meant by "(and I don't mean on a microscopic or intra-species level, a.k.a microevolution)." I'm satisfied with the evidence for small-scall evolution as represented by the terms you mentioned for me to google. I have no problems accepting microevolution (and I continue to distinguish from macroevolution for a reason, despite the only differences being time) as absolute fact because I can see the experimentation. (Similar to how I won't deny the volumetric shape of the earth or our heliocentric orbit due to actual visual evidence.)

My source of confusion arises from the proposition that microevolution + time = macroevolution. In other words, given a starting point (which starting point we shall assume as being axiomatic as well as providing the basic ingredients of life) and many eons, there will be a progression from "simple" organisms to "complex" organisms (relatively compared). Of course, due to constraints involving lifespan and the fact that human history, as well as scientific advancement, have only just begun (with respect to the scale of existence of our universe to human existence, according to modern dating) it is impossible to observe first-hand the long-term effects of mutations and the subsequent changes they would invoke. Which begs the question, what the hell is information and how do we know it can be gained (as opposed to lost, maintained, or modified) from mutations in such a way as to promote beneficial morphological adaption over long periods if that information did not exist in the genetic code before such processes started?

And what is the medium for transmission of information between an organism and its environment, and how does the organism "know" when it needs to evolve (or is that incorrect)? If an organism which spends all of its time on land experiences a drastic environmental change such that it now spends 90% of its time in water, what mechanism of interaction initiates the adaption process? Do sensory organs recognize increased contact time with an unstable, liquid substance which, in turn, causes a "panic" (of death) which starts cellular mutations in order to combat an extinction threat? How do these organisms know how to respond to stresses? Information is transfered from something, so where does the compatibility between an organism and external information come from? In other words, how does the organism know how to interpret the information to initiate the evolution of new parts that provide it with compatibility? For example, the organism above might start to evolve its feet into flippers. If this organism never experienced living time in water, how would it, or whatever's "in charge," know that flippers are beneficial to swimming? (As if there was a predetermined response to that particular stress situation, despite never experiencing it.)

(ugh, I'm just a mess of questions right now )

 

[Enig101]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail
And what is the medium for transmission of information between an organism and its environment, and how does the organism "know" when it needs to evolve (or is that incorrect)?

This is indeed incorrect. Neither organisms, nor genes, "know" anything when it comes to evolution. The example you used was a species' environment becoming more aquatic.

To simplify, the animals may begin to develop wider feet by chance, better for swimming. They don't know that wider feet are better for swimming, but the ones lucky enough to have wider feet will be more likely to survive (hunt for food, find a mate, etc) to reproduce. Therefore, wider feet are selected. This is what "natural selection" is all about.

Originally posted by: RapidSnail
(ugh, I'm just a mess of questions right now )

With regard to macro and micro evolution (among many other topics) see this link: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Scroll down to the "CB900" section to read about evolution and macro/micro-evolution.