Hellbender

To quote the English members, stop waffling.....

How many fundamentalists are creationists? Oh, 100# dang. You mean some christians are evolutionists. This means that biological evolution theory is accessible to everyone, not just atheists. no it didn't. It came from scientific thought.

Okay thanks for the help, and the idea to do this.

Its still not working for me.

how does that work anyway? whenever I post a link its just the whole URL. How do post links like the ones above?

I was joking, by the way. "It was umm...created that way, yeah!" is the ad hoc some creationists do when they faced with inconvenient facts such as these. yes, it makes much more sense that to say that these examples have these features becuase they evolved from animals with the same or similar ones, and just never lost them as they didn't get in the way that much. Interestingly, boids do find a use for these spurs in mating; however other non-boids do fine without them. As for prehistoric whales, they might have found a use for these useless little legs in mating as well.

John Voight in "Anaconda". Even though the film was cheesy, he did an excellent good job playing the villain. Watch it just for him.

*sigh* maybe in the same way we answered these arguments all those other times? Like IMM said (sorry, it takes too long to write "In My Memory"...oh I just did it:-) ), what Hitler thought doesn't matter. But I will humour you by telling you that he believed the Aryan race descended from Adam and Eve, and all other "unpure" races evolved naturally from animals. That was how he justified killing them somehow. Don't shoot the messenger. Nature is ruthless, yes. So what. Becuase some people find justification in evolutionary theory does not mean it happened and continues to happen. Is it concievable to you that soft-bodied animals would not leave many fossils? So let the man have his philophies. Why does it bother you that he was a humanist? Please. Kids are "immoral" (according to you) when they get to college because many are getting their first true tate of freedom and independance. Even if evolution was the cause of this, does it cease to be an accurate and useful scientific theory? Who cares?

Created that way. Now shut up about it.

So this whole time you weren't treating it as science, when you were posting about it in the evolution forums? How did you want us to percieve it?

If you keep implying that big bang and evolution theory are "secularist ideologies", less and less people are going to take you seriously.

oh damn. I put intelligent design becuase I thought you meant our "favorite" as in a sarcastic way. My actual vote would be sciency stuff, sorry.

Among other things, including our inventive mind and dextrous hands and elaborate social structure. This depends on what criteria you use to seperate hominids from other haplorhines. Bipedalism is usually used as the criteria, as the abnormally large brains we have came later. If the behaviour is learned (as is the case with a lot of primate behaviours) then it is not instinct. No comment.

How can you be taught intelligent design? There is very little to learn as it is so vague.

We have all explained it ad nauseum to you, posted links, cleared up any questions you had, etc.. The biology section in any library is sure to be stocked with lots of books about evolution. It would be simple to learn and understand it. The problem is that you don't want to.

"Evolution is just a theory. It can't be proven" (I realize Dak addressed this point above, but it can't be clarified enough, sadly.) 1. Its both a fact and a theory. Populations of organisms change over time. This is a fact. Evolutionary theory is a cohesive attempt to explain how this fact happens. 2. A theory is of course, not simply a guess. Theories are essentially works in progress arrived at through rigorous testing. 3. Since theories are works in progress, they are indeed not proven. They must remain so to make room for new discoveries. "There is no way life could have evolved as it is through pure chance." Chance does indeed play a big role in evolution, but natural selection, it's most important mechanism, is not random. "Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics." The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy (disorder) cannot decrease in a closed system. Since an organism is not a closed system (closed systems are merely an ideal) as energy from the sun comes and goes, evolution does not violate this law. "Creationism should be taught in public schools as an alternative to evolution." 1. Creationism is essentially an aspect of Christian religious scripture. Thus, teaching it in school is in violation of the American constitution. 2. Science is not a democratic process. There are no "sides" of a story with scientific theories. The one that best fits the evidence wins, thats it. "Ockham's Razor states that simpler theories are more valid over complex ones. Evolution is complicated; creationism is simple." This is an oversimplification of Ockham's razor. It actually states that the theory with the least amount of terms is valid between two or more competing theories that make the same predictions. It is essentially a way to remove redundant terms in an explanation. "Evolution is ruthless and leads to immorality." 1. Nature is indeed ruthless. Thats just the way it is. Welcome to the real world. 2. Scientists don't pass any moral judgement on the phenomena they describe. If it leads to immorality, it doesn't mean that evolution isn't a valid theory. "Debate continues about evolution. Doesn't this mean it's not a good theory?" Scientists don't debate the fact that evolution occurs. All debate centers around the finer aspects of the theory. Dissent and debate among the scientific community is healthy and leads to the sharing of new ideas. This is a good thing. "There are problems with evolution, so the whole thing is wrong and creationism wins." 1. No one disputes the fact that there are things we don't yet know. However, if science simply admitted defeat every time a mystery was encountered, there would simply be no such thing as science. 2. Theories are not airtight. Thats why they are called "theories". Theories are works in progress. 3. Anything we don't yet know is not proof-positive of divine intervention. 4. If evolutionary theory was falsified tomorrow, creationism wouldn't be viable automatically. There may be more than 1 other option. "You are being closed-minded for not considering creationism." Being closed-minded about theories with no evidence is a healthy scientific mindset. Are modern evolutionists also close-minded for not accepting Lamarckism? "So and so, PhD is/was a creationist. If he/she could believe it, it must be true." Appeals to authority don't prove anything. Opinions an individual may hold can be wrong. Aside from this, 99% of scientists accept evolution, so one can just as easily (and more effectively) argue for evolution with this method. "You know the Piltdown man was a hoax." Yes and it was proven to be just that 50 years ago. It is no longer considered anything but an embarassing moment in bioanthropology textbooks. I might add it was also revealed by other scientists, which is a good example of how science works. Scientists are human; they make mistakes, get excited and leap to conclusions just like anyone else. But they will usually admit they are wrong and everyone moves on.

"Evolution is just a theory. It can't be proven" (I realize Dak addressed this point above, but it can't be clarified enough, sadly.) 1. Its both a fact and a theory. Populations of organisms change over time. This is a fact. Evolutionary theory is a cohesive attempt to explain how this fact happens. 2. A theory is of course, not simply a guess. Theories are essentially works in progress arrived at through rigorous testing. 3. Since theories are works in progress, they are indeed not proven. They must remain so to make room for new discoveries. "There is no way life could have evolved as it is through pure chance." Chance does indeed play a big role in evolution, but natural selection, it's most important mechanism, is not random. "Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics." The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy (disorder) cannot decrease in a closed system. Since an organism is not a closed system (closed systems are merely an ideal) as energy from the sun comes and goes, evolution does not violate this law. "Creationism should be taught in public schools as an alternative to evolution." 1. Creationism is essentially an aspect of Christian religious scripture. Thus, teaching it in school is in violation of the American constitution. 2. Science is not a democratic process. There are no "sides" of a story with scientific theories. The one that best fits the evidence wins, thats it. "Ockham's Razor states that simpler theories are more valid over complex ones. Evolution is complicated; creationism is simple." This is an oversimplification of Ockham's razor. It actually states that the theory with the least amount of terms is valid between two or more competing theories that make the same predictions. It is essentially a way to remove redundant terms in an explanation. "Evolution is ruthless and leads to immorality." 1. Nature is indeed ruthless. Thats just the way it is. Welcome to the real world. 2. Scientists don't pass any moral judgement on the phenomena they describe. If it leads to immorality, it doesn't mean that evolution isn't a valid theory. "Debate continues about evolution. Doesn't this mean it's not a good theory?" Scientists don't debate the fact that evolution occurs. All debate centers around the finer aspects of the theory. Dissent and debate among the scientific community is healthy and leads to the sharing of new ideas. This is a good thing. "There are problems with evolution, so the whole thing is wrong and creationism wins." 1. No one disputes the fact that there are things we don't yet know. However, if science simply admitted defeat every time a mystery was encountered, there would simply be no such thing as science. 2. Theories are not airtight. Thats why they are called "theories". Theories are works in progress. 3. Anything we don't yet know is not proof-positive of divine intervention. 4. If evolutionary theory was falsified tomorrow, creationism wouldn't be viable automatically. There may be more than 1 other option. "You are being closed-minded for not considering creationism." Being closed-minded about theories with no evidence is a healthy scientific mindset. Are modern evolutionists also close-minded for not accepting Lamarckism? "So and so, PhD is/was a creationist. If he/she could believe it, it must be true." Appeals to authority don't prove anything. Opinions an individual may hold can be wrong. Aside from this, 99% of scientists accept evolution, so one can just as easily (and more effectively) argue for evolution with this method. "You know the Piltdown man was a hoax." Yes and it was proven to be just that 50 years ago. It is no longer considered anything but an embarassing moment in bioanthropology textbooks. I might add it was also revealed by other scientists, which is a good example of how science works. Scientists are human; they make mistakes, get excited and leap to conclusions just like anyone else. But they will usually admit they are wrong and everyone moves on.

No there isn’t. Have you read any of our posts concerning this matter? I am starting to think you aren't terribly interested in discussing things, you just come here to make broad, unsupported statements in the hopes that you'll eventually convince somebody. Then why is macroevolution impossible again? Oh that’s right, you never said why. Have you read any of our posts concerning this matter? Care to back up this broad statement with evidence? Have you read any of our posts concerning this matter? Care to back up this broad statement with evidence? Have you read any of our posts concerning this matter? Care to back up this broad statement with evidence? First of all, yes you can, second of all this is only one reason why creationism is a bad explanation. The problem isn't visually seeing him, if he exists, he is beyond our senses. Basically, science has no room for the supernatural. True, but the argument goes both ways. Assuming something whose existence is iffy as a mechanism is not scientific and explains nothing. As an aside, evolutionary theory does not say that god doesn’t exist or doesn’t use evolution as a means of change. You just don’t like this because its not what the bible says.

Writing "LOL" doesn't begin to descrbie how much I laughed at this.

Actually, humans are a type of ape, and apes are a type of monkey (they are both haplorhines). There were creatures which followed evolutionary trends toward modern humans, eventually ending up with us. Its not as simple as your snide "half ape and half human" comment above. But you have abundantly demonstrated in other threads that you not only don't understand evolution, you made no attempt to understand human evolutionary history, or at least to the point where you can argue against it without sounding ignorant. The conclusion that we are a type of ape is well estabilished by many types of evidence, such as anatomical and behavioural homologies, genetic evidence (which you might be aware of if you ever bothered to look at the "evidence of human common ancestry" sticky), fossil evidence (this is a biggie, the record I discussed above is great, much better than what your creationist sites tell you) and more. So wheres the evidence that we are not apes? Why would it?

*sigh* this has been covered so many times. There is no difference between micro and macro evolution. Both can be demonstrated. If you bothered to read it, this was discussed eloquently in another thread. Can you picture that in college when I learn about evolution, professors rarely if ever make the micro/macro distinction? So far you have not demonstrated why humans are not animals, why we can't be apes, why speciation is impossible and why complex life can't be derived from amino acids. You simply state it and expect us be okay with that. Beliefs need no explanation, but this is a science forum, so I take it you have some twisted scientific reasons behind it, and would kindly ask that you explain them. If you take it literally. My mother is an example. She is a Christian, she reads the bible, has pictures of Jesus on her wall, sleeps under a cross, has rosary beads etc. But she is not so thickheaded enough to deny that evolution is a well-estabilished fact. Does this mean that she isn't a Christian? No, it means that instead of looking to the bible as an end-all source of scientific knowledge, she reads it for the lessons it has. If she wants to read about moral lessons, she goes to her bible; if she wants to read about science, she reads a science book. If anything, I believe this is what it was written for, and it has merits as a book of life lessons and philosophy, not as an unimpeachable, all-encompassing textbook of knowledge.

The way I put it is the simple, technical way I learned in school. You are right, but I was hoping nearly everyone knows that Lamarckism has been falsified, and there would be no confusion. Of course. See above. Evolution is also in direct contradiction with the biblical notion that species are fixed and were somehow created.

Evolution is a complicated theory dealing with the way organisms change and adapt to their local environments. A quick description of biological evolution is simply "change in allele frequency over time." Creationism is aspect of Christian religious scripture that is passed off as a science. Creation "scientists" claim that biological evolution theory is imcompatible with their religious beliefs as they subscribe to biblical inerrancy. They thus try to find or point out problems with our current evolution theory, and then declare that the whole thing is wrong or a lie, and that we should give up and subscribe to their beliefs. As for what creationists (more specifically, the young-earth variety) believe; the earth is young, species are stable and were created in their current form, and all extinct life died in the Noachian flood. As you can see this is not only imcompatible with common sense, but also scientific discoveries as well. However, the belief in a diety is not incompatible with evolution. I pointed out what creationism generally is above. Literal interpratation of Genesis is basically incompatible with evolution.

Hey I signed up to join this site and I haven't yet gotten an e-mail with a password and instructions. Its a great site, otherwise.

True enough, but its not always this simple. Reproductive isolation is but one of many speciation mechanisms. Dogs can mate and produce fertile offspring with wolves and coyotes (they do it here all the time), even though wolves and coyotes are considered different species. What makes them not do this all the time, and preserves their genetic purity, are differences in habitat, anatomy, breeding seasons, etc. There are two models that address this issue. The hypothesis that modern humans (us) evolved in Africa and migrated to oust more archaic hominids is known as the recent african origin model. This is sort of the competing hypothesis to the one above, the multiregional evolution model, which states that modern human traits began to evolve in the present archaics, and spread throughout the populations of them.