Milken

The whole, "When was Jesus born" has been 100% refuted by yours truly in the philo and religion section. It's also not very relevant, however, Genesis is very much so. The article about about the Evolution/Genesis differences is very interesting, some of those I was completely unware of. One interesting insight is Genesis says there's light before there's a sun which seems completely ridiculous but our physics model is clear, there were a lot of photons present at big bang.

Are there people with black eyes? Most people have dark brown eyes. I've never seen any black eyes, but if there are I imagine their skin is black, literally.

Yes sir, I definitely do agree. I use trend as an observation of what has already happened. It has no "power". The random walk in complexity produced a forward trend. Sorry, I feel like a philospher. Once again I apologize for my misleading phrases, stated more clearly in the responce to Hal.

Thank you for almost giving me a compliment = ). I'm not denying that additions exist, only stating that evolution can not occur as we know it without additions causing novell function.

I agree, the illusion is misleading. I agree 100% that it's possible for information in a genome to be removed and provide an adaptation as we've observed in bacteria. Is this the norm, or the exception, especially for all species? The surmisation (<-- word check) is based on the accumalative, overall trend of mutations that remove information for the genome. The observation is not local, but global. If it were local, your analysis is perfect and the idea falsified. Evolution as defined is undirected, without purpose, or goal. The accumalative overall trend at some point has to add information(novel function) in order for evolution to happen with the variety of species we have today. This is the assumed positive, "forward trend" of evolution. It had to have happened. In my opinion, an accumalative, overall trend of removing informtion will NEVER result in the variety of species we have today. It's not possible because information is not being added (novell function). It's agreed, as I think I did earlier, it's possible to lose information and adpat. How does the prokaryote to eukaryote to multicell to softbody etc chain go without adding information? There'd only be bacteria here. Understandibly those who think evolution is perfectly reasonalble and is as factual as gravity call all change evolution and de-evolution is "taking a shot" at the all explaining ToE. With all due respect to the omnipotent ToE, even my idea of, devolution falls into evolution because evolution does not specify a direction.

The tailbone houses the sacrum which makes the upper and lower body "one piece", adds balance, you also use you're tailbone in retaining "bodily fluid".

I've said this atleast 3-4 times. I'm in no way, shape or form, no matter what it appears to be, or look. Evolution is NOTsuppose to be directed, all the randomness eventually leads to things that "work", I call this moving forward. I swear I've stated this a zillion times. It's very much like Gould's example. Also, I've made a . . . . mistake, I admit. I erroneously used deleterious for deletion. When I orignally used deletion, in defining the "coined" (yes I'm aware it's not scientifically defined) term de-evolution, it was intended to be for the deletion of base pairs(information in the genome, individual cell). Hypothetically, if an organism continues to get mutations that delete information, I call de-evolution. An organism with a smaller genome will not evolve vertically (to an organism requiring more information) by mutations that delete information. It is finished, I'm not re-explaining this 100 more times. Feel free to disagree. To reiterate what I'll have to again anyway, Skye's post is very similar to my feelings or you could say the illusion of moving forward if you want. For some reason, no amount of verbage makes my point clear, and it's definitely my fault.

If you need 180, he probaly means from all animals combined, or maybe ones in the past that used to be considered vestigal but now we know the function. In the humans the tailbone is very much needed and used. I'm not an expert but I'm not familiar with no where near that amount.

Better adapted is essentially what I'm calling forward. I don't think it is now, but it was, same with homology.

Plants are tough on the theory of evolution. Many hypothesis' date=' not theories So well that most paleontologists don't accept evolution. = ) So well that many of the opponents of ToE weren't objecting for religous reasons but were anatomist, paleontologist, etc. The scientists with the most expertise with empirical evidence.

This is a very SOFT stance. Well, I'm an evolutionist. Everyone agrees with evolution if this is all it says, the orignal theory has been greatly watered down. It's established, I've never trolled!

LOL, yeah right, stellar evolution, I'm open, got a link I'll read about as well as any legitamate physicists, cosmo, etc representing it. I'll check the Origin of Species for this section. No' date=' evolution was designed with the intent to explain the existence of life on the planet naturalistically, without the need for a designer. That's why I think it's ridiculous, but don't take the statement too far. As a natural explaination, evolution is great. The first this was a link Bascule posted on the Evolution Pro Con thread. Similarity doesn't prove common descent. Chimps are linked with humans in amino acid sequencing, physically linked with gorillas, and DNA sequencing is ambiguous. Humans have lysozyme's like chickens and not primates. The second link was too much information.

Highly interesting question but I say no. If it is, then evolution's explaining power is bordering on refutation. They have NO explaination of how the earth naturally came into existence. The inital premise of Evolution is ridiculous, it's a naturalistic explaination that assumes the entire universe, earth, and the first organism was already here, then it "explains" everything else. Then has the nerve to exclude ALL supernatural explainations no matter how much it fits the evidence.