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.

In that case you'd also be aruging there are more "irreducible complexities" in bacteria than in humans. The explaination made sense to me but because I'm more of a critic of evolution, in the back of my mind, I want someone to disagree with my logic.

No' date=' I thought it was a joke but even if it wasn't, IT'S TRUE! There isn't much I take personally, especially online. A little sarcasm. .

I agree they, damage an arguement, guess it's more for debaters. I'd like to think I can see the validity of an arguement regardless of fallacies. Really, he states how I feel. My arguement is not that evolution is suppose to be directed or goal oriented. It's a very subtle difference, my arguement is just a hair different. Accident, I rarely check for typing erros.

Swanspot and I almost agree on something here. Ad hominen doesn't mean the arguement is false neither does finding a biased for an arguement, etc. I can Strawman someone and my overall stance can still be correct. It's possible. We know some of how DNA works in a prokaryote' date=' but not in a eukaryote. In comparison it's not as close. So I ASSUME a eukaryote is more complex. It's agreed we lack a lot of information. Complexity is relative, I agree. Also, bacteria have never been extinct or close to it, they're the fittest, I guess. I can't get upset because it's true.

Swanspot and I almost agree on something here. Ad hominen doesn't mean the arguement is false neither does finding a biased for an arguement, etc. I can Strawman someone and my overall stance can still be correct. It's possible. We know some of how DNA works in a prokaryote' date=' but not in a eukaryote. In comparison it's not as close. So I ASSUME a eukaryote is more complex. It's agreed we lack a lot of information. Complexity is relative, I agree. Also, bacteria have never been extinct or close to it, they're the fittest, I guess. I can't get upset because it's true.

Swanspot and I almost agree on something here. Ad hominen doesn't mean the arguement is false neither does finding a biased for an arguement, etc. I can Strawman someone and my overall stance can still be correct. It's possible. We know some of how DNA works in a prokaryote' date=' but not in a eukaryote. In comparison it's not as close. So I ASSUME a eukaryote is more complex. It's agreed we lack a lot of information. Complexity is relative, I agree. Also, bacteria have never been extinct or close to it, they're the fittest, I guess. I can't get upset because it's true.

I agree my focus is more on whether it's right. Honestly didn't like your inital tone(strawman, trollish, ad hominen) and I was just encouraging Bill Nye Guy, that's all. I don't want him to feel like he's an idiot or wrong because he may have commited a logical fallacy. Only if you can't take a joke.

I believe we need a "big bang" between the two sides so one can discredit the other so badly one will become widley accepted publicly. Teaching both in school is a start and maybe an end. Evolution being so superior should completely refute and become widely accepted. Currently, C and ID are hidden from laymen view.

Bill Nye Guy, Don't worry about those logical fallacies, especially people who point them out all the time as if they're right because they pointed out a logical fallacy. As if I can point out enough logical fallacies and be right. Others, If I make a phylogetic hierarchy of animals it's suppose to end up as a bush or tree right? The more complex animals of each kind tend to be higher. What's at the bottom? What's at the top? No ToE does not have a purpose or a goal. Yes I am able to identify a pattern or trend after it's happened, as stated earlier. Ofcourse, Natural selection does not have a goal or purpose, I assume that's what Swan thought I meant by trend. Natural selection is chance and neccesity(survival o f) as a result the better adapted will live in given environment. Anyone's phylogetic tree has a simple to complex trend, not goal or purpose. Natural selection did not have humans in mind when the first bacteria was here but now that it's happened, I surely feel more complex than a bacteria. As an overall trend from the first organism until now, call me crazy, but I think evolution would have had a trend of adding information to the genome of surviving animals in order to get to where we are now. I'm quite aware that all mutations are not deletions. IF all surviving species had an overall trend of deleterious mutations, the trend is backward, hence de-evolution. IF there were only deletions as mutations, we wouldn't be here. I'm also aware of the trend for EVERYTHING to be evolution. People go to the store and get groceries, it's food evolution, eat all the food, it's food evoluton. Seven people go to the store at the same time, it's convergent food evolution.

Okay, I'm not declaring de-evolution as a scientific term. ToE went from simple to complex, hence more genetic information, how by mutation. The overall trend is suppose to be forward. I understand some exceptions as evolution is not linear. If mutations continue to occur that are deletions(not all are), how would an organism ever progress forward like evolution suggests? I call it de-evolution. As far as I'm concerned if millions of good mutations add information and it's evolution, don't shoot me for saying millions of bad mutations deleting information is de-evolution. . . .