AzurePhoenix

Oh, that's what he meant. Sorry, I call them pop-ups but they are actually on my computer, whether or not the internet is up. ----- Thanks 56, I'll do that

Basically, that's my problem. My anti-virus systems don't detect any problems, I've gone over everything with Spybot, and I'm still getting these random popups that are telling me I'm infected and should buy their system. And admittedly I'm a complete idiot when it comes to computers, so I don't know which end is up.

The chance to develop any form of communication will be very strongly varied across countless living worlds' date=' and it is no more likely for it to devlop elsewhere than here (assuming telepathy is even possible, or more likely, something reminiscent of it but in a less "psychic" way). I definately wouldn't say telepathy is "likely" in any scenario, especially that we don't even known if it exists. There's no reason to assume anything else would evolve better than us. Some species will have, but tohers won't, some will be better in some areas and deficient in others. Also take into account that a hostile environment for us is the environment a possible alien may have evolved in, and that our environment and world might be just as hostile to them as theirs is to us.

Of course, there are facts within those theories that will likely be addressed, and should be addressed as such, but that can be done tactfully I think. Not like when I capitalize stuff when I'm irritated

It'd take more than a hairless yeti with a inferiority complex to barbecue me

He's specifically saying that he wants to select select select and select the roaches with the genes closest to his every generation

Except that the roach lacks many of the important genes needed to be human. Hell, even vertebrate.

If I get the time I could pull a bit together for their fossil claims if no one else wants it

The evidence far evolution is irrefutably solid, tangible, and quite extensive. Saying otherwise is simply false. Anywho, this isn't about the origins of life, as previously stated, THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION. And the facts and evidence only support evolution. The creationists reject what the evidence says, and twist it to fit a conclusion that they have already made clear they are resolute to uphold under any circumstances. They don't wish to expand their knowledge, they wish to confirm what they already believe to be true. This is a dishonest way to approach things. Let's go with the legal-system simile again - This is similar to a court system deciding a man is guily for a crime without any reason to do so, then examing the evidence. Whether or not the evidence idicates he's guilty (which is clearly doesn't and points at another man) the court uses ludicrous and fanciful leaps of illogic to interpret the evidence as stating the man as being guilty, while using similar leaps of illogic to toss aside the evidence that proves his innocence wihtout any doubt (or ignoring such evidence entirely). That is what creationist "science" does That doesn't count for anything without evidence to support that this god was quoted or interpretted properly (or had anything to do with what was written anyway), this god is trustworthy in the firstplace, or that this god even exists. Why you believe what you do and the methods you employ to come to that "conclusion" are dishonest. If you believe that, then you clearly have no concept of science. One crackpot does not represent the beliefs of the greater majority. Exactly, they interpret the evidence to fit what they already believe, and they often go to great lengths to interpret it in ways devoid of rationality to fit that pre-conclusion. The genesis account is worthless as a literal guide to the universe. First of all, it's centuries old written and edited by many people across the ages who had only myths and cultic dogmas to work on, not to mention the political agendas they were pushing. You aren't seeking to understand phenomena at all. It tells you one thing, and you still go on to pretend it doesn't. What history are you talking about? And what efect does it have on evolution? This makes no sense. Again, evolution is not a belief system, it is a theory built up from the facts, a theory that changes to be honest about what the evidence says. And evolution is NOT ABOUT ORIGINS. Go to the astronomy section for that crap. No it can't test for God and might never be able to, but it can test for and prove evolution and other worldy aspects of our universe and planet. Youu seem to be indicating that not being able to detect/test god means we can't do the same to the evidence that we know exists, can touch, test and correctly understand. What is wrong to blindly assume word's god is true or honest without any reason to believe so. No it doesn't. So far without any evidence to the contrary, we are led to believe that it is possible nothing is there, but should evidence be found to indicate the otherwise, it would be taken into account and the theories of whatever would be properly adjusted. Few evolutionists are Darwinists anymore. I'm sorry, can you send me a PM elaborating on this? First of all, tehy're entire starting point of "they read" is a very soggy and uneven foundation for intreting evidence if it's combined with unwavering, inflexible faith. Make an observation that you can see to be true and get curious about it; make an assumption about how you think it works; test that assumption and see if it holds true; base a new conclusion off of what the test has shown you. THAT is scientific method. SImple curioisty and the desire to learn is reason enough. You don't need a big petty bully in the sky to want those things. Show us evidence that suggests this. Nothing to do with origins. That involves whole other sciences that have nothing to do with evolution. As for Genetics supporting evolution, the simple processs that change dna (mutation, acting in concert with natural selection and other population dynamics) and passes it generation to generation is evidence enough on its own. Observable evidence showing us without question what occurs. What I pointed out is that morality or ethics or whatever is disntinct and separate from the "origins" you keep referring to. If anything, if I were to set aside my scientific values and argue about it form a philisophical standpoint, I would say that Biblical creationism paints a very ugly picture when it comes to humanity in an ethical sense, and cheapens such things as ethics, emotions and existence in general if taken literally. But, this has nothing to do with the point and is devoid of scientific meaning, so I won't get caught up in it.

Hmm, I'm better versed on the macro-scale of biology, but I'll take a shot (soemone please correct me where I'm wrong ) Eh, different ways. The gene might only occur on the Y chrom. which is only found in males, but it'd have to be dominant I think. Alternatively it could be a recessive trait that occurs only on the x chromosome, meaning it would need two so only females would get it. There are also organisms that are polyploidal, with more than two sets of chromosomes. As in the advantage of being heterozygote for sickle cell anemia? I won't go into the deatils about why it works (I'm short for time) but being heterozygote protects the person from being fatally vulnerable to malaria. In regions where malaria is a prevalent problem, the risk for a child born homozygous for sickle-cell is outweighed by the benevent of being invulnerable to malaria. I couldn't answer this one without more information; you'll need to draw in someone better at micro-bio than I am.

meh, bio's my field, so ask your questions. Whether me or someone else, you'll probably get good help, but now that I know it's homework, I myself might not be eager to give you straight out answers.

If I'd known that I woulda written something more than an rudimentary shrug Question of my own; what's the angry face about?

Well, invertebrates emerged onto the land far earlier than vertebrates (and initially evolved first and far earlier anyway), and had a chance to diversify, with spiders something like 400 million years ago. Verts on the otherhand evolved much later, then made it to land.... eh... not sure when lizards evolved, but it was many millions of years later.

Pervert

If we don't make fun pf them, we're abandoning the one thing that makes such beliefs worth enduring; their comic value Did you not watch the video? I mean, seriously, the thing's downright offensive in that hysterically mockable way.

I would more cautiously say that it's accelerating the already naturally occuring global warming.

Global warming is widely accepted by the scientific community, and meteorologists know enough that they've been able to make predictions based on the theory that later proved correct, while older predictions that were tossed aside were shown to be accurate as well when people actually took the time to seriously dig through the data rather than just look for glaringly obvious numbers. The problem as I understand it is that the proofs that satisfy scientists are not sufficient to satisfy politics, which desires 100% inarguable proof and a smoking gun with fingerprints on it before they'll accept it.

It's simple, he said creationism had evidence and that it had more than evolution. That is not true, and I responded accurately. Evidence is evidence, and rejecting it for any reason otehr than that it disagrees with their beliefs is simply dishonest. Creationists try to fit the evidence to what they want it to mean. Science takes the evidence and builds up the answers from there. If the evidence doesn't fit the theory, the theory is changed to acccount for it. You make the unscientific assumption that God is represented at all accurately, without any substantial (as in tangible) reason to do so. It doesn't say nature is all there is, it simply figures out how the nature we see and know to exist ultimately works. The rest is untestable, and whether or not there is some christian or aztec or greek god or whole pantheon of gods in no way changes the very fact that the way science depicts nature to work is indeed how it works. If you're intending to say that it is without moral fiber or something else like that, then I have to respond that everything is as it is. How it got to be that way doesn't have any effect on that simple fact. There being a god or not or how things came to be doesn't cahnge the way I feel about my loved ones. Genetics, fossils, observable evolution in action, taxonomy, the lack of alternate explanations, etc etc etc

You think this because of what exactly? The two field are entirely unrelated, there is no reason for them to be brought up as such in science. They're only common factor is that they threaten the safe little fantasy world of Bible Thumpers. Darwin was a long time ago. We have oodles of transitions now, and more are being found all the time. As for this business about fossils not representing gradual changes, they seem to miss the fact about the sheer unlikelyhood of anything being fossilized in the first place. A "missing link" is a lousy term that only seems to be seriously used by people with no concept of evolution, and even so, we've found a number of what we could call "missing links" between hominids. Your movies' descriptions of the various ape and human fossils show a clear non-understanding of the subject, as well as simple false information. Pick any one of them Herme3, and we'll explain why (for instance, Gigantopithicus has nothing to do with humans; it's an ape from the orangutan brach of the family). Erm... it shows that it's still CLOSER to the chimps? many others are going to be related too, but the farther off they go the farther they'll be, even in small increments. Funnily enough, the range of relationships shown by DNA always seems to resemble the relationships as they were described through other taxonomic methods.

Pfft, this just proves my theory that humans evolved specifically to prey on bah-nay-nays. I'm not even gonna point out that the common market banana is as much a result of selective breeding as anything else we eat....

That's simply absurd. The shellfish seen in rock layers DO change throughout eras, and even if they didn't, they don't have to change, there's nothing saying they do. Even say they did evolve into something else; the "parent" species wouldn't necessarily go extinct, leaving living shellfish. This argument of your simply ISN'T an argument at all; it's a childishly stupid grasping of malformed straws. You say that as if this source held anymore weight than your hole-riddled brain. I would like to point out that Capn gave you a link earlier to a source explaining why this irreducable complexity crap is nothing more than a pile of stinking garbage. The fact that you're still arguing it means you didn't take the time to read it, which tells me that you don't even care try to understand the concept at all, just that you wish to make others accept your "truth" whether or not it's argument is even remotely accurate.

could you re-ask that in a bit mroe detail so we can be a bit more clear on exactly what you mean? Creatures aren't designed to evolve towards some goal, how they evolve and what they evolve into depends on teh sircumstances of their surivival combined with the mutations that randomly occur. Chimps could potentially go one to evolve into something as non-human as a predatory marine ape with porcupine quills, toward a more sloth-like form, or anything you can imagine within reason. Skulls are not 100% representations of the body of course, but by comparing to them to those of similar and closely related species a fairly accurate guess can be made. There is absolutely no evidence for metaphysical explanations, whereas those offered by science are obserrvable and proven, supported by libraries of OBSERVED and TESTABLE information. There is no question about the validity of evolution. That does NOT necessarily mean that you're completely unfounded belief system is entirely without substance, it just means that they don't change the fact that evolution did happen. If evolution's too random for god you're saying that the organisms are too random themselves, which wouldn't be the case in a creation scenario, according to your line of thought. Thereby, by your own statement, life on earth is too random for God to have created.

He already swallowed that bullet with his first post. ALso consider that it's so friggin' enormous that it takes thousands or even tens of millions of years for the energy to reach the surface from where it's produced. Just the time it takes light to reach the surface at it's quickest is 11 thousand years longer than the common six thousand year old young earth extreme literal creationists favor. Not to mention that other equally effective dating methods can be used to trace even further back. Fellbeast; please explain why this means what you claim it does so we can know what variation of absurdity you're clinging to so that we might better beat some actual information into you.