I’m  asking  for a brief answer; can you build a building without ground floor? you cannot. how can you build a theory without explaining the origin of first living organism? Give me a logical answer.chemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" />>>

> >

moved to  Intelectual Discussion forum.

You cant build a religion without people to invent it first! 

No it's not. It's an observed fact. Darwinian natural selection, Lamarckian/Lysenkoist inheritance of acquired characteristics, and intelligent design are all theories of evolution, in that they attempt to explain the fact of evolution.

The Darwinian and Lamarckian theories are scientific, in that they can be tested empirically. Intelligent design, while it is a theory, is not a scientific theory, in that it cannot be tested empirically. It's proper place therefore is in the category of religion, or at least metaphysics. It has no place in a science class whatsoever.

As I obvious from the above I think you are confusing evolution with Darwinism (or possibly Lamarckism or some other theory). It's a shorthand way of referring to something which has lots of attendant dangers.

'Evolution' is not like the theory of Relativity. Evolution is like the fact that the speed of light is observed to be constant in vacuum.

well it is a Theory. i think, how can anybody prove something happened like a billion years ago to be a solid fact??!! thats imposible, so its a theory and more discoveries MAY prove it wrong or prove it more correct than other theoris.

its not that easy to determine how things evolved in millions of years just like that.

about humans being Apes and the rest of the theory its not fully proven yet and there is something called a missing link between what they found and humans.

its also said that humans and those stright walking monkeis did exist at the same time and lived at the same period !

 even if this theories about earth creation were proven more to be correct and more logical than other theories i personally dont think that these happened by themselvs just like that. there must be a question of Why? and there there will be an answer like God wanted to creat universe like that !

There's no actual missing link anymore. Lucy and the other Australopithecus are the "missing link". Of course we don't have fossils of every single evolutionary step but we have enough steps to see the overall picture of hominid and human evolution.

Additionally by mere genetic study, the closer living relative to chimpanzees and bonobos (Pan gender) are not gorillas or other apes but us (Homo gender). We are so close that some scientists defend that we should be in the smame biological gender, though, of course cultural prejudices and maybe other reasons play against such a reclasification.

its also said that humans and those stright walking monkeis did exist at the same time and lived at the same period !

Yes but the evolutionary theory is a scientific theory about how life has developed — meaning there is a premise that life already exists. It does not, as a matter of course, have explanations on the origins of life. The study of naturalistic origin of life is a separate field known as Abiogenesis.

Certainly it is valid to say that biological evolution and the basis of naturalistic clarification of Abiogenesis, called molecular evolution, have some kind of relation between each other but still we mustn't confuse the true nature of evolution.

Yup. Godd ole Lucy lol. The real debate about evolution now, is the fate of the Neandrethals. We know they existed in many parts of Europe, but no one is sure if they jsut died off or if they mated with early Homo sapiens and kind of ceased to exist as a species that way.

Also, people need to understnad that modern day apes are not on the same evolutionary path as humans. They are not early forms of ourselve.  Millions of eyars ago, apes and humans had a common ancestor. BUT, they soon broke off into two distinctly different evolutionary paths....one leading to Homo Sapiens and one leading to modern day apes. This is where believers in the creationist theory try and make their biggest point...."If we evolved from apes, then why are there still apes?" - but no one ever said that creationists were smart

Originally posted by Maju This should belong to Intelectual Discussion. But anyhow my answer is: we still don't know for sure what causes gravity but we know how it works. Does that mean that gravity doesn't exist? If you think so, I tell you:  throw yourself from a tower and I will prove you how wrong you are.

Actually I learned about what we think does cause gravity, they're particles called "exchange mesons" which transmit forces, the ones for gravity are called gravitons.

It's already confirmed that Neanderthals didn't got mixed with modern humans (DNA testing, I think).

Neanderthals were either killed or outcompeted by our ancestors, who apparently were more flexible in thought and adaptability. Not bigger brains, actually Neanders had slightly bigger heads, just more flexible for adaptation, possibly more creative. Neanderthals were actually much stronger and were better adapted to European cold climate but still, our grandparents just displaced them to the point of extintion.

Sometimes I think that Neanders could resemble the dwarfs of legends, they were smaller but much stronger than us and, without being clearly inferior, they were simply diferent.

They lasted for many milennia, co-existing with us, till they they finally disapeared anyhow. It wasn't any sudden proccess.

What makes evolution still a theory is that scientist don't know which order it exactly happened. There were so many Human forms that went to a dead end or continued we are just not sure which path evolution took for us to get here. But the scientist can take the skulls and put them in one row and show the evolution change from the beginning to where we are now showing the brain cavity grow to the dental changing.

Go here and click on documentary http://www.becominghuman.org - http://www.becominghuman.org . After that at the top of the window showing the documentary click on lineages. Then click on number three The Human family Tree, now there are three theories you can look at. If you want to under evolution further watch the little documentary.

So far scientist found out you need two key things for the start of life, water and energy, I would say three as in amino acid, but don't quote me on that. Anyways scientist have been finding new life and life starting in places they thought were prviously in possible. They once thought life can only be started in a perfect enviroment, supposedly like earth. But life has proven scientist wrong as it's found in the most extreme of areas, including radioactive areas. Life is alot tougher then scientist once believed. If I can find a article on this I'll post it, but this is stuff I heard in a documnetary.

That's true. Except that there isn't just one 'theory of evolution'.

I don't understand that. You know the speed of light because you measure it.  You may not be able to measure it infinitely accurately, but it's close enough for jazz and science.

You know things evolve because you can see it happening, quite apart from the fossil record which evidences how it happened in earlier times.

I do wish you'd make that plural. Especially in a supposedly historical forum. Which evoultionary theory are you talking about?

I have to stick by saying it is a theory, because it simply is. It is basically a phenomenon explained by the observation of empirical evidence. This particular theory is most acceptable to me because it is backed up by the most empirical evidence (even if the theory itself is not perfect). I recall asking my biology teacher how the very first lifeforms emerged out of lifeless elements, for which his explanation left alot to be desired. Without being something that is without doubt correct, as it does have flaws, evolution should be called a theory rather than a fact for the sake of general reference. For me personally though, it is a fact.

After all, once in classical Greece it was an empirically supported "fact" that semen was produced in the brain before being channeled to the penis at the point of ejaculation. It was the best explanation they had at the time, and persisted into the renaissance. Today we know better.

Difference is we can track evolution from the single cell to now. The first creature that was multicelled was a flat worm that shared the same hole for it's mouth and anus, and it's still alive today, further along it became a tube worm which obviously was better in evoultion. Cartlage was the being of bone, and cartlage came when the tougher skin of a creature was surviving it's enviroment better.

In our minds we see that evolution just happens quickly, as though we can't really imagine time being that long and that far back. But in truth evolution is very slow in our standards, but in the universe it's a flash. We have some little part in us that different in our parents, so slight in difference that it's unnoticable. Evolution is also slower in us as we are living a life of leisure, so we probably won't be changing for awhile.

You're still mixing up evolution itself with the theories that explain it. Natural selection is not evolution. It is a hypothesis that accounts for evolution. (In a not very satisfactory way since it is basically tautological.)

I keep trying to establish which of the many theories of evolution you are talking about.

Not at all. That was a theory advanced to explain the emission of semen. No-one had seen semen moving from the brain. On the other hand we can see things evolve - notably 'flu viruses.

Darwinism is a theory that explains evolution. Lamarckism is a theory that explains evolution. Intelligenr design is a theory that explains evolution. There are also gestalt theories of evolution that I can't think of a name for offhand. They also explain evolution.

The question is: which of them offers the best explanation of the observed phenomenon of evolution?

The observed fact you are talking about deals with micro-evolution, or the change in the frequency of alleles of a population.  Examples include HIV becoming immune to our body defense system. 

What people here are talking about, which has not been proved yet, is macro-evolution, or how mouse looking creatures "evolve" into elephants.  And you know damn right that testing macro-evolution empirically (both Darwinism and Lamarkism) is damn unpractical and has not happened beyond the stage of micro-evolution.

That assertive tone gives me the impression that you've just completed Biology class.  Congratulations.  Now go study for AP Bio. 

Apparently, Evolution is not about Darwinism, Lamarkism, Catastrophism, etc.  By branches of Evolution, scientists generally refer to ideas such as gradualism or punctuated eqilibrium.  The theory of Evolution is not complete; there are scientists who argue against the generally accepted ideas of evolution. 

Intelligent design and Evolution are dichotomial entities- they never really mix. 

Intelligent design does not equal evolution.  Both explain different stuffs- Intelligent design states that god created all species and they never changed since.  Evolution states that organisms have constantly enhanced their capacities through time by reproduction of the most successful.  They are different.

Sorry about my arrogant assumption that you've actually completed Biology class. 

And you should know damn well (since you like that vocabulary) that new species have been observed to emerge. In occasionally odd places, like the London Underground.

That's macro-evolution at work. In fact there's no dividing line between 'micro' and 'macro' evolution because the classification of animals into species is subjective and arbitrary.

Don't try and be patronising. It doesn't work around intelligent people.

Producing inter alia many different theories of evolution, which was precisely my point. It confirms that evolution is not a theory, it's something you have theories of.  By 'Darwinism' I simply mean the theory that mutations occur at random and those than hurt survival drop out of the genotype.

Well I've just been saying it doesn't. Were you listening?

Then you're talking about a funny kind of 'Intelligent Design'. The whole case for teaching ID in US schools is that it does NOT imply a god, and is therefore not religious.

Intelligent Design is simply the theory that, given the complexity of living organisms, there must be an intelligence guiding their evolution. It accepts evolution, and explains it. That's the whole point of it.

That is literal nonsense. You are saying in effect that evolution states that organisms evolve. Just think about it. That's nutty.

Evolution is the fact that organisms evolve. Evolution doesn't state anything. It doesn't do anything. It's a process not an actor.

Unbless you can get a few fundamental ontological concepts right the situation will stay as confused and confounded as it is right now.

I'm not a biologist, I'm essentially a historian (especially of philosophy and science) and economist.  But what's involved here is a little elementary linguistic analysis, otherwise known as common sense and not producing grammatical nonsense.

There is a difference between new species emerging and discovering already-existant species.  You can't just declare Macro-evolution just because you've discovered a funky looking creature out of the sewage.  Macroevolution is an event, by definition, that deals with "over a long period of time." 

In other words, You can't just find Macroevolution one day in the sewage- that kind of reasoning is called pseudo-science, because an erroneous empirical reasoning backs it up.

Remember this:

Microevolution: Change in the allele frequency within a selected population

Macroevolution: phenomena involving the drastic allele change in frequency that somehow leads into reproductive inhibition between the two genetically diversified populations, resulting in Speciation.

Listen to what you're saying:

Quote from gcle2003: Intelligenr design is a theory that explains evolution.

You've stated that Intelligent design is a way of explaining evolution.  Instead, it explains Creationism.  You should be rational enough to conclude that creationism and evolutionism are different.

Intelligent Design is not simply the theory that you've stated.  It generally accepts Micro-evolution, but not Macro-evolution.  Now the generally understood concept of evolution requires both micro and macro evolution for it to occur.

Evolution is NOT the "fact" that organisms evolve.  Evolution, to start with, was proposed because it happens in nature.  It is a way of explainig things that happen around us.  It happens, but under rational, and explicable circumstances.  This includes some common laws, including the use of allele frequency, transmission of randomly-assorted genes via gametes, reproduction of more offsprings than of that will die out, etc.

In other words, it is a process that strictly follows logic.  It's not just grazing cow; there's a lot of stuffs going on that can be only understood if you've studied biology.

Again, I highly recommend you to study Biology before you actually go on further into this debate.  Ace Biology and you wouldn't have to counter my points merely by twisting your tongue into some intelligent remarks, which actually means nothing. 

Cool.  I actually do respect you as a historian and a philosopher, but I do think that you should better check out some neat facts in Biology that will guide you more successfully through evolution debates such as these.

I suggest you start out with Gregor Mendel and his discovery of alleles.  Make sure you understand the principle behind crossing over and independent assortment.

By the way, grammatical nonsense happens to everyone once in a while, so deal with it. 

Which, as the London Underground cases show, can happen in a relatively SHORT space of time. There's no hard and fast line between 'change' and 'drastic change'. It's a continuum.

In the way it is being currently presented in the US, it is asserted that it explains evolution. You can of course provide a similar theory to account for creation. And incidentally you're drifting again ... Intelligent Design doesn't explain 'creationism' - at most it explains creation.

Some ID proponents specifically disclaim that ID explains creation. Admittedly I suspect they only do that to get around the Constitutional ban on teaching religion in public schools.

Of course they are, although I'm having to make a wild stab at what you mean by 'evolutionism'. Evolution and creation are certainly different.

That's just not true. Not of standard ID anyway. It accepts both, with the same explanation for each. In fact if anything it's the other way around, with Darwinism (say) being accepted for so-called 'micro'-evolution and intelligent design being accepted for so-called 'macro-evolution'.

The generally understood concept is that the distinction you are drawing is a false one. There's no dichotomy, just a matter of degree.

Can you not see how tangled up you are getting? 'Evolution was proposed because it happens'! If it happens (which I hold to be obvious) then why does anyone need to 'propose' it - it's there already.

Like I said, first get your ontology sorted out, and you might get somewhere.

I agree with all that. No problem. But if all that is true, then you can't say evolution is a theory, which is what I was objecting to in the first place. You can't use the same word for the process and the theories that account for it without getting into logical nonsenses.

I happen to know about that. Like I said, for my degree I specialised in the history of science.

It only happens when people are thinking shoddily. And it can be terribly misleading.

I maybe should add to that post that when it comes to picking between various testables theories of evolution, I have no real opinion. That is a matter for biologists.

However, I can recognise a non-falsifiable hypothesis when I see one, and ID is non-falsifiable. (So is Spencer's 'Survival of the Fittest'.) That's not a matter of biology but of philosophy.

Because Creationists do not concur with Macro-evolution.  Basically, the previous statement was my point.

I still do not agree with this.  Since you brought it up, could you back it up with sources?

I think we've deviated from the topic.What Ahmet wanted to know was 'What r the different thoeries regarding origin of life'?

I remember having read different theories regarding origin of life at school.Would try to search the net n answer during the weekend.

I request participants to put forward theories regarding origin of life.Some scientists say that life started in the primordial soup (ocean) while others say life came to earth through a meteorite.

That just gets you even more tangled. To repeat: You said: 'Evolution was proposed because it happens. So you agree it happens. If it happens it must be a fact. Yet you deny it is a fact, so you must be denying it happens.

Now you may not have meant what you said, and you may want to rephrase it. But it still represents muddled thinking, which is what i would like to see eliminated from this continuing discussion.

I know creationists don't accept evolution except where they are absolutely forced to. But to retreat into saying 'ah but that's not MACRO-evolution, that's only MICRO-evolution' when there's no distinguishable difference between the two is just unconvincing sophistry.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

http://www.gene.ch/gentech/1998/Jul-Sep/msg00188.html - http://www.gene.ch/gentech/1998/Jul-Sep/msg00188.html

Or did you mean the bit about it being a question of degree? It seems to me that that has to be the default hypothesis, and that if you are claiming a qualitative difference rather than just one of scale it should be up to you to define the difference and demonstrate a reason for accepting it as significant (other than that it gives you the excuse you are looking for).

I'm not a biologist, but I do know, as an economist, a fair amount about taxonomy and in particular numerical taxonomy and I do know  that taxonomic distinctions almost always depend on some kind of subjective and essentially arbitrary assessment, notably choosing the dimensions and geometry of the space you are defining.

Still, we've just been reminded that the subject of this thread is not evolution but origin of life, so it would be off topic to push it much farther, as well as probably too mathematical for many to be interested.

I'm not actually trying to take sides; I'm trying to emulate both sides at the same time.  Basically, I don't want to sound like a religious fanatic, because I actually have studied Biology.

There IS a difference, when you start reading the two.  That is why I am telling you to actually study biology and the mechanics behind the Chromosomal basis of inheritance, primitive species, genetics, and all irrefutable factors before you start rambiling tongue twisting words. 

Basically, a philosopher never belongs to a biology-topic, unless he or she knows what he/she is talking about.  You are arguing something that you have no clue whatsoever, except that of what outer sources of information tells you to believe in.

And you know, try to not procrastinate from now on.  Please keep your sentences concise and to the point, because your tongue twisting befuddles me.

Not really- you couldn't have passed Biology without several questions that cannot be explained empirically by science.  Read the reply to the quote below.

Although you lack the scientific skills to answer this question, here goes:

Gorillas have 48 chromosomes.  Humans have 46.  According to the complete theory of evolution, Humans and Gorillas have originated from a common ancestor, some several thousand years ago.  But, what explains the chromosomal differences?

I have no problem with life surging under god where the conditions are favorable (light, earth, let there be), provided seven days. According to Bible they have achieved to walk on water and turn water into wine, so getting God to create us is just a matter of time. I'm sure we will find life (primitive life, like bacteria) in Mars and other planets as we continue wit our space exploration[even when the frozen water in mars actually turned out to be frozen CO2]. That we haven't been able yet to explain the authencity of Bible or the actual existence of God and Jesus and their miracles doesn't mean that it didn't happen. In fact, it happened and we are the evidence.

Very convincing argument, Maju.

What capricious and unscientific conditions. You're truly a demon, man.

Have you thought that the sequence of divine creation as written in  the book of Genesis doesn't fit with the fossil record. There are some serious incosistences, even if you consider the days to be a metaphore of undefined (but very large) spans of time.

Actually? I'm following everything on Mars exploration and I haven't read that. Anyhow, there is water out there, we know via spectrometric analysis. So many suns and planets and no other with life, even a strange and microscopical kind of life? Impossible.

You haven't yest understood the implications of the end of the geocentric model, have you? You haven't assimilated that there are zillions of suns and tens of zillions of planets and that means that even if the likehood for life existence is minimal, there must be other places where life and even inteligent beings such as ourselves (or possibly even smarter) do live.

Else, what? Has god created so many planets and even the fossil record just to decieve us. That's a truly tricky God. With such a good practical joke, everybody has to fall. But this doesn't fit with the JCM concept of God being Truth and not deceit. So I take scientific facts as God's truth. Much more than any sheet of paper written in some obscure century by some badly known scribe with his own agenda.

Do you need tales of miracles and book-idols to explain our existence? I don't. I find enough miracle and marvel in the power of Nature. No need of anything else. No need of fairy tales, thanks.

No I'm not.

Do you have any idea what 'procrastinate' means? You don't appear to. And if being asked to think straight befuddles you then...well, people can draw their own conclusions.

Why do you think I didn't know that?

But difference in chromosome count doesn't mean difference in species. The other apes all have the same number of chromosomes as gorillas, but they are different species.

Moreover we see differences in chromosome distribution occurring in the same species - frequently in human cell division. Mutations involving extra or fewer chromosomes can occur, just as mutations to genes can. There's no reason that much the same mechanisms (carcinogens for instance) can't produce both. Such mutations are usually harmful, but there's no rule says they can't once in a while be beneficial: the same after all is true of gene mutations.

I will grant there is a descriptive and therefore qualitative difference between mutations involving the number of chromosomes, and those directly affecting the genes. But both can easily be incorporated into the same theory of evolution.

Maju, did you like my post?  Well, here's something:

I wrote that paragraph based upon YOUR PARAGRAPH, and I MODIFIED JUST THE MAIN ARGUMENTS, not the LOGIC. 

In other words, I used satire to prove you wrong.  The more you think that my post is rediculous, the more fun you are making out of yourself.  That's the problem with so called "evolutionists" today - they know nothing about biology, and think they are smart merely because they conform to what experts say without knowing the basics.

Now go and cry about your hypocrisy.  You are just as ignorant as any religious fanatic, and I mean it. 

If you were offended by the previous statement, I'm sorry about that. I couldn't phrase it any friendlier, because the statement speaks the meaning for itself.

EDIT: gcle2003 replied just as I posted my reply to maju

You didn't answer anything.

Procrastinating is when you have a 400 word history paper due tomorrow, and you write 100 words on facts and 300 words that help nothing but add up the word count. 

My point is that if you disagree, just say that you disagree.  State your evidence.  Period.  And if you find flaws in my argument, state it and explain why.  Period.  It's that simple. 

By the way, by the "people can draw their own conclusions," you tried to sound just like Prince Talleyrand in the Congress of Vienna, and you failed miserably in doing so.

I didn't really argue about the difference in chromosome count.  I was asking how come if Gorillas and Humans originated from the same common ancestor, chromosome differences have occured. 

And if it happened due to mutation, how was it transferred and how that was in turn transferred into the next generation enough to not have the gene disappear in generations but to stand out into speciation.

Do you even understand the nature of Chromosomes?  Hundreds of thousands of genes in each DNA within each Chromosome?  Actually, do you know why when donkeys and horses breed, the result mule is sterile?  It is linked with Chromosome number differences- go research. 

How can DNA accumulate over generations?  How can it be transferred to gametes via Meiosis?  How can those germ cells undergo mitosis with extra DNA and where will it belong?   Is there any rational proof that explains it, if Evolution by means of Speciation does occur?

I don't think there is.  Do you happen to know any valid sources that refutes my claim?  So far, I've seen none.

• My logic: The Sun is a nuclear fireball -> the Sun emits light and heat (among other types of radiation)
  
• Your logic: The Sun is a snowball -> the Sun emits cold and is the home of Santa Claus (therefore its also emits toys-for-us).

There was nothing to answer. That was partly my point.

Well that's not what it means to anyone else. Procrastinating is when you have a 400 word history paper due tomorrow, and you don't do anything about it till 6 a.m. 

Definitions of procrastination on the Web:

• the act of procrastinating; putting off or delaying or defering an action to a later time
• dilatoriness: slowness as a consequence of not getting around to it
  http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=0&oi=define&q=http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn%3Fs%3Dprocrastination - wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

• Procrastination is the deferment or putting-off of an action or task, usually by focusing on some other distraction (compare temporisation). It is Latin for "foremorrowing," or making some such of tomorrow.
  http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=2&oi=define&q=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procrastination - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procrastination

That's what I did.

Same way they sometimes happen in the formation of cancerous tissue.

I don't know how they occur - I just know they occur. Maybe if I did know I'd be able to cure some cancers.

A number of ways. You're accepting here that it could be due to a change in a gene. It that's true then the inheritance mechanism would be the same as for any other genetic trait. However there is the extra possibility that if, say, a sperm cell was deficient in a chromosome, and the ovum it fertilized had the normal amount, then in the process of further cell division the 'surplus' chromosomes could just fail to be copied.

So if you start with a 23-chromosome sperm and a 24-chromosome ovum, subsequent cells after division would have 46 chromosomes, not 48.

Moreover in such a situation the variation would breed true immediately.

What on earth do you mean by 'in each DNA'? I know what a chromosome is, I know what DNA is, I know how DNA/RNA recombination works.

But that you can possibly write 'thousands of genes in each DNA' indicates pretty strongly that you don't know what you're talking about.

And you quite evidently never will.

What you don't understand here is what the objection to intelligent design or creationism is.  The objection is that it cannot be proven untrue. so it is no good arguing in its defence that it cannot be proven untrue: that's like arguing that a murderer is not guilty of murder because he committed murder.

Intelligent design can be used to explain any observation and to account for any possible experimental result.

But the likelihood of a hypothesis being true only increases when it passes a test it could have failed. The likelihood of it being untrue increases when it fails a test.

So there cannot be any experimental evidence to support the likelihood of intelligent design being true. Intelligent design cannot be used to predict anything - because it can explain whatever happens.

It is therefore useless and there is no way of establishing that it has any claim to truth whatsoever.

And that has nothing to do with biology.

What specific, falsifiable, scientific theories of evolution are valid or invalid is a matter for biologists to decide.

It doesn't need a biologist to dismiss any non-falsifiable, non-scientific hypothesis about anything.

Your logic: Evolution happened because we exist

My ripoff logic: Creationism happened because we exist

Do you see it now? -.-;

Also, your " mutation or an accident in chromosome recombination being transmitted to new generations when it happens that it is favorable enough to allow its carrier(s) to survive till adulthood and procreate normally" fails to answer how Chromosome differences between two species with the same common ancestor arises.

I used procrastination in the sense that you drag on.  That's at least how my History teacher uses it.

So one can argue that even if he doesn't understand how God made everything, he knows that God did it?

Bear in mind that your subsequent division logic only applies for plants; in Animals you get hybrids like mule, who are sterile.

Chromosomes are made up of DNA, each DNA that contains thousands of genes, coiled up tightly on protein molecules called histones.  You learn that from basic biology.

Excuse me, but I WASN'T really arguing FOR creationism in that reply; I was merely challanging the evolution theory. 

In other words, I was talking about how Evolution theory cannot fully explain its mechanics by the proven information that we already know.  I wasn't preaching God. 

Thanks for assuming. 

You have just picked a sentence and deprived of all its context, explicit and implicit.

We exist now, we didn't exist in the Jurassic era, but other criatures like reptiless and the first mammals existed, these didn't exist in even more ancient periods but some criatures existed as well. Putting all these steps together we get a quite clear and defined "movie" or tree of evolution. We are the evidence because we didn't exist but our ancestors did.

Yet, nowhere in the archaeological registry we can find any fossil evidence of the existence of God or what is described as the creation in the Genesis (nor even anything alike!). Therefore again, you seem to fail to catch what is essential to my logic and the logic of science. And that is only because, instead of understanding what I say and looking for the truth or falsehood in it with an open mind, you are looking for arguments and counter-arguments in order to defend your pre-conceptions.

Assuming that's true, then you should straighten him out, no?

Of course he can. Whether you understand or not is not the issue. Someone could argue that he knew why people fall in love - it's because Eros shoots arrows in them. Perfectly understandable. Perfectly logical. Impossible to disprove. Accounts for every case of someone falling in love.

And, of course, totally unscientific nionsense.

Understanding and explanation and logic aren't the point. Falsifiability is. If it can't be falsified, even in theory, then it's worthless.

I'm pretty sure you can get sterile hybrids in plants. But hybrids have nothing to do with it. New species aren't hybrids.  They emerge from inside a predecessor species, not from interbreeding.

No you don't. DNA is the name of a type of structure. There aren't many DNAs so that you can talk about one DNA or another. Your grammar is totally out of kilter, pretty well invariably a sign that your thinking is too.

What there are are many DNA sequences. A gene is a sequence of bases: a DNA sequence. A chromosome is a sequence of genes: therefore a sequence of DNA sequences: therefore in its turn a DNA sequence.

That's what you're taught in basic biology, though it doesn't appear to be what you learned.

We all know that current scientific theories of evolution (there are more than one you know) cannot explain it fully. We know also that current theories of cosmology cannot explain the universe fully. We know also that current theories of quantum mechanics cannot explain the subject fully.

We live in hopes that day by day we will understand all of them better. But the fact that so far we don't understand, and can't explain, everything is neither here nor there. In the meantime the only explanations that are any use to us are the ones that may be false. Explanations like intelligent design or creatonism are of no use to anybody.

If that's all that you were saying, you could have said it more simply, and  it wasn't worth the effort, anyway.

You're welcome.

True that our ancestors existed because we exist, but it cannot guarantee this hocus-pocus that our ancestors MYA were part monkey part rat creature.

Just because dinosaurs and prehistoric mamals existed MYA, it does not mean that we evolved from it. 

The problem with that statement is that I've studied the generally-accepted concepts of Evolution.  You haven't, and you are STILL assuming that evolution holds true, without a single clue of its mechanics from the molecular level.

The organism you've mentioned in your second paragraph reminds me of a mule.  You do know what a mule is, right?

Out of the approximate 6 million base pairs from a DNA base sequence, only around 30,000~40,000 actually code for a protein.  So there is 120,000 base pairs actually used, meaning that ONLY about 2% of the DNA sequence you are talking about codes for a gene.  DNA itself is virtually empty, though there are a lot of different sequences that code for different proteins.

In simple words, DNA does not always equal gene.  

By each DNA, I was referring to the Chromosome it belongs to during Metaphase.

And just because English is not my second language, it doesn't mean that I should be discouraged from trying to explains stuffs in english. 

By that assumption, you are still speculating that evolution is indeed an occuring phenomena. 

My point is that evolution should not be regarded as a theory, because its proofs regarding the macroevolution cannot fully explain certain facts coherently (like the chromosomal differences between apes and humans). 

In the most succinct form possible: 

If we still insist that evolution is right despite its inability to explain certain crucial facts, we would be nothing better than god-preaching bishops who claim god created everything. 

Demon, you are just running around no arguments. You just say that there is some chance that my opinions and that of most scientists aren't true because you have grabbed a couple of uncomplete apparent contraditions in the speciation process.

Notice that I say that they are just apparent.

What do you think about the wingless cormorans of Galapagos? They are in an early stage of speciation. Do you think that they would be able to mate with flying cormorans from elsewhere? I am sure the are. Yet they are diferent species. The hybrid should be fertile because the speciation proccess is still young and the diferences between the two species are not yet so well defined. But Galapagos cormorans are bound to become a bird of penguin-like habits and not a flying bird anymore. Why because in the unique context of their enviroment of galapagos, swimming abilities are more important than flying ones.

Try observing nature not with the prejudiced eyes of someone that is persuaded by whatever reason that evolution doesn't exist but with the neutral eyes of a scientist... or a kid.

Just abandon your biases and observe disapassionately with curiosity. You have to defend nothing: just to find the truth.

No hurry.

Nobody said it did. I said a gene was a DNA sequence. I didn't say all DNA sequences are genes.

What you said, originally, was "each DNA that contains thousands of genes...  You learn that from basic biology" That was a nonsensical statement.

And what on earth do you mean by 'DNA is virtually empty'? DNA is a long chain molecule made up of various linked combinations of adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine.  which can be grouped into 'genes'. Some of those base sequences have no known effect, and are therefore considered 'junk'.

So what? Of the millions of theoretically possible combinations only a few tens of thousands appear to be meaningful. What has that to do with anything.

'I didn't mean what I wrote' is not really a defence against the charge you were thinking sloppily when you wrote it.

I didn't really understand what you meant here. If English is NOT your second language, why should anyone discourage you for using it? Or are you implying English is your third or fourth language?

Then you should hold that the general theory of relativity should not be regarded as a theory because it can't explain quantum mechanics (or, at least, no-one has yet found a way to do so).  No cosmological theories should be accepted as theories because they fail to determine whether the universe is expanding or static, finite or infinite. Every scientific theory fails to explain some things. That is what makes them scientific.

You need to understand that any theory that explains everything is unscientific and worthless (pragmatically speaking). It is not a criticism of theories of evolution that they cannot explain everything. If you compare two theories, neither of which explains everything, so that each of them can be verified or falsified by experiment, but one explains more than the other, then take the one that explains most.

But if a theory explains everything so that it cannot be verified or falsified then avoid it.

Again you are saying 'evolution is right'. Evolution is neither right nor wrong. Some theories of evolution probably explain things better than others, but no theory of evolution is right. All useful, valid scientific theories must be falsifiable. That is it must be possible to design an experiment to show they are wrong. Experiments to test them must be designed in order to show that they are wrong.

I agree that anyone who preaches that a theory of evolution is 'right' is in much the same position as a priest preaching his religion. But such a person is not a scientist.

Most of the current scientific theories of evolution allow us to predict what we will find. That makes them both useful and scientific. It does not mean they are right, nor that they explain everything (the way ID and creationsim do).

If you're looking for absolute certainty and 'rightness' then give up science now and find some appropriate religion.

Maju, I like you because of your signature, but I'll make this straight: Your example resembles more of a behavioral adaptation rather than evolution. 

And you are such a hipocrite when you said "just apparent" because millions of years can't be just apparent, if you are following the theory of evolution in the first place.

And yeah, those successful offsprings might swim for around 5 more minutes over thousands of years, the way how many Marathoners in my country have parents whose family have dived for living before history, but that merely changes in the allele frequency of the population.  They won't simply give rise to an extra set of chromosomes and new genes, and make them efficient swimmers like penguin. 

By the "Just abandon your biases and observe disapassionately with curiosity. You have to defend nothing: just to find the truth. ", I just think that you should be condemned to a class of AP biology for the rest of your life so that you repent this post for eternity.  You know, I'm into this debate because I KNOW what I'm talking about.  You don't, yet you insist. 

So if you are so reluctant to belive what I've just said, use your dispassionate thirst for knowledge to solve this: Explain to me how Gorillas obtained 2 extra chromosomes in their "speciation" from the human tree or vice versa.

You know, since you haven't really studied biology, I don't know where to being with.  So I'll just reply to the last paragraph.

What you've just said there, just contradicts your entire position of advocating evolution.  Think about it,ok?

LOL My bad.

Ok, so do you agree with Lamarkism?

So yeah, tell me if you agree with lamarkism or not.

Also, about the "don't look for the absolute certainty" you've just said, you were just babbling like a philosopher.  You don't even know how the theory of evoution expanded.  So first was Darwin (well, it was also Wallace but he's work was insignificant compared to Darwin) who proposed it based upon hutton/lyell/malthus/lamarck theories with his own observations.  Then we had scientists who used monecular biology to prove basically what Darwin theorized. 

Some looked back onto Mendel's hereditary laws.  Some discovered alleles for white eyes in fruit flies.  Some discovered DNA -its phase of replication, Mitosis Meiosis....but they all explain Microevolution, not Macroevolution.

You know, because I know you'll blindly state "they have no difference because its the same thing and because evolution happens you are wrong" without crucial basic facts in Biology, I'll repeat what I've said earlier again.  Macroevolution does not equal Microevolution.  Look both of them up. 

Begin where you would have begun if I had been a biologist. I'll get one to translate for me.

Once again I am not 'advocating evolution'. Evolution is an observed fact.  It doesn't need me or anyone else to 'advocate' it. All I am advocating is using the scientific method to study it, and produce theories that (partially at least) explain it.

I am also advocating avoiding - like the plague - meaningless non-falsifiable theories like those of Intelligent design and creationism. In any science.

Moreover, that of all the millions of possible DNA sequences only a relative few are pragmatically useful has nothing to do with anything. In fact if only 2% of the genetic code needs to be useful for an organism tobe viable, that helps the hypothesis that variations occur at random, rather than hindering it.

Try not to be silly. No I don't agree with Lamarkism. But it does happen to be a scientific theory, albeit one that doesn't stand up to experiment. It's wrong, but much superior to ID or creationism.

I just did.

Yes, I do. I said I wasn't a biologist. I said I graduated specialising inter alia in the history of science. How variuos theories of evolution arose is a matter for a historian, not a biologist.

Question for you: who came up with the idea of 'survival of the fittest'?

I fully understand the difference between mitosis and meiosis. I learned that somewhere around the age of 11, before the DNA/RNA mechanism had been discovered. It's hardly college level stuff. And I'm fully aware of how that replication process works.

Tell me something - just what claim to be a biologist - or any kind of scientist - do you have? You keep quoting high-school stuff, which I know, and assuming I don't know it, because I accept I haven't studied biology at degree level. I have however studied the history of biology at that level.

OK here's a few definitions:

Definitions of microevolution on the Web:

• A small-scale evolutionary event such as the formation of a species from a preexisting one or the divergence of reproductively isolated populations into new species.
  http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=0&oi=define&q=http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookglossM.html - www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookglossM.htm l

• Short-term evolutionary change. The study of microevolution focuses on changes in allele frequencies from one generation to the next.
  http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=1&oi=define&q=http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0767430220/student_view0/glossary.html - highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0767430220/student_view0/glos sary.html

• small scale genetic changes in organisms through mutations resulting in slight changes in an organism.
  http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=2&oi=define&q=http://www.carm.org/evolution/evoterms.htm - www.carm.org/evolution/evoterms.htm

• Description: Evolutionary changes on the small scale, such as changes in gene frequencies within a population. Source: Specialized encyclopedia and dictionaries
  http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=4&oi=define&q=http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/biosociety/library/glossarylist_en.cfm%3FInit%3DM - europa.eu.int/comm/research/biosociety/library/glossarylist_ en.cfm

• Smaller changes in evolution, such as a change in a populations gene pool over a succession of generations.
  http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=5&oi=define&q=http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Animals/Primates/glossary.cfm - nationalzoo.si.edu/Animals/Primates/glossary.cfm

Definitions of macroevolution on the Web:

Note that different authorities ascribe formation of a new species to microevolution and to macroevolution. Note that everywhere the reference are to 'large-scale' or 'small-scale' or 'larger changes' and 'smaller changes'. A scale is a continuum, like a temperature scale. The difference is quantitative not qualitative.

One genetic modification is probably small-scale - micro. Lots of genetic modifications are large-scale - macro.  It isn't quite that atraightforward because chaos theory's 'butterfly effect' may come into play. That is, small changes in the initial conditions may produce very large changes in the output conditions. So a 'micro' change may produce a 'macro' effect.

If you'd actually do some worthwhile reading instead of just sticking to your prejudices you might begin to understand some of this.

I would love to rebut your arguments, gcle2003, but I am really busy in these days. 

Just to give you an idea about my achievements as a biologist, I've studied Biology for 3 years, took AP biology, and got 94 in that class (that class was weighted, meaning that you add 6 points to it),  and got 5 in the AP exam- all when I was a sophomore.  I know more about the thory of evolution that you do, because I've studied it for 3 god - damn years. 

It is sad to see how so called evolutionists like those whom I don't want to point fingers (that could certainly be you) argue just like creationists and don't realize that they are being just as fanatic, ignorant, orthodox, and charlatan.

Thus, I leave the floor to you.  You win. 

I could bring up a ton of evidence but I will link you to a website

http://www.godsaidmansaid.com - www.godsaidmansaid.com

and read my signiture.

Do you have any other ideas???

How about this question. Do you belive the thing about horse evolution series? (I am talking to anyone who thinks Evolution is right)

The horse idea that "proves evolution" I can tell you is wrong. This is how it goes:

Eohippus: 18 pairs of ribs

Orohippus: 15 pairs of ribs

Pliohippus: 19 pairs of ribs

Equus: 18 pairs of ribs

Result: Constantly reversing rib growth

Also I have some reasons I dont believe in evolution

1. Evolution cannot answer my question "Where did the world come from"

2. Evolution is not scientific the study of science requires:

a. Something to observe and analyze and record.

b. Someone to do the observeing, analyzing, and recording.

c. The ability to repeat this scientific work.

3. Evolutionary ideas are not verified by scientific evidence

4. Evolutionary ideas constantly change and are as varied as the individuals who think them up.

5. Evolution, like creation, must be accepted by faith. Id rather trust a God who is all powerful, than varied, unlogical, ideas made up by normal people who dont want to belive.

And if you read through the bible you will see that nothing contradicts another part. try and prove me wrong. I dare you.

PS. dont ask too many questions at a time because I cant type.

Oh and I just noticed what you said about christains ignoring confrontations so let me tell you this. If any have I will make up for it. By the time you are done questioning me you will have all the answers you will ever need. And I think its evolutionists you are talking about.

Read my signiture.

I onced asked my Muslim friend abot this.He said he accepted some ideas of Evolution,and how the process worked out,but only through the acceptance of Allah,and how Allah wanted his creatures of the Earth to become more versatile to conditions.Do some Muslims believe this ideal as my friend does?

Alright lets comment on what you wrote on horses. First Eohippus(Hyracotherium) is the known ancestor of all the horse species, first coming into existence about 60 million year ago. From there it seperated into three different species, one of them you put up there Orohippus which came about 10 million years later, htat is along time for change.

Then we come to Merychippus which showed up 17 million years ago and from this species branched into Dinohippus along with Pliohippus(one you mentioned) at around 12 million years ago. First Equus didn't even come from the same line as Pliohippus, and to further on that the distance between Pliohippus and Orohippus is about 30 million years, where is your argument? One million years is more then enough time for evolution to take a step in a different direction.

And the reason I brought up Dinohippus is because it is the direct decendant of Equus.

Here's a nice website to look at, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

Evolution goes more with the science of biology, not astronomy or geology. If your looking for the answers on the orgin of Earth through evolution, you might want to start looking else where because your alittle off there.

About the observation part you can see it in dogs, and recently foxes from a Russian coat factory. In a small population changes happen, and when it's caused by humans it's called experimental evolution.

But the observation of species splitting has been seen recently by the stick bug when it had a change of camoflauge and a different way of living it's life from it ancestor.

See Evolution is called a theory because it considered fact, but they are  trying to explain how and why it works. Creationism is considered a conjecture and not a theory because no has yet been able to prove or disprove it. The idea of evolution was never to confront religion, but instead the religious have confronted it.

Like I said. The ideas are as varied as the people who think them up.

And do you think evolution is proved by science???

EDIT: Plus what solid Proof do you have about the way horses evolved?

(Even though they didnt evolve)

You say that like religion isn't, how many denominations are in there in Christianity alone? Then you have people who I call convenience christians and I call them that because they live by the bible the way they want. For instance they will have premarital sex, will engage in a fight, save up their money for themselves or doesn't share thing equally, will skip church sometimes or all the time, won't help the poor and will instead avoid someone in need. While I may have done all this, I'm not a Christian.

Also their are only three different Thoeries of evolution and then three more on the Human evolutionary lineage.

I can't really speak much for science except of what I have learned, but others can, so maybe they will be able to answer this. This is taken from wikipedia.org, but this is known to science,

Characteristics In science, a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a firm empirical basis, i.e., it is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense, is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it probably is a good approximation if not totally correct, makes predictions that might someday be used to disprove the theory, is tentative, correctable and dynamic, in allowing for changes to be made as new data is discovered, rather than asserting certainty, and is the most parsimonious explanation, sparing in proposed entities or explanations, commonly referred to as passing Occam's Razor. This is true of such established theories as special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics, evolution, etc. Theories considered scientific meet at least most, but ideally all, of the above criteria. The fewer which are matched, the less scientific it is; those that meet only several or none at all, cannot be said to be scientific in any meaningful sense of the word.

 

1. maybe, someone with more scientific knowledge might be able to answer it because what I have in mind might not be right as it was studied in the lab far after the theory was first made.

2. check, fossil records of various animals. Did you know the ancestor of the sheep and goat was a carnivore with a three foot long mouth and was taller then a horse? And you thought the ribs of a horse were a big difference...

3.I don't know how they could, though in science they aren't trying to prove it, thats what the evidence does. As its already a theory they are trying to explain why and how it happens as more evidence comes along. So I would say check.

4.check, as said above, changes are always made as new evidence comes into play.

5. Survival of the fittest is the easiest explanation for evolution and is widely recognized, though I'm not sure if that's what it exactly means, someone with advanced scientific or better understanding can answer this.

So three out of five is a majority, seems pretty scientific to me.

 

-------------
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey

Dont you think science is as I stated it?

As a matter of fact I do. Creation. Why? It makes more scence. Carbon dating is like saying 2+2=5. many scientists doubt its accuracy over 3000 years. A new discovery has put scientists suporting evolution in a bad situation (for them) which you can read about here:  http://www.godsaidmansaid.com/topic3.asp?Cat2=244&ItemID=806 - http://www.godsaidmansaid.com/topic3.asp?Cat2=244&ItemID =806 (if your wondering why this is the only website i put out all of my other scources are books)

Also groups of animals are clasified as kinds in the bible. And kinds can mate. you dont see camels mating with elephantes. or how about whales with hawks? Can you truthfuly tell me you are a very open person or are you like the kid that says "I have A lazer sheild so you cant hurt me!!!"

The question is not whether the creation is valid (fits together) or not, the argument is whether it is true. Evolution hasnt even made it to step 2: Truth. Evolution is still on step 1:Validity. Everything in the Bible is valid.

And do you agree with the laws of Thermodynamics?

Not even half way through it and it's funny how Christians will bend science to prove what they want. We have more evidence for evolution, but the Christians are gonna go ahead and try to prove something useing another theory of Dark Matter which isn't even physical like fossils are.... String Theory tries to prove this, and if it's proven it could hurt Religeon far beyond anything Evolution could.

Well it was a funny read anyways. Shows how Christians will use science to prove something, but if this is ever shown science like String Theory, which is more of a hypothesis, but ever proven probably would hurt religion further as String Theory is the theory to explain everything.

But what really makes me laugh is the lack of evidence for dark matter, when there is far more for evolution. And another thing fundalmentalist have to get out of their head is that a scientific theory doesn't mean a hunch like modern dictionaries say a theory is, it actually means a fact that is still being explored on how it works and why it happens.

The Bible is not any scientific book. I doubt it is "valid" in any sense that is not just spiritual (psychological) self-satisfaction. Out of the merely religious/esotherical/mythical/magical sphere the Bible is not better that the babbling of a baby.

On the other hand, the theory of evolution is truth as far as we can say. Science must always keep a prudent skepticism even on its own greatest achievements. Humbly is a virtue.

The laws of Thermodynamics bring evolutionists into a sticky situation. The first one doubts the Evolution version of history. Evolution states that the world came into being through a big bang. where did all the matter come from? It came out of nowhere. And coming out of nowhere by no supernatural means. That denies the first law of thermodynamics. If the second one were true then how did anything come into being? if things are constantly becoming unorderly then how did anything begin? If God exists then he created those laws after he created the earth. that is one way your logic fails.

And transitional forms. For instance the bat. If a bat evolved from a rodentlike creature then halfway through the evolution it would not be able to efectivly do anything. Same way for all evolution to winged animals.

Everything does not fit together in the Bible. The most famous example is Cain's wife: according to the Bible, there were no other people in the world but Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel, yet Cain went out and got married? With whom?

There are many other contradictions in the Bible. I'll do some digging up if you wish, and post them.

Here is a list of contradictions in the Bible. Source:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html - http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-cont radictions.html

Of course, this may seem like a biased site, but then again, everything here can be checked just by opening a Bible.

Also, check out

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html - http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

God good to all, or just a few?

War or Peace?

Who is the father of Joseph?

Who was at the Empty Tomb? Is it:

Is Jesus equal to or lesser than?

Which first--beasts or man?

The number of beasts in the ark

How many stalls and horsemen?

Is it folly to be wise or not?

Human vs. ghostly impregnation

The sins of the father

The bat is not a bird

Rabbits do not chew their cud

Insects do NOT have four feet

Snails do not melt

Fowl from waters or ground?

Odd genetic engineering

The shape of the earth

Snakes, while built low, do not eat dirt

Earth supported?

Heaven supported too

The hydrological cycle

Order of creation

Moses' personality

Righteous live?

Jesus' first sermon plain or mount?

Jesus' last words

Years of famine

Moved David to anger?

The GENEALOGY OF JESUS?

God be seen?

CRUEL, UNMERCIFUL, DESTRUCTIVE, and FEROCIOUS or KIND, MERCIFUL, and GOOD:

Tempts?

Judas died how?

Ascend to heaven

What was Jesus' prediction regarding Peter's denial?

How many times did the cock crow?

Who killed Saul

How many beatitudes in the Sermon on the Mount

Does every man sin?

Who bought potter's field

Who prophesied the potter's field?

Who bears guilt?

Do you answer a fool?

How many children did Michal, the daughter of Saul, have?

How old was Jehoiachin when he began to reign?

Marriage?

Did those with Saul/Paul at his conversion hear a voice?

Where was Jesus three days after his baptism?

How many apostles were in office between the resurection and ascention?

Judging

Good deeds

For or against?

Whom did they see at the tomb?

God change?

Destruction of cities (what said was jeremiah was zechariah)

Who's sepulchers

Strong drink?

When second coming?

Solomon's overseers

The mother of Abijah:

When did Baasha die?

How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign?

Who was Josiah's successor?

The differences in the census figures of Ezra and Nehemiah.

What was the color of the robe placed on Jesus during his trial?

What did they give him to drink?

How long was Jesus in the tomb?

Depends where you look; Matthew 12:40 gives Jesus prophesying that he will spend "three days and three nights in the heart of the earth", and Mark 10:34 has "after three days (meta treis emeras) he will rise again". As far as I can see from a quick look, the prophecies have "after three days", but the post-Resurrection narratives have "on the third day".

-------------
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi

You just keep mixing up Evolution and Astronomy. Do you understand that Evolution isn't about explaining how the universe came about. For that matter Evolution isn't even about explaining how life came, I mean you read it's name E-V-O-L-U-T-I-O-N and it's basicly blairing at you at how obvious the meaning is, it "means a gradual process of development". So let me say it again, it's not the science of the origin of life and it's not a science about how the universe was created. The scientist who go into this field of science are NOT interested in solving the mysteries of the universe.

No wonder you hate evolution, you think of it as the anti-christ of science...

Have you ever heard of a Flying Squirrel? If one of 36 sub-species of flying squirrel lives by gliding to a food and stays that way for a million years it probably will have a good chance of gaining wings, because only those able to gain that food source are able to glide longer then those who can't. Another example would be if they are a animal that is prey in it's ecosystem of large and faster preditors, then the ones who can glide further and faster will survive and through evolution could gain wings.

If things didn't fit together in a book, then I don't think many people would read a story. Example, the Da Vinci Code, now that caused quite a stir world wide and many people believe in what it has to say. But doing further research you find it's not true at all. Though the author believes it true, he obviously didn't do any research. But everything in it fits like it could be true, and thats with out using a super natural being like a god. So whats your point, every good story makes things fit, especially when they are trying to convey their own point of view and adding a super natural being to the story only makes it easier.

Who cares? The Bible is not to be considered a science book, that gives explanations for what it states. If one's a believer then he need no proofs for what he believes. Nor should the Bible be used to bring in arguments in a non theological discussion (Is it written in the Bible something like E=mc2?).

One of my uncles doesn't believe in evolution as he states that he sees no proof of it, whatever explanation or proofs have been given/shown to him. He also doesn't think of himself as a righteous christian. And he is not the only one I know who thinks this way.

Evolution is a scientific theory. Relativity is another one. Themodinamics, classical mechanics, optics, organic chemistry, they may all be considered not only sciences but also theories. How many people really understand why is it not possible to build a perpetuum mobile or why is the speed of light impossible to be reached?.

In my opinion everything is a balance between possibility and probability.

Evolution is probably a correct theory and possible not a correct one (my opinion). The fact that other people consider this to be different doesn't bother me as long as they/me don't start killing eachother in trying to convince the opponent that he is absolutely wrong. Discuss it on this forum, yes.

Decebal made his arguement because Ghenghis said the bible was true, yet Ghenghis says science is not. That is also why fundalmentalists attack the Theory of Evolution because it disproves Genisis and in away disproves Noah and the Ark. Scientist who are in the field of evolution don't even care about the religious aspects. As a theory it's already considered a fact, what they are trying to solve is how it's possible and how it works. They are not trying to disprove the bible, and while they maybe consider anthropologist in that they are trying to discover the origin of man through fossil records, they are not trying to discover the origin of religion.

And another thing: does evolution explains everything it is supposed to?

The spiders, the sharks, the centipedes, the crocodiles, and lots of other creatures do not show a great deal of evolution since they first appeared? Did humans evolved (not primates I'm talking about Homo sapiens sapiens)? And if those didn't does that mean that evolution is not a correct theory? I've heard that chaos theory is able to give much better explanations to what evolution really is but the mathematics involved are so damn difficult to understand.

Creatures won't evolve if there isn't a need. The first creatures that were of a larger size still exist today, they were a tape worm that shared it's mouth with it's anus. Later on it evolved into a tube like worm and had a better way of eatting and realeasing waist and still exists today. Most of the early creatures had their skeleton on the outisde like spiders and so on. Spider actually came off of a scirpion like species and one of it's ancestors was a scorpion or more like a lobster creature that was 10 feet long.

Later came fish that had not fins what so ever and were the size of your thumb nail, they were the very first vertbra. They don't exist anymore probably because it's decendants ate them all as they would be a easy catch for it's decendants. Though crocadiles and sharks have evolved, they really haven't changed much from the time of the dinosaurs. Although subspecies have came up and you could tell that a crocadile and allegator had a common ancestor.

Humans and Homo Sapiens are primates. Homo Sapiens were around I think it was said 25,000 years ago in Asia and they believed has a short lived relationship with modern man. Also did you know modern hasn't even existed even half the amount of years that Neandthal man has? Modern man has existed with other subspecies od human and as far as I know has even interacted with two, the Homo Sapien and Neanderthal.

Other then that I don't really understand your question.

EDIT-The Homo Sapiens I'm talking about are Homo Sapien Idaltu. It was a sub species that came before modern man but I don't believe we are a decendant of this species.

[/QUOTE] Other then that I don't really understand your question.[/QUOTE]

Well it's rather a rethoric one. I was just trying to say that evolution doesn't explain it all. But evolution is considered to be science and the Bible is not. Not even the believers think it is, as far as I know.

What I meant is that, IMO, science doesn't explains it all. Religion, on the other hand seems to do it but rather on the idea of "believe it don't look for explanations!" .

Sorry if my English is so poor!

No your English is fine, I didn't understand what you were getting at. So far evolution has shown alot, it's just more people are interested on the more human aspect so people don't really hear about the evolution of other species.

But evolution take huge extremes, like I said earlier the ancestor of Goats and Sheep was the largest carnivorious land mammal, bigger then a modern horse and had a mouth three feet long filled with teeth.

I think people believe evolution isn't true because they don't understand that it's not really a set path, there isn't a ending to which creatures will become. They believe the next creature to reach the intelligence of man is going to be a octopus and that it will actually live out of the water. Thats just going on evidence now, that odds of it happening are slim though.

Personal statement: I think that evolution is the best explanation so far. I also think that it doesn't explain everything but I don't expect it to do it. If I would need that I would stick to something like "the Bible" And if there are people who think that science, recte Evolution, is not right, well, maybe we'll live enough to see that we others were wrong!".

*What was that creature called? Did it look like some giant warthog?

I can't remember, and I just saw it recently. But when I first heard about it it really did amaze me. I'll look for it though.

Here's a evolutionary timeline. It explains the evolution of plants and animals, and how the earth evolved. And while it shows how the earth evolved and animals evolved, the two sciences aren't one, this is a combination of the two to better explain life.

MYA= Million of Years Ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution

EDIT-You said evolution doesn't explain everything, what do you want it to explain? Do you mean certain creatures? Evolution isn't about how anything started, it's more about after life started how it got complex.

Firstly you dont quite understand that I am saying that Evolution is incorect, It never happened, and it is a billion to one chance. And your not fighting with a kid with a "Lazer Sheild". He got hold of a revolver.

TRANSITIONAL FORMS

Flying squirls are shaped diferent. it is like they have cloth taped on the inside of their arms. the bats "fingers" (evolution speaking) are on the inside of its wings. (I dont know any scientific terms for body parts) same for any flying animal.

SCIENCE VS EVOLUTION

Anything, like a theory, that people make up is going to be confuseing with its own logic and science. I have read peices of evolution books saying that much of the evedince they have can be used either way.

EVOLUTION ASTRONOMY

Evolution needs a certain type of astronomy to make it valid. not saying it is. But this type came along with evolution. Before evolution people believed the world was 6000 years old. if you want evolution you need Evolution astronomy.

And cain married his sister. The bible never said there were no other people around. It was just teling what happened.

And you canot prove theoreys or religions, just show whether they are highly reasonable or severely unreasonable. I am trying to prove evolution unreasonable.

Oh yes, let's all bow down before your mighty intelect! In one stroke, you dismiss the entire body of science and its discoveries for the past two hundred years. And you get to reform the English language too: instead of saying "And you're not fighting with a kid with a laser shield" (whatever that means), see what you wrote above. At least if you weren't from an English speaking country, I would understand. How old are you by the way? 14?

Yes, and it would be such a major step from having folds of skin to the inside of their arms to having folds of skin between their fingers too. That could never happen. Look at a bat: the last finger is connected to its body by a fold of skin.

Do you even understand what a theory is? How exactly do people confuse it with logic and science? I wonder what evolution books you read: they wouldn't happen to be written by intelligent design proponents, would they?

Biology and astronomy (which is really just physics) are sciences that evolved separately. It just so happens that they agree with each other in the areas where there is some overlap. If you dismiss modern astronomy, you dismiss the entire field of modern physics, especially the theory of relativity, and also Newtonian physics. So, tell me then, is the Sun actually rotating around the Earth?

You know, some of the same advances in physics that prove that certain stars are billions of years from Earth, and that we only see what they were like billions of years ago (thereby contradicting the 6000 year old universe), also enable people to do things like watch satellite TV. You wouldn't even be able to write on your computer and go on the internet, without advances such as the structure of the atom, electromagnetism and optics, all of which are the basis along with relativity, of modern astronomy.

The Bible never said that there are no green space aliens either, or orange spaghetti monsters, but we don't take that as an argument of their existence now, do we? It never says anywhere that Cain had a sister. So we'll take the Bible literally in the other instances, like the universe being created in 6 days, but in this case we're allowed to tweak it a bit, when it obviously doesn't make sense? What about all those other contradictions in the Bible? How do they fit in with the picture of a Bible in which everything comes together?

Honestly , you're not impressing anyone with your arguments against evolution so far.

I meant to put Evolution Geology and Astronomy. The stuff came free with evolution.

And Decabal. Dont ask my age. And dont insult me again.

Perhaps I was somewhat harsh with you. I shouldn't have asked for your age. But you have to realize that your tone was also somewhat harsh and condescending to those who believe in evolution, without providing a strong backing for your claims.

Now, how do you respond to what Maju and I have written?

Is this forum about Evolution of life or origin of life? I'm getting a little uncertain if the posts stuck to the topic?

Evolution doesn't just stick to life, it's about changing, adapting, improving, etc. The whole Universe is evolving! Even religions are evolving! Why is that happening is another question. According to L. Godel it is impossible to reach total knowledge. The more questions you answer the more other rise. It's endless.

On the other side, it is not necessary to ask any questions. You just read the whatever holy book and take it for granted. It gives you total knowledge!. It's really much easier. A sheep/dog/cat or any other pet needs no explanation for it's existence or that of it's master. It just exists. Rocks don't ask much question too!

I guess it's the difference between existing and living. 

*As for the Astronomy, evolution is not concern of this science. It's purpose is to baptise (not like a christian ritual) astrononomical phenomena. The evolution of the universe is Astrophysics domain.

Bats and primates shared the same ancestor right before the split between the two species. So what's your point? I think you say that because you think of evolution as a snap of the fingers like god did when creating everything. Having that kind of mind set I can see why you can't imagine it happening.

See if the Squirrels evolve to have wings it's going to take a few million years, three million at least, reason being is odds are they aren't in a isolated population and it depends what their needs are for survival. The way it will work is probably going to be determined by it's arm length, it's probably going to continue to growfor 2 million years and will never be noticed, but the skin to it's hind legs will recede up it's body allowing it to have more speed, and we would assume this because it will probably be the speed that determined the evolutionary change so it could escape preditors, and we would assume that it would need distance from that preditor so those with the longer arm length which in effect gives it the wing span will be able to get away. So when the preditor kills off the smaller armed squirrels, or a food supply eats away at those who can't reach it for the next million years the enviroment creates a isolated populations, when this happens it's only the parents with the long arms that are passing it's gene's on to their offspring.

So now that I explained it to you, that these squirrels are onlytaking on features of their parents, I want you to now go look in the mirror. I want you to find the features of both your mother and father. If you don't share features from both and took on only your fathers(and lets assume every human took only their father's side) then that means we don't evolve, that we are basicly carbon copies. But if we do look different and took gene's from each side and in doing so we have evolved, it's a change and that's evolution.

Scientist are allowed to make their own findings and HYPOTHESIS(don't get this confused with theory) but there are only three theories of evolution that are accepted currently from what I understand.

Here's how scientist have came up with the age, and this has absolutly nothing to do with evolution. And not everyone thought it was 6000 years old, that number only came about in the middle ages from a monk and only was widly believed by westerners.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Earth - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Earth

Now I braught this up because I just watched a show that has nothing to do with evolution, or really anything that can prove it. The show was called "Battle Field Detectives", and they were trying to figure out what happened at the Battle of 1066, between the Saxons and Normans. Anyways, part of their job is to figure out what the land was like, so they took a tool that takes a core of the earth, it's about 5-6 feet long. So they twist into the earth then pull it out and you get all different layers about a foot long. They had about 4-5 different layers and essentially they found out that a thousand years ago on that battle field in Britain it was made up of a salt water marsh, they saw that because it was a sandy clay and had plants inside the core of that layer that are only found in that kind of ecosystem.

They said by taking a core of that length your looking at Four Thousand years of the Earth. So if we dug 8-10 feet of the earth going by the bible we should fall through and have a hollow planet, I don't think that's the case.

But lets just take the Bible saying it's 6000 years old, and we see all the Strata rings, just like the age of a tree can be determined from it's rings, only with this Hypothesis we can't find a age of earth because the change's would be so quick if we went by the bible. Infact, it would be so quick I don't think the world would be livable. The deserts and waters would constantly be taking precious land and then receding, Volcano's should be constantly erupting, we should constantly have heavy rain to be changing the soil all the time through run off and erosion. This world would be impossible to live in. If we go by the scientific way, each layer takes atleast a 1000 years to gain a foot of a new layer that can be identified, but in some areas you have smaller layers which means quicker changes and if we went with the bible, you couldn't live in those areas. This might be alittle hard to understand, but I put it in it's easiest form for you to understand.

I dont think you understand the bible so let me quote

"In the beginning god created the heavens and the earth" Not "in the beginning god let the earth and heavens create themselves"

just a little bit of clarification.

A little off topic it may seem but bear with me. It will be on topic.

Imagine there were 1 billion monkeys pounding away at typwriters and they had oh some magic infinite paper and ink or something. If they were to write the first verse in the bible

In the beginning, god created the heavens ,and the earth.

Acording to Mathmatitions (bad spelling) it would take this many years:

120,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,

000,000,000,000,000 years before they were likely to type those 55 characters corectly

Does anyone disagree with this? I am getting somewhre by the way.

Correct me if I'm wrong but for Evolution to be correct all life we have now on this planet, with all its amazing diversity and complexity, at some point derived from one single cell, right?