There's more than one theory of evolution, but many of them are backed by evidence.

So I vote yes.

   Intelligent design is a "belief"

   Evolution is science.

Do you know what the theory if evolution is?

"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." —Albert Einstein

I'm not against evolution, either. Both can coexist.

Really,what proof,do you have,mind you?

Did god tell you this?

Thats just the simple answer, if we can't figure it out, something greater must have done it. Right?

Seems like it's a psychological thing we have ingrained in our minds. It's like we always need to be lead by something higher, that their has to be a leader, or something greater then us. Am I the only one that thinks it comes from evolution as we seem to be tribal animals, well I mean group animals. Whatever you want to call it.

And what about the other human sub species? Did Cro-magnon humans have their own adam and eve figures too? Did the H.Sapien Idaltu? Did another species of human, the Neanderthals?

And sorry I didn't answer you about insects in the last thread. Scientist from what I understand have a good fossil record of them. We know scorpians for one came from the ocean, the ancestors of the modern one I believe it was said they had gotten up to three feet long. There was also another large scorpian that was ten feet long and was around at the same time as the other sea scorpians, but never made it onto land. They believe Scorpians were the first creatures to adapt to land, and through evolution, shrank and gained the trait to breath only air. But one thing about insects in evolution is that they usually adapt by changing size usually. They also seem to lose and gain wings through evolution too.

Also, there isn't a study that says the Human evolution of modern man happened through out the world. It just shows past species moving out and other evolving in different parts of the world, most of which modern human never came in contact with. There is only evidence from what I understand that Homo Sapiens came in contact with Homo Erectus, no other evolutionary ancestor. And this happened in North Eastern Asia where soon after they died out.

I can tell this thread is going Genisis.

Hahaha. No, it doesnt. It doesnt *prove* anything. Proof can only be attained through pure logic. We're talking about competing theories, and the evidence each one uses to assert its respective probability.

What apparent complexity does, is provide evidence for the fact that the world is complex, period.

Moreover, Cuauhtemoc, what your reaction does is provide evidence for the theory that, whenever humans see complexity they can't yet understand themselves, they have a psychological need to attribute it to a form of higher intelligence, otherwise their worldviews go all wonky. Many people simply can't deal with uncertainties. Its natural. We've evolved to  have a penchant for searching out  the causes of things. Withought a psyche-assaugeing 'reason' or 'cause' for existence, many people simply feel psychologically uncomfortable. I feel sorry for them.

Acutally, that conclusion is reductionist. All it means is that we have no female Neaderthal ancestors. Males Neaderthals could have impregnated female humans. Nonetheless, its perfectly plausible to suggest that neaderthals and humans were actually divergent species, rather than one being the ancestor of another. They likely did, however *share* common anscestors. The likelihood of this, of course, is wholly dependent on whatever evidence we continue to find in the field that either corroborates, or calls into question, the various theories regarding how, exactly, the two species were related.

All this shows is that this one scientist was incapable of artificially creating strains of fruit fly so different from each other that they were incapble of breeding with each other (the definition of species differentiation). No more, no less. It is not proof of anything. It is evidence for the argument that it is hard to demonstrate macro evolution on a very short time scale, in a controlled environment, on fruit flies.

True. No more, no less.

The study suggests that all humans alive today are descended from one female, and one male. There are competing theories, but the evidence is so inconclusive for each theory that there is simply no convincing concensus on the matter within the scientific community.

If more evidence does emerge to corroborate the 'one female/one male' ancestor-theory, then other theories will have to be adjusted/discarded accordingly. It does not, however, provide any proof for Genesis. All it does is provide one instance of evidence, put forth by one study, that suggests the idea of an 'Adam and Eve' is not immediately dismissable. It says absolutely nothing about the validity of Genesis as a history, or the relative truth of Genesis versus other cultures' myths regarding the origin of humankind.

Clarify.

I don't know about 'most reasonable', but it does currently seem more likely that all humans descended from one common gene pool in Africa, as oppossed to evolving convergently, from other hominids, in different parts of the globe. This is a theory, and is subject to change and revision as new evidence is presented.

See Aristandros, the Christians have the strongest belief in intelligent design. They even want to push it into schools. They think, or atleast seem to think the Theory of Evolution is a science alone and that scientist who study it are Evolutionist, truth is it's backed up by many sciences that basicly prove it to be fact. To quote a site I'll give you a link too,

http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/sap.htm This pretty much answers the next two questions/answers as far as I can see.

I understand one horse was the Equus, which is the ancestor of modern horse, Zebra, and Donkeys, what was the other?

You'll have to forgive me, I did read it wrong thinking you said the Adam and Eve came along 12,000 years ago. But now I understand you said it was a distance of time between the two. Sorry again, my mistake. But I do have to ask, how does this period between the two prove Gensis in the last thread if it's said that the Mitochondrial Eve came before Adam? Atleast thats how it's accepted through studies.

 

 

 

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

I don't believe (in) anything.

1. the macro evoluition theory doesn't "sound", it's more sound than intelligent design.
2. Evolution theoryes state basically that there is a process (called evolution) going on in this universe. No ultimate answer given about it. It's a fact and considered as such. I don't need to "believe" it like I don't need to believe that I'm going to die.
3. Intelligent design assumes a non observable/provable axiom: "everything is at it is due to the intelligence of God".
4. Quit quoting the Bible if you want to be consistent.

Aristandros, if darwinian macro evolution was as strong as presented in classrooms, why are scientists abondoning the theory? Notice that the professors are from prestigious universities and again notice the date of this quotation. What is so significant about this quotation? The fact a few years ago, "ONE" would be "hard pressed" to find even "one" professor to take this position "openly." Don't miss my point here, for I am merely pointing out "Intelligent Design" is making inroads. If the "proof" for Darwinian Macro Evolution was so "strong" why are some university professors rejecting the theory?

Search, as you can see the so called horse series are not "facts" and are not credible! The so called horses are not credible because they are "not" in line. In fact as we can see, the so called horse ancestors lived at the same time! Did you notice the source for the horse series problem? National Geographic! Did you notice the date of the dicovery? 1981! And even though the so called horse series is "false" they are still teaching it in universities and high schools, where you learned it! Could "Darwinian Macro Evolutionists" have been purposely misleading us?

I dont see anything wrong with believing something greater exists. Certainly gives greater purpose to life.

It's all part of the belief system. Either you do believe in it or you dont. You cant explain it in scientific terms.

Hard to figure the validity of the dolphin-human resemblance.

 All of those points could just as easily be switched into the following:

- both have difficult birth and are helped by family members, doctors (male or female), or a pleasant shade under a tree...

- apes may not have much for swimming just as the Canadian Olympic team.

- humans will give birth in the middle of the night, day or next to the ape giving birth.

- The range of emotions are profound in much of the animal kingdom, especially simians, humans and dolphins.

- Notice how dolphins don't eat bananas!

So much for the similarities analysis.

Five hundred scientist, we are supposed to take their word as a minority over the rest of the scientific community? There aren't hundred scientist in this world, not just one thousand, but thousands. It's agreed by the majority that evolution is fact, and I'm going to say for now. There isn't any reason to suggest that evolution isn't a possibilty because a faith says so. In science you study it unless there is a complete answer, and there isn't any as you seem to believe.

Right now it explains things very well, shows why we share traits with even lizards. It explains the thousands of fossils found. Intelligent design is not a study, it is far from science, and is a explanation but a easy answer. You says science says otherwise, but a couple studies by those who seem to have a agenda don't prove anything.

Science also allows change, one day it may very well be that evolution is found to be false, right now evidence says otherwise. We are talking about a hundreds, maybe even thousands of scientist who have worked on this for over a hundred years.

The author of the article was showing a tranistional fossil, it was a single example, but not what the article was about.

Did you read the part about wolves and dogs and how we don't have transitional fossils between the two yet the mTDNA from dog breeds around the world point to dogs coming from wolves in asia 15,000 years ago.

Homo Erectus continued on even during the evolution of Homo Heidelbergensis to Homo Neandthalisis. And even seen the youngest of all the Human species, Homo Sapien which even then was around for the subspecies of Sapien. The problem is, in evolution species continuely overlap, they don't give way for the next generation unless the new really outplays, or can't adapt to changing enviroments, then the previous will die out.

Also I think Homo Sapien Sapien, us, are pretty lucky that Cor-Magnon didn't have a larger population, or it may have been them that are in the same arguement right now. So isolated populations can also kill of subspecies that don't continue to evolve.

And again, you assume life span has to do with evolution. Even with their current life span, if we were to go by that, it would still take a few thousand years, and I don't think we would be around long enough to see it.

Did you ever here about the Foxes in Russia. After thirty Generations they came up with foxes with floppy ears, spots, all sorts of changes. Your going to say, "Thats micro-evolution!", well it is evolution.

Did you ever here of the birds beaks changing sizes? Or the same species of birds, but have different colors. You'll probably say these are all within the species.

The point I'm making is these do change the animals genes. They will pass on traits that they have. So lets take a Finch for example. There beaks change to a larger size, which has been observed and is said to be micro-evolution again. But this is just one change in the precess of evolution. Anyways this allows them to get their food better. So those with shorter beaks eventually die out. Then lets say a new preditory bird comes in, which preditory birds near the artic have been moving up due to climate change and really hurting another bird species, so it is possible. Anyways the Finch that have more suttle coloring and match better with the area start to thrive over the ones with stronger colors. So again, the other die out.

Now we have a Finch with a longer beak isn't very color, but none the less, still a finch. So lets say a thousand years from now the climate in the area has gotten more dry and the food supply isn't the greatest. But due to this being a nesting area, suitible for their nests, they now travel farther for food. After all, there are large birds that migrate just to nest, and those that are to weak to die before the end of the journey. So those that are to small and don't have the energy to make the round trip begin to die out. Over the course of a couple hundred years their bodies begin to become larger and larger to hold energy and their wings and feathers longer to make the journey. After a few more thousand years, we end up with a bird that has a sharper longer beak, better camoflauge, much larger then it's predicessor, and may have even started going after larger prey instead of just insects to feed it's needs for the longer journeys.

So this is genetic drift. It wasn't exactly forced or in a controled enviroment, and it was done over time. The species changed from small micro-evolution changes that exaggerated over time changing the entire look of a creature. We did this to dogs, but it was a very quick change in evolution, the gene's didn't really space out much as they would if it were done overtime.

We have observed the change in stick bugs. We seen the anatomy change with longer limbs, we've seen wings come back from what was thought to be evolutionary garbage. Over time, these things make a creature look totally different from it's predicessor and through gentic drift make it one day impossible for the two to breed.

But in know way does this prove that there were two single humans that birthed the whole human population.

Homo Erectus overlapped many other Human species and continued for quite awhile.

Here's the latest study on on Mitochondrial Eve. http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/ingman.html - http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/ingman.html

Here's a link that talks about the Y chromosome of humans being able to be traced back 6 million years ago while Chimps Y is harder to trace. http://www.hhmi.org/news/page6.html - http://www.hhmi.org/news/page6.html

Even if you don't believe those to links, I think you might find them a interesting read none the less.

On a personal note, Evolution is not the reason I'm athiest, just something I find facinating. It's also not the reason for me not believing in Christianity, because I think if I were to believe in a supreme being, he would be able to make evolution possible and I think that'd just express the being love for change and beauty. In my opinion, evolution has produced alot of beauty. I just can't convince myself that their is any sort of supreme being, no matter how hard I try to force myself. And if I were to be sent to hell for that reason, I'm not sure I'd want to be close to such a being.

Search please do not miss this point! What is so significant about this quotation? The fact a few years ago, "ONE" would be "hard pressed" to find even "one" professor to take this position "openly." Don't miss my point here, for I am merely pointing out "Intelligent Design" is making inroads. If the "proof" for Darwinian Macro Evolution was so "strong" why are some university professors rejecting the theory?

As we can see the fossil record actually supports Intelligent Design. An Intelligent Design scientist would expect the fossil record to have "no transitional intermediate links" as well as the "abrupt appearance and disappearance if species". This is exactly what is found in the fossil record as admitted by a darwinian macro evolutionist in the above quote.

As you can see your confidence in the Darwinian Macro Theory of Evolution is misplaced. Please don't forget the quote above of current professors rejecting Darwinian Macro Evolution due to the fact that it does not answer what we observe around us."

I agree with you if you say TIME is not a factor in the "insect world!" For the fruit fly lives only 10 days and experiments have been done since 1906 and the only results have been Micro Evolution or change in these experiments. I think your very confused about the time factor.

]

Many Christians believe that evolution may well be fact. The complexity of nature/creator is well beyond current understanding. The abilty to adapt to changing environment argues more for creationism than against it

I've said this before to other people, and I'll say it again: it is very difficult to argue against evolution when you can manipulate the principles behind it to breed dogs or tomatoes or anything else you like. Evolution's been understood for thousands of years in its basic essence, looong before it was ever formulated as a scientific theory and its full implications were thought about. The ID folks are being really silly, worse in some ways than their intellectual ancestors in the Flat Earth society. As soon as you agree that selection can alter the characteristics of an animals descendants, you have confirmed evolution, which is hard not to do with a poodle or pit bull or red rose or yellow corn in your home.

Most IDers really need to get familiar with what evolution is, and what evolution isn't. Evolution isn't about the origin of life on earth; that's abiogenesis, and there is no widely accepted theory of abiogenesis among scientists. To attack evolution because it doesn't include one is silly, and only displays a massive inability to understand how science works or what evolutionary is about. Evolution is about the origin of species, not life. The ID crowd desperately needs to grasp this simple concept.

Edgewaters, please do not miss this point! What is so significant about this quotation? The fact a few years ago, "ONE" would be "hard pressed" to find even "one" professor to take this position "openly." Don't miss my point here, for I am merely pointing out "Intelligent Design" is making inroads. If the "proof" for Darwinian Macro Evolution was so "strong" why are some university professors rejecting the theory?

500 scientist is only but a small fraction. You are talking as those this is something new. Scientist have been agreeing and disagreeing with all parts of science since the beginning. Christians also thought the world was the center of the universe and alot of scientist during that time said the same. But is it?

Since evolution came along scientists have always been for it or against it. The scientific community, right now is mostly for it. Showing me names of 500 scientist is nothing. You probably could have gotten the same amount or even alittle more then that from the time it evolution was made public to now. It hasn't made any inroads. The only schools trying to get intelligent design into schools are the Bible Belt, and they are getting shot down before they even make it.

Really? Science has proved otherwise. We continuosly find more to support evolution, especially since alot of your of articles are scientist who either disagree with evolution or made the statements were made in the 70s and 80s, already a decade behind the wealth of knowledge we have now.

Evolution takes time, there are a number of factors. Life Span doesn't determine evolution. I thought I made myself clear on that. Change takes time, life span doesn't determine the time it takes.

Here let me put it this way, Macro evolution happens on a geological time scale. That is a more simple definition.

For example, Lamarckism says that when the ancestor of the Giraffe stretched its' neck to reach leaves on a tree, it passed on a more muscled and stretched neck to its' offspring.

Darwin's says that mirco evolution is the main mode, like I described with the finch. A accumilation of different features over time and through genetic drift you gain different species. 

Darwins theory takes millions of years due to micro, Lamarck's a much shorter time. Darwins theory when it first came out was almost disproved because the earth's age was believed to no older then a million years. But as technologies got better and the study of earth better, Darwin's theory fits perfectly now.

We have evolved very slightly from our parents, though you won't notice it, thats microevolution. Gene's like those of the foxes and even dogs are huge changes in evolution. As times go on, there can be totally different species, as long as dogs don't stay in a controlled enviroment. It's more likly the wolf will continue to evolve further as the dogs species is forced to stay in the same lineages.

Here's a example. One of my ancestors came over on the Mayflower. There are hundreds of others that share this common ancestor of mine. But through genetic drift my Y chromosome has different mutation compared to theirs. We do not carry the same DNA, we are totally different continueing different lineages. But by comparing our Y chromosome, you can see that we did have a common ancestor from that time. Western Europe may have a few lineages that a great number of people share, and Asia may have their own. But when they have children together, only then do they share the same. But if they continued isolated from each other, one lineage may die out bringing a new Y Chromosome Adam.

I hope that helps you understand it. I told you continuosly that it constantly changes, it's not stagnant.

National Geographics also has articles on evolution afterwards. They showed new studies of evolution and so on. Does that mean you understand evolution as fact now? There are numerous studies, without knowing the name of the horses, how am I supposed to compare them with the new studies or the evolutionary tree of the horse?

[quote]Search, thank God He gave us free will. if you have a Bible, read Acts 10:34-35. God will not force you or anyone to be a believer. Check out this website out of interest or good reading as you gave me some websites to check out.  http://www.bible.ca/quote - www.bible.ca[/quote ] Your god may have supposedly given us free will, but because I don't believe in him and because I wasn't baptized, I have to goto hell. I don't want any part of a supreme being who says "It's my way or the highway".

Search, don't miss the point as this shows that "time" is not a factor. You attempt to say you have to use "Geological time scale" as a factor for darwinian macro evolution. What about the "insect world" Search? Time a factor there? I know others reading this understand my point, however by citing geological time( does an insect need geological time) shows the problem your trying to defend and the fact you have not even comprehended my point! Here is why "time" is not a factor, for the" life span"(another term you have been confused with), of the insect is considerably shorter then our life spans. The fruit fly was chosen for these experiment because they only live "10" days. These studies on fruit flies had been done since the 1906! The result of these fruit fly studies? Micro change! How many life times is that Search since 1906?

Very, very much incorrect. The most rapidly evolving organisms - eg bacteria, amoeba and even small microorganisms - have had numerous speciation (not just the minor changes you're talking about, but actual production of new species) events observed in the laboratory, and the rapidity with which new species can be generated via mutation at the micro-organic level is very, very well understood (and a great problem for us today).

In the natural world, speciation events have been observed in larger organisms, where separated groups have evolved new features and further, have been physically incapable of rejoining the reproductive community of their former relatives (which is the test for speciation - dogs beget dogs, they do not beget bears or cats). Examples include the Faroe Island mice or the introduced goatsbeard plants in the US. 

Like most of IDs assertions, this one falls flat on its face and has to be shouted loudly, to drown out the sound of the elephant in the room stomping about.

Not correct. Although something like the flu does mutate into different "strains" without any speciation occurring, we know from laboratory observation that speciation can occur in microorganisms in a relatively short time and we also know that this does happen in the real world, with entirely new diseases appearing all the time, like clockwork. Are you at all aware of how many bacteriological or virus diseases which have no precedent at all that have cropped up in the last, say, half-century, or even just in the last couple of decades?

There's not much intelligence involved in observation. A lab simply implies controlled conditions that minimize external influences, which, if anything, should reduce the chance of something like speciation occurring, not enhance it.

Moreover, intelligence alone doesn't magically produce results by some sort of telekinetic superpower or other gobbledygook hocus-pocus. Specific actions produce results. When these actions mimic circumstances in the natural world, they will produce the same results, regardless of whether intelligence or nature is behind them. If I use my intelligence to drop a 5lb stone 3 feet onto your hand in a laboratory, its still going to hurt just as much as if a 5lb stone falls from 3 feet onto your hand because it was knocked down off a ledge by an elephant fart out in the jungle. Of course, it's difficult to argue with the superstitious mind, which is likely to attribute the elephant fart to gods, spirits, mischievous elves, a witch's curse, etc.

Oh God. That's like saying monkeys and cows are the same thing because they're both mammals. Or that a tree and a carrot are the same species: plant. Lol.

Nope. See above. The test for speciation is not whether they are still "small and furry looking" its far more precise. Can they interbreed with their former reproductive community? Yes? Then they are just a breed. No? Then they are, by most definitions, a new species. This isn't even necessary in many instances; few people would agree with the assessment that a St. Bernard and a timber wolf are members of the same species, but they can interbreed.

You seem to be very, very confused about the hierarchy of taxonomy, it seems like you don't recognize any difference between family, genus, and species. I have this sense that you wouldn't be satisfied until you saw something switch kingdoms, like a fungus turning into a polar bear. (Most) mice are all of the same genus, namely Mus, not the same species. Within Mus are four different subgenera and up to 40 different species. Not all mice even belong to the same genus or even the same family; most old world mice don't even belong in the Rodentia family but in the Muridae family. Other mice within the Rodentia family are not of the Mus genera, but belong to other genera (in the US, the deer mouse and white footed mouse are of the Peromyscus genera). All this, before even getting to the level of species among mice.

So, presented with speciation changes, all you've done is assert that speciation is "micro" and you want a change of genera, family, or possibly even order before it qualifies as "macro" which seems to be some weird folk classification you've invented on the spot.

If you're thinking that evolution means that you can watch a onion bulb turn into a whale, then you're clearly at a disadvantage in comprehending the concept.

Yet you have no problem in quoting a Nobel Prize that has been dead since the 70s.

Well I did some research on some of the names I've gotten from the list. Phil Skell was always a person to shoot down evolution. He said he never believed in it. And one student at PSU said he will goto lectures about evolution, but never speaks a word. He is a Chemist, never really studied further into anthrology from what I understand.

I also found out from another site that was talking about the Discovery Institute's filing a amicus curiae ("friend of the court"), which 85 members off the other list signed were mostly from Evangelical Universities. And here's a quote from the man who did the research,

Phil Skell was a chemist who didn't work at a christian college or university from what I found in my own research. He is one who will not debate against a anthrapologist, he turned one down after he was asked to do so infront of people. He is also a self proclaimed creationist and seems like he always has been from what I gathered. So, there were only nine signitures out of 85 that signed this amicus curiae from the Discovery Istitute(where the other signitures are from) that worked a non-Christian school. 38 of them were not even currently employed at any institution. These are people that signed your Dissent from Darwinism list!

Also one of them didn't realize what he was signing and doesn't agree with the discovery institue, here's what it says,

here's a link to the guy who did research on them, http://unfutz.blogspot.com/2005/10/kitzmiller-reading-signer s.html

By the way, there is a study on fruit flies on this link also, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/979950.stm

Now these are huge chnages, but like edgewater said, your looking for a onion bulb to turn into a whale. It took us millions of years for our skulls to evolve from a flat forhead, to a large forhead and big cranium to allow our large brain. It takes millions of years to see a large change completly different from the ancestor.

Everyone note, Search is saying Macro Evolution takes "time" and I am happy for this admission!

Everyone note, he does not read my sentences completely and still has yet to answer or acknowledge my past questions and answers.

It seems you don't understand the point that I made in regards to the insect world. Macro evolution should be happening all over the place because insects have short life spands. I am sure you know how long a "fruit fly lives."

Life span is only but one factor for the last time. You won't see any major changes that you are looking for. You say smaller or larger wings aren't evolution,but just microevolution, but that is a major change! That is changing what they are and gives them different abilities. Your looking for biblical proportions to happen which isn't always the case!

Though in london, it took one hundred years for a mosquito to evolve. Some mosquitos, which only would feed on birds at the time, went down in a newly built subway in 1900. In 1998, it was found those that went down in the subway don't feed on birds anymore, and their DNA evolved and changed so much that they can't even breed with the prvious species.

Search, do you realize what you just said? The mechanisms for Darwinian Macro Evolution are "HYPOTHESIS" only.

No, I didn't say anything, your just twisting my words. You do understand that in science, scientist explore how things work right? It's accepted that evolution is fact otherwise it wouldn't be called a Theory. Different scientist make hypothesis to explore how things work in a theory. Don't twist my words, if you don't understand what I'm saying you shouldn't even be having this discussion. Or atleast assuming something entirly different without asking what I mean.

Remember the quote from the Macro Evolutionist in my earlier posts to you who admitted the "fossil record" does not support Macro Evolution but Intelligent Design

No I don't, and because one person says it doesn't mean it's true. I'll believe the studies of thousands of scientist before I believe one person who isn't in the field.

Search, EVERYONE can read our posts! I have never referred to the Lamarkian theory of Evolution!

Once again, you misunderstood... I'm honestly serious on this question, not trying to put anything against you in anyway or form, but I have to ask, is English your first language? Again, I'm not trying to insult you or your intelligence, I'm asking with all serousness. I don't know if you don't understand what I'm saying or are honestly twisting my words, so I have to ask.

Lamarckism says that by a parent doing strenuous work, like I gave the example of the Giraffe, that it will immediatly begin to gain traits quickly. That the evolution you keep trying to ask about it seems goes along with this idea.You keep asking me to explain why there isn't any large changes in in the Fruit Fly experiment. One reason is they are in a very controled enviroment(atleast from the lack of info you gave me), so the ones that can only survive a certain enviroment where the others would die out doesn't happen. You have to remember that one fly has about 100 offspring, maybe more, I'm not exactly sure how many eggs one fly lays. Only a few will have mutations that would fit a enviroment that isn't the norm for them, but they won't go on to change the entire population when the original DNA is still the dominant. The original DNA would have to be completely killed off in this experiment before you could "SEE" large enough changes to make it not a fly anymore, but the DNA may still change to create news species of fly.

Essentially, the Fruit Fly expieriment would be like what we did with dogs if we could exaggerate their traits quickly. We forced evolved them making them take on different traits. Huskies can live in -26 below celcius weather while a Chihuahua couldn't last at all in that sort of temperature. Huskies have two different coats of fur and different personality traits then a Chihuahua also.

Just like I never said 6000 years for the earth age.

No, but alot of Christians do. They also believe Noah's Ark and the biblical flood happened about 5000 years ago from what I gathered. And they say they got this by fitting timelines in the bible together.

Now your saying I am critizing Lamark!

No I didn't, the arguements you used and the answers you seem to be looking for seem to go with Lamarckism. You wanted immediate answers for the reason the fruit flies didn't evolve. Without natural selection that would drastically prove the old traits obselete, then you won't get the huge changes you look for. And even if that was the case, it'd still take quite a few generation for them to make a huge noticable change. Insects wear their skeleton on the outside(so to speak), that might be enough for them to not be able to make a change on the outside to weather freezing temperatures. Though some bugs have a inside change that allows them to freeze and live due to chemicals, and thats a DNA trait.

By saying I am not addressing Darwin's theory indicates some desparation on your part in another area.

No it doesn't, I made a observation that your looking for huge changes without huge outside influences such as the fruit fly expierment where it seems your looking for the fly to turn into a bee. That'd be Lamarckism and not Darwin's Theory where a number of factors need to take place.

Search, do you not realize what your are saying? You believe in "LAMARKIAN" evolution?

Again, that is what you assume or your twisting my words. It was a example of Lamarckism, and nothing else.

This is truly amazing my friend Search. Lamarkian evolution is not accepted by anyone today!

No, whats truely amazing is how quickly you jump to conclusions. And your right, it isn't widly accepted, I only brought it up because it seems thats the evolution your attacking. Your looking for quick changes due to the parents actions, atleast thats the only way it could happen with that expierment or what kind of answers your looking to get from me. Darwin's theory says natural selection as one way, without having any idea on how the study was done, and you continuously asking why they didn't change into a different insect, you sound as though you are talking about Lamarckism, you've gave me no real information on the study, just like I'm still waiting on the names of those horses from National Geographic.

Search, Darwin's theory takes "MILLIONS" of years? Search your in a corner, you've put yourself in a corner my friend, maybe you can't perceive it but others reading our thread can. Time is the answer you say and that is why Darwinian Macro Evolution is not seen as it takes millions of years.

I didn't put myself in a corner. You want a example of right now a fish turning into a frog within a couple of years. Natural Selection can't make extreme actions like that. But can create a Fish with different traits within a few thousand years.

One fish, the cichlid fish found it's way to a lake in Africa 12,400 years ago. Over time the food in the lake started to become scarce, and the species evolved into over a hundred different species. Some evolved wide mouths, others large lips, and one species evolved teeth like spears. They started out as carbon copies, and in 12 thousand years, a geological blink, created different species. They evolved because those who didn't have the means to survive to pass on traits died off. Over 12 thousand years, their features became more and more exaggerated. It took time, and it took a reason. A number of factors contributed to why they evolved. With the fruit flies, there weren't any strong reasons from what I gather, and the only way they could have evolved the way you want them is Lamarckism.

Understand now?

The fruit fly was chosen for these experiments because they only live "10" days. These studies on fruit flies had been done since the 1906! The result of these fruit fly studies? Micro change! How many life times is that Search since 1906?

I don't even know what the scientist did for the expierment. It sounds as though he only caged them in one area. Do to the amount of offspring one fly has, the original DNA would remain dominant.

From what I understand, Humans haven't been evolving much either since we create our own enviroments to fit us. Maybe in a couple million years there will be a difference, but we won't notice anything drastically different now or for a thousand years.

Search, oh my, is this science? Your an example of Micro Evolution from your parents? Not! Your an example of "inheritance."

Your right, inheritance, exactly how evolution works. Look at dogs, they started from wolves, and now we have all kind of breeds, some even have webbed toes to swim, others better hearing, different coats to survive different elements. All inheritance, yet huge changes.

What adaptation did you undergo for micro evolution to occur? Search, please.

Gene's continue to change, I've got a mix from my father and mother. Me and you have extremely different DNA. If there were no changes, then we would all be inbreds. But small mutations do happen over time in DNA also.

The point stands Search, just think about it. You do not accept the Multi-regional theory, it does not make sense to you, as you said earlier.

I believe that modern man came from a isolated population of Homo Sapiens, atleast thats from the studies I read. After we evolved in Africa, some moved out and sub-species of Homo Sapien evolved like Cro-Magnon and Homo Sapian Idaltu and numerous others. We may have gained traits from the, like Europeans may have Cro-Magnon genes, but multiregional evolution is not the reason modern man came about.

Both are based on fossils and artists renditions!

The only thing the artist could mess up is skin color. By comparing bones we can see they are our ancestors, we can even tell what age they died in. There isn't much we can't tll by studying bones anymore.

Its pure speculation,

and inteligent design isn't? Evolution has far more facts for it then the idea a supreme being ever existed.

So I'll ask a few questions I've been waiting for.

1. Can I have the names of the horse fossils.

2. A link so that I can understand better the expierment with the fruit flies.

3.Do you now understand how the human DNA works involving when we are talking about Y Chromosome Adam and Mitochondrial Eve? In my last post I further described how it works and how it changes over time. I even gave you a example to see it better, and yet I have no answer to it.

4. Out of curiosity, I asked if other Homo Sapien sub-species had their own Adam and Eve's? Does the bible even mention other human species that were around not to long ago?

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

Why on earth do you add " in the Bible, written thousands of years ago which stated humanity is descended from them in Genesis 3:20." You only need to mention Adam and EVe (if that). We know who Adam and Eve are. That's the sort of excess verbiage being complained about.

1. I've read your posts. That's  the reason for my post
2. Nice, your opinion is what really matters. Can we (humble me) have it (no quotes)?

What I don't get is, if intelligent design is sometimes touted as not having religious backing, then how do they know what this supreme being did? It gets far to speculative to be allowed in schools without a shred of evidence. Whats not to say that a supreme being didn't set forth the idea of evolution?

Christians seem to have gotten it in their mind that evolution is out to get them. It's a study in science that tries to explain the diversity on Earth that we expierence everyday. The scientist don't want any part of religion when they are doing their studies, maybe on their days off they'll go to church if they are one of the faithful, but when they are working, they aren't working towards destroying or disproving any religions. Why would they? You can't stop those who are too faithful.

But I am sure that scientist do get upset when someone comes along and says your years of work is impossible, it's just all garbage.

Do you dislike it because it proves you might be wrong? Many people avoid anything which makes them feel uncomfortable. Many people avoid that by saying that all religions are equal. This cant be right because there has to be truth.

Saying the first word of this post was "Cat" does not change the fact.

the first word in this post was "Do" not "Cat"

Just the same with everything else. Saying that all beliefs (including evolution) are the same does not change fact.  something must be true.

We cannot use science because we cant mix science with religion

It cant be true because we don't use science to prove it

You tell us that we am citing historical evidence wrong and abusing science

Yet you simply state that you are right and not give a word of evidence

You say we should keep our posts as opinions only

Yet the intelectual discusion giudelines say that we need to present evidence.

Now you dare tell us that our logic is wrong when you havnt even figured out how to use it? My temper is at its peak right now!

We will use science as it is one of the only ways to prove something

We will use evidence, and we will use logic!

I sugest you rethink yours.

But don't think I won't defend it now, I defend it because there is way to much evidence in different fields of science and years of work done by different scientist point to it being correct. It's only a matter of finding the extreme details of it all.

Me being not of faith was a choice that evolution never effected. Infact, science never had a part in me being a athiest. And I am willing to take a religion one day if I feel it feels right, but right now nothing says that to me, just like right now nothing says evolution isn't possible except Creationist who have something to prove.

All religions could - in theory - be equally wrong.  Hence we use scientific method.

Maju: If evolution isnt a belief then you cant believe it. Quite simple.

And I was refering to different people not just you

One fish, the cichlid fish found it's way to a lake in Africa 12,400 years ago. Over time the food in the lake started to become scarce, and the species evolved into over a hundred different species. Some evolved wide mouths, others large lips, and one species evolved teeth like spears. They started out as carbon copies, and in 12 thousand years, a geological blink, created different species. They evolved because those who didn't have the means to survive to pass on traits died off. Over 12 thousand years, their features became more and more exaggerated. It took time, and it took a reason. A number of factors contributed to why they evolved. With the fruit flies, there weren't any strong reasons from what I gather, and the only way they could have evolved the way you want them is Lamarckism.

Understand now?

***As a one who follows the New Testiment. The Old Testiment (to me) is but a collection of legends without the sort of supporting evidence that establishes the life and words of Our Saviour. Only the Jews believe in the timeline of the Old Testiment. We were always taught that (because there were no seasons in Eden) the years were actually millenia but who knows. Certainly the argument against Intelligent design can't hinge on Jewish legends.

***In my opinion the fish in the lake were helped by God and when you say "natural" selection... I see divine intervention.

***When Darwin saw the tortoise shell adapt to the height of the shrubbery...because of selection...I saw a helping HAND

***That some are being perscecuted for believing in intelligent design does not prove it wrong...quite the contrary. I will always more quickly believe the truth of a man if he will be punished for what he says than the man who will be praised for what he says. Understand that if you can. 

Though Christianity has a nice history of persecutions from the past and violence today. I haven't seen anyone tortured or murdered over Evolution to prove that it is the one and only "doctrine" as if it were a faith or following.

You don't see people handing out panphlets on Evolution on the streets, you don't hear people saying you'll goto a hell if you don't believe in Evolution, there aren't any motives in Evolution other than explaining a part of nature. So why do Creationist feel threatened and the need to push evolution out of a classroom and push in a Religious belief? Nothing proves evolution wrong and facts and DNA get stronger as time goes on.

I am using the word beleif broadly so just hang in there (if you want me to bring out websters I will) do not argue over definitions like a child

"you said bat not cat"

"No i didnt"

"did to"

"did not"

"did to"

"did not"

two hours later

"What were we talking about?"

"I dont know"

"your stupid"

"no I'm not"

"are to"

"are not"

"are to"...

that is very anoying so don't do that, please

and dont say you arent doing that.

Now anyways show me some evidence or say what page of this thread it is (and where)

Did you post in the right thread? Your coming in here with hostility when there wasn't any to begin with...

What evidence do you want? We made a discussion in this thread and it went well except for somethings weren't clear. The only times I got upset were when I had to repeat my points and didn't get clear answers on somethings after asking a couple times. But I was never upset directly towards Cuauhtemoc.

While I enjoy discussining in these threads, the one thing I do hate is when someone joins in it asking to see all the info either from the smae thread or past threads. Either start up a proper discussion on points, or look through this thread and this one, http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=7162&PN=2 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=7162& ;PN=2

This thread may also have answers your looking for, http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8687&PN=3 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8687& ;PN=3

And didn't we have this discussion before? I believe Cuauhtemoc picked up where you dropped off a month or more ago.

If I sounde hostile I wasnt trying to. I was simply clearing up that arguing over definitions is stupid and all I asked for was you to point me to a page with evidence that you would like me to see. The reason that and logic are my favorite words is because it is pounded into my head by debate club. That is all you can use to prove a point.

Dont argue my definitions please, I beseech thee (I beg you). It is anoying when nobody pays attention to what i say and just the words i use to group things.

Forgibve me then, it sounded alittle hostile it the way it was written. But I understand that wasn't your intention now.

All the pages have various forms of evidence where evolution has been observed, the different kinds of evolution were discussed to some degree, we talked about DNA and how it works by track the Y Chromosome and Mitochondrial Chromosome, and we discuss the fossil records. There is alot to go back on, pages.