Where do you think of the topics for your blog? I would like to see one on polygamy. I saw on the news yesterday a question that got me thinking. "If gay marraige is acceptable, then why not legalize polygamy?" Polygamy is a global debate, and it affects much more people.

If you droped 50 oranges, the odds of them falling into ten rows of five oranges is slim. However, if you dropped 500 oranges, you have better odds of the resulting arrangement containing ten rows of five oranges. If you dropped 5000, your odds are almost certain. That is how evolution works. It's not just chance, like most people presume, it's brunt force like using guess and check to solve a math problem. Although this results in it taking a long time to find the 'answer' it always comes up with the best possible answer to the given problem, as long as you give it enough time.

There will always be people who have managed to convince themselves that their opinions are more valid than anyone else's, despite the fact that they are horrendously uninformed. In this particular case, those people are arguing against evolution without any logical scientific evidence. Evolution, on the other hand, is very logical and has lots of evidence to support it. These people sometimes get on my nerves, and probably yours two, but unfortunately there is nothing we can do about them. They exist, and always will, and that is the end of that.

Albert Einstein:"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not even sure about the former."

gratz, mister darwin

Are u from Mars??Are u gay???
Vai tomar no cu... FDP...

Yes, but Vova, I'm sure that if YOU dropped 50 oranges they WOULD land in perfect rows. Maybe if someone else dropped them....

good call kevin! hey, i volunteer to drop them. if you ever saw me juggle you'd know i am really skilled at dropping things!

@Kevin: Vova would never do 50 drops at once ;)

You spelled "witnessed" wrong, but good arguement though. Keep up the intellectual conversations:).

Sorry I meant "argument" (lol).

I just had some questions on evolution. Let's start at the beginning. First of all, according to evolution, everything started with a big bang. This goes against several scientific laws,such as the law of cause and effect. If there was an effect,(big Bang), where did the energy come from to make it explode? (The effect) Secondly, where did the matter come from? you also mentioned natural selection, Charles Darwin said, "To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems...absurd in the highest degree." If man, the most intelligent being known, can't begin to make a human eye, how could anyone in his right mind think that an eye was formed by mere chance? (natural seledtion)

I just had some questions on evolution. Let's start at the beginning. First of all, according to evolution, everything started with a big bang. This goes against several scientific laws,such as the law of cause and effect. If there was an effect,(big Bang), where did the energy come from to make it explode? (the cause) Secondly, where did the matter come from? You also mentioned natural selection, Charles Darwin said, "To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems...absurd in the highest degree." If man, the most intelligent being known, can't begin to make a human eye, how could anyone in his right mind think that an eye was formed by mere chance? (natural seledtion)

Sorry, didn't mean to post that twice, the bottom one is the final draft.

Hey Matthew,

I don't usually respond to comments people leave on my blog, however, your comment was so absurd and ignorant that I couldn't help but address it.

Evolution has nothing at all to do with the big bang. Evolution merely explains how organisms evolve from simpler organisms and it does NOT deal with how the universe started (the big bang). Unlike religion, science does not pretend to have answers to everything and how universe started is something science does not have a clear answer to yet. However, unlike religion science does not answer such questions with futile concepts that raise more questions than they answer.

"If man, the most intelligent being known, can't begin to make a human eye, how could anyone in his right mind think that an eye was formed by mere chance? (natural seledtion)"

This is absurd. I assume you read my post, so you just must not realize what natural selection is. Natural selection is quite complex and very far from random. You should look up what natural selection is and maybe that'll make things a bit more clear for you.

Those fundamentalist christians must be pretty stupid to come up with that 50 orange argument. I completely agree with evolution.

matthew, if you can put faith in a religion why can't you put faith into science? One (science) clearly has more supportive evidence.

Vova, people who have half a brain cell accept, or atleast see the simple logic in natural selection. Those who do not are obviously either completely brainwashed, far behond the point of return, or contain a brain the size of a half eaten raisin.

It's no use ...unless of course you go into politics and completely reform religeon's role in society.

Vova, I'm sorry so many Christians are harsh and negative about this topic. Each theory (creation/evolution) has its own problems and neither has answers for everything. I lean more towards creation, and for that people would probably slap the label of 'fundamentalist Christian' on me, but labels never do anyone any good. For that thing about the eye, though, I read a more thorough explanation of its support for creationism once, and I thought I'd throw it out there. The idea, as I remember the author explaining it (Michael Behe), is that the eye has 3 separate components- the eye itself, the optic nerve, and the section of the brain that interprets signals from the eye. None of the 3 parts is any use to the body without the others, and none function without the others in place as well. So an organism which would benefit from an eye would not evolve easily toward having one- it would require all 3 parts to develop simultaneously, and each part would provide no immediate gain to the organism until they were all in place and functioning together. The creation argument would say that natural selection is a great explanation for faster, stronger, etc qualities in organisms, but not for complex systems that have multiple parts.
There are some creationists who actually think through the positions... even if they end up being wrong, not all are speaking with knee-jerk brainwashing. I hope that the latter don't make people discount the former.

Why do creationists always have to be dishonest? Like Matthew, they quote Darwin to make it look like even he didn't believe in his own theory, but they quote him out of context. They lump in cosmogenesis with Evolution, even though they are completely independent and parts of different scientific disciplines - not to speak of the fact that the Big Bang was discovered about a hundred years after Evolution. See here for some other lies. And there are many more...

Margaret: Evolution is a scientific theory, creationism is not. As for the evolution of the eye, watch this!

Vova,

I think the analogy is more for life starting on its own with out the help of any creator. How could all the atoms/molecules just fall into place to form an organism? Seems very unlikely doesn't it?

However if you take the chances and spread them over an eternity it seems much more plausible. The thing is we can not even comprehend 1000 years of time, much less one million or even an eternity.

Mathew asked the question, "If there was an effect,(big Bang), where did the energy come from to make it explode?". Mathew, (I'm assuming you have a belief in a superior being) If God was always here then why can't the energy/matter have always been here?

Imagen that there's always been this energy/matter in infinite space and over eons and eons it is constantly exploding and then contracting back together to expload all over again. During these eons, Trillions of years and more, a perfect little galaxy, a perfect little solar system, and a perfect little planet with a perfect little enviroment is formed. One that is filled with carbon, Hydrogen, and Oxygen. The key ingredients for life. Of course the chances of this happening are astronomical, but it doesn't matter, there's been a whole eternity for it to happen. With a little energy, electricty probally, an amino acid is formed from these key ingredients. An amino acid a molecule of course, but an important one. One that is the building block of the very DNA that courses through all of our veins. This is but only the first step. Over the billions of years of Earth's creation these amino acid's would be forming over and over simultaniously, until finally more and more came together to eventually create a fragment of DNA. A virus. Not just one virus, but millions are created, some different, yet some are the same. Over time they mutate, and change. Those who's change gave them an advantage in the world lived on and the others died, and eventually a singled celled organism was born. It snowballs from there. These single cell organisms begin to mutate into microbials, and so on and so forth until more complex life is created. Of course all the happens over millions and millions of years. The chances of this ever happening are one and hundreds of trillions, but the process has had forever. The "chances" are of no concequence.

I don't mean to disuade anyone from there beliefs I just want christians and other theists a like to have a better undertanding of time and evolution, and maybe the big bang. Perhaps when the bible says god said, "let there be light!" the Big Bang is what it ment? Perhaps the bible is not to be taken too literally and evolution is God's way of making life on earth? who knows? I don't think we will ever know, but I like science the best. Its not concrete and it has room for improvement. Theorys are made and are then are removed when someone else has a better idea, then that one is improved and so on. That's just something to think about.

On a side note, I was watching Discovery Channel once and these biologists where doing dives in a deep sea submarine to study abyssal life, there, in the abyss, they found this string of micropscopic organisms that banded together to form a mass. One part of the mass performed as the mouth, taking in nutrients in the water, another part processed it, and another part discarded the waste. I wish I could explain it more but I saw it a while back. This mass reminds me of the systems that work in all living things. Perhaps thats how evolution began to take place.

Feel free to go into greater detail where I did not, or to correct me where I might have been wrong.

Austin

but one thing.. how does new species start? did we all come from yellyfish? How is it better for a yellyfish to evolve? do they have sex? Some cells clone each other, which rules out natural selection, and sometimes there occures mutations, that sometimes can help evolution, how do we explain those? And one more thing, why do all species feel a need to try to stay alive?

First of all, stellar nutshell description of evolution Vova.
It always amazes me how ignorant most fundamental christians are. Honestly, whenever they try to argue with me why religion makes more sense than science, evolution gets brought up falsly. "How could an inteligent human just one day pop out of a dumb monkey?" They might as well say that because that is what they think evolution states. Read a book genuises! Also, I do not understand why anybody can accept the bible in the first place. It is a book written by man. Man can lie and make fictional stories. It was written when people barely understood how anything in the world works. If someone jumps, they'll come back down. That was their best attempt to explain physical reality. How can you give them any credit for coming up with the right theory? Throughout history, religion has had to adapt to scientific breakthroughs such as Copernicus and the Heliocentric Universe. Religion thought the Earth was the center of everything because that is what it "appeared" to be. Join the 21st century people. We're in the middle of a revolution started by Einstein. Get used to it, because science will prove to be superior. After all it is based on proven fact rather than faith in religion.
Dictionary definition of faith: Belief without proof.

"Over time they mutate, and change. Those who's change gave them an advantage in the world lived on and the others died, and eventually a singled celled organism was born. It snowballs from there. These single cell organisms begin to mutate into microbials, and so on and so forth until more complex life is created."

Scientists have never found any proof or mutations that benefit organisms. Thus far they have always either made no difference, or have actually harmed the organism.

The following quote is intended for Theists as you must believe the Bible for it to matter.

"Perhaps when the bible says god said, "let there be light!" the Big Bang is what it ment? Perhaps the bible is not to be taken too literally and evolution is God's way of making life on earth?"

If the above statement is true, then obviously there was lots of death and such before Adam and Eve sinned. But the Bible says that there was no death, no pain before they sinned. Therefore that argument is pointless.

Back on topic.

"...science will prove to be superior. After all it is based on proven fact rather than faith in religion."

Science canNOT prove anything, not Evolution, not Creation, not the laws of gravity! It CAN make a hypothesis a theory (which is what evolution is), and a theory to a scientific fact (laws of gravity). For all we know, the laws of gravity are incorrect, and objects actually repel each other. Certainly it's highly unlickely, but science cannot "prove" that those laws are correct.

Interesting idea : Is it possible that there would be more plausible scientific proof for Creation if Creation were taught along side Evolution, or at the very least schools admited that there is another theory to the origin of spieces? Or that Evolution has flaws in it (I'm not about to say Creation has no holes, it does). It's fairly amzing that there are any Creationists left, if Creation has no scientific evidence.

"It's fairly amzing that there are any Creationists left, if Creation has no scientific evidence."

The same "argument" applies to UFO abductions, astrology, dowsing, faith healing, homeopathy, telepathy, psychic surgery, ...

But please, explain to us the evidence for creationism, and also why this evidence does not also apply to Last Thursdayism (the "theory" that God created the universe, as it is, with everthing in it, including us and our "fake" memories, on last thursday). And no, you're not permitted to start with the assumption that the Bible is the word of God and literally true.

Oh, and you can start reading up on favorable mutations here!

From what I can tell there seems to be a lot of confusion between the relationship of natural selection, mutations and evolution. I'm pretty sure that many people have already gone over this, but here's a refresher: Natural selection ocurs when a species acquires new traits which are gained through the continuous interaction between that species and it's environment, as well as continuos reproduction and mutations. (this is a horrific run-on sentence and a handful to think about) So what does this mean?
Well let's say that a species is forced to live in a very distinctive habitat (say a rainforest) and that species may have many predators that find it delicious. Since mutations are very common in all species of living creatures, let's say one day one individual is born with the ability to become slightly greener than the others. Considering the habitat of a rain forest this can be quite beneficial. The chances of survival of this individual is increased and this individual is more likely to reproduce than the other individuals. As it reproduces it passes it's genetic information on and whoever inherits these traits have the ability to survive and reproduce moreso than individuals who don't. This process goes on for a very long time. As time elapses and reproduction increases, this trait becomes more apparent and emphasized into what we call "camouflage". I hope this can make things clearer for those of you who don't understand evolution very well. Now I'd like to respond to certain arguments made by TraxxasJedi.

The first comment I wish to address is "Scientists have never found any proof or mutations that benefit organisms. Thus far they have always either made no difference, or have actually harmed the organism.".

Natural selection and mutations aiding evolution is actually one of the easiest things for scientists to observe. For example take an experiment conducted by researchers Reznick and Endler: pool A contains a predator known as killifish which loves to prey on small guppies, (therefore it would be advantageous to the guppy population if they would mature to be LARGER at sexual maturity).Pool A however does not contain any guppies at this point. Pool B contains guppies and a predator known as Pike-cichlid, which enjoys eating large guppies. The guppies in pool B are quite SMALL at sexual maturity. Guppies from pool B were transplanted to pool A and their progress was monitored over an eleven year period. The average size of the population increased dramatically. In conclusion, the guppies who mutated by being larger than their counterparts were able to survive, reproduce and pass on their genetic information moreso than their smaller counterparts.

Schani,

I cannot show you proof of Creationism AND evidence against "Last Thursdayism". I also cannot show you evidence without the Bible as my base. BUT you can't show me evidence of evolution without the idea of there being no God as your base. Therefore your are asking me to "take off my armor" (the Bible), while you stand comfortable with yours on (no God.)

But just the same, here is some evidence of Creationism.

Mutations:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/genetics.asp

In responce to KTTK's guppies:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/guppies.asp

More about moths:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i3/moths.asp

"Loopholes in the evolutionary theory of the origin of life: Summary

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4220.asp

"One tiny flaw, and fifty years lost"

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v27/i1/flaw.asp

Please note
"Seeing how only one mismatch can have such horrendous consequences, how can mutations be the means by which new kinds of life form? Humans supposedly evolved from a common ancestor with chimps. But humans and chimps differ by over 150 million DNA "letters". How could mutations account for such a difference?"

"Argument: Creationism is religion, not science"

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter1.asp

I hope my posts here have not been taken offensively as they were not intended to be offensive. I have not written them in hostility, and honestly can't tell if anyone elses were.

I realize that I simply can't show you evidence of Creation, that you can't twist into evidence of Evolution, and vice-versa. So soesn't that make this argument pointless?

Ok, so you concede that, without God and the Bible, Creationism and Last Thursdayism are equally well supported by "evidence". The only thing that makes Creationism more valid is the Bible. Now, HOW exactly is that not religion?

Also, I asked for evidence FOR Creationism, not "evidence" AGAINST Evolution. Just proving Evolution wrong doesn't automatically make Creationism right.

"BUT you can't show me evidence of evolution without the idea of there being no God as your base."

I don't think I understand what that means. Evolution doesn't depend on the existence or non-existance of one or many gods.

First of all websites are not exceptable means of "proving" anything, but if we are to use a website for a source in our arguments we must first make sure the website does not have a biased.

for example the website www.answersingenesis.com would not be a good site to use if you were trying to build an argument for creationism because it has a biased towards creationism. A very HEAVY biased at that.

And the opposite goes as well. Using a website called www.whyevolutionisright.com would not be very credible in an argument.

Something along the lines of, "Creationism Vs. Evolution: a detailed look on both sides" would be great.

My point is only use an internet source if:

-Its been updated recently
-Its copyrighted
-It has a bibliography of the sources it used for infromation
-If it has little or no biased.

There's probally other but those are the key things to think about when using a website.

Austin

Noone can prove "Last Thursdayism" either right or wrong. There is no
evidence, that states yes it's true, or no it's wrong. So how is it valid
in any way?

""BUT you can't show me evidence of evolution without the idea of there
being no God as your base."

I don't think I understand what that means. Evolution doesn't depend on
the existence or non-existance of one or many gods."

The point was my beliefs are founded on the idea that there is a God. The
Bible is merely a guide to help me make up presuppositions. That makes it
almost no different than what you started your beliefs on, the idea that
there is no God. We are no
different.

We all have the same facts, the same "evidence". What makes it proof
towards Evolution or Creation is our presuppositions. Some times
Evolutionists presuppositions fit the facts better, and sometimes
Creationists presuppositions fit better.

The point of this is that noone can be completely un-biased. It simply is
not possible. Not for me, you, or any scientist from the past, present, or
future.

If you'ld like it in more detail :

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp

Austin, you're right, websites like
www.answersingenesis.org are not acceptable means of proving anything, but that's as good as it gets, until I decide to pull out my 9th grade science books.

Also, I've never ever found a website or book called Evolution vs.
Creation, that is totaly unbiased. like I said it simply is not possible.

I can't change you mind, nor will you change mine. As such, this becomes a pointless waste of our time, so I won't be posting on this topic again.

By the way Vova, I don't think I ever said, that your juggling is incredible!

I am right!

I recommend reading something by Richard Dawkins "Climbing Mount Improbable" would be a great place to start. I think the problem most people have understanding evolution is trying to comprehend the massive time-scale involved.

Shut up, Darwin. I brought you to life and I can bring you to death. Actually, I already did. So there. I win.

Here's an analogy to Creationism vs Evolution: Angelism vs Gravity!

Assume there's a religion whose adherents believe that the planets move because they are pushed by invisble angels.

Based on that "presupposition" they interpret the fact that the planets are indeed moving as evidence for their "theory".

Of course, the theory of gravity also predicts that the planets would move. Even more so, it predicts exactly how they move.

On the other hand, the fact that those predictions always match the actual movements of the planets does not prove angelism wrong. Does that mean, however, that angelism is anything other than pure bullshit? Of course not.

I highly suspect that "sick of this bullshit" is not your real name. I also suspect that Vova is a bully. Unfortunately, I agree with both of you.

Quoting from your post, "Natural selection is the process by which organisms with favorable gene mutations are more likely to survive and reproduce than those with no favorable gene mutations, or with unfavorable gene mutations." This is a semi-rational theory as to how we (and all other life forms) came to be. Yes, it does make sense that favorable gene mutations would be the surviving mutations... if these genes have any innate knowledge at all. If not, favorable mutations would be just as likely to survive (or passed down) as the unfavorable ones. The animal certainly can't decide which of its better functions it will pass down to its offspring, and neither can the genes themselves. To accept the "Natural Selection" theory, you must assume the genes (or animals) had the sense to sort through their good and bad functions and produce a steadily better result.

You said in your "better analogy" of natural selection, that the floor would be "designed to have oranges fall in the slots..." Where would that "design" come from? Who or what gave the initial blueprint that all these gene mutations were supposed to lead to? If the genes / animals don't have the sense to sort through their good and bad mutations, someone or something else must have.

If natural selection is true, why did whales evolve from land species at all? I mean, why didn't the previous land animal just get better equipped for land travel? After all, those front flippers would be pretty bothersome for the first few million years before the tail was finished evolving. And by then, all of those half -land, half -water species would have been eaten up by the other, more evolved species.

Plus, if Natural Selection were a valid theory, all those in-between stages would be recorded in the fossil record, right? Yet Scientists have yet to find any ‘missing link'. By the way, all the so-called ‘missing links' from monkey to man were disproved years ago. (Yet they're still in the textbooks, sounds a little desperate to me.)

To get back to the oranges example, Natural Selection would be like dropping the oranges time and time again, assuming that with each fall the oranges will get a little smarter and figure out where they were supposed to go in the first place.

Considering the Creation/Evolution theories as a whole, I've heard it put this way: an Evolutionist and Creationist are side by side looking at the universe. ("Universe", coincidentally, actually means "a single spoken sentence") One exclaims: "Wow! Isn't it amazing what a lot of time and energy can do!" and the other, "Wow! Isn't it amazing what God can do!" It all begins with your world view. If you've decided to believe in Evolution, then you'll look at everything as a product of it; likewise with Creation.

I frankly believe the theory of Evolution was embraced because with it man has no accountability. For, if Creation were true, then that means there is a God! (And there is, by the way) and if there were a God, that means he might actually require something of us! And He might actually have the right to tell us that we deserve Hell if we don't accept Him! (And He does, by the way.)

Regards,

A fellow juggler

Bottom line: Design necessitates a designer. This is not hard, people.

Consider Psalm 14:1 "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'"

Marie. Your logic is flawed. "To accept the "Natural Selection" theory, you must assume the genes (or animals) had the sense to sort through their good and bad functions and produce a steadily better result." Animals don't decide. If a certain mutation works, they are thrown back into the gene pool because it allows them to live long enough in order to reproduce. If a bad mutation i.e, having an extra leg did not benefit survival, that specific animal would not live long enough to reproduce readily amongst its population. If A mutation like color sight allowed an animal to differentiate between ripe fruit and bad fruit it would favor it. The animal could identify its food source which would enable it to live long enough to reproduce. Also Your arrogance is revolting.

I know I said I wasn't going to post again. But I'm going to be hypocritical by posting again on issues I forgot to mention.

Marie,

While I agree with your general beliefs, I don't agree that was a good argument. Natural selection does make sense assuming that mutations actually add things to DNA (one of my links above talks about that).

Your most compelling argument was "Plus, if Natural Selection were a valid theory, all those in-between stages would be recorded in the fossil record, right? Yet Scientists have yet to find any �missing link'. By the way, all the so-called �missing links' from monkey to man were disproved years ago. (Yet they're still in the textbooks, sounds a little desperate to me.)".

Unfortunately Evolutionists have found a way around that (I would tell you which "branch" of evolutionary thought, if only I could remember whichone was which).

"Considering the Creation/Evolution theories as a whole, I've heard it put this way: an Evolutionist and Creationist are side by side looking at the universe. ("Universe", coincidentally, actually means "a single spoken sentence") One exclaims: "Wow! Isn't it amazing what a lot of time and energy can do!" and the other, "Wow! Isn't it amazing what God can do!" It all begins with your world view. If you've decided to believe in Evolution, then you'll look at everything as a product of it; likewise with Creation."

Pretty much was I was trying to say in my last post.

"I frankly believe the theory of Evolution was embraced because with it man has no accountability. For, if Creation were true, then that means there is a God! (And there is, by the way) and if there were a God, that means he might actually require something of us! And He might actually have the right to tell us that we deserve Hell if we don't accept Him! (And He does, by the way.)"

You hit the nail on the head with that one! That is how the theory became popular, and (to SOME extent) why it remains popular.

Stephen McGinley,

Timescale, shmimescale. Here is a big list of articles on the subject (yes austin I'm using answeresingenesis.org, simpy because I don't want have the time right now to look elsewhere).

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp

I would pick out a specific one if I had the time.

That should also deal with the angelism vs. gravity scenario, specifically :

"Of course, the theory of gravity also predicts that the planets would move. Even more so, it predicts exactly how they move."

Evloution predicts nothing with out it's "massive time-scale".

Unless someone need correcting, I won't be posting again.

Respectfully, TraxxasJedi

i a jew say that this argument isn't
about science or religion just simple
phisics and coincedence but im
kinda stupid so i could be wrong

Marie,

Okay, first off, natural selection is all about sex. Well, perhaps more appropriately, improving chances for repoduction.

In your first paragraph you make a statement that suggests that mutated genes will survive preferentially over their non-mutated counterparts only if these genes have "innate knowledge". What evidence do you have for this statement? You are correct in saying that an animal cannot choose which genes to pass on to its offspring. However, this fact is irrelevant when considering whether or not a mutated gene will confer a selective advantage for the animal (meaning that its chances of successfully mating are improved).

Perhaps it would help to think of genes as tools. Say two primates lived in the same jungle. One had a spear and the other had a stick. The one with the spear could hunt for food more effectively than the one without, thus improving its chances for survival and mating successfully. A gene can function in the same way, by improving an animal's chances of survival and successfully mating, thus passing on its genes to its offspring.

In your second paragraph you take issue with vova's wording regarding a floor "designed" with holes in it. Specifically you ask where the design came from. Perhaps vova's wording was a little unfortunate. A better way to think of his floor with holes in it is an environment. The oranges that fall through the holes represent animals that don't survive in the environment, therefore they don't pass on their genetic material, whereas the oranges that land on the floor represent animals that do survive and have the potential to pass on their genetic material.

The way you phrase another sentence in that paragraph suggests that you believe that there was an initial gene "blueprint" that is supposed to lead to (I guess) a better gene (at least that is the only way I can make sense of this statement). This is a flawed way of thinking of genetics. A gene can be beneficial in one time period or environment, and detrimental in another. Take for example sickle cell anemia, which is in most cases detrimental. However it actually improves the chances of survival (and thus successful reproduction) in areas plagued by malaria.

In your third paragraph you make reference to "more evolved species" killing off an intermediate land/water animal. There is no such thing as "more evolved" species. This is a common misconception. All beings alice today are just "as evolved" as any other. Some people ask how we could have evolved from monkeys. Well, we didn't. Monkeys and humans both had a common ancestor (who was another primate). The intermediate land/water animal you spoke of must have inhabited a niche that no other animal could have, and thus survived. You also ask why didn't the whale ancestor that lived on land keep getting better equipped to live on land. In fact it did. Pigs and whales share a common ancestor. What most likely happened was one population of this pig/whale ancestor led to a whale, and another population led to a pig.

You also talk about the lack of a missing link. Well, there is a wealth of fossil evidence of pre-human primates, and as time goes on there is more evidence. What is more important than the fact that a definitive missing link has not been discovered yet, is that scientific evidence in the fossil record is accumulating to support the idea of human evolution from a common ancestor of monkeys.

Another example. There is a fish called a lungfish, still alive today, that has characteristics of both land and sea creatures (such as appendages that characteristics of both legs and fins). In some ways you can consider this a living example of a missing link.

Also, I'd be very interested to read the scientific sources for your statement regarding the "missing links" being disproved. In addition could you tell us which of those missing links have been disproved?

Your statement regarding the dropping oranges again is mislead, and I believe my previous comments address this so I won't comment on it further.

I disagree with your statement regarding why evolution was embraced. I'm pretty sure it was embraced because it is a scientific theory that has probably more support than any other theory.

One of my main problems with creationists is that they try to prove their theory with negative results. This is one of the worst things you can do in science. An very simplified example of drawing conclusions from negative results would be concluding that a tree has no roots because you can't see them. Well, if you try a different technique (digging), you would find them. From what I understand, a large part of creationist's theory is that there must be a God because we are all too complex to have happened by chance. Basically they are saying that since they don't know how we could have come to exist (negative results, or actually perhaps in part lack of results), God must have done it. Again the important thing is that while scientists don't know all the details yet of how evolution works, there is an enormous amount of evidence in its favor, and that evidence is accumulating, not decreasing.

Marie, I sincerely hope this helps clear up any misconceptions you have about evolution and also helps you realize that it is one of the most sound scientific theories.

Best,
Warren Hammond

Belief in creationism is the height of arrogance. Over time people learn more and get smarter (hopefully). Just because people now can't explain everything in evolution doesn't mean someone in the future who is smarter than the rest of us won't come up with an answer. It might be different than current theories of evolution but they are the best models for explaining the evidence around us.

Even if it were true that there were no missing links in the fossil record (there are of course) that doesn't mean they won't be found someday.

I encourage you to leave open the possibility that you don't know more than every human that will exist in the future.

So... Is there any reason this blog has been transformed into one sort of large atheism cliché? What matters is not whether God is real or not, its whether one cares enough to debate it... I mean, frankly, I couldn't care less if God was real or not, so far, to my knowledge, there has been no intervention by him of any kind (and no, my aunt sally being cured of the flu because she prayed, isn't influence, its influenza ;))
If he is real, he doesnt do anything but watch, if he isnt real, he isnt doing anything either. Do you care what happens after you die? If so, I have to ask why? Whatever happens will happen, whether you know about it or not... Its a nice thing to have faith, a sort of moral placebo in place of instinctively knowing right from wrong, a helpful tool.. but ultimately, a non-event.
Sorry, perhaps I am but an apathetic soul... But anyway, lets get back to talking about things that noone really has interest in, such is the will of the almighty god of blogs!

"Evloution predicts nothing with out it's "massive time-scale"."

Actually, it does. Probably the best body of evidence we have for Evolution is molecular evidence. You can read up on it, for example, here:

http://evolution-101.blogspot.com/2006/04/molecular-evidence-2-dna-functional.html

I'll give you a short overview of one (just one of many) of the points:

The letters in the DNA code are grouped into triplets, called "codons". Each codon codes an amino acid. However, there are 64 different codons, but only 20 different amino acids, which means that some codons code the same amino acid. For example, GCT, GCC, GCA, and GCG all code an amino acid called alanine. This means that if, for example, GCT mutates into GCA, it has no effect at all - the mutation is neutral.

All of the above is standard molecular biology and can be checked in the lab, btw. Here's where the Evolution part comes in:

When you look at the DNA codes of related species you find huge parts of DNA which are very similar. Let's say we find similar DNA parts in species A, B and C. A and B have a very recent common ancestor according to Evolution (based on the fossil record), while the common ancestor of C with A and B is very far back in time.

Now compare the similar DNA sequences of A, B, and C and look for neutral codon differences.

What would Creationism predict? I don't know. If they're all created by the same designer, you might suppose he wouldn't put in any neutral codon differences. Or maybe the differences would be random.

What does Evolution predict? Since A and B only separated very recently, and hence had not much time to "drift apart", Evolution predicts that the neutral differences between A and B are relatively minor, compared to the differences between A and C and those between B and C (which should both be about equal). No difference, or random differences would be irreconcilable with Evolution - they'd be very heavy evidence against Evolution.

Guess what - Evolution predicts correctly. Genealogy based on the fossil record (drawn up long before molecular biology was possible) matches the DNA evidence spectacularly, not only in broad terms, but in fairly precise numbers.

So, Evolution DOES predict, and it predicts pretty well.

Clearly You did not understand what I meant.

What I intended to get across, was that Evolution is dependent upon there being billions of years for life to have evolved (through natural selection) to our current state. I did not mean to say that there is no scientific evidence, merely that it is dependent on dating methods, which may not be accurate.

Sorry for any confusion.

This specific system of evidence I was talking about does not depend on dating methods, but rather shows that there were indeed millions and billions of years of Evolution.

In that sense they corroborate the dating methods.

Most Geoligists and archaeologists agree that the earth is around 4.6 billion years old. The oldest rock found is 4.2 billion years old.

This information is from a good source. My Geology Professor and Geology Text Book.

Now I havn't looked in to the method used to date the rocks, and I can't say how accurate it is, but it's obviously accurate enough to be excepted by experts world wide. Even if the estimates are a billion years off, the earth would still be a few billion years older then biblical texts suggest.

Could the experts be wrong? Of course. It wasn't too long ago the experts thought the world was flat, or that earth was the center of the universe. Of course things have changed since then, but there is always a scientist trying to imrprove on an exsisting theory, or tear it down completely to impliment another one, and maybe he will succeed and this new theory will rise.

Austin

Ever wonder why doctors recommend using antibiotics in moderation? Look into it. Bacteria evolve much faster than us larger animals.

I had a look at the "answeringenesis" website and found this song:
http://www.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/hurl?f=aig/BDavis/CreationGospel/11.rm

Vova - Love your juggling.

"Could I convince you that I dropped 50 oranges onto the ground and they by chance fell into ten rows of five oranges? "

My guess is that you were juggling 50 oranges, and you were doing a mills mess pattern, and then the chance of the oranges falling in ten rows of five would be extremely likely.

Why are there so many topics on athiesm? Is that sort of thing interesting to you? That analogy is really bad.

I like to see some more juggling related posts vova, i don't care about religion.

Just to add to the last comment, you're one of the best juggler's in the world Vova, and although your philosophy is well formed and thoughtful for a nineteen year old, I'm far more interested in your insights (and peoples' responses) to juggling topics.

Skepticism is certainly a big part of who I am. That kind of stuff interests me greatly, which is why I post about it on my blog. This is MY blog and on MY blog I'd like to talk about what interests ME. I do post about juggling, as it's also a big part of my life. I understand I don't post about juggling as much as you would like me to, however, your unsolicited advice is not going to change my interests.

This is the third in the series "What we still Don't Know" with Martin Rees titled "Are We Real":
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-7044753105944203252
Enjoy!
(http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/W/what_we_still_dont_know/)

In answer to the question above: The age of the earth is estimated by radiometric dating of meteorite that was present at the creation of the solar system.

Guy

Given your recent blog posts and a phrase you were using at the WJF, I thought you might like this t-shirt:

http://www.onehorseshy.com/blasphemy/the_devil_made_me_do_it_with_your_mom/

Keep up with the thought-provoking blog posts. I really like reading them.

Vova, you said that Skepticism is a big part of who you are. Do you mean in general, or in regard to the existance of a God (Creation vs Evolution?)
Thanks,
Jared

To come out dry... Felix

He that talks much errs much... Alexander

He that talks much errs much... Alexander

He that talks much errs much... Alexander

Veteran game show host Bob Barker is stepping down from hosting The Price is Right after 35 years...

Veteran game show host Bob Barker is stepping down from hosting The Price is Right after 35 years...

Stuff today and starve tomorrow... Anchor

Stuff today and starve tomorrow... Anchor

"Lord, I have a problem!"
"What's the problem, Eve?"
"Lord, I know you've created me and have provided this beautiful garden and all of these wonderful animals and that hilarious comedy snake, but I'm just not happy."
"Why is that, Eve?" came the reply from above.
"Lord, I am lonely. And I'm sick to death of apples." "Well, Eve, in that case, I have a solution. I shall create a man for you."
"What's a 'man,' Lord?"
"This man will be a flawed creature, with aggressive tendencies, an enormous ego and an inability to empathize or listen to you properly, he'll basically give you a hard time. He'll be bigger, faster, and more muscular than you. He'll be really good at fighting and kicking a ball about and hunting fleet-footed ruminants, But, he'll be pretty good in the sack."
"I can put up with that," says Eve, with an ironically raised eyebrow.
"Yeah well, he's better than a poke in the eye with a burnt stick. But, there is one condition."
"What's that, Lord?"
"You'll have to let him believe that I made him first."
:D :D :D

_____________________________
shemale cum sex