What’s up Kemono!

Well, if you want, lets talk something I cant stand. EVOLUTION. It has more holes in it than a spaghetti colander. To me its just a blind faith based RELIGION that PhD’s use to explain our existence. Did you see my post on the BIG BANG theory? Case in point. It takes a lot of "faith" to believe in evolution. There is not one shred of FACT or TRUTH in Darwinism. Its a RELIGION, just like Islam. It is full of forgeries, deception and corruption. Government funded grants led to numerous frauds to try to discover the missing link between apes and humans or dinosaurs and birds. None of it was ever proven or even accepted at first. Only loud droning on of how it "must be true" led to the acceptance of evolution. Only just over half the scientific community believes in evolution anyways. So, why is it being taught as FACT in universities around the world? No facts, just fiction, guessing, speculation and make believe. Vague words like 'appeared' 'disappeared' litter the scientific journals. Any good arguments in there. Just show me ONE proof of "macro" evolution. That is the evolving between species and Ill shut up.

Sure! I don't know very much about the subject and I hope some of the more knowledgeable folks are willing to share their insights with us. That said, what I can do is explain what convinced me as a layman to accept evolution as a good scientific theory.

In my understanding the heart and soul of the theory of evolution is "common descent": that humans, elephants, sunflowers, bacteria, gila monsters -- the lot -- share common ancestry.

Now, the difference between a scientific theory and a religious or pseudoscientific doctrine is that a scientific theory makes empirically falsifiable predictions. (I'm sure you know all of this but I'm saying this stuff explicitly for the benefit of our possible readers.) If the predictions are way off (bad enough to make the theory useless), the theory is either abandoned altogether or modified so that its predictions get more accurate.

So what would a theory of common descent predict? A lot. First of all, it predicts that all species can be organized into a tree of life that can (and does) fork (like a tree) but can never see branches reunite (unlike, say, a river). Without common descent there is no reason to expect such a thing. Languages are a good example of entities that form a tree-like structure because they branch but rarely reunite. Indo-European languages resemble each other more than they resemble any Fenno-Ugric language; Germanic languages resemble each other more than they resemble any Romance language, but Romance and Germanic languages resemble each other more than any of them resemble any Fenno-Ugric language, etc.

Take any collection of things that have properties. You can actually test statistically if they conform to a tree-like structure. Cars and books do not, but languages do. So what about species? Common descent predicts species form a tree-like structure, so if they don't, common descent is in trouble. But if they do, common descent is a pretty bad-ass theory, because without it we have no reason to predict such a thing. Well, it turns out that the distribution of properties in species is extremely treelike. Nice one, common descent!

But of course we can predict much more. If there is one true tree of life, all independent lines of evidence should lead to the same tree. If they do, that is absolutely mind-blowing, because the number of potential trees that species could randomly be organized into is beyond astronomical.

So let's take DNA evidence. Given that DNA contains the building instructions for the phenotype, our best guess without the theory of common descent would be that species with similar qualities have similar DNA. But common descent predicts something quite different: the closer related the species, the more similar the DNA. This means, for example, that fish and whales have very dissimilar DNA but whales and bats have similar DNA while bats and birds have dissimilar DNA. I mean wtf, bats go with whales instead of bats going with birds and whales going with fish? And the thylacine (an animal that looks like a wolf) is genetically closer to the koala (!!) than to the wolf? Are these people crazy or are we talking about the biggest scientific discovery of all time? You guessed it -- common descent got it right.

I'll stop here because the post is getting too long. The predictions I mentioned above are but the tiniest fraction of all predictions generated by the theory (and I'll present more if you'd like), but already we have a case so strong that I don't see any possibility of the theory of common descent ever going away. It's like the shape of the Earth: we can argue about whether it's an oblate spheroid with an equatorial bulge of 42 km or 43 km, but we'll never have a flat Earth again.

Really? I didn't realize it was that bad. Damn those social scientists; they wouldn't know a scientific theory if it hit them on the head.

For all that research material. I dont have time to look at all of itright now so I chose one article to debate.

First discussion. "salamanders and songbirds" I agree totally with everything in this article. It proves one thing. Birds make other KINDS of BIRDS and salamanders make other KINDS of Salamanders. When I first saw the title, I was intrigued because I thought a salamander evolved into a bird!! With all that information in the article it proves my argument! This is called "micro" evolution. its the ability for a speicies to adapt to its environment. Do I believe that birds had a common ancestor? Yes, a BIRD!

"What had clearly been a single songbird species now bore all the signs of having evolved into two distinct species."

Yes, two kinds of BIRDS. One didnt become a bat. They are all STILL birds.

Hey, you can make your own breed of dog all by yourself without 6 years of study and a "grant from the National Science Foundation". Just take 2 dogs of different breeds and keep crossbreeding them with other dogs. You could then say in just 30 short years you personally evovled the dog into a new species.

Forgive my sarcasm. Please show me an article that has a bird becoming something other than a bird.

PEACE!

I do beleive in common descent among KINDS of animals. Horses and zebras had a common ancestor Im sure. You can even breen horses and zebras! They are a differnt species, but we can crossbreed them. That means they are the same KIND. Ill wager the same is true with all the differnt type of finches as well. BUT, try to breed a horse with a cow. It dosnt work of course. We as humans can only make more humans. Yes we vary. Eskimos have thicker skin, people that live in high altitudes have bigger lungs than the people in the vally, but show me one shred of any animal become somthing other than its kind. Show me a dog that became something other than a dog. Better yet, show me the hundreds of steps it takes for the ancestor of a dog become a modern day dog, or all the fossils of non-horses and zebras becoming horses and zebras. I understand the point you were making in your post, but there are so many gaps in evolution in getting from one kind to another.

Ok, first off, my name is Mr. Peters, not Hovind. Second, are you serious about my name change? I havent said anything unreasonable. I chose the article which was shorter because I was short on time, but I assure you I will read the FIRST link as soon as I can. I know this is YOUR forum and Im new to it. I thought you could use a little intelligent debate. It seems that you are a bit intimidated. you didnt respond to my previous post, but want me to change my name and hurry up and read through your first article.

Sapient, ease down man! I said MICRO evolution. Evolution between KINDS not MACRO evolution between differnt KINDS. How about COSMIC, CHEMICAL, GEOLOGICAL, are all forms of evolution. Way to muscle the new guy with yout BADGE of courage! Agian, your links arent working. I cant beleive you are responding to me this way!!

I'm not sure you do (understand, that is). The predictive power of common descent works extremely well between what you call kinds. Unless of course you don't think that things like E. coli and homo sapiens are different kinds.

I can't. The theory of common descent does not predict that we should see dogs become non-dogs. Individuals do not evolve; populations do. What I can do is show you the overwhelming evidence for the hypothesis that all known species from koalas to humans to fruit flies to whales to ferns to bacteria share common ancestry.

so-called "voice of reason":

there seems to be a bit of confusion as to the process of disproving something. you can't read one short article on micro-evolution and use it to discredit macro-evolution. you must read the articles on macro-evolution in order to disprove it. there is no other option.

every article on that list deals with parts or the whole of evolution, some deal with micro-evolution, some with macro, some take an overview of evolution, and some examine evolutions observed in certain species, and some even deal with evolution on a chemical or genetic level.

so please, take your time, do some reading, no pressure, no one is rushing you, and when you have a clear idea of the evidence for evolution, come on back and feel free to chat with us about it.
it just doesnt work any other way, k?
happy day.

Bump.

he actually doesn't need proof. The formulation of the question, the language used, implies a lack of understanding of the statement he thinks he is posing.
Further, while he could certainly call for a critical study of evolution and its flaws as a theory, his decision to refer to it as a 'religion' moves it out of the realm of science and logic in the first place. WIthout logic, with simply (as Mr. Colbert puts it) "truthiness", facts become irrelevant.

A well known and used example of evolution is the Ostrich and the Emu. Wile there bodies are almost exactly the same they live a world apart. The Ostrich is larger witch helps it live and defend itself on the plains of Africa. Wile the Emu is a bit smaller and foliage colored to help it survive in the Jungles of South America. This supports continental drift in the fact the fossil record show the ancestor of these birds the Dromornis stirtoni can be found on both contents

Hey, lay-man! Why do you suppose that you, with the wave of your hand, can dismiss something that thousands of scientists have spent millions of man-hours researching? Can you do the same for quantum mechanics? What about the germ theory of disease? How about string theory?

Why is it that you single out evolution among these, and pretend that it is any different from the other oh-so-difficult areas of scientific studies? Stop being so goddamn arrogant. You are neither smart, nor informed enough to overrule the ideas of the greatest minds in biology of the last century and a half just because your pastor (who, no doubt, holds a degree in theology or something useless like that) said so.

I do not post because I think I will change someone's mind; I post solely to increase my post count.

You CLEARLY do not understand what evolution is. A dog does not suddenly give birth to a pine cone, no matter how much crack pots like Kent Hovind insist bilolgists say they do.

You are demanding evidence no biolgists contends exists. One species does not suddenly become another, it is a slow process and the article you just took exception too is clear evidence of this process in action.

It is a phenomena called ringed speciation. The songbirds on either end of the ring do not intermate, they are seperate species, with intermiediates in between. What more evidcence do you need of the fundamental process?

Oh, Sapient...Im SOOOO sorry. Let me put it a different way. A doggie is differnt from a kitty. They are differnt kinds of animals. A horsey and a moo moo cow are not the same kind of animal. See....a horsey will always be a horsey. It will never become somthing differnt. It will always be a horsey. It may get smaller or bigger. It may have more hair or less hair. It may even eat differnt sutff depending on where it lives. But it will never change into something else other than a horse. Do you understand now? If not its ok. Its a tuff subject to grasp.

Wow...how profound. A non-horse is not a horse. Help me out oh great brain. Where do you think a horse came from? You think it came from a non-horse. We humans came from non-humans. Thats what you think. A zebra and a horse are in the same family!! Did you KNOW that? They are lumped together in the horse family. BREEDING can make a hybrid of a zebra and a horse called a "zorse". That means they are the same KIND of animal. Evolution as you believe it to be, had nothing to do with it. Did you also know that a wolf and a dog are in the same family? They can mate and have offspring. But a zebra and a wolf cannot. Because they are differnt kinds of animals. Have you ever screwed a baboon? Do you think you would have little sapient/baboon babies? NO! You are differnt KINDS. You are human and it is a baboon.

You are an arrogant jerk with this statement. You post up a page of links that would take me days to go through instead of posting an arguement. You are like a talk radio host who hides behind the mute button whenever a guest starts making a good point. You changed my name because you are intimidated by me. You are a mind numbed ROBOT who has been taught over the years WHAT to think and not HOW to think.

Oh thank you! I should be so lucky.

Check this out. The scientific communtiy doesnt really offer percentages for me. I did find these articles though.

Gallup Pole:

A narrow majority of the public (54% in a recent Pew poll) believes that scientists are generally in agreement about evolution. But fewer believe there is strong scientific evidence in support of evolution. A December 2004 Newsweek survey found just 45% saying evolution was both widely accepted in the scientific community and well supported by evidence, and the same number in a 2005 Harris Interactive survey agreed that "Darwin's theory of evolution is proven by fossil discoveries" (48% disagree). A 2004 Gallup poll registered even fewer (35%) saying Darwin's theory of evolution has been "well-supported by evidence." This question also offered respondents the choice of saying they don't know enough about the issue, an option that 30% selected. -people-press.org

Did Humans Evolve? Not Us, Say Americans

Article Tools Sponsored By
Published: August 15, 2006

In surveys conducted in 2005, people in the United States and 32 European countries were asked whether to respond ''true,'' ''false'' or ''not sure'' to this statement: ''Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals.'' The same question was posed to Japanese adults in 2001.

The United States had the second-highest percentage of adults who said the statement was false and the second-lowest percentage who said the statement was true, researchers reported in the current issue of Science.

This poll has nothing to do with the actual beliefs of scientists which is what you proposed. Look at how poor your comprehension skills are, and then correlate this to your understanding of evolution.

The poll speaks only about what people think scientists believe, not what scientists believe. By posting this poll you've only enforced the need for us to speak out against this despicable denial of the facts that the anti-evolution crowd espouses, as the majority of Americans are morons when it comes to the topic of evolution. It's sad the type of stupidity religion breeds.

Here's another poll.... The chart shows who "accepts" evolution as true (source):

Shizzle, sorry you had a post deleted, it got removed by accident when removing Peters double post.

Ok, I'm reposting:

I said that poll only shows how ignorant most Americans are, especially when it comes to science.

Please link the specific page (and start doing this regularly), I want to read it in context, and see who wrote it.

http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

Here ya go. First paragraph.

Big Bang Theory - The Premise
The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.-big-bang-theory.com

Bible. In the beginning God....
Science. In the beginning NOTHING....

BOTH are statements of FAITH.

It certainly isn't anywhere near as ridiculous as the idea of an infinite god in the middle of an infinite nothing, doing nothing and thinking of nothing (there would have been nothing to think about!) until the time he decided to create the universe.

And where did they report to pass off as fact where the "singularity" came from?

A: They didn't.

Furthermore you're using a site about science which appears to be created by theists with an agenda. You're making your arguments look weak.

Feel free to actually answer this one at any point.

I dont see anywhere on that site where they say they are theistic.

Plus, I could reverse the argument and say that you are using sites that appear to have an athiestic view.

This does not appear to be a good argument from you. You asked me for a link, I gave you one. It wasnt good enough because it didnt say what you wanted it to.

Evolution doesn't claim to jump 1000 miles in one step, it does it one step at a time.

Of course you've already admitted micro evolution occurrs. Not understanding that "macro evolution" is just an extension of thousands of "micro" changes is not my problem, it's yours.

Evolution is a fact and has been proven.

Still waiting on you to actually prove your claims by refuting the links I posted in my first post of this thread.

So, seriously let's get the skinny, because I just LOOOOOVEE how you said you're not an atheist in your first post, as if you weren't anything other than a fundy Christian. What exactly is your position at ECCC Church? Considering your proximity to Kent Hovind, are you affiliated with him, or simply a fan of his dishonest works (your posts wreak of his stupidity)? Have you been to dino world? Have you heard any updates on Hovinds prison sentence? (those last two questions were just for fun)