No! Plain and simple. Evolution does not "explain" that one being magically decided one day to perform a transformation act and become a fucking human.

By the "super-god-is-teh-1337" comment was that only religious idiots try to convince everyone else they are right! Want proof? How many dumb fucks do you see running through rural neighborhoods passing out flyers preaching about science? Thought so.

If the bible is so awesome and mighty, then why have 2 people who ADMIT to following it, turn their backs towards it? KagomJack has said he turned away from it for his reasons, and I have turned my back on it. I used to go to the damn sunday school and wednesday mass or whatever. And even at that young age, I saw that the bible was flawed. Shit didn't make sense to me, and for a kid to find that out, is pretty damn sad.

No one is trying to say you are less of a person for having a belief. You are less of a person because you choose to follow said belief blindly.

To show a stronger connection between primates and humans, watch the show Evolve. The first episode (or I think it was the first) was about eyes. The placement of our eyes is theorized to be the reason for our intelligence. First, let's start off with the eye itself. It allows us to see color and shade. That's it. The first creature to be pointed out as having the most basic eye, meaning an organ used to sense the world around it using light, was a small jellyfish type animal. It has (yes has, as in it is still around today) small spots around the base of its "body" that allows it sense the difference between light and dark. That organ is flat. Now, basic geometry comes into play. If said organ were concave, it would 'capture' light and allow the organ a chance to process the light. The first creatures to use a 'lens' were prehistoric fish that crawled along the sea floor (think Kabuto from Pokemon). It secreted a resin from it's body that acted as armor, but also covered its 'eye'. The lens allowed the light to be focused onto a single point, allowing for better peripheral vision. This is where it gets tricky, you ready for this? The eye went down 2 seperate paths! If god had designed everything, why not use the same blueprint? If you had to build 10 houses, would you re-draw blueprints everytime? Thought not. The 2 paths, more common at least, were the segmented, multi-lensed eyes of invertebrates, and the single-lensed, large organ that is used by vertebrates. Again, here comes god, reinventing the fucking wheel too many times to count. The common house fly has as few as 300 lenses per eye. That creates some pretty fuzzy images of the world, but it gives a good 360 degree view of its surroundings. But the dragon fly has as many as 29,000 lenses per eye, which allows for super high resolution vision. Why would god give 2 of his 'precious' creatures 2 different levels of vision? The single-lens eye, also is different between animals/human. In an animal such as the bald eagle, the cornea is raised farther from the iris which allows better focus at great distances. Why wouldn't god allow us to have that? Even after all the wars he has seen us in? Wouldn't you want to see your enemy from almost 2 miles away? I sure would. Onward though. The location of the eye is also different between even mammals. Some have eyes to the far sides of their skull, others, eyes are pointed straight out, such as in humans. Our eyes have a large degree of overlap, which allows us depth perception. In our closest relatives, primates, it aided them in jumping from tree to tree. Can you see how it would be beneficial? Imagine you go to jump to a tree, but you notice mid-air that it's too far away. Not only are you going to fall to the floor and break a limb, you will be easy food for a predator. Pay attention to this next part, as it blows the whole "god made us" thing to shit. Being as our eyes face forward, and we needed to watch all around us for predators, wouldn't it have been easier for god to "poof" eyes into the back of our head? Hell, then we would have perfect 360 degree depth perception. But instead, the primates formed clans. They learned to protect each other. They learned to pay attention to body language and facial gestures. They learned to communicate! All to protect themselves from predators. But god could have easily have intervened and given them body armor. Because he's magical and makes everything perfect, right?

Obviously, science realizes that a homo sapien wasn't just formed one day out of the blue from whatever other species. That is why there is an ongoing search for the "missing link".

I had a TON more to say, but I suffer from something I call 'Can't-Express-Thoughts' Syndrome. I always get what I want to say all planned out in my head, but when I go to put it to paper, or say it, or type it, it gets all jumbled up and I can't remember half of what I had planned...

As for my first post, it was supposed to be longer, but halfway through it, I decided I didn't want to get involved, but I guess it still posted some of it...

wow. this guy seems like a total douche. personally, i'm against most religions, if someone wants to believe in something that seems like complete bullshit only because it makes them happy, then why not. but if someone tries to preach their shit to me i will tell them to go shoot themself.




there is so much proof that "god" and pretty much everything in the bible is just one big fat story. whereon the other hand evolution has been proved and isnt just written about in some big book being slapped into peoples faces.

I don't think he's going to read that.

I'm suprised I read it. I saw the pokemon refference while skimming and almost decided not to.

Oh you!

What I find that is hilarious is that he just was like, "NO YER WRONG, isn't he breaking the rules or something?" about me. What a retard.

I predict an answer to everything from him that will be along the lines of "It's that way because God made it that way and that's that."

I still want him to post, dammit. I'm not content unless I get some arguing in.

Normally I don't double-post, but this is on the behalf of a friend of mine:
megman says:
Before I begin, a brief introduction:

Kagom and myself are both members of another board, and recently the same topic has been discussed there. Kagom pointed me in the direction of this thread, and I felt compelled to respond.

-No, we didn’t. Our current understanding of evolution indicates our lineage originated with apes, which in turn evolved from prosimians. “Monkey” actually refers to two distinct groups of animals, one of which evolved from apes separately, and one of which evolved from prosimians. To even suggest that proponents of evolution believe we evolved from monkeys shows a complete lack of understanding of the topic.

-Again, you’re showing a complete lack of understanding of the subject. Evolution is not deterministic, it does not dictate that one type of animal will turn into another, or that a specific evolutionary path will be followed. We would not see monkeys (or, more accurately, apes) following the same evolutionary path we have because evolution does not work like that. If we were to observe a species long enough to be able to note speciation, we would not see all related species following the same evolutionary path. Species evolve in response to specific forces and pressures, which can and do vary between species and even populations. Thus, if we were to watch monkeys evolve, they could evolve into something entirely different from humans, or something similar, depending on the pressures and forces driving their evolution. We would not, however, see monkeys (or apes) evolving into humans.

Further, your argument assumes that while we have continued evolving, monkeys (or apes) have not. Just as we have evolved and changed from our common ancestor, so have apes- in fact, the aforementioned monkeys which evolved from apes are proof of this.

-Perhaps if you actually took the time to understand evolution, instead of the constantly-parroted misinterpretations and misconceptions of it, you would understand why it is such a compelling argument.

-Again, you’re relying on the (false) notion that evolution is deterministic. It isn’t.

-What people can and cannot believe is entirely up to them, not you.

-Then perhaps you should learn how to spell it.

-That’s an oversimplified and only semi-accurate definition of evolution.

-You’re either contradicting yourself or relying on a false assumption. You’ve already stated that organisms are capable of changing in response to their environment, something they achieve through modification and reproduction. If, on the other hand, you’re arguing we will see evolution achieving speciation or drastic differences in morphology in one generation, again, you are relying on a false assumption. Evolution occurs within populations, not with single individuals.

-Again, you’re relying on the idea that evolution is deterministic. You’ll never see any other animal “turning into” a platypus or some other previously existing animals because that’s not how it works. We can 9and have) seen organisms undergo modification to the point where they are considered new species. We have, in fact, observed speciation in the lab.

-Only when misapplied by weak minds.

-Again, you display the fact you don’t know what you’re talking about. Evolution by means of natural selection only deals with fitness,. Fitness, in the evolutionary sense, does not mean “better”, “faster”, or “smarter”. “Fitness” merely refers to fecundity- it’s about who has the most kids. The more kids you have, the more fit you are, and the better off you are from an evolutionary standpoint.

That’s all.

Only weak minds would assume that evolution necessitates the intentional and willful killing of people for the purpose of furthering evolution.

-No, it won’t, because we did not evolve from monkeys. We evolved from apes. If you’re going to discuss this stuff, you should know the difference.

-Again, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Evolution acts on populations, not single individuals, and the type of evolution you’re talking about cannot occur over a single generation. Either you’re intentionally misrepresenting the issue (Straw Man fallacy) or you really haven’t got a clue what you’re talking about.

-Because what you call macroevolution and microevolution are the same thing, just over different periods of time. Modifications and adaptations add up, and in populations isolated from each other, result in speciation.

-Because we do. And I thought you were claiming evolution states we came from monkeys- which is it, monkeys or apes? You’re not being very consistent.

-This question was already answered:
-No, it doesn’t. Evolution does not deal with the origin of life, only its modification.

Your interpretation of what we think we can conclude about the origin of life (which, again, is not part of evolutionary theory) is a combination of misconception and misunderstanding.

-If you’re going to “borrow” another person’s work, you should at least give them credit. Failure to do so is highly frowned upon.

The source of the above material: http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...bombardier.asp

Not exactly unbiased…

In any case, evolution is completely able to account for the origin of such mechanisms. I am, unfortunately, not an expert in beetles, but I would hypothesize that such a mechanism may have started as a simpler defense mechanism such as those seen in stink beetles which allowed the production of an irritant (the peroxidase described in the article could be considered such a substance), and successive modifications, possibly as a result of duplications or other coding errors, may have added the ability to produce a second compound, and eventual modifications may have eventually resulted in a combination of substances which, when mixed, produced a much more potent irritant.

For a more in-depth explanation of the topics than I could ever hope to provide, I suggest reading the following:

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/art...yth%20Exploded

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html


Oh, and cute name. I actually saw Hovind speak once. He utterly ignored many argument presented to him when he asked for explanations, and did not address the issues he himself raised when others offered arguments that contradicted his, choosing instead to ignore them and move on to another of his “arguments”, which were largely based on misinterpretations and even flat-out deceit. I even distinctly remember him contradicting himself when discussing the argument concerning the second law of thermodynamics (another argument based on misconceptions).

In any case, I find it interesting you’ve named yourself after a man who is currently in federal prison for acts including evasion and corrupt obstruction (related to tax laws).

To quote the great Michaelangelo (yes the Ninja Turtle)

"I think I'm in looove" XD

Anyways, the Pokemon reference was only because I am sure a majority of the people here know what Kabuto looks like, and I don't have the correct name of the creature... don't hate me... :(

Everyone in here fell for the troll except for me. I pronounce my superiority.

I are sad. =(

Damnit.. I missed a weekend of Zelaron and look what happens. I would type out a well-thought reply, but by the looks of it, you guys did it for me. I'm impressed.

What are you talking about?

The guy in the first post is clearly not serious.

You sly dog. It was you the whole time wasn't it? Oh if it was you that was a mighty burn.

So true.

Clearly.

Yeah.

That makes me so sad. =(

Well...that was the most active I've been in a while...