Howdy,

I have my always-reliable-fair-and-balanced New York Times paper in my hands from last week. I was reviewing some articles I put-off reading and one of them was entitled, "Still Evolving, Human Genes Tell New Story". The link to the online version is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/07/science/07evolve.html
The article is about the study of parts of our DNA that code our skin color and our brain size and the fact that there are changes occuring in current populations that cannot be fully explained or predicted -and that this somehow is evidence that humans still evolve.

Another recent article I came across about evolution, this time on the net, is from USA Today about a thought-to-be-extinct-for-11-million-years Rat-squirrel that was discovered in Laos. Link here: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2006-03-09-rat-squirrel-survivor_x.htm?csp=34.

In a news brief from ABC News, within a warning about the very real threat of bird flu and the danger for the USA population, was a quote from Laurie Garrett: "What we're watching in real time is evolution," said Laurie Garrett, a senior fellow for global health at the Council on Foreign Relations. "And it's a biological process, and it is, by definition, unpredictable."


What a bunch of BS!

I am a scientist. I use Scientific Methods, Physics, Newton's Laws of Motion, Chemistry, Thermodydamics, and many other scientific laws, theories, methods, and simulations to solve real-world problems in Aircraft Design and Manufacturing. In addition to my love of all things with engines and mechanical I have always loved to study and learn about biology and nature. I was a good student in biology classes, I go fishing often, hunting, I spend my summer weekends at my cottage on a lake in Wisconsin, I do lots of hiking, mountain biking, running in wooded parks, and I enjoy taking pictures (with an SLR camera, of course!) of nature. I subscribe to National Geographic and I love to read about the areas of the earth (barely) untouched/unexplored by man (There are more than you might think!). I am an amateur biologist, you might say.

Now, it always amazes me that these "scientists" who appear in these articles (like the 3 I talked about above) are so indoctrinated with the myth of evolution that they have to fit and squeeze their discoveries into the mold of evolution every time. They are blind to the fact that these discoveries (and their are virtually countless others) IN NO WAY PROOVE evolution or even come close to be evidence that evolution occured.

The existence of the Rat-Squirrel in Laos actually DISPROOVES evolution! Just like the celicant fish the "evolution experts" claimed was extinct for multiple millions of years. - DISPROOVES evolution. There is an unusual shark called the "Megamouth Shark" that was classified as having been extinct of 70 million years ago and, like the celicant, was discovered alive. YET, scientists-wanting-evolution-to-be-true continue to claim these discoveries show proof of evolution, when IN FACT, they do the opposite!!!

Now, we are faced with bird flu as a threat to our chickens, turkeys, geese, ducks, chickadees, and US. Is the fact that bird flu virus is adapting to certain conditions evidence of EVOLUTION? Well, is it still a virus that causes bird flu symptoms? Then the answer is NO. If the bird flu virus eventually turns into a mosquito, then into a gerbil, then into a dog, then into a velociraptor, then into Chuck Norris, THEN I'll believe the virus is evolving. The bird flu virus is STILL a bird flu virus, just because it adapts to certain conditions or environments or medications --that's no indication of EVOLUTION! And guess what, as a true evolutionist, you HAVE to believe the bird flu virus will evolve into Chuck Norris, --it just needs enough time...

Just because roses can be red, yellow, violet, white, pink, and orange, does not mean our conclusion is that the roses are evolving. No, it's variation within a kind. Just like humans can have different skin, hair, and eye color.

When the bird flu virus gets here and the SHTF, we can all hunker down and prepare for the worst, but don't talk about how the bird flu is evolving against our flu shots -you'll sound like an unscientific, duped idiot. If it's adapting, tell us it's adapting. ONLY when the bird flu virus becomes MORE than merely a virus, THEN you can talk about how it's evolving all you want!

...off the box,
AE

------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: A quick disclaimer is needed here because, lately, the word "evolution" has been used ambiguously to confuse the (separate and distinct) domains of adaptation/variation and evolution.

The traditional difference:
Adaptation: This is what we see when we see variety within a species or type (I'm using "type" generically) of organism in response to certain conditions. Example: bacteria developing immunity to an antibiotic. Another Example: the variety of dogs we have on the earth through breeding techniques.

Evolution: The theory that complex species and organisms developed from random mutations through natural selection over time of primitive/original forms of life. Example: You and I are animals that are the result of millions of years of accidental mutations of our ancestors that give us the edge over all other forms of live on earth.

The "new" evolutionary teachings:
Micro Evolution: This is what we see when we see variety within a species or type (I'm using "type" generically) of organism in response to certain conditions. Example: bacteria developing immunity to an antibiotic. Another Example: the variety of dogs we have on the earth through breeding techniques.

Macro Evolution: The theory that complex species and organisms developed from random mutations through natural selection over time of primitive/original forms of life. Example: You and I are animals that are the result of millions of years of accidental mutations of our ancestors that give us the edge over all other forms of live on earth.

The wanting-evolution-to-be-true biology teachers and professors today teach "Micro" and "Macro" Evolution (just like economics) in an attempt to brainwash the population into getting used to saying the word "evolution" whenever they talk about specific characteristics in organsims. Whether it's simply adaptation or "traditional" evolution, they use the word "evolution" to describe it. This horrible misuse of the word actually paves the way for a teacher to say "See how many dogs we have, that's proof of evolution" --but they won't use the word "micro" in there, they just say "evolution", whereas if the kids heard a similar sentence from a teacher 20 years ago, they would hear "... that's proof of variation (within a kind)".
Ask a grade school kid if they know about micro and macro evolution...you'll be surprised by what they say. Pretty crafty, huh?

You are right about the flu virus' constant mutation being adapation.  This is what I would call it.  However, adaptation can lead to evolution.  

But how does the existance of creatures once thought extinct disprove evolution?

Please clarify what you are saying, I'm a bit confused.

Just because we dont fully understand it doesn't mean it can't happen.  Your statement about a virus turning into a mosquito makes me doubt that your "amateur biologist" skills are up to par.  

There are plenty of species that are STILL AROUND and have been for millions of years.  They have not had to adapt to fit the environment, so evolution did not occur that much if it all.  There is nothing that says everything has to turn into something more complex.  

Just because roses can be red, yellow, violet, white, pink, and orange, does not mean our conclusion is that the roses are evolving. No, it's variation within a kind. Just like humans can have different skin, hair, and eye color.

That's absolutely correct, but again I fail to see how showing an example of variation disproves evolution.


But imagine if all roses except red ones were eaten by a certain animal.  In response, all the roses begin to change to red.  This would be adaptation.  Eventually, almost all roses are red.  The ones that are not red devolop thorns.  Eventually, they become so different that pollen from one can not pollenize another.  They are classified as seperate species.  What has occured?

With overwhelming scientific support for evolution, we are supposed to take the word of an "amateur biologist"?  Go get a PhD in biology and genetics and then come up with a well supported, peer-reviewed theory based on real evidence, then maybe I will take it seriously.  Either that, or stick to Aerospace Engineering.  

Your little rant shows your own ignorance of the scientific process...

They are blind to the fact that these discoveries (and their are virtually countless others) IN NO WAY PROOVE evolution or even come close to be evidence that evolution occured.

Scientists simply do not PROVE things.

If you were such an astute student of biology you would be aware that the basic definition of evolution is "a shift in allele frequencies over time (generations)"  this is what people discussing the bird flu make reference to.  Observed fact, new alleles appear.  Observed fact, new alleles that increase the organism's ability to exploit its ecological niche are selected for.

You refer to the difference in the definitions of macro vs micro evolution...but you get the definition of macro evolution wrong.  It is the formation of reproductively isolated organisms, a new species.  And this has been observed in nature...so we know it happens.

Evolution/common descent is also the unifying theory of the large and diverse science of biology.  In that way it is the application of observed facts to large fields of study and assuming that the facts apply across the board.  It's the same way every scientific theory works.  We take the theory, we use the theory to develop an expectation about what we find in nature we test that expectation.  If the outcome fits the expectation it supports the theory, if it doesn't we have to re think the theory.  It happens continuously in biology, chemistry, physics etc...

Simply put if we can use an understood process to explain a phenomena (any phenomena, from the mutation of bird flu to the diversity of life on this planet) we use that explanation.  Does evolution do this? Yes...in spades.  And when evolutionary theory doesn't explain something it gets changed to incorporate new information.

You need to go sharpen your Occam's razor.

Quoted: However, adaptation can lead to evolution.

Prove it.

(I'm not being a smartass. If you state this as a fact, you must offer evidence somehow to prove it.)

Quoted: But how does the existance of creatures once thought extinct disprove evolution?

The whole theory of evolution collapses. Evolution is built on the concept that one organism randomly acquires traits that allow it to out-compete similar organsims (natural selection). These "inferior" organsims die and become extinct. If evolution is true there has to be millions and millions and millions of different bacteria, viruses, insects, animals, fishes etc. that no longer exist because they were naturally selected out, due to lack of useful mutations.

For example:
The celicant fish were supposedly a transitional lifeform of water-to-land animals from millions and millions of years ago. Their fins are more similar in position to that of a gecko-type lizard than that of most fishes we see in the oceans and lakes. Evolutionist said that they were positioned liek that so they could learn to walk out of the water. Evolution teaches us the creatures who evolved to crawl onto land were fish-like and were eventually able to out-compete the other species (like the celicant). The celicants were supposed to have died-out from evolution. Their existence is one of MANY big holes in evolution theory. Turns out the celicant fish is perfectly created to survive in it's evironment on the sea floor.

Quoted: Just because we dont fully understand it doesn't mean it can't happen.

This is a meaningless statement. I think I know what you're trying to say, but remember, evolution is a belief, a faith. If it is true, there should be thousands upon thousands of fossils of transitional lifeforms. Darwin himself predicted that if numerous fossils of evolutionary species do not show up in the rocks of the earth within 100 years of his writing of "Origin of Species", then his theory is severely flawed. There are no transitional fossils found yet. And a number of them that supposedly were found, were found out to be faked. Further evidence that evolutionists are desperate to proove evolution, when the truth stares them in the face.

Quoted: Your statement about a virus turning into a mosquito makes me doubt that your "amateur biologist" skills are up to par.

Apparently you don't realize how devestating the fact of my statement is. As an evolutionist you must believe that human beings evolved from a bunch rocks smashing together in the universe. How up to par are my skills now?

Quoted: There are plenty of species that are STILL AROUND and have been for millions of years.

Prove it.

(Again, how do you know that to be fact? That's what you've been told, but do you really KNOW that? It's completely counter to evolution theory. Remember, we are supposedly evolving as we speak, so how can species go millions and millions of years without any changes?)

Quoted: They have not had to adapt to fit the environment, so evolution did not occur that much if it all.

Prove it.

Quoted: There is nothing that says everything has to turn into something more complex.

Yeah, but evolution says EVERYTHING complex came from something NOT complex!!!

Quoted: Quoted: However, adaptation can lead to evolution.   Prove it. Read the part about the flowers.  I admit that it is hypothetical though. (I'm not being a smartass. If you state this as a fact, you must offer evidence somehow to prove it.) Quoted: But how does the existance of creatures once thought extinct disprove evolution? The whole theory of evolution collapses. Evolution is built on the concept that one organism randomly acquires traits that allow it to out-compete similar organsims (natural selection). These "inferior" organsims die and become extinct. If evolution is true there has to be millions and millions and millions of different bacteria, viruses, insects, animals, fishes etc. that no longer exist because they were naturally selected out, due to lack of useful mutations. No.  Isolated populations exist that DO NOT EVOLVE with the others, and they do not become extinct. For example: The celicant fish were supposedly a transitional lifeform of water-to-land animals from millions and millions of years ago. Their fins are more similar in position to that of a gecko-type lizard than that of most fishes we see in the oceans and lakes. Evolutionist said that they were positioned liek that so they could learn to walk out of the water. Evolution teaches us the creatures who evolved to crawl onto land were fish-like and were eventually able to out-compete the other species (like the celicant). The celicants were supposed to have died-out from evolution. Their existence is one of MANY big holes in evolution theory. Turns out the celicant fish is perfectly created to survive in it's evironment on the sea floor. Isolated populations.  There is no magical connection between all life forms. Things do not always "die out" from evolution. Read about the remnants of legs left over in whales. Quoted: Just because we dont fully understand it doesn't mean it can't happen. This is a meaningless statement. I think I know what you're trying to say, but remember, evolution is a belief, a faith. If it is true, there should be thousands upon thousands of fossils of transitional lifeforms. Darwin himself predicted that if numerous fossils of evolutionary species do not show up in the rocks of the earth within 100 years of his writing of "Origin of Species", then his theory is severely flawed. There are no transitional fossils found yet. And a number of them that supposedly were found, were found out to be faked. Further evidence that evolutionists are desperate to proove evolution, when the truth stares them in the face. Evolution is not a faith, it relies on evidence.  Creationism is a faith, but that is not what we are debating.   Not all species can be fossilized, certain rare conditions must exist (including the physiology of the animal must lend itself to fossilization).   Quoted: Your statement about a virus turning into a mosquito makes me doubt that your "amateur biologist" skills are up to par. Apparently you don't realize how devestating the fact of my statement is. As an evolutionist you must believe that human beings evoled from a bunch rocks smashing together in the universe. How up to par are my skills now? No.  Rocks are not a life form.  Evolution only occurs with life, not rocks.  I don't see what you are getting at. Quoted: There are plenty of species that are STILL AROUND and have been for millions of years. Prove it. (Again, how do you know that to be fact? That's what you've been told, but do you really KNOW that? It's completely counter to evolution theory. Rememer, we are supposedly evolving as we speak, so how can species go millions and millions of years without any changes?) Cockroaches (one example).  Again, isolated populations.  Also, small changes can occur.  Large changes do not have to occur. Quoted: They have not had to adapt to fit the environment, so evolution did not occur that much if it all. Prove it. I don't have to prove it.  Just think about it for a bit. Quoted: There is nothing that says everything has to turn into something more complex.   Yeah, but evolution says EVERYTHING complex came form something NOT complex!!! Even the simplest lifeform is VERY complex.  Keep in mind that humans are made of billions, if not trillions of INDIVIDUAL cells.  It is the organization of the cells that gains complexity, not so much the cells themselves.

You are right about the misuse of the word evolution, but the theory is sound.  It's just the idiots who constantly throw the word around whenever something changes that make it look bad.  

Quoted: Just because roses can be red, yellow, violet, white, pink, and orange, does not mean our conclusion is that the roses are evolving. No, it's variation within a kind. Just like humans can have different skin, hair, and eye color. That's absolutely correct, but again I fail to see how showing an example of variation disproves evolution.

It doesn't by itself.

double post

Quoted: But imagine if all roses except red ones were eaten by a certain animal.  In response, all the roses begin to change to red.  This would be adaptation.  Eventually, almost all roses are red.  The ones that are not red devolop thorns.  Eventually, they become so different that pollen from one can not pollenize another.  They are classified as seperate species.  What has occured?

If they turned into Chuck Norris, then evolution has occured.
If they are still roses, adaptation has occured.

Quoted: With overwhelming scientific support for evolution, we are supposed to take the word of an "amateur biologist"?

Maybe. I'm just ranting to stimulate discussion and seeing what others think about my thoughts.

Quoted: Go get a PhD in biology and genetics and then come up with a well supported, peer-reviewed theory based on real evidence, then maybe I will take it seriously.

Why? Do you have a PhD in biology and genetics? Perhaps I will get one someday. Thanks for the suggestion! I always knew I couldn't participate in the evolution debate if I didn't have a PhD in biology and genetics! Damn!

Quoted: Either that, or stick to Aerospace Engineering.

I really love Aerospace Engineering. I'll stick with that for a while. Hey, since we're offering suggestions for each other, why don't you go on a fishing expedition in Hawaii and catch some Megamouth Sharks...after 70 millions years, they are bound to start evolving soon!!!

Evolution is limited, to a degree.  You can't literally grow eyes in the back of your head just because you want to.  You have to have the ability to do that..meaning, you have to have a precursor for that that might not have been active before.  Also, just because you have a precursor to something does not mean that it will be active.  If the environment an organism lives in does not change, and that animal does well in the environment, there won't be any major changes to that animal.  If it's not broke, don't fix it.  If it did change, it would most likely be for the worse (maybe making it more visible to predators or make it harder to find/kill prey) so the animal with the new adaptation would not last very long.  

(This is not an attack)  Just because you spend a lot of time in nature and have taken a biology class does not make you an amateur biologist.  I've taken physics classes but that doesn't make me an amateur physicist.  If a guy spends a lot of time in the bathroom, it doesn't make him an amateur plumber.  If you were an amateur biologist, then you would know that the word PROVE is a very dangerous word to use in biology and that you'll get in a lot of trouble for using it.  Science does not PROVE anything.  Science is a bunch of ideas...theories and hypotheses...that support different notions or characteristics.  A couple hundred years ago, everyone thought the world revolved around us.  Because the evidence changed, the idea changed.  Science is never set in stone...its always changing.  It's naive to think otherwise.


ETA: There was a study conducted awhile ago on a forest that was made up of white trees.  Inside that forest were white moths (or butterflies...one of the two).  There were black moths but they didn't last long.  They stood out against the light background so predators snatched them up quickly.  An industrial plant moved into the area so the white trees, thanks to pollution, turned dark.  Well, the white moths no longer blended in with the environment, but the black ones did.  The populations flip flopped so that now the black moths were dominant and the white ones were getting snatched up.

This doesn't disprove evolution either.  It's adaptation.  There were two different colors, but only one could exist, depending on the environment.  Over time, who's to say that the white and black moths might not mix, and create a striped pattern that would do well in both the white and black forest?

Quoted: Quoted: But imagine if all roses except red ones were eaten by a certain animal.  In response, all the roses begin to change to red.  This would be adaptation.  Eventually, almost all roses are red.  The ones that are not red devolop thorns.  Eventually, they become so different that pollen from one can not pollenize another.  They are classified as seperate species.  What has occured? If they turned into Chuck Norris, then evolution has occured. If they are still roses, adaptation has occured. If they turn into Chuck Norris, then magic has occured. If they are two seperate SPECIES of rose, evolution has occured. Quoted: With overwhelming scientific support for evolution, we are supposed to take the word of an "amateur biologist"? Maybe. I'm just ranting to stimulate discussion and seeing what others think about my thoughts. I understand, and thanks for keeping it civil.  It's always good to stimulate discussion.   I really agree with part of your post (about evolution being overused when  it is actually adaptation). Quoted: Go get a PhD in biology and genetics and then come up with a well supported, peer-reviewed theory based on real evidence, then maybe I will take it seriously. Why? Do you have a PhD in biology and genetics? Perhaps I will get one someday. Thanks for the suggestion! I always knew I couldn't participate in the evolution debate if I didn't have a PhD in biology and genetics! Damn! Of course we can participate in the debate, but neither of our arguments mean much since we aren't biologists/geneticists. Quoted: Either that, or stick to Aerospace Engineering. I really love Aerospace Engineering. I'll stick with that for a while. hey, since we're offering suggestions for each other, why don't you go on a fishing expedition in Hawaii and catch some Megamouth Sharks...after 70 millions years, they are bound to start evolving soon!!! I'll stick with largemouth bass.

Oooh, you caught us - Evolution isn't completely proven! That's how science works. Few if any of the theories we have about how things work have ever been rigorously proven. All we are doing is using the best theory that we currently have. If another theory comes along that more completely explaings the available data, then we will use that.

Speaking of which, you're spending a lot of time trying to trash Evolution. If you want to get rid of it, then what's your alternative theory? Why don't you explain it to us, and detail a series of experiments that could prove or disprove it? Then, we'll perform those experiments and see who is right. If you are right, then you will have revolutionized biology. If you are wrong, then no harm. We do need to test our theories as rigorously as we can.

The way you're dancing around the issue, I suspect you support Creationism. If that's the case, why don't you come out with it? Trashing one theory is easy, but coming up with a better explanation is what makes the difference. We've already covered in numerous threads why Creationism does not qualify as a scientific theory.

There have been several statements made (so soon!) that I am not qualified to be an amateur biologist. Well, give me a list of qualifications to be an amateur biologist and I promise to do my best to comply.

Oh, and I'd also like you to point out which statements I've made that, had I actually had my PhD in biology and genetics, you would then consider, since I'd be SUCH an authority. (I got a sneaky suspicion that you would not change your arguments at all...you would question the validity of my degree because I do not submit to evolution.)

Quoted: There have been several statements made (so soon!) that I am not qualified to be an amateur biologist. Well, give me a list of qualifications to be an amateur biologist and I promise to do my best to comply. Oh, and I'd also like you to point out which statements I've made that, had I actually had my PhD in biology and genetics, you would then consider, since I'd be SUCH an authority. (I got a sneaky suspicion that you would not change your arguments at all...you would question the validity of my degree because I do not submit to evolution.)

If you had a degree, you probably wouldn't have made those statements.  

And if you did, I would NOT question the validity of your degree, I would just go with the 99% of other biologists and geneticists that support evolution.

I don't see how anyone that supports Creationism could bring themselves to even get such a degree, as it goes against their beliefs.

I don't want to argue with you.  I'll present my credentials:  BA in Biology, University of Texas.  I am not a biologist by profession, only by education.  Currently, I teach middle school science, where I spend an equal amount of time teaching knowledge and skills as (drum roll, please) clearing misconceptions.

Frankly, I think you're well-meaning, and I honor your dabbling in the biological sciences.  I just think you're just carrying a few misconceptions along the way.

1.  Scientific theories aren't proven--ONLY disproven.  Stephen Hawking loves to use that line.

2.  Evolution doesn't necessarily lead to "improved" or "superior" species.  Conceptually, that doesn't work for a lot of people who tend to think of evolution in terms of "survival of the fittest."  What is fit now may be unfit decades/centuries/millenia down the road.  Lions, antelope, and elephants aren't superior to tyrannosaurs, ornithomimids, and ceratopsians.

3.  Natural selection will lead to what we would typify as dramatic changes in an organism's behavior or morphology when there are sufficient selection pressures present.  The fossil record shows several examples of modern creatures who are, relatively speaking, somewhat unchanged from their ancient ancestors.  Turtles, sharks, crocodilians are all similar to what would be found in the age of dinosaurs.

Enjoy your discussion.

eta: I'm sure you're familiar with him, but read anything by Stephen Jay Gould.  The Panda's Thumb is recommended.

Quoted: Isolated populations exist that DO NOT EVOLVE with the others, and they do not become extinct.

Prove it. How do you know. Those organisms must have evolved to get to where they are, right? And they just, poof,  stop evolving? The megamouth shark decided to stop evolving 70 million years ago and has not changed one micro bit? That's amazing! So, if we slowly distrub the megamouth shark's environment, will it start to evolve? I don't think so --it will be placed on the endangered species list (if it's not there already) and most likely die and become extinct. Oh, what's that? It just needs more time? I forgot, you evolutionists need millions and millions of years to enact a change in evolution...but wait, the megamouth has had 70+ millions years and it's environment has not changed at ALL? Something is missing in this equation = common sense.

Quoted: Isolated populations.  There is no magical connection between all life forms. Things do not always "die out" from evolution. Read about the remnants of legs left over in whales.

I have read. MUCH more than you apparently!!!

And wait just a minute! Whales had legs? When? Where is the fossil of a whale with legs for walking on the land? How do you know that? I thought life started in the primordial soup (which there is no evidence of, even in fossils) and in the oceans and then evolved onto the land. When did we go from the land back into the water? Something's missing: oh yeah, common sense!

I assume you are refering to the bones that exist near the rear of certain whales' bodies (inside, of course). Today's your lucky day, 'cause I am going to ejumacate you on whale biology! As an unqualified, amateur biologist, I know something about whales. I've read a lot about them. Did you know whales mate and give live birth to their offspring? Pretty cool, huh?...And did you know that  the bones we are both talking about are crucial attachment points for the muscles that allow whales to mate and give live birth? Without those bones, whales would be unable to reproduce! Now, that's a big problem for the whales and for your belief in the lie that the bones are vestigal and "remnants of legs left over in whales"!!!

Coelacanth,damn it,COELACANTH! (Latimeria chalumnae)

Quoted: Coelacanth,damn it,COELACANTH! (Latimeria chalumnae)

Archaeopteryx Lithographica.

The whales were just an example I threw in at the last minute.  I stand by my statement about evolution not occuring for every member of a species at the same time.  

Every time you say prove it, I think FOSSILS.

Read some of the other posts here, especially leakycow.

Quoted: The whales were just an example I threw in at the last minute.  I stand by my statement about evolution not occuring for every member of a species at the same time.

Anyone who thinks it does either completely doesn't get it or is trying to misrepresent it to make it refutable or make a mockery of it.

I feel sorry that you guys have been lied to so much and you believe something simply because an ignorant teacher and a liberal textbook says, "these bones in whales are from when they had legs before they evolved to swim".

I mean come on. That was too easy! Now, would you please bust-out that "walking whale" fossil! YOU need it badly, because otherwise this self-proclaimed amateur biologist just OWNED YOU!

The truth hurts (evolution).

Quoted: Quoted: Coelacanth,damn it,COELACANTH! (Latimeria chalumnae) Archaeopteryx Lithographica.

Birds and bees or birds and fish???

Quoted: I feel sorry that you guys have been lied to so much and you believe something simply because an ignorant teacher and a liberal textbook says, "these bones in whales are from when they had legs before they evolved to swim". I mean come on. That was too easy! Now, would you please bust-out that "walking whale" fossil! YOU need it badly, because otherwise this self-proclaimed amateur biologist just OWNED YOU! The truth hurts (evolution).

Don't give up your amateur status.You'll starve.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Coelacanth,damn it,COELACANTH! (Latimeria chalumnae) Archaeopteryx Lithographica. Birds and bees or birds and fish???

Just more evidence.  It's a proto-bird.  From right in the midst of the reptile to bird crossover.  I have a copy of the Berlin specimen hanging on my wall at home.

Quoted: I feel sorry that you guys have been lied to so much and you believe something simply because an ignorant teacher and a liberal textbook says, "these bones in whales are from when they had legs before they evolved to swim". I mean come on. That was too easy! Now, would you please bust-out that "walking whale" fossil! YOU need it badly, because otherwise this self-proclaimed amateur biologist just OWNED YOU! The truth hurts (evolution).

I gave you the benefit of the doubt after reading your first post...you came off as a rational person, able to wrap your head around a difficult scientific concept, a naturalist, etc.

20 posts later and you're rabid.  You've twisted your own thread into the typical, boring diatribe against evolution in principle.  

You've dabbled in biology, and are now a self-proclaimed amateur.  That's the most dangerous kind of person--one who sticks his toe in the pool and proclaims "I know what it's like to swim across."

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Coelacanth,damn it,COELACANTH! (Latimeria chalumnae) Archaeopteryx Lithographica. Birds and bees or birds and fish??? Just more evidence.  It's a proto-bird.  From right in the midst of the reptile to bird crossover.  I have a copy of the Berlin specimen hanging on my wall at home.

I'm well aware of what archaeopteryx is (was).My oldest son is palentiologist wannabe

Just couldn't figure out why you dropped it into my corrrection of the (mis)spelling of coelacanth.

Agree with the additional evidence.Was going to throw in the vestigal legs in certain boids as well,but then I'd have to show him a lizard.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Coelacanth,damn it,COELACANTH! (Latimeria chalumnae) Archaeopteryx Lithographica. Birds and bees or birds and fish??? Just more evidence.  It's a proto-bird.  From right in the midst of the reptile to bird crossover.  I have a copy of the Berlin specimen hanging on my wall at home. I'm well aware of what archaeopteryx is (was).My oldest son is palentiologist wannabe Just couldn't figure out why you dropped it into my corrrection of the (mis)spelling of coelacanth. Agree with the additional evidence.Was going to throw in the vestigal legs in certain boids as well,but then I'd have to show him a lizard.

LOL!  Shit!  I thought you were just exclaiming COELACANTH! so some of the hard cases would just open their eyes.  I didn't realize you were correcting a misspelling.

Misspelling started with our expert "amateur",and carried on from there.If you aren't going to do basic research,you know,as fundamental as learning how to spell,I doubt your "findings" will pass muster with any "peer" review.Take care


Told my son to stop hanging around the docks.I was afraid he might fall in with the wrong pier group!

Quoted: I feel sorry that you guys have been lied to so much and you believe something simply because an ignorant teacher and a liberal textbook says, "these bones in whales are from when they had legs before they evolved to swim". I mean come on. That was too easy! Now, would you please bust-out that "walking whale" fossil! YOU need it badly, because otherwise this self-proclaimed amateur biologist just OWNED YOU! The truth hurts (evolution).

Now you're getting shrill and accusatory, not the general characteristics of someone trying to spread a truth.

I'll ask you again - if you're going to trash Evolution, do you have a better scientific theory? What is it, and how can we prove or disprove it?

Quoted: Quoted: I feel sorry that you guys have been lied to so much and you believe something simply because an ignorant teacher and a liberal textbook says, "these bones in whales are from when they had legs before they evolved to swim". I mean come on. That was too easy! Now, would you please bust-out that "walking whale" fossil! YOU need it badly, because otherwise this self-proclaimed amateur biologist just OWNED YOU! The truth hurts (evolution). Now you're getting shrill and accusatory, not the general characteristics of someone trying to spread a truth. I'll ask you again - if you're going to trash Evolution, do you have a better scientific theory? What is it, and how can we prove or disprove it?

And I want to hear where the Archaeopteryx came from via this new theory.

Quoted: There have been several statements made (so soon!) that I am not qualified to be an amateur biologist. Well, give me a list of qualifications to be an amateur biologist and I promise to do my best to comply. Oh, and I'd also like you to point out which statements I've made that, had I actually had my PhD in biology and genetics, you would then consider, since I'd be SUCH an authority. (I got a sneaky suspicion that you would not change your arguments at all...you would question the validity of my degree because I do not submit to evolution.)

Phoney intellectualism is a tough act to pull off.  

Quoted: Misspelling started with our expert "amateur",and carried on from there.If you aren't going to do basic research,you know,as fundamental as learning how to spell,I doubt your "findings" will pass muster with any "peer" review.Take care Told my son to stop hanging around the docks.I was afraid he might fall in with the wrong pier group!

Eh, I thought I'd save trashing his spelling errors until this thread degenerates a little further.

Quoted: I feel sorry that you guys have been lied to so much and you believe something simply because an ignorant teacher and a liberal textbook says, "these bones in whales are from when they had legs before they evolved to swim". I mean come on. That was too easy! Now, would you please bust-out that "walking whale" fossil! YOU need it badly, because otherwise this self-proclaimed amateur biologist just OWNED YOU! The truth hurts (evolution).

There were a lot of people like you in the 14th century that laughed at people who taught that the earth was actually a sphere and not flat.  I am sorry to break the news to you but animals evolve and change their DNA.

Quoted: Quoted: There have been several statements made (so soon!) that I am not qualified to be an amateur biologist. Well, give me a list of qualifications to be an amateur biologist and I promise to do my best to comply. Oh, and I'd also like you to point out which statements I've made that, had I actually had my PhD in biology and genetics, you would then consider, since I'd be SUCH an authority. (I got a sneaky suspicion that you would not change your arguments at all...you would question the validity of my degree because I do not submit to evolution.) Phoney intellectualism is a tough act to pull off.

If you're smart it can be easy to act dumber but if you're dumb it's hard to act smarter.

Quoted: Evolution is not a faith, it relies on evidence.  Creationism is a faith, but that is not what we are debating.

Oh really? Why are so many evolutionist so desperate to prove it? If it could be observed there would be no debate about evolution.

Quoted: Not all species can be fossilized, certain rare conditions must exist (including the physiology of the animal must lend itself to fossilization).

What do you mean? Fragile leaves, delicate sea creatures, and the T-Rex were fossilized. Are you suggesting that all creatures that could prove evolution were not able to be fossilized? (I realize I'm taunting you with that question, but it is sort of what you are leaning to suggest in this statement.)

Quoted: No.  Rocks are not a life form.  Evolution only occurs with life, not rocks.  I don't see what you are getting at.

I am getting at the fact that if you go back in history far enough, through the beliefs of an evolutionist, at some point you get to the origins of life. You must believe that at some point living matter sprang from non-living matter. Think, of the big bang BS and all that. I.E. We are simply the descendants of rocks. As an evolutionist, you have to believe that. How else can you account for us (humans) walking around on the earth?

My point was that you were saying I was full of sh*t for suggesting that evolutionists had to believe it is possible for the bird flu virus to evolve into a mosquito, given enough time (billions and billions of years possibly). Well, as an evolutionist you already claim that humans are the result of evolution and we are the descendants of primordial soup, which is the descendant of rocks at the beginning of the first living thing. So, you are a BIG hypocrite.

The short version:
I (in jest) suggested, according to evolution, the bird flu virus would evolve into a mosquito. You questioned my intelligence.
You suggest (seriously, no less) that humans evolve from rocks. I question your intelligence and call you a hypocrite.

So, Basically, YOU MADE MY POINT: EVOLUTION IS NOT LOGICAL AND LACKS EVIDENCE!

Quoted: Cockroaches (one example).  Again, isolated populations.  Also, small changes can occur.  Large changes do not have to occur.

Who told the roahces to stop evolving? Evolution is, by definition, is the result of random chances, so how do the roaches know they don't have to evolve? Didn't they evolve to the point where they are at? You see, you can't rely on randomness for you theory and then out of no where saythere is order established.

Quoted: They have not had to adapt to fit the environment, so evolution did not occur that much if it all. Prove it. I don't have to prove it.  Just think about it for a bit.

Again who held up the sign and said "stop randomly mutating to acquire useful characteristics!"?
You can't have it both ways.

Seems to me like the theory is evolving more than the species on the earth!!! Hey, maybe if you rationalize all the evidence against evolution hard enough, you'll find a cure for cancer in there!

Quoted: Misspelling started with our expert "amateur",and carried on from there.If you aren't going to do basic research,you know,as fundamental as learning how to spell,I doubt your "findings" will pass muster with any "peer" review.Take care Told my son to stop hanging around the docks.I was afraid he might fall in with the wrong pier group!

Don't be such a douche. We all make mistakes typing fast. YOU KNOW THAT! Sorry I offended you with my horrible typing skills.  And sorry for calling you a douche, but really, lighten up and don't hijack for spelling errors. Sheesh.

Quoted: Misspelling started with our expert "amateur"...

For the record, I never claimed to be an expert.

But, again, if I did, would it change the posts on this thread? No.

Why don't you stop attacking by credibility and respond to some of my statements and questions?
Is that because you are like one of those political types who attack someone's reputation because you cannot compete in the battle of ideas?

Stay on topic please. And if it helps you political types, just pretend I have a PhD in biology and genetics.

Kansas.... that figures.

Quoted: Yeah, but evolution says EVERYTHING complex came from something NOT complex!!! Even the simplest lifeform is VERY complex.  Keep in mind that humans are made of billions, if not trillions of INDIVIDUAL cells.  It is the organization of the cells that gains complexity, not so much the cells themselves.

This is an excellent point, blacklisted, and I take back half the bad things I said about you and your theories! (But, you gotta admit, I still stomped your a** on the walking whale bone thing.)

Yes, indeed, even the smallest single-cell living organsims are vastly complex with hundreds of simultaneous chemical reations, electrical impulses, and numerous other processes to maintain its life going on inside.

All of the explanations I have ever hear/read of how we got from single-celled organsims to multi-celled organisms involved simplifying the single-cell organisms by stating that randomly mutating multiple cells to work together turned out to be useful and the multi's eventually out-produced and out-competed the single's. Well, if that's so, why are the single's still around.

How about evolutionists! Can any of you guys explain how we go from single to multi without killing off all the singles? Or how the multi's came in to being in the first place?

Evolution lives or dies on the natural selection/out-complete-for-finite resourses concept. There is no evidence of how/why/when/where/with what circumstances this process took place. (If it did at all).

Quoted: You've dabbled in biology, and are now a self-proclaimed amateur.  That's the most dangerous kind of person--one who sticks his toe in the pool and proclaims "I know what it's like to swim across."

+1

"a little learning is a dangerous thing.  drink deep, or taste not the pierian spring."

Quoted: Kansas.... that figures.

Hey, I just work here to build airplanes. I'm grew up in the woods and lakes of Wisconsin. I caught my first adult snapping turtle with my bare hands when I was 10 and almost lost a toe in the process. I loved catching snapping turtles. They also make great soup!

Quoted: Quoted: Yeah, but evolution says EVERYTHING complex came from something NOT complex!!! Even the simplest lifeform is VERY complex.  Keep in mind that humans are made of billions, if not trillions of INDIVIDUAL cells.  It is the organization of the cells that gains complexity, not so much the cells themselves.   This is an excellent point, blacklisted, and I take back half the bad things I said about you and your theories! (But, you gotta admit, I still stomped your a** on the walking whale bone thing.) Yes, indeed, even the smallest single-cell living organsims are vastly complex with hundreds of simultaneous chemical reations, electrical impulses, and numerous other processes to maintain its life going on inside. All of the explanations I have ever hear/read of how we got from single-celled organsims to multi-celled organisms involved simplifying the single-cell organisms by stating that randomly mutating multiple cells to work together turned out to be useful and the multi's eventually out-produced and out-competed the single's. Well, if that's so, why are the single's still around. How about evolutionists! Can any of you guys explain how we go from single to multi without killing off all the singles? Or how the multi's came in to being in the first place? Evolution lives or dies on the natural selection/out-complete-for-finite resourses concept. There is no evidence of how/why/when/where/with what circumstances this process took place. (If it did at all).

There is a big hole in that area of microbiology.  How a bunch of chemicals became amino acids, then cells.  Until it can be replicated in a laboratory, it is all guesswork (just like the Big Bang, although you don't want to replicate that).  Look up the origin of mitochondria (why do they contain DNA?) and also note bacteria and viruses.  Mitochondria may have actually been bacteria at one point, but developed a symbiotic relationship with cells.  Bacteria are viruses are seperate from other single-celled lifeforms, because they are basically protected bags of RNA and their only purpose is to reproduce.  This is one area that I have not seen a satisfactory explanation of...yet.  

I am confident in saying I can not explain these things, and that I do not really care for an explanation.  I can say "they just are" and it doesn't bother me one bit.  

This is all I will say in this thread.

(Mitochondria are VERY interesting).

Quoted: You are right about the flu virus' constant mutation being adapation.  This is what I would call it.  However, adaptation can lead to evolution.   But how does the existance of creatures once thought extinct disprove evolution? Please clarify what you are saying, I'm a bit confused. Just because we dont fully understand it doesn't mean it can't happen.  Your statement about a virus turning into a mosquito makes me doubt that your "amateur biologist" skills are up to par.   There are plenty of species that are STILL AROUND and have been for millions of years.  They have not had to adapt to fit the environment, so evolution did not occur that much if it all.  There is nothing that says everything has to turn into something more complex.   ... With overwhelming scientific support for evolution, we are supposed to take the word of an "amateur biologist"?  Go get a PhD in biology and genetics and then come up with a well supported, peer-reviewed theory based on real evidence, then maybe I will take it seriously.  Either that, or stick to Aerospace Engineering.

I would give more credit to the Engineer if he knew how to spell coelacanth ("celicant").

But you see, the reappearance of the rat-squirrel (I like to call it "Scrat" after the critter in "Ice Age" ) is obviously the FSM deciding that it is time to repopulate the world with all of His creatures, which He created with his noodly appendage and which Man has destroyed over time.

I believe that next, we will see the "rediscovery" (really RESURRECTION!) of the dodo (no doubt in the form of an aerospace engineer devoted to flight systems development for flightless birds).

We should all go to Laos and worship Scrat, since Scrat is obviously proof that FSM exists and loves us despite our failings.

Quoted: I am sorry to break the news to you but animals evolve and change their DNA.

When a flower evolves into something that is more than a flower, let me know.
When a bird evolves into something that is more than a bird, let me know.
When a turtle evolves into something that is more than a turtle, let me know.
When a human evolves into something that is more than a human, let me know.
When a mushroom evolves into something that is more than a mushroom, let me know.
When a sunfish evolves into something that is more than a sunfish, let me know
When an apple tree evolves into something that is more than a apple tree, let me know.

GOT IT?

Stop bringing up some nanoscopic changes in DNA that do NOT change one organism into a new and different organism! Or, go through however many generations you need, but don't waste our time with stuff we already know.

I understand there are mutations and variations and adaptations that can occur in the DNA of any animal or plant. It is natural that changes occur. Those changes in DNA are essential for adaptation to take place. Adaptation does occur for survival, but does not create any new organisms. What is unnatural is when those changes CREATE a totally new species or type of animal or plant we have never seen before.


There has been no evidence of the evolution of an animal or plant  into anything unlike the original animal or plant.

And, some of you guys keep going after my credibility instead of debating the issue.

For crying out loud, you don't need 10 PhD's in biology to look at that uber-complexity and perfect organization of our world and say, "You know what, perhaps this isn't just the result of millions of billions of useful random mutations, maybe everything was made almost as we see it, with the ability  given to all organsims to adapt to certain changes in certain situations."

Quoted: Quoted: I am sorry to break the news to you but animals evolve and change their DNA. When a flower evolves into something that is more than a flower, let me know. When a bird evolves into something that is more than a bird, let me know. When a turtle evolves into something that is more than a turtle, let me know. When a human evolves into something that is more than a human, let me know. When a mushroom evolves into something that is more than a mushroom, let me know. When a sunfish evolves into something that is more than a sunfish, let me know When an apple tree evolves into something that is more than a apple tree, let me know. GOT IT? Stop bringing up some nanoscopic changes in DNA that do NOT change one organism into a new and different organism! Or, go through however many generations you need, but don't waste our time with stuff we already know. I understand there are mutations and variations and adaptations that can occur in the DNA of any animal or plant. It is natural that changes occur. Those changes in DNA are essential for adaptation to take place. Adaptation does occur for survival, but does not create anything new organisms. What is unnatural is when those changes CREATE a totally new species or type of animal or plant we have never seen before. There has been no evidence of the evolution of an animal or plant  into anything unlike the original animal or plant. And, some of you guys keep going after my credibility instead of debating the issue. For crying out loud, you don't need 10 PhD's in biology to look at that uber-complexity and perfect organization of our world and say, "You know what, perhaps this isn't just the result of millions of billions of useful random mutations, maybe everything was made almost as we see it, with the ability  given to all organsims to adapt to certain changes in certain situations."

The problem is you aren't looking at the  big picture.  Evolution takes hundreds/thousands of years, as DNA changes here a little bit there the organism is changing as well it takes time for it to happen.


We attack your credibility because you have no credibility.  If you were a biologist then it would be a different story.

Quoted: Quoted: Misspelling started with our expert "amateur",and carried on from there.If you aren't going to do basic research,you know,as fundamental as learning how to spell,I doubt your "findings" will pass muster with any "peer" review.Take care Told my son to stop hanging around the docks.I was afraid he might fall in with the wrong pier group! Don't be such a douche. We all make mistakes typing fast. YOU KNOW THAT! Sorry I offended you with my horrible typing skills.  And sorry for calling you a douche, but really, lighten up and don't hijack for spelling errors. Sheesh.

Lighten up Francis!

Hell,I'm a TERRIBLE typist.You were consistently spelling the same word wrong.Celicant/coelacanth.Big difference.

And by the way,I'm WAY more on your side than the other side.

Now just to fuel the fire:

Darwin was LOOKING for other explanations of the patterns and processes
he saw.In some of his writings,he basically said that if there was an object/item/structure that did not provide some advantage in its intermediate or transitional stages,it might throw his theory out the window.IE-things just don't pop up in their final form.

Some folks say the EYEBALL. Wish I could find the paper written on it,because I can't reacll the details.Seemed pretty damned persuasive at the time.And before you throw out the  fatcthat any light sensing organ was an advantage,all of that was addressed,and dismissed.I know a brief version was in theWashington Times a   few months ago.

Quoted: Quoted: I am sorry to break the news to you but animals evolve and change their DNA. When a flower evolves into something that is more than a flower, let me know. When a bird evolves into something that is more than a bird, let me know. When a turtle evolves into something that is more than a turtle, let me know. When a human evolves into something that is more than a human, let me know. When a mushroom evolves into something that is more than a mushroom, let me know. When a sunfish evolves into something that is more than a sunfish, let me know When an apple tree evolves into something that is more than a apple tree, let me know. GOT IT? Stop bringing up some nanoscopic changes in DNA that do NOT change one organism into a new and different organism! Or, go through however many generations you need, but don't waste our time with stuff we already know. I understand there are mutations and variations and adaptations that can occur in the DNA of any animal or plant. It is natural that changes occur. Those changes in DNA are essential for adaptation to take place. Adaptation does occur for survival, but does not create any new organisms. What is unnatural is when those changes CREATE a totally new species or type of animal or plant we have never seen before. There has been no evidence of the evolution of an animal or plant  into anything unlike the original animal or plant. And, some of you...

Well, the Archaeopteryx was a proto bird with traits of both reptile and bird.  It is quite obviously a transitional creature between the two.  Now we have birds.

I really didn't think this was even debated anymore.  Not among knowledgeable, intelligent people anyway.  

READ THIS POST!!!

Evolution #  Biology.   1. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.   2. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.

I would say your "nanoscopic" changes in DNA that change one species into another species are evolution by the accepted DEFINITION of evolution.  If you change the word to "adaptation" or something else it wont change anything (sort of like gay marriage and "civil unions")  Evolution does not mean one organism changing into something entirely different, or at least it doesn't to me.  It just means change over time.   Nothing says that it has to be a super radical change .

I know I said the post above was my last, but I just had to clarify this one detail.

Now that you know the definition of evolution, do you see why your argument seems odd to me?

Quoted: When a flower evolves into something that is more than a flower, let me know. When a bird evolves into something that is more than a bird, let me know. When a turtle evolves into something that is more than a turtle, let me know. When a human evolves into something that is more than a human, let me know. When a mushroom evolves into something that is more than a mushroom, let me know. When a sunfish evolves into something that is more than a sunfish, let me know When an apple tree evolves into something that is more than a apple tree, let me know. GOT IT?...

Yes.  You have strange ideas about what evolution is and what it is not.

Start here: www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext99/otoos610.txt

Quoted: Quoted: You've dabbled in biology, and are now a self-proclaimed amateur.  That's the most dangerous kind of person--one who sticks his toe in the pool and proclaims "I know what it's like to swim across." +1 "a little learning is a dangerous thing.  drink deep, or taste not the pierian spring."

+2

"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge" - Stephen Hawking

This is probably the wrong forum to be trying to put lipstick on the Intelligent Design Pig.

Quoted: I would give more credit to the Engineer if he knew how to spell coelacanth ("celicant").

Hey I never claimed to be an expert biologist, just an amateur biologist.

The issues and flaws of evolutionary rationalization I have raised still stand regardless of my ability to spell that damn fish that became extinct 11 million years ago.