So, what's the general consensus here on evolution?

[sgreger1]

Shikitohno, that was beautiful. Exactly what I was thinking but didn't want to write out lol.

"irreducible complexity is a word that sounds scientific, but basically means "We don't know how it works, so it's probably magic."" <--- classic

People tend to think evolution is linear, as in fish then mammals then birds then monkeys then humans. This is not so, it's about random mutations and whichever so happens to end up with the species living longer and procreating gets passed on, so naturally over time this breeds a gene pool of the "fittest". Not that difficult.

[Darwin]

The fossil record is more than sufficient to prove that evolution has been happening for two billion years but we only have actual fossils of an extremely tiny percentage of the millions of species that have come and gone during that time. Fossilization is a mercurial process that requires some very special circumstances to occur and without doubt most species that existed, especially the smaller varieties, have not been discovered or were never fossilized in the first place. Transitional forms, critters that changed environments for example, would have fossilized hundreds of millions of years ago and as tectonically active as the earth has been there has occured a lot of subsequent turnover and subduction of much of the earth's surface in that time which would have destroyed what fossils existed in them.

There are a few fossils that suggest major transitions such as Pederpes finneyae from the late Devonian that indicate an animal that might have been able to live in the water and on land at the same time. This fossil is from the period after the Devonian, called Romer's Gap, in which fossils are nearly non-existent. This suggests that the earth's surface was in serious turmoil around that time and this may have in fact been the spur that urged some animals onto the land if sea conditions were sufficiently hostile. We can't really know for sure of course but it's not really all that important. The transition did happen and there were likely millions of years of animal experimentation, mostly lost to the vagaries of the fossilization process, that eventually resulted in animals populating land masses.

All you need is time. Lots and lots of time. Geologists call such vast gulfs "deep time" and we humans have difficulty, extreme difficulty, in really appreciating the billions of years of the earth's age and the incredibly long progression of evolution. If you insist on having the finger of God stabbing out at some tiny point or other in this ocean of time and saying "Bazinga! Let there be bacteria, or dinosaurs, or human beans, then knock yourself out but that will require faith in anything but science. Sure we don't know all the details, and we never will, but we know enough of them to have definitively observed that the process has taken place.

[justintempler]

Link: Unscientific American: US Almost Last in Understanding Evolution

Sad.

[bsd777]

I suspect what Scientific American means is the US is the least accepting of the theory. It's really not hard to understand the premise.

I'm not interested in reading or posting a book right now, which is why I suggested further reading. No, I think any genius is capable of researching, debating and publishing their findings on this topic. Maybe one of your geniuses could debate Stein or Coulter? I would be surprised if either avoided the chance to ask a genius with a degree in rocks or fossils, where are they? I mean, we don't have a single one, but we are convinced? Evolution is certainly logical, but apparently requires a bit of faith too.

[Darwin]

"While we're at this - are we the only animals that murder others of the same species on a regular basis?"

Nope not even close. Many large and small mammals, mostly predators, and an endless array of reptiles and sea creatures cheerfully eliminate young'uns of the same species.

[bsd777]

the NIKKEI is down 430 points. tomorrow is going to be ugly. good night gentlemen.

[Roo]

If God created Man in his likeness to carry out is vision, why did He wait a few billion years to even create a simple organism? If we are to believe the Bible, that God created animals for the benefit of Man, then what of the fact that 100% of physical evidence that man and dinosaur (or much earlier lifeforms) coexisted refutes such silly ideas? Is that a stumbling block for intelligent designers or do you just ignore it? And for those who are skeptical of evolution because you personally have not seen evidence within your comparatively infinitesimal lifetime, er...., how can I put this lightly? I can't.

[sgreger1]

I suspect what Scientific American means is the US is the least accepting of the theory. It's really not hard to understand the premise.

I'm not interested in reading or posting a book right now, which is why I suggested further reading. No, I think any genius is capable of researching, debating and publishing their findings on this topic. Maybe one of your geniuses could debate Stein or Coulter? I would be surprised if either avoided the chance to ask a genius with a degree in rocks or fossils, where are they? I mean, we don't have a single one, but we are convinced? Evolution is certainly logical, but apparently requires a bit of faith too.

Bsd man, your not helping your argument here. First of all, as mentioned before, the fossils do exist, though in short number. The reason is because these things happened over millions of years, almost nothing lasts that long unless they die just in the right place at the right time, compound that with the fact that we haven't looked very deep underground in our excavations and have covered less than .001% of the earth as far as digging for fossils. There is evidence of it happening currently, there are fossils to back up that it happened in the past, genome sequencing further corroborates the story, I mean this is the only theory with ANY evidence. Intelligent design has 0 evidence and yet you would choose that before a theory that at least has a lot of evidence behind it. Like the earth being round, we didn't have to send someone to space to prove it, we had enough evidence for a thousand years, but eventually we were able to fly off the planet and prove it. That is just like evolution, we know it's happening and even have some (a lot of) evidence, and someday it will be undeniable.

[Darwin]

Tomorrow might be ugly but a drop of 430 on the Nikkei is about the same as a drop of about a third that much on the NYSE. Big but hardly catastrophic.

[sgreger1]

If God created Man in his likeness to carry out is vision, why did He wait a few billion years to even create a simple organism? If we are to believe the Bible, that God created animals for the benefit of Man, then what of the fact that 100% of physical evidence that man and dinosaur (or much earlier lifeforms) coexisted refutes such silly ideas? Is that a stumbling block for intelligent designers or do you just ignore it? And for those who are skeptical of evolution because you personally have not seen evidence within your comparatively infinitesimal lifetime, er...., how can I put this lightly? I can't.

Not in ANY way backing up intelligent design here, but I would imagine if there were a god than time would not be relevant to him, and if he made us in his image it would make sense. I mean he is a creator, and what do we do, we create. Animals simply consume from the world around them, we (in a very short time period) have developed computers and other things and created video games and other structures in which we control something else after creating it's existence out of thin air. We are obsessed with creating. Like a videogame, the character is there and we control him, we control what the general game is about etc etc. Seems plausible but again it could never be proven even in the slightest because by the inherent nature of this simulation we are living in, there is no evidence.

I mean think about it, if we created a video game with super intelligent AI, and the characters pretty much went about their business in a world which we pre-programmed to act a certain way, would they ever ask the question "did someone create us?" yah probably, but they could never find any evidence because they exist in the cordoned off software environment we have provided for them. The whole concept of faith is that there is no proof whatsoever but it just "feels right". To me a god "feels right" but I never state it as an absolute since there is 0 evidence to back that up. I mean after thousands of year, absolutely nothing, no intervention no anything to actually lead to the conclusion that any of this is happening in an "intelligent" way.

[Darwin]

[QUOTE someday it will be undeniable.[/QUOTE]

It's undeniable today, strictly on the evidence, but believing otherwise has nothing to do with the scientific method so such a belief can continue indefinitely--and will.

[Roo]

Dude you play too many video games

[AtreyuKun]

I guess you've just got to have faith that it is. Sounds like a religion to me.

Why do christians always go back to that one? Does saying that somehow validate your own argument?

[sgreger1]

Dude you play too many video games

Are you and my wife sharing your talking points memo or something? Lol

[justintempler]

The more complex something is, the more that it shows a lack of intelligence.
Intelligence simplifies and streamlines processes, it does not make them more complex.
So the more complex something is the less likely that some omnipotent and all knowing god did it.