"Yes, Susie, there is a Santa Claus"

[Hans Jaeger]

Conclusive proof of Darwin's Theory of Evolution...

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Missing-Link-Scientists-In-New-York-Unveil-Fossil-Of-Lemur-Monkey-Hailed-As-Mans-Earliest-Ancestor/Article/200905315284582?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15284582_Missing_Link%3A_Scientists_In _New_York_Unveil_Fossil_Of_Lemur_Monkey_Hailed_As_ Mans_Earliest_Ancestor

[CybrSlydr]

Holy ****.

Is this legit???

Going to do some digging...

[Mindwarp]

Hey, another piece of 'proof'. lol It just happened to be hanging in someones living room, covered in latex, then sold to people looking for exactly this type of 'fossil'.

lol:biglol:

[Nausicaa]

Actually evolution has been "prooven" long time ago, if any clown might still doubt that. We know that there are bacteria that feed on Nylon now..brandnew stuff. Interesting thing is that...we invented Nylon. This species of bacteria has appeared because we have put something in the world that didn't exist before. Evolution prooven, case closed.

[Mindwarp]

Actually evolution has been "prooven" long time ago, if any clown might still doubt that. We know that there are bacteria that feed on Nylon now..brandnew stuff. Interesting thing is that...we invented Nylon. This species of bacteria has appeared because we have put something in the world that didn't exist before. Evolution prooven, case closed.

No, actually that would be a mutation, it has nothing to do with evolving. The bacteria is still bacteria. Now show me that same bateria turning into a calico cat then I'll feign interest.

[CybrSlydr]

No, actually that would be a mutation, it has nothing to do with evolving. The bacteria is still bacteria. Now show me that same bateria turning into a calico cat then I'll feign interest.


I think you have your terms confused, Mind. Bacteria to calico cat? That's impossible in such a short period of time.

As stated in a previous thread, Evolution is a scientific fact - how it works is the question we are still unsure of.

[Ease]

... Evolution is a scientific fact ...

When was it changed from the "Theory of Evolution"?

[CybrSlydr]

When was it changed from the "Theory of Evolution"?



Ok - please read the thread by Snuffy called, "Nonsense, you say" for a whole slew of evolution info.

There was a whole thread devoted to just that on here where I cited numerous sources stating how theory in everyday use differs from that in a scientific context.

How Evolution is a scientific fact and the mechanics of HOW are the only part that could be construed as "theoretic".

[Ease]

Ok - are you trying to play ignorant?

There was a whole thread devoted to just that on here where I cited numerous sources stating how theory in everyday use differs from that in a scientific context.

How Evolution is a scientific fact and the mechanics of HOW are the only part that could be construed as "theoretic".

Nope.

Musta missed the thread where words were re-defined (kinda like Clinton's definition of oral sex), can you point me to it?

[CybrSlydr]

Nope.

Musta missed the thread where words were re-defined (kinda like Clinton's definition of oral sex), can you point me to it?

I forgot to mention it's in the religon sub-forum. Sorry for the ignorant bit. I just hate having to repeat myself - especially when what you posted was exactly what I replied to from someone else. LOL

And it's nothing like Clinton. Theory in a scientific context has always meant what it does. How it's commonly used has no bearing at all.

I'd post the link but my phone can't copy and paste yet.

[Ease]

...
Theory in a scientific context has always meant what it does. How it's commonly used has no bearing at all....

Must say I tend to disagree; awaiting the link. Thanks!

[CybrSlydr]

I'm on my phone at work and my phone can't copy and paste. The thread is by Snuffy and located on the first page of the sub-forum entitled, "Nonsense you say".

[Mindwarp]

I think you have your terms confused, Mind. Bacteria to calico cat? That's impossible in such a short period of time.

As stated in a previous thread, Evolution is a scientific fact - how it works is the question we are still unsure of.

Oh no no no no, my friend, I suggest that you check your notes. The whole basis of evolution is that random mutations over time will lead one species to change into another. That's called speciation, I call it junk science.

[CybrSlydr]

Come now, Mindwarp. Junk science?

Evolution is perfectly rational and logical.

What about Evolution makes it junk?

Nowhere in Evolution does it state that one creature will mutate into another. Evolution does not say that a dog, given enough time, will turn into a bird.

What Evolution states is that due to environmental influences and the purely random genetic makeup of the offspring of two creatures can give rise to a new species over a long enough timeline.

The vast majority of the time it results in minute changes wthin a species.

The fact that we share 99% of the same DNA as other creatures leans heavily in supprt of evolution from a single ancestor.

[Mindwarp]

Come now, Mindwarp. Junk science?

Evolution is perfectly rational and logical.

What about Evolution makes it junk?

Oh, I don't know. How about all the hoaxes, the circular reasoning that led to the so-called 'fossil record', rediculous 'artist interpretations', the rebuilding of an entire animal from a single bone.

The biggest issue that irks me though has to be that evolutionists are perfectly happy accepting the notion that life could spontaneously generate from a rock without any outside influence, guidance or manipulation.

I guess it comes down to a choice between a well-defined God and His teachings, and the evolutionary spiritless spaghetti-monster.

[CybrSlydr]

The biggest issue that irks me though has to be that evolutionists are perfectly happy accepting the notion that life could spontaneously generate from a rock without any outside influence, guidance or manipulation.



That is complete and utter bollocks!

Nowhere does Evolution state that life can result from mere rocks! Are you serious??

The idea is that back when this planet formed, the building blocks for life were here and via natural selection, the process that environmental factors favor a set of mutations over another, life as we know it eventually appeared.

[Ease]

I took it as hyperbole.

I've always wondered how we can "evolve" from single cell organisms in only a few billion years. Seems quite a leap. The idea of man evolving from apes is believable but a from a single celled organism?

[Nausicaa]

No, actually that would be a mutation, it has nothing to do with evolving. The bacteria is still bacteria. Now show me that same bateria turning into a calico cat then I'll feign interest.




Oh really? What else is evolution then if not "mutation"?

http://www.sf-film.dk/austinpowers/images/mini_me_dr_evil.jpg

[Blue Devil]

I took it as hyperbole.

I've always wondered how we can "evolve" from single cell organisms in only a few billion years. Seems quite a leap. The idea of man evolving from apes is believable but a from a single celled organism?

Belief systems are based on paradigms.

Many understand millions, ...buy have no concept of trillions.

We grow from a relatively small cluster of cells. (~500)

The human zygote-embryo-fetus development produces temporary physical characteristics of gills, flippers, and other species traits.

All life takes is the right constituency of basic gaseous elements, ...a spark, ...and time.

[Nausicaa]

The whole basis of evolution is that random mutationsover time will lead one species to change into another.

Oooops!! Bull**** Alert !! Honk!

http://www.zymetrical.com/images/products/bull****-alert-button.jpg



the rebuilding of an entire animal from a single bone.

More bull**** ! Honk Honk !! Alert !!

http://www.zymetrical.com/images/products/bull****-alert-button.jpg


that life could spontaneously generate from a rock

Supa dupa extra bull**** !! Honk Honk Honk !!

http://www.zymetrical.com/images/products/bull****-alert-button.jpg

[CybrSlydr]

As much as I agree with you, Naus, you don't help the discussion any with that kind of antagonizing stuff.

[Nausicaa]

I have no patience left Cybr. Blessed be yours -- I mean it.

[Nausicaa]

PS go ahead, I'll go painting. This is a waste of time. See you around dude.

[Mindwarp]

The fact that we share 99% of the same DNA as other creatures leans heavily in supprt of evolution from a single ancestor.

No, it simply means that it's more efficient to use code that already works than to try and reinvent the wheel.

And Nausicaa? Yeah, you fail miserably at debating. lol You have nothing to present yet are so sure of yourself, a true evolutionist!

[CybrSlydr]

Must say I tend to disagree; awaiting the link. Thanks!

Here's the thread.

http://quartermoonsaloon.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2435

[Nausicaa]

And Nausicaa? Yeah, you fail miserably at debating. lol You have nothing to present yet are so sure of yourself, a true evolutionist!

Last one then, just for you:

randomly mutated : never happened, has never been said or pretended

creating skeletons from a bone: never happened in science community, only in popular press

from a rock: has never been said by anyone. In matter of facts rocks can't create more life than a jar of peanut butter.

You could all that learn by yourself if you would do some real effort, instead of buying into creationist junk and those who create the propaganda of it.

Thats enough of me here, by folks! A long week end awaits me.

[Mindwarp]

Suddenly I'm in the mood to watch Dr. Dino.

[Mindwarp]

Last one then, just for you:

randomly mutated : never happened, has never been said or pretended

creating skeletons from a bone: never happened in science community, only in popular press

from a rock: has never been said by anyone. In matter of facts rocks can't create more life than a jar of peanut butter.

You could all that learn by yourself if you would do some real effort, instead of buying into creationist junk and those who create the propaganda of it.

Thats enough of me here, by folks! A long week end awaits me.

lol, you make it so easy.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC1aRandom.shtml

...mutations are random—whether a particular mutation happens or not is generally unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Man
Nebraska Man, a single tooth was used as a basis for an entire skeleton... and another HOAX!

As for the 'rock' issue, I don't even need google for that, just look at your own theory. The problem you have is that you stop when the going gets rough. Go back past the single cell, past the protein strains, past the amino acids, past the first molecule, all the way past the inert chemicals that supposedly just randomly started replicating. (lol, and Creationist are the ones being laughed at!) Before all that there were, according to evolutionist, just a bunch of rocks. lol

[CybrSlydr]

lol, you make it so easy.
As for the 'rock' issue, I don't even need google for that, just look at your own theory. The problem you have is that you stop when the going gets rough. Go back past the single cell, past the protein strains, past the amino acids, past the first molecule, all the way past the inert chemicals that supposedly just randomly started replicating. (lol, and Creationist are the ones being laughed at!) Before all that there were, according to evolutionist, just a bunch of rocks. lol

Indeed, you make it so easy.



In the natural sciences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_sciences), abiogenesis, or origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_on_Earth) could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution), which is the study of how groups of living things change over time. Amino acids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acid), often called "the building blocks of life", occur naturally, due to chemical reactions unrelated to life.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein), and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleic_acid). Thus the question of how life on Earth originated is a question of how the first nucleic acids arose.


The first living things on Earth are thought to be single cell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicellular) prokaryotes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prokaryote). The oldest ancient fossil microbe-like objects are dated to be 3.5 Ga (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annum#Multiples_of_an_.22annum.22) (billion years old), just a few hundred million years younger than Earth itself.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#cite_note-Wilde2001-0)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#cite_note-Schopf2002-1) By 2.4 Ga, the ratio of stable isotopes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes) of carbon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon), iron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron) and sulfur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur) shows the action of living things on inorganic minerals and sediments[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#cite_note-Hayes2006-2)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#cite_note-Archer2006-3) and molecular biomarkers indicate photosynthesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis), demonstrating that life on Earth was widespread by this time.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#cite_note-4)[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#cite_note-5)
On the other hand, the exact sequence of chemical events that led to the first nucleic acids is not known. Several hypotheses about early life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_life) have been proposed, most notably the iron-sulfur world theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron-sulfur_world_theory) (metabolism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolism) without genetics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics)) and the RNA world hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis) (RNA life-forms).

It sounds like your understanding of how things started is incorrect.

[Mindwarp]

lol all you do Cybr is post walls of text copied from the web yet you refuse to do exactly what you accuse others of not doing.

Evolution is inseperable from the beginning of time. The whole concept of evolution is lost on you as you can't comprehend that time is meshed with the theory and as such, you have to go with time where-ever it leads you. When you go back through the theory towards where it starts, you have to get to the beginning. Why else would evolutionists mock creationist if it weren't for the notion of 'in the beginning'?!

You can't have one without the other, if you believe in evolution you have to take it far back, right to the beginning. Otherwise the theory is useless on it's own as it explains nothing as to how it ever begin in the first place.

[CybrSlydr]

I posts those "walls of text" because they say, more often than not, exactly what I have come to find and they say it much better than I could. Much more succinctly.

Just because it's copied and pasted doesn't mean that I haven't thought about things - those ARE my contributions to the discussion.

Of course Evolution is inseperable from the beginning of time. "In the beginning" - the main body of thought is that every single piece of matter (and just so we're clear, matter is anything with mass and volume) was compressed in an infinitely small space. For some reason, it expanded outward. From this expansion, all the planets, galaxies, stars, etc were formed. In this giant soup of stuff was what we are made of. You can't create matter or destroy it. Therefore, those itty-bitty parts that make us up were present "In the beginning".

Evolution does not break down the farther back in time you go, Mindwarp.

[Blue Devil]

lol all you do Cybr is post walls of text copied from the web yet you refuse to do exactly what you accuse others of not doing.

Evolution is inseperable from the beginning of time. The whole concept of evolution is lost on you as you can't comprehend that time is meshed with the theory and as such, you have to go with time where-ever it leads you. When you go back through the theory towards where it starts, you have to get to the beginning. Why else would evolutionists mock creationist if it weren't for the notion of 'in the beginning'?!

You can't have one without the other, if you believe in evolution you have to take it far back, right to the beginning. Otherwise the theory is useless on it's own as it explains nothing as to how it ever begin in the first place.

You have overlooked a small detail...

Thinking that the sum total of all our library of material knowledge even registers on the cosmological material/energy list.

You are thinking small...

There are 425 BILLION square LIGHT-YEARS in this little piece of space alone...

...and this is just a little bit of it.

Think outside this box.

Are you really going to find an old guy with a beard...?

[bzhyoyo]

you know, I'm with Naus here Cybr, no patience left with people with limited comprehension of what is posted here by you. They don't want to change their beliefs, period. For some, they're not even interested in learning how the theory of Evolution works. So debate is futile, pissing in the wind, etc...

[Mindwarp]

you know, I'm with Naus here Cybr, no patience left with people with limited comprehension of what is posted here by you. They don't want to change their beliefs, period. For some, they're not even interested in learning how the theory of Evolution works. So debate is futile, pissing in the wind, etc...

lol, your guys are just pissed because we understand the theory better than you do LOL In the three seperate threads I'm following here, we've had to set you evolvers straight numerous times on what exactly the terms you through around actually mean. The craziest being that speciation is not evolution but that evolution can lead to new species...yes, that's quite the understanding you people have there. lol.

You're nothing but a bunch of wiki copy-and-pasters with no skill to comprehend so to cover up the inadequecies you state your frustration at how little WE know. lol

[Nausicaa]

Lol, and that coming from a guy who "chooses" in science what is convenient for him.

You are just another intellectual dishonest spindoctor, Mindwarp, transforming cowardice into some kind of heroic Alamo.

I can't believe I actually waste my time talking to a creationist, the AGW deniers on this forum are already hard enough to bare. Have a good day :thumbs up:

[Snuffy]

I can't believe I actually waste my time talking to a creationist, the AGW deniers on this forum are already hard enough to bare. Have a good day :thumbs up:

Me either ... Bye. don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

[Nausicaa]

I didnt say I would give you the pleasure of leaving. YOU are still on my list of torture by BS busting Snuffy. ;)

[Mindwarp]

Lol, and that coming from a guy who "chooses" in science what is convenient for him.

You are just another intellectual dishonest spindoctor, Mindwarp, transforming cowardice into some kind of heroic Alamo.

I can't believe I actually waste my time talking to a creationist, the AGW deniers on this forum are already hard enough to bare. Have a good day :thumbs up:

Aww, now you're butt-hurt because you lost the debate. lol

One day you'll learn that there's a difference between evaluating what science puts fourth and blindly accepting what it puts fourth...WAIT!!!!!! Isn't 'blindly accepting' what God-haters lament about Creationists?? lol

[Nausicaa]

Yeah right, Mindwarp. Get a life. :emot-angel:

[Ease]

I didnt say I would give you the pleasure of leaving. YOU are still on my list of torture by BS busting Snuffy. ;)

Snuffy, how's it feel, being on Nausicaa's BS list? :ugly25:

[Snuffy]

Snuffy, how's it feel, being on Nausicaa's BS list? :ugly25:

Oh its killing us ... it hurts us ... takes it off us ... it burns us ... :dead:

[Hans Jaeger]

Evolution is not some logical process; it takes place because certain small variations give an organism a better chance to survive, reproduce, and pass on a successful variation to progeny. The whole thing is quite simple really, and eminently comprehensible because it makes sense.

Quibbles about terminology - 'speciation' (for example), or randomness - don't impact the sense of what the mechanism is.

The main thing that gets in the way for some people is the dogged desire to hang on to a religious context that cannot abide a challenge to the faith that an all-powerful being created things as they are.

But to my mind, if there is a God, that can be perfectly integrated too. God created the equivalent of a wind up toy that can run in circles, or get someplace, or fall off a cliff, whatever. He wound it up and it's the motion, the development and the change that's the fascinating thing.

It makes sense to me that God would be more interested in what develops than in what the original creation was, if you accept the idea that he also created the mechanism for change.

[Panthera Pardus Nigresco]

Some of you have received a PM from me...

[Mindwarp]

Evolution is not some logical process; it takes place because certain small variations give an organism a better chance to survive, reproduce, and pass on a successful variation to progeny. The whole thing is quite simple really, and eminently comprehensible because it makes sense.

ho-boy...it's not logical but it makes sense. lol

I swear evolutionists don't understand their own theory. Those 'small variations' are called mutations, those mutations lead to speciation. Anyone who argues differently is ignorant of the theory of evolution and has no concept of the so-called 'tree of life'.

From muddy chemicals to animal kingdom we have now, speciation is the basis of that stupid theory.

[Hans Jaeger]

ho-boy...it's not logical but it makes sense. lol

Logical, meaning that you can predict what somes next.

I'm not surprised that you feign not to get the rest either.

[Mindwarp]

lol

It's curious that now that we've succesfully demonstrated what speciation is and how it ties into the theory of evolution, you dismiss it as a 'quibble', which it most certainly is not. We've provided documented proof as to what the theory surmisses yet our statements are claimed to be made out of ignorance.

Over and over again in this thread we've had to school some of you as to what exactly evolution proposes only to be met with more contradictions from the 'evolutionists' here.

:ugly25:

[Hans Jaeger]

It's curious that now that we've succesfully demonstrated what speciation is...


You're hanging your hat on this?

Have you read "Origin of Species"? I have, within the past year. Recently, I have also finally gotten my own copy of "Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature" by Thomas H. Huxley, but have not yet read it. However, I know what it's about and it complements Darwin's work.

Here's a summation of Darwin's theory that saves me the (wasted) time of coming up with something similar...


Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, published 24 November 1859, is a seminal work of scientific literature considered to be the foundation of evolutionary biology. Its full title was On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. For the 6th edition of 1872, the short title was changed to The Origin of Species. Darwin's book introduced the theory that populations evolve over the course of generations through a process of natural selection, and presented a body of evidence that the diversity of life arose through a branching pattern of evolution and common descent. This included evidence that he had accumulated on the voyage of the Beagle in the 1830s, and his subsequent findings from research, correspondence, and experimentation.

Various evolutionary ideas had already been proposed to explain new findings in biology. There was growing support for such ideas among dissident anatomists and the general public, but during the first half of the 19th century the English scientific establishment was closely tied to the Church of England, and science was part of natural theology. Ideas about the transmutation of species were controversial as they conflicted with the beliefs that species were unchanging parts of a designed hierarchy and that humans were unique, unrelated to animals. The political and theological implications were intensely debated, but transmutation was not accepted by the scientific mainstream.

The book was written to be read by non-specialists, and it attracted widespread interest on its publication. Darwin's eminence as a scientist meant that his findings had to be taken seriously, and the evidence he presented generated scientific, philosophical, and religious discussion. Within two decades this led to widespread scientific agreement that evolution with a branching pattern of common descent had occurred. The debate over the book contributed to the campaign by T.H. Huxley and his fellow members of the X-club to secularize science by promoting scientific naturalism. Scientists were slow to give natural selection the significance that Darwin thought appropriate, and during the eclipse of Darwinism various other mechanisms of evolution were given more credit. With the modern evolutionary synthesis of the 1930s and 1940s Darwin's concept of evolutionary adaptation through natural selection became central to modern evolutionary theory, which is the unifying concept of the life sciences.

Darwin's theory is based on key facts and inferences drawn from them, which biologist Ernst Mayr summarised as follows:

* Every species is fertile enough that if all offspring survived to reproduce the population would grow (fact).
* Despite periodic fluctuations, populations remain roughly the same size (fact).
* Resources such as food are limited and are relatively stable over time (fact).
* A struggle for survival ensues (inference).
* Individuals in a population vary significantly from one another (fact).
* Much of this variation is inheritable (fact).
* Individuals less suited to the environment are less likely to survive and less likely to reproduce; individuals more suited to the environment are more likely to survive and more likely to reproduce and leave their inheritable traits to future generations, which produces the process of natural selection (inference).
* This slowly effected process results in populations changing to adapt to their environments, and ultimately, these variations accumulate over time to form new species (inference).

Congratulate yourself that you are at leat 150 years behind the times.