maybe so but perhaps your vocab teacher did!!!

Actually, Kuotomonk, today's monkeys would be insulted by being compared to your ancestors! They have come so far!

LOL! Will there be a movie next? How about a video game?

Nope. I don't fall for this artistic pseudo-science.

Who says you came from monkeys (or apes) ? Evolution only states that we both derived from a similar branch a long time ago..so we had a common ancestor, but no one suggests that humans came from monkeys or apes. In fact, if you keep going back in time, we most likely all derived from rodent like mammals. What humans constantly forget is that we are animals..

You are right because we didnt evolve from monkeys, A fish would be more close to all species beginnings. Monkeys didnt just come into being and then we evolved from them. Your statement comes from a complete lack of understanding of what evolution is.

scurran007,

an ancestor of an ape/chimp/primate would look like a primate. therefore the statement that we came from 'apes' is reasonable, and not out of line.

even evolutionary scientists agree to this point.

This display will make Republicans and the Religious community very angry. As angry as when it was test time at school!

Clearly, "little caesar" and Kuatomonk have been devolving over the eons into the greasy, pathetic and slimy little rodents they are now.

But how do you KNOW they are democrats?

Oh for goodness sakes people!

1)Evolution is a Theory and this is exactly why it's not a religion. Scientist don't make a claim and simply stop looking and ignore everything else that exists (religion). A perfect example is Newton's THEORY of gravity. Newton's theory gave us much more understanding of the forces of gravity then before his time. With this better understanding we were able to develope technologies and form hypothesis that delv deeper into the subject. Einstien came along and CHALLENGED Newton's theory with the General Theory of Relativity. It wasn't that Newton was wrong about most of his findings it was that Einstien was able to reform and develped upon the subject of gravity so that we now have BETTER understanding of it. I'm tired of both sides wording Scientific Theory wrong. A theroy consists of facts, but is subject to progression or even change when new EVIDENCE and understanding become present. For this reason Evolution becomes stronger by the years as the infallible unchanging word of god keeps getting closer to "Aesop's Fables" on the bookshelf.

2)@ jackle64: What you're referring to, when it comes to racism, is Social Darwinism and was organized by people just as ignorant of the subject of evolution as you are. Evolution never claims a progression of an improved species. What it does claim is that certain traits can be improved upon through natural selection and can have benificiary results in relation to its ENVIRONMENT. Which is exactly why polar bears do so well with taundra and panda bears do so well with bamboo. It is possible for humans to split into two different species if given enough time and isolation as well as environmental pressure. This isn't likely since we are a global species and a global migrater, but even then, a species is only as good as its ability to deal with its environment and competitors. It has nothing to do with anything else that has nothing to do with it's environment. If you ask me, the species that all mighty walking life should really fear is the single celled.

3) @Kuatomonk: tell your grandma(of the 125,000 power) to put a bra on and take her meds. She's embarrassing herself ;P

It was sarcasm folks. I actually had a guy say this to me once, and pictured him saying it again if he read this article.

I assure you I understand that evolution simply means that things change over time, and that we've always been "human", we just used to be a lot shorter, and more hairy among other things.

Skepology,

I passed your comment along to my grandmother, she said "If you've got it, flaunt it!"

Ya!! bring on the creationists!!

I could go into all the evidence about how flawed your reasoning is, but I know that you'd just call me a "Bible thunmpin hater."

nerdo, you have no 'evidence' only a fairy tale book referred to as the bible.

theactingnerd - Your evidence is non-sense, guaranteed. May be you should just keep making Jesus riding on dinosaurs dioramas.

-theactingnerd,

It's pretty clear that you can't go into "all the evidence" at all. But by all means - run to any one of the scientific journals and present "all the evidence" there. I'll pop some popcorn.

Looks like the DNCC the morning of Nov 3 !

Nope WW3COMIN...This was the Repugnican community on Jan. 20, 2009.

Wrong - these are WW3COMIN's Facebook friends (and all of them are better looking then he is).

Nothing like a good science argument to bring out the beast in republicans. Either believe the world is flat and was tossed into the cosmos like a frisbee from some super sized giant extreme frisbee champion that looks just like us only bigger . OR........ your a liberal . lol .

" I know the earth is round for I have seen its shadow on the moon and I have more faith in a shadow than I do the queens God ."

C. Columbus

So that's what happens when you don't shave your underarms.

I noticed that too! I find it especially racist that the modern man is white, it also flies in the face of the science these people are portending to follow. The science shows modern man began in africa, it stands to reason white people are a mutation that happened after they went to europe, so clearly the modern man should be an african. But on the Jew thing, I have to tell you, that is a religion, not a race. There are black Jews, white Jews, oriental Jews...you get the idea.

oh, and the bible does not fly in the face of science. The ocean life and lower animals are created first, man last, sounds like evolution to me. The problem comes when people fail to understand that some parts of the bible are symbolic.

Oh yeah, but you KNOW everything. how can you ? your just an ape or mammal, so dont need to listen to you ya freak.

I think that this is a difficult choice no matter how it is made. Choose a black man for the modern human and people would complain, why no whites, pick an Asian and people would ask why no blacks or whites. Since most of the scientific evidence yet discovered points to an African Origin for our species, black would be the most common answer. Then we come to the discussion: what kind of black? Dark black, medium black, light black, dark brown. As I see it there are no right answers and we just leave it to the artists conception of the process and hope that it leads to a more in depth discussion of the issues.

Any discussion of color is idiotic. Does color indicate intelligence? Does color indicate anything? All of the figures in the photo represent hominids, The first hominids may have been darker because they developed nearer the equator. All that says is that darker skin is a biologic safety mechanism against over exposure to the sun. As they moved into colder climates, their color lightened to allow for more access to the sun's rays. How can even the simple minded take that as an indication that one color is superior to any other? Bigotry, like religion, interferes with our development. The sooner our species realizes this, the faster we will move forward. Accurate or not, it does give a vision of what might have been.

"Outside of mathematics, nothing can be proven."

There are only a few TRUE / HARD SCIENCES, for example: Laws of PHYSICS, APPLIED MATHEMATICS, CHEMISTRY, and to some extent MICROBIOLOGY. "Hard" proof can also be found in STATISTICAL ANALYSIS.

These sciences can be measured, defined, and repeatable experiments can verify it. For example, these are sciences that Engineers use on a daily basis to invent, modify, manipulate, and improve all types of devices around us.

"Soft" science is evidence that is gained through systematic study or observation. Anthropology, Geology, general Biology, Botany (non molecular), etc.

According to the above listed, "hard' sciences: EVOLUTION IS PHYSICALLY, MATHEMATICALLY, STATISTICALLY, AND INTELLECTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

What do you mean, God's not real? He's the one in front with the rock!

all the evidence is obvious , existence and all , it is self evident. all the math and the scinces all the things you all mention, that should be proof enough. Jesus is in a way a form of revealing the invisible image of God and He also dubbed the Second Adam. he is what we become, like a caterpillar getting a glimpse of itself becoming a butterfly. Sin caused death and resulted in the 'decay" , natural processes are the evidence of a Creator and there is ressurection and regeneration and seeds that grow plants they die and reform again , etc. But all of the natural world groans because of sin, Jesus set us free the slavery of sin, wars, murder, strife, rape adultery death, etc etc. Ultimately we are not evolving but rather degressing in a form of erosion , man and nature is dying off and extinction is imminent, lest Christ rose from the dead and was and is God Himself showing His everlasting authority over the natural world. He conquered death. Mock all you want , but there is more than eyes can see and Jesus is coming again, the world will be judged and the blood of the Lamb Christ Lord Jesus is all that saves us. If Jesus is religion to you , then what you see is what you get, go yell at all Buddhists and Hindus and Muslims , we persecute just the Bible thumpers? Probably becasue the only threat to your lies is the truth, the Law came through Moses but grace and truth through Christ. though the world was made through Him the world did not recognize Him. He is the light of the world shining like a city on a hill but the world loves the darkness. he is light that shines in the darkness but the darkness dont understand it.

How do you know? Please tell us your presuppositions?

"I will laugh so hard when all proof has been presented and religious nuts have no choice but to agree."

And just when do you think that will happen?

Evolution? No problem with it, except when it comes to humans. Hard to believe that one species, and a rather weak one at that, is so far above all other creatures in terms of thinking capabilities and people choose to believe man wasn't created.

Actually Evolution is a FACT not a theory anymore. It the religious that use the term Theory. The religious can believe what they want. Nothing will change their mind even in the face all all the data proving evolution.

Skeptical we didnt evolve from monkeys, the ape/monkey is just a branch in out evoloution to our present form. I really hate it when people say we evolved from monkeys because it entails that monkeys spontaniously came into being then we evolved, We evolved from the little fishies, and other creatures that predated them.

skeptical,

in case you dont know (and you apparently dont) there is absolutely no 'proof' of evolution.

no person or group of peoples came from monkeys. ever.

your 'evolutionary theory' is not only way off-base, it has done more harm to 'tolerance' than anything else. again, ever.

do you truly believe in evolution? then tell me, which group of peoples are lowest and least evolved? evolution is not a new belief, nor was Darwin, et al. the first to propose such. evolution (in so many words) is nothing more than humanism. it creates division, strife and angst amongst the peoples and furthers the cause of racism in all it's heinous arrogance. (and no group is less developed than another)

perhaps you should lay off the evolutionary kool-aid and actually study for yourself instead of listening to the socialist educators that pass (somehow) for univerity professors these days.

your arrogance is a shame, as there is a God who created all. you will meet Him as well. face to face.

Jackel64...

You're funny ;-)

You know what actually separates us from the other great apes? Art and a complex written language. We have a far greater long term memory than other apes but we have a far poorer short term memory.

btw,

"lucy's" bones were discovered in an area covering two miles. it was not a single skeleton. she never existed. it was manufactured to further the cause.

but, of course you knew that already, right?

Actually, the mental gymnastics you go through to imply man did not follow the same process as all other living things is far more extraordinary. If you don't believe man evolved as all other life, what evidence can you cite? If something seems hard for you to believe about evolution– such as man evolving from ancestors over time into the smartest ape of them all– why invoke an ever harder to fathom solution? To have man placed by a supreme being that, presumably, is the most complicated being or thing to have ever existed, is a massive stretch. Especially without a shred of evidence.

I completely sympathize with people's tendency to not believe we are a product of the same processes, due to our apparent mental superiority. But when you take the time to read the summarized evidence for all evolution, as presented by your favorite biologist, it is really hard to ignore the hard facts. I have read a couple, and the many facets of evidence are incredibly strong.

Remember, evolution has occurred since the first primordial ooze. Evolution happens over generations, and it kick started on Earth several billion years ago. Sure, it's taken a crazy amount of time to get to this point. But that just makes the results– and the appreciation we should have for our planet and our fellow man, all the more important. We are special. And if you think about it, it's more amazing that we ended up at our current state as a product of Evolution than it is by placement by a supreme being.

The developmental changes to our brains are extremely slight compared to chimps. A few small genetic changes are all that is necessary to get from a chimp brain to a human. Of course we didn't evolve from chimps, but the example is still a powerful one.

jackel64

Chimps are actually far more evolved than we are. Perhaps you should learn a little bit about the science before you start debating it.

pirate,

no, we didnt.

nobody did.

there never has been, nor will there be anyone or anything 'evolving' from one creature to another. there is such a thing as 'speciation' as darwin's finches clearly demonstrate, but the information was present in the dna so the birds could adapt to changes. they are still birds, and have never changed into a fish, dog, mouse or anything else.

life cannot ever be caused or generated by non-life. ever.

there is absolutely no chance that protiens could have spontaneously formed in a "primordial soup" the water would prevent the necessary bonding. it could never occur.

you evolutionists will have to go back to the drawing board and figure out another lie to believe in, as this one has been disproven in a varitey of 'sciences'

"it has done more harm to 'tolerance' than anything else."

"which group of peoples are lowest and least evolved?"

Statements such as these indicate that you have only a vague and inaccurate understanding of what evolution actually portends. This is common among denialists. The idea of eugenics is based on a faulty misunderstanding of Darwin that was applied to fascist ideas of superiority. If understood properly, biological evolution cannot be used to support eugenics. It would be the same as using Jesus as a reason to kill.

There is no least evolved people. There is no least evolved creature. All modern creatures are fully evolved. You must abandon the simplistic notion of evolution working across some finite continuum. Evolution occurs when there is a selective pressure. Organisms can gain traits, lose traits, completely change, or remain unchanged. An organism that remains unchanged is "perfectly evolved" for its niche. Therefore, it is problematic to ask the question that you asked about who is the least evolved. By what measure? Should we measure the length of a stride, the color of the hair, the resistance to disease - which disease? All of these traits and many more, come with pros and cons that must be measured only against the environment in which the person (or creature) exists. You couldn't therefore compare a mouse to a human in order to know which is more highly evolved. You could measure the differences in genomes, but that only measures difference, not the fitness of the evolved form.

You have a long way to go in understanding evolution before you are qualified to comment on its validity.

jackle64 said: "in case you dont know (and you apparently dont) there is absolutely no 'proof' of evolution."

other than the bible, written by humans, I've not seen any *proof* that God simply plopped Adam and Eve next to that darn apple tree. so I guess we have a stalemate

"there is absolutely no chance that protiens could have spontaneously formed in a "primordial soup" the water would prevent the necessary bonding. it could never occur."

Ok, among all of your made up facts, this one is laughable. What experience do you have working with amino acids, peptides and proteins? Before you answer, I know it is none. This is a provably false assertion and one that I am qualified to comment on. It seems that the basis for all of your denial is that you personally can't bring yourself to look at the facts. You are just saying things cannot be when they most certainly can and are. Personal incredulity is not a position to argue from. Facts are where you want to be basing your arguments. Unfortunately for you, you came late to the fact buffet. The scientists have all of them on their plates already. All that is left is unfounded rumor, myth, and falsehoods.

radagast

Thank You

if we came fom monkeys...why are there still monkeys ? oh yea...the supposed "missing link "...what a joke

",,.life cannot ever be caused or generated by non-life. ever." So by that logic "Creationism" is nonsense since it requires "God" to create life from non-life.

I actually get sort of depressed when I read the comments of evolution deniers. I suppose this only means that we can expect American unexceptionalism in politics a la Sarah Palin, Christine, O'Donnell, and Tom Tancredo to continue for some time to come.

"Outside of mathematics, nothing can be proven."

There are only a few TRUE / HARD SCIENCES, for example: Laws of PHYSICS, APPLIED MATHEMATICS, CHEMISTRY, and to some extent MICROBIOLOGY. "Hard" proof can also be found in STATISTICAL ANALYSIS.

These sciences can be measured, defined, and repeatable experiments can verify it. For example, these are sciences that Engineers use on a daily basis to invent, modify, manipulate, and improve all types of devices around us.

"Soft" science is evidence that is gained through systematic study or observation. Anthropology, Geology, general Biology, Botany (non molecular), etc.

According to the above listed, "hard' sciences: EVOLUTION IS PHYSICALLY, MATHEMATICALLY, STATISTICALLY, AND INTELLECTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

According to the above listed, "hard' sciences: EVOLUTION IS PHYSICALLY, MATHEMATICALLY, STATISTICALLY, AND INTELLECTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

Says who? You?

probably a liberal,

this is a reprint from an article in C.M.I.:

For life to begin through the random shuffling of chemicals in a primordial soup, many exceedingly unlikely events must take place. Not just one, but many particular combinations of molecules must be formed. The probability of just one protein forming from amino acids is tiny. The probability of many forming is too small to be considered credible. Let's have a look at a few simple calculations.

As everyone knows, the probability of tossing a coin and it landing 'heads up' is 1 in 2 (i.e. 0.5). The probability of two coins landing 'heads up' is 1 in 4 (i.e. 0.5² = 0.25). The probability of three coins landing 'heads up' is 1 in 8 (i.e. 0.5³ = 0.125). The probability of a hundred coins landing 'heads up' is 0.5¹⁰⁰, that is around 1 in 10³⁰. (10³⁰ is 1 followed by 30 zeroes.) A similar calculation might be made for amino acids forming proteins (the building blocks of life).

Amino acids (except the simplest, glycine) come in two forms—'left-handed' and 'right-handed'. This is known as chirality (see diagram, right). For a number of amino acids to form a functional protein, they must all be like-handed (or homochiral). In actual fact, proteins in living organisms have all left-handed amino acids. For a short protein of only 100 amino acids, the probability of this occurring is the same as a hundred coins landing 'heads up', i.e. 1 in 10³⁰. (The homochirality problem is even more acute for RNA and DNA, which contain all right-handed sugars. One wrong-handed molecule can disrupt replication by terminating the growing chain.)

The minimum number of proteins required to assemble a working, self-replicating cell is estimated to be at least 387 (see How simple can life be?). Let us be particularly generous to evolution theory and say that only 300 are required. What is the probability of 300 amino acid chains arising with the characteristics outlined above? Again, the calculation is easy. It is 1 in 10^{(30 x 300)}, i.e. 1 in 10^9,000.

The chances of achieving something with a probability of 10^–9,000 when 10¹⁰⁷ attempts are made is 10^–9,000 x 10¹⁰⁷ = 10^–8,893, i.e. 1 in 1 followed by 8,893 zeroes. This is such an unimaginably small fraction that the idea of proteins forming by random collisions of amino acids to form a living, self-replicating cell may be seen to be utterly, utterly implausible.

Moreover, this is just the beginning of the problems for these kinds of origin of life scenarios.³ For example, not only do the amino acids have to be like-handed, they must bond to each other in a particular way—that is, they must form 'peptide bonds'. Even in a specially prepared protected environment (in a test tube), experiments indicate that there is only a 1 in 2 chance of this happening with each amino acid. Hence, the probability of 100 amino acids coming together by chance, all having the same handedness and all forming peptide bonds, is around 1 in 10⁶⁰.⁴ Chemists who make proteins actually block non-peptide reaction sites with "protecting groups", then remove those after the reaction (and they exclude water and any alkali).⁵ The primordial soup didn't have such helpful chemists around. Indeed, evolutionists themselves have admitted that "The activation of amino acids and the formation of peptides under primordial conditions is one of the great riddles of the origin of life."⁶

Furthermore, there are any one of 20 types of amino acid that could assemble themselves in any of the 100 positions along the chain. Hence, there are 20¹⁰⁰ = 10¹³⁰ ways that the protein could form. Only a very small fraction of these would form the functional proteins needed to get the simplest biological cell going.⁷ Further to this, a self replicating cell would require other complex molecules such as RNA/DNA—and there are similar problems with handedness, as mentioned above, as well as with linking up at all, let alone in the right way, and obtaining the right sequence (see Evolutionist criticisms of the RNA World conjecture). No wonder the Nobel Prize-winner, Jacques Monod, argued that the probability of life emerging by random processes is so small that it might be considered to be "zero".⁸

^{this barely scratches the surface of the problems with evolution. there are many more.}

radagast,

care to respond to post 10.22?

The above rumination (#10.22) on the statistical improbability of generating the first self-replicating molecules via random chemical interactions is utterly flawed, and typical of the uninformed creationist/intelligent design sect.

The example given, first and foremost, neglects to understand that the number of chemical interactions occurring at any given time in the primordial oceans is on the order of trillions per second, as opposed to the analogy of flipping a single coin at a time to bring about a preconceived outcome. For the coin-flipping analogy to be relevant to an evolutionary scenario, we would have to specify that trillions of coins, not just one, were being flipped during each attempt. When you consider the scope of the number of "tries" in that more realistic scenario, it is not difficult to conceive that the kinds of primitive self-replicating molecules we're speaking of would have probably formed quite often, and at several locations around the world.

Secondly, the argument is based on a false presupposition about what the end-product of those chemical interactions would have to be in order to constitute "life". The author of the post (or whoever he copied it from) necessarily conceives of a more-complex-than-necessary structure like a cell comprised of 300 proteins to constitute "life". He or she (not surprisingly) fails to provide an explanation for why this has to be the case, and instead invokes the argument simply to make the statistics seem that much more improbable. As it is, the earliest self-replicating molecules are certainly far simpler -- after all, we're simply talking about molecules, not whole working cells. The evolution of cells is far down the line from the first advent of life.

terra incognita,

Let us do some more basic calculations. 1 in 10^9,000 is the probability of tossing a set of 29,897 coins and all of them landing ‘heads up’ (because 0.5^29,897 = 10^–9,000, i.e. 1 in 10^9,000). Supposing every atom in the universe (of which there are an estimated 10⁸⁰) turned into a machine capable of tossing a set of 29,897 coins all at once, a billion times each second. How many sets of 29,897 coins could we toss in the alleged 15 billion years the universe has existed?

The answer is 10⁸⁰ x 15 x 10⁹ x 365 x 24 x 60 x 60 x 10⁹ = 5 x 10¹⁰⁶, say 10¹⁰⁷.

The chances of achieving something with a probability of 10^–9,000 when 10¹⁰⁷ attempts are made is 10^–9,000 x 10¹⁰⁷ = 10^–8,893, i.e. 1 in 1 followed by 8,893 zeroes. This is such an unimaginably small fraction that the idea of proteins forming by random collisions of amino acids to form a living, self-replicating cell may be seen to be utterly, utterly implausible.

pay close attention to the bold print above. and try again.

again, same article, reprinted from C.M.I.

molecules are not life. what exactly do you consider life? and how 'simple' is the most basic cell?

pay close attention to the bold print above. and try again.

Look, Jackel, your argument carries little weight to begin with, and even less weight when one considers that all you're doing is parroting someone else's bogus work as an affront to the demonstrated fact of biological evolution. But heck, let's take a closer look at your argument. (And by the way, you really should put some effort into at least cutting and pasting in a way that preserves the mathematical format of the numbers, instead of clipping off exponents and turning them into coefficients.)

Firstly, you keep bringing up this hypothetical requirement that "life" has to be comprised of a cell, itself comprised of at least 300 (or rather, 387) proteins. As I mentioned in my previous post (#10.24), this is a false assumption; the first "living molecules" are theorized to have been not cells, but relatively simpler things like peptides. This bogus argument that "life has to be comprised of 387 proteins" is an oft-cited creationist argument based on the protein-coding genome of Mycobacterium genetalium, which has the smallest genome known of any modern organism. As such, it is not an accurate example to use for the earliest, most simple forms of life.

We're obliged to consider something more realistic for the earliest evolving "living" molecules, like a simple peptide comprised of 32 amino acids (and such peptides are known to exist). Since there are 20 amino acids to choose from to bring about the right amino acid sequence that comprises the peptide, the probability of spontaneously generating the peptide in a single trial is (1/20)^32, or 1 in 4.29 x 10^40. That's a hefty number, to be sure, but as I mentioned in my previous post, we have to recall that in the case of the primordial oceans (where it is believed that life originated), trillions of such "trials" would have been occurring simultaneously every second of every day. In fact, "trillions" is putting it lightly, and the concentration of the necessary amino acids in the primitive oceans would have been such that generating the end-result peptide could have been accomplished within a few decades.

We also have to consider, too, that any given trial may produce the end result far sooner than the entire number of trials implied in the probability calculation. For example, the probability of flipping five consecutive heads on a coin may be 1 in 32, but it's well within the realm of possibility that a person may get five heads in a row on the first try. In other words, it doesn't, in all likelihood, actually require 32 trials to flip one series of five heads in a row. The end result can come about much sooner.

In the end, you have to ask yourself why you're so opposed to evolution. I think if you're honest with yourself, you'll se that it has nothing to do with your objections to the science of evolution, and everything to do with a personal religious agenda.

terra incognita,

first, i apologize for the cut/paste. however, you got the idea, didnt you?

from your post #10.26

the first "living molecules" are theorized to have been not cells, but relatively simpler things like peptides

so, according to your post, this is not proven, it is 'theorized'? and yet, you are so sure? hmmm. it seems to me that much claimed by science as 'proof' is nothing more than 'theoretical mumbo-jumbo' that cannot be proven. neither of us was there for the event. i choose to side with the One who was there, God that created life in the first place.

to paraphrase: "in the end, you have to ask yourself why you are so opposed to the obvious creative work necessary for all life. i think, if you are honest with yourself, you will see that it has nothing to do with your objections to the necessity for a Creator, and everything to do with a personal "anti-God" agenda.

i can only ask in all seriousness, if you are so certain then please, by all means go to "creation.com" click on articles. this will bring up immediately the 'feature archive'. click the article 'Hawking claims that life can form by chance'

at the end of the article, click the 'comment on this article' in the bottom right corner. i will anxiously await the print of your statement and the response by the staff. (many Phd's among them. from secular universities)

they are most gracious in answering comments, and are obviously more knowledgeable on the subject than i am.

i look forward to reading you comments there and the response it generates. hopefully you can gain an understanding as to why many thinking Christians (myself included) believe as we do.

terra, we have had discussions on the vine before. i trust you harbor no ill will, as i have only been honest, both with myself, and with you and others. i truly want the best, for you and for all.

of course, i cant force you but if you are certain, by all means debate with one who knows at least as much as yourself.

the first "living molecules" are theorized to have been not cells, but relatively simpler things like peptides

so, according to your post, this is not proven, it is 'theorized'? and yet, you are so sure? hmmm. it seems to me that much claimed by science as 'proof' is nothing more than 'theoretical mumbo-jumbo' that cannot be proven. neither of us was there for the event.

You need to understand, Jackel, that "life" is nothing more than the ability of a molecule to self-replicate (i.e., make copies of itself). What we colloquially term as "life" is often confused to mean only the highly complex amalgam of specialized cells, tissues, organs, etc., that comprise something like a human. Even simple living organisms like bacteria are, themselves, comprised of smaller subunits of living molecules (e.g., RNA) that are able to live independent of the organism. It's not "mumbo-jumbo" to assume that the earliest forms of life were relatively simpler molecules such as peptides (asserting that it is really makes you sound like a caricature or an ignorant fool, and I doubt that's what you want). I mean, would it be so silly to similarly theorize that waking in the morning to a front yard full of snow implied that a snow storm may have occurred sometime during the night, despite your not having witnessed it? Of course not -- logic and previous experience dictates that snow accumulations, comprised of trillions of small snow flakes, generally happen as the result of snow storms. Similarly, we know that self-replicating molecules like peptides polymerize to form larger, more complex molecules that retain the ability to self-replicate. Because life -- even complex organism like humans -- operate according to the principles of physics and chemistry, there's nothing wrong with surmising that the same sort of chemical processes that occur on the small scale would occur on a much larger scale, and over greater lengths of time, in generating complex life forms. I'm not sure why or how you fail to grasp this, but I would encourage you to try harder.

i choose to side with the One who was there, God that created life in the first place.

I think it's curious, and quite hypocritical, that you lambaste the theory of evolution on the basis that no one was there to witness the origin of life, and yet you reserve for yourself the right to claim that god was responsible for its creation, despite the fact that no one was there to confirm that proposition either. In the end, we have to ask which is more likely: that life evolved according to scientific principles THAT WE KNOW FOR A FACT TO BE IN OPERATION, or that some unforeseen, invisible supernatural being was responsible for "creating" life. You do what you want, but I'll stick with the former.

to paraphrase: "in the end, you have to ask yourself why you are so opposed to the obvious creative work necessary for all life. i think, if you are honest with yourself, you will see that it has nothing to do with your objections to the necessity for a Creator, and everything to do with a personal "anti-God" agenda.

I'm opposed to any proposition that fails to provide evidence. So it is with creationism. In fact, that's only half of the problem with divine creation. Not only do you suffer from an absolute lack of evidence supporting creation, but the very idea of supernatural creation is something that goes completely contrary to how we know the universe to work. Your argument is akin to trying to prove that an internal combustion engine -- which we know works on basic principles of chemistry, thermodynamics, and physics -- is also helped along by the existence of invisible fairies that reside within the combustion chamber of each valve. The addition of the fairies is not only at odds with the observable evidence, but the very idea that an internal combustion engine can't work without fairies is at odds with our experience and understanding of nature. So it is with god. God doesn't work in the universe because god simply isn't needed. I don't have an "anti-god" agenda, I have a "pro-evidence" agenda.

terra, we have had discussions on the vine before. i trust you harbor no ill will, as i have only been honest, both with myself, and with you and others. i truly want the best, for you and for all.

And I certainly wish you no ill will. But I do feel that you are missing out on experiencing the true wonder and beauty of the world by denying things like evolution and our place in nature. You're certainly free to believe in god, but I can't help but feel that you are missing out on a great many things in life. Best of luck to you.

terra,

this is where evolution gets interesting;

IF we can agree that life begins with 'self-replicating' molecules, why then is abortion tolerated?

i am not framing the question due to religion at this time, but looking at the bigger picture, life most certainly begins at conception (using the scientific definition) so that group of replicating cells would and should be considered life, yet we destroy it with little to no compunction. why?

the evolutionary model states only the strong survive. this can be interpreted as "am i my brother's keeper" can it not? i must look out for myself only, as that is the only way i can survive.

where did our morality come from? did we simply decide that for the benefit of propigating the species we should work together? that would allow the weaker to survive as well, reducing the chances for the strong. therefore the strong must maintain the population (eugenics) this is not an offshoot of 'radical evolutionists' it is part and parcel of the entire principle of the theory.

why should anyone concern themselves with the species? or individuals within the species? if one is stronger, then it should be considered normal for that one to remove another that is using resources, and food better served for the strong. did not the spartans act upon this ideal?

no, morality cannot come from within the human. it's underlying principle goes against the grain of evolution, unless it was the weak who proposed morality in the first place. and again, why would the strong agree to this? makes no sense.

i again would ask that you visit the link i provided and discuss with other scientists that hold a differing view than yourself. perhaps they can shed some light in area's you are missing. (or vice versa)

You do know that macro-evolution is just a theory, not a fact? There is no physical evidence for macro-evolution. Sorry, gene mutations and intra-species adaptation are not evidence of it.

"will laugh so hard when all proof has been presented and religious nuts have no choice but to agree"

What is the substance of authority by which you write? We promise not to make fun of you or call you names. What do you presuppose?

@jackel64: I laugh every time "survival of the fittest" is brought up. The phrase is so general, and yet so powerful and true. Here are many examples of how "survival of the fittest" works. Get ready to be slapped in the face with the harsh, cold, and uncaring that is nature and be humbled by your fellow human as well.

A pack of wolves charge at a herd of buffalo and the buffalo stampede away. The wolves focus on the buffalo most vulnerable and slow buffalo that is begining to lag behind the herd. (The rest of the buffalo will survive because they are more fit than the slow buffalo.) The buffalo stops unable run, but still able to fight. One wolf rushs ahead of its pack to take on the buffalo alone. The buffalo is more powerful than the lone wolf and is able deliver a blow to the ribs that kills it. (The buffalo is more fit than the lone wolf.) However, the rest of the pack go in as one and overwhelm the buffalo and kill it. (The pack, due to their numbers, are more fit than the buffalo.) I'm hinting at the importance for social animals, such as ourselves, to work together in order to defend or bring down prey hard and dangerous to bring down alone. Five wolves can have more meat from one big buffalo then if each of them had one rabbit each. It is the same concept for humans. If you look at us we are weak, slow, and squishy compared to most animals around our body mass and bigger. It is more effective for us to work together in order defend against predators and bring down prey.

Now, the rest of the buffalo herd that got away will mate and pass their genes, but the buffalo that was killed by the wolves did not pass its genes. Same thing with the dead wolf and the surviving.

We can even look at it this way. If we shipped a camel from the desert to the frozen taundras and took a polar bear (Polar bears rule!) and shipped him to the desert then both of them will die. Lone camel dies due to the cold and lack of food, but the other polar bears on that frozen taundra live on. (The polar bears are more fit for that environment than the camel.) In the desert the polar bear dies due to lack of water and heat exhaustion, but the population of camels in the desert live on. (The camels are more fit for that environment than the polar bear.)

This is only a few out many other different other scenarios that "survival of the fittest" means. Life is cold and harsh, but because of our ability to think and work together we are the only animals on planet Earth that can shape and impact the world as we do. (Because of our thinking capabilities and our social team work we are more fit "IN THE WHOLE OF IT" than most of the animals on this planet. However, don't think for one second that it's not possible for a single celled organism to come along and bring the human species to its knees.)

The term "survival of the fittest" was popularized by Hitler.

Evolution does not always have a discernible path, it has no goals and makes no apologies.

"Outside of mathematics, nothing can be proven."

There are only a few TRUE / HARD SCIENCES, for example: Laws of PHYSICS, APPLIED MATHEMATICS, CHEMISTRY, and to some extent MICROBIOLOGY. "Hard" proof can also be found in STATISTICAL ANALYSIS.

These sciences can be measured, defined, and repeatable experiments can verify it. For example, these are sciences that Engineers use on a daily basis to invent, modify, manipulate, and improve all types of devices around us.

"Soft" science is evidence that is gained through systematic study or observation. Anthropology, Geology, general Biology, Botany (non molecular), etc.

According to the above listed, "hard' sciences: EVOLUTION IS PHYSICALLY, MATHEMATICALLY, STATISTICALLY, AND INTELLECTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

what about the square root of -1

science ? prove it....oh yea ...you cannot...still a theory huh?

"Outside of mathematics, nothing can be proven."

There are only a few TRUE / HARD SCIENCES, for example: Laws of PHYSICS, APPLIED MATHEMATICS, CHEMISTRY, and to some extent MICROBIOLOGY. "Hard" proof can also be found in STATISTICAL ANALYSIS.

These sciences can be measured, defined, and repeatable experiments can verify it. For example, these are sciences that Engineers use on a daily basis to invent, modify, manipulate, and improve all types of devices around us.

"Soft" science is evidence that is gained through systematic study or observation. Anthropology, Geology, general Biology, Botany (non molecular), etc.

According to the above listed, "hard' sciences: EVOLUTION IS PHYSICALLY, MATHEMATICALLY, STATISTICALLY, AND INTELLECTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

So, we are evolving, we are getting better, the planet is getting better, humans are getting better, nature are getting better, animal are getting better. In what planet most of you are living… nothing is getting better… (apart for technology) we hate each other, cheat each other, take advantage of each other, and destroying everything. Is that evolution???? Where the laws of thermodynamic aren’t true? It’s needed a great amount of faith to believe that we are going to be better.

Carlos, there is nothing in the theory of evolution that says we are getting better. It posits that we, as a species, will change in response to our interaction with our environment. That change may result in the extinction of our species, as has happened to many before us. You, like many others, are simply exposing your lack of knowledge about evolution.

BTW, the only thing that is up for debate about evolution is the specifics of the mechanisms involved, and how they act and interact. Among educated people, evolution is accepted as a fact.

You idiots! You can't argue with Science. Feeble minded idiots!

Yes, you can argue about bad science - and that's what macro-evolution is.

And, ID (creationism) is a much better alternative? I don't think so.

Cause their all Dems I reckon.

Clarke, he's the orange one in the middle/back.

the one in front with the rock looks like pelosi...but wait...its eyes are straight !

Now tell me the truth; wasn't that fun?

Isn't it amazing that some turned into humans and some stayed monkey. Gotta love evolution.

Not so amazing, really. It's called "reproductive isolation," and it's one of the primary forces behind speciation. Besides that, you've mistakenly assumed that modern-day apes are identical to our ape-like ancestors,which they are not. Modern-day apes have evolved, as well.

Isn't it amazing that some turned into humans and some stayed monkey. Gotta love evolution.

Its not so amazing. I think that people that believe in evolution should just start taking the stand the creationists take....There is a book that says it. It has to be true. No explanations needed. No theories. Its magic. Buy what we're selling.

I think that people that believe in evolution should just start taking the stand the creationists take....There is a book that says it. It has to be true. No explanations needed. No theories. Its magic. Buy what we're selling.

Sure, we could do that, but the thing about science advocates is that they generally hold themselves to a much higher standard than Biblical literalists. The standard of Biblical literalism (or creationism/intelligent design) isn't really even a "standard" so much as it is an utter cop-out. It's basically an admission that "I don't understand the issue of evolution, so please refer to my holy book to see what I'm supposed to believe in." What's even more sad and telling is, if you ask a creationist for a rundown of what the Book of Genesis says about creation, most of them can't even tell you (much less yet that the Bible has two quite different, conflicting versions of the story).

latexlatina,

actually, it is thanks to the creationists that science is where it is today.

have you ever heard of Isaac Newton?

no, creationists dont rest on the 'book' as proof, contrary, the 'book' instructs us to investigate and verify the truth in matters.

indeed, God created the universe, and all that is within it. science is humanity attempting to find out how God did it. it is to the Glory of God that we are able to conceive idea's and make progress toward this end, even though the idea of 'evolution' hampers our efforts.

ahhh well, such is life on the little world...

True, Isaac Newton was a superstitious nut of the first order (he spent a significant portion of his life trying to calculate the size of Noah's Ark, for example), but his work on gravity and calculus was not informed by religious dogma. The Bible had nothing to contribute to these ideas. The fact that he was both a Christian and a valuable asset to the progress of science and mathematics is a mere coincidence of his religious belief, not a product of it.

jackel64, I have a few questions I have wanted answered for quite some time. Maybe you can help...

If God created Adam & Eve and they lived in the Garden of Eden, yada yada yada...how did life expand from the Middle East to the far reaches of North & South America, Africa, Asia and Europe with so much diversity to skin color, hair texture, eye shape and culture in less that 1500 years?

How did a people that couldn't find their way out of a desert cross the Atlantic to settle the Americas? I mean, history tells us Columbus discovered the Americas in 1492. And they were inhabited by people, right?

If Adam & Eve were the first 2 humans, why does the bible say its not ok to sleep with your relatives? I mean, if they had kids, which they obviously did, who did they sleep with to expand our species?

no, you theorize that it is coincidence of his belief, you were not there, you dont know for certain.

i say it was because of his religious conviction that he was drawn to 'find the face of God' so to speak.

latexlatina,

if you are truly curious, i suggest you do some research. the answers to every one of your questions posted can be found at "creation.com"

i know you wont go there because you dont really want to know the answers, but they are there if and when you are serious.

yada yada yada

These are questions I ask all truly religious people I know. They all give me the same answer you did. Its pure crap to tell someone to figure it out for themselves. You wouldn't tell you kid to figure out where babies come from at babymaker.com would you? I just want one person to give me a straight answer. No one can. You ask me about evolution, you will get an answer. You may not like it, but I won't point you to a web site like someone who's afraid to answer cause they don't have a clue.

Jackal,

You tell latexlatina to "do some research" and then offer him/her an evangelical website as a place for truth. One donkey giving answers given by another donkey. Explain to me in some common sense way how that is research.

You are so afraid of your life, and your destiny as worm food, that a deity is necessary to your very existence, so you puff your chest and tell all that science is false, and believing it is stupid. Where do you dilusional pseudo-intellectuals come from? YOU CANNOT DISPROVE SCIENCE WITH RELIGIOUS INTERPRETATION. QUIT TRYING, IT IS ASININE!

A deity is neither necessary nor plausible, as are your statements.

ok then how do you explain the fetal reptillian tail.

ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny?

"Outside of mathematics, nothing can be proven."

There are only a few TRUE / HARD SCIENCES, for example: Laws of PHYSICS, APPLIED MATHEMATICS, CHEMISTRY, and to some extent MICROBIOLOGY. "Hard" proof can also be found in STATISTICAL ANALYSIS.

These sciences can be measured, defined, and repeatable experiments can verify it. For example, these are sciences that Engineers use on a daily basis to invent, modify, manipulate, and improve all types of devices around us.

"Soft" science is evidence that is gained through systematic study or observation. Anthropology, Geology, general Biology, Botany (non molecular), etc.

According to the above listed, "hard' sciences: EVOLUTION IS PHYSICALLY, MATHEMATICALLY, STATISTICALLY, AND INTELLECTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

Oh thank god - I was worried how we were ever going to convince you...

So you prefer the more advanced, God waved a magic wand and we all appeared solution? Oh wait that's right he only made one mortal, then cloned Eve from him.

ha ha the proof is in the pudding. the joke will be on you (actually I wish not this on anyway) but the real messed up thing is when these humanists take 'all" your rights away and say you cannot watch some Disney movie cuz' well it would have a moral to the story and appear too religious. The only way you can be saved is through Christ. Everyone dies, but God is real and yet everyone knows and talks about the beyond. So you want to bash , Mr Free will rights guy, the Bible, then you might as well attack all the religions of the world not just persecute Christians with your "FACTS" .

So which ape came first. The male or the female? And well how did the first one come about without one male and female all you science scholars out there always yelling at people saying they do not understand "evolution" everytime we pose all these questions we have about, after you claim we blindly follow some sort of "fairy tale" as though God never called us or answered our prayers or anything, or as though we never encountered God Himself when we surrendered and finally said , yeah , we are liars and thieves we need a Savior. Sight to the blind is literal fellas.

persecute Christians with your "FACTS" . LOL

Can I use your logic to steal a HD flat screen from Wal-Mart?

Store Manager: Uhh sir you have to pay for that! We will charge you with theft if you go out those doors! We have cameras!

Me: Don't you persecute me with your "FACTS"!

Now to your misunderstanding. Life didn't start out like a porn movie with everyone and everything humping the crap out of each other. There is more than one way of replicating. We (all animals with two genders) share a common ancestor. Evolution does not say that each species has to evolve a male and then a female. It says that all with gender differences share a common ancestor. We and that common ancestor share a common ancestor that was femanine only. That is why males have nipples too. This femanine only species was able to self fertilize without the need of a male, we have certain lizards today that are able to do this too. The bible got it all wrong. It's not the male that first lived, it's the female.

When it doesn't agree with what "real cancervatives" believe, then yes, at that point it becomes 'fancy elitism." When it puts terrorists in jail, then it's considered an important, useful tool.

Adam and Eve are just mythical characters that never existed, and dinosaurs went extinct about 75 million years before humans had evolved. Stop watching Fox News and reading weird right-wing websites and go get an education. Find a good bookstore and read some books by academic scholars, instead of the usual right-wing conspiracy theorists. There is no conspiracy being secretly perpetrated by scientists. This is the cutting edge of science.

Ignorance is bliss ;-)

Go back to watching the Flinstones ;-)

MarkThisDown, did I take your post too seriously? Were you just joking? It is hard to believe that someone could be as completely ignorant and uneducated as you let on, so maybe I missed the joke. Your post did sound like something out of the Flinstones.

"Outside of mathematics, nothing can be proven."

There are only a few TRUE / HARD SCIENCES, for example: Laws of PHYSICS, APPLIED MATHEMATICS, CHEMISTRY, and to some extent MICROBIOLOGY. "Hard" proof can also be found in STATISTICAL ANALYSIS.

These sciences can be measured, defined, and repeatable experiments can verify it. For example, these are sciences that Engineers use on a daily basis to invent, modify, manipulate, and improve all types of devices around us.

"Soft" science is evidence that is gained through systematic study or observation. Anthropology, Geology, general Biology, Botany (non molecular), etc.

According to the above listed, "hard' sciences: EVOLUTION IS PHYSICALLY, MATHEMATICALLY, STATISTICALLY, AND INTELLECTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

Then why has it been proven in the laboratory time and again?

So Josh, propose a scientific experiment that would demonstrate "Creationism".

On the first post my tongue was very firmly in cheek. But hey man wouldn't it be cool to have your own brontosaurus to ride and fly around on the back of a pterodactyl?

Yes MarkThisDown, it would be fun to have my own pterodactyl to ride around on!!

Wait you advise people to get a degree in biochemistry to point out holes in evolution then you quote a passage from the bible as proof that evolution is wrong? A book that can in no way prove the existence of God other then thru Faith and that is your backup after a biochemistry degree?

I see...

So whats next are you going to say that because life doesnt spontaneously come into being from an open jar of peanut butter that it proves evolution is false as well?

Sorry but the Bible is anything but a scientifically accurate manual of life and how it exists and evolves. Your bible example of course conveniently disregards every other factor involved in the evolution of species.

LOL.... Not only do you need to take some science classes I would suggest taking some theology because you are way misquoting the Bible, which by the way "adapted" from the Torah. Even most of the Jewish community that I have meet believe that Genesis was an allegory to teach lessons in morality, not an exact depiction of what really happened.

But hey go on believing what ever you want, I am just glad I am not you.

Also if we were created as is explain Goose Bumps which in all mammals is a reaction to the cold so the FUR would standup further to produce insulation. But wait, we don't have fur. So why do we have a trait that can be shown is a left over biological reaction to the environment.

And I do have my Bachelors in Science that focused on the Human anatomy and I never seen these "big holes". So your theory is severely flawed.

Holes? Really? Ok, biochemist (yeah, uh-huh) what do you make of these statements (I posted in a separate ID/evolution forum here this week):

The chemistry of evolution is truly remarkable and specific work in phylogenetics and epigenetics continues to buttress our understanding of underlying mechanisms. A single mutation in the HOX gene of a zebra fish, appropriately identified, caused the offspring to express hind legs. This speaks to several issues: the utility of DNA vis-a-vis adaptive modification of the organism, the specious nature of any argument which attempts to delineate micro- versus macro-evolution (not a lot of taxonomic call for a legged zebra fish of the same species) and the relatively high efficacy of even single allelic mutation to produce large, viable change in breedable offspring (so much for all the "pinpoint mutation" garbage).

As I stated, the chemistry really is an amazing recommendation for evolution (biodiversity from a common origin, let's call it). There are hundreds of polymers, yet all species use only polynucleotides, polypeptides and polysaccharides. DNA is common to all life (and the single repository for species-specific information); it advantages itself of but four bases (adenine, thymidine, cytosine and guanine) where over 80 occur in nature.

There's more "common life" aspects: all organisms use the same 20 amino acids out of a potential palette of more than 250, metabolism in all organisms relies on the same three cycles (glycolysis, citric acid, oxidative phosphorylation -- and with respect to the former, all eukaryotes execute the same ten steps, using the same ten enzymes) and the basic unit of energy storage is the adenosine triphosphate molecule (ATP). Given that these choices are somewhat arbitrary, and the cyclic efficiency variously optimized, speaks volumes as to evolved similarity versus "perfected" design.

That evolution exhibits explanatory leverage over alternative theories regarding earth biodiversity seems obvious, especially given corroboration of phylogenetic analysis with existing taxonomic classification and the fossil record. For the latter, evolution is eminently sensitive to falsification, yet has not been so, while creationism/ID finds no test there. From a biological theory standpoint, then, evolution is science where creationism/ID fails utterly to contribute.

Vestigial structures are perhaps my favorite area of ToE explanatory superiority (and seem the most differentiable in assessing the relative utility of evolution against the inefficacy -- or outright contradiction -- of ID). Evolution explains the fused tail vertebrae of humans, the varying levels of eye degeneration in cave dwelling fish, the pelvises in pythons, wings of flightless beetles retained underneath fused wing covers, etc. ID impugns itself in these regards (and others -- why, for example, is our windpipe anterior to our esophagus and connected via a common channel, exposing us to the threat of choking?) Sort of takes the 'I' out of "ID", does it not?

However, it is not merely the analytic, but the predictive nature of evolution which is superior. No organism can have a vestigial structure that was not previously functional in one of its ancestors. This is huge. The phylogenetic tree makes these predictions (the inverse of which would falsify the theory): no vestigial placenta or nipples in any amphibians, birds or reptiles; no mammals with a vestigial breastbone; no arthropods with vestigial backbones. Creationism/ID? No clue, no comment, no prediction (and thus, no "theory").

I submit that these are not necessarily "proof" of the ToE. But I frankly see the metaphor here for refutation being something along the lines of "I am going to keep dropping this 45-lb plate on my foot because there is no proof of gravity either"...

Go J.

"Outside of mathematics, nothing can be proven."

There are only a few TRUE / HARD SCIENCES, for example: Laws of PHYSICS, APPLIED MATHEMATICS, CHEMISTRY, and to some extent MICROBIOLOGY. "Hard" proof can also be found in STATISTICAL ANALYSIS.

These sciences can be measured, defined, and repeatable experiments can verify it. For example, these are sciences that Engineers use on a daily basis to invent, modify, manipulate, and improve all types of devices around us.

"Soft" science is evidence that is gained through systematic study or observation. Anthropology, Geology, general Biology, Botany (non molecular), etc.

According to the above listed, "hard' sciences: EVOLUTION IS PHYSICALLY, MATHEMATICALLY, STATISTICALLY, AND INTELLECTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

You are right that most things can't be "proven" (do you even know what that means?). A lot of things can be statistically corroborated, however. evolution being one of them.