Falsifying Phylogeny

Falsifying PhylogenyAnother awesome series made by the well known youtuber AronRa, who is also the author of the Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism.

From the author: Systematic phylogenetics - also known as Cladistic taxonomy - is the most profound evidence there is indicating our evolution from common ancestry, but very few people understand it.

Since I don't see any other science advocates actively concerned with promoting the importance of this field of study, then perhaps I have found my niche.

One must first address the indications of evolutionary phylogeny rather than ignoring all aspects of common ancestry altogether, and instead proposing some weird straw-man parody of evolution in which no ancestry of any kind is even involved.

Watch the full documentary now (playlist - 1 hour, 14 minutes)

Ratings: 6.72/10from 32 users.

More great documentaries

1,110 Comments / User Reviews

  1. Boring voice.Boring delivery.Boring script.Boring.Boring.Couldn't even pay attention to what he was saying for more than a minute at a time.David Attenborough has nothing to worry about!I hope this guy is not a teacher-he would put students off science for life!!!Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

  2. Playlist goes DARK after 1st video

  3. Incubation of Illumination through Investigation NOT Estimation for Dissemination of the Consolidation of scientific Declaration by Decimation of intellectual Trepidation and Limitations through Patience within this Elucidation.

    1. More gibberish. Won't wash.

  4. Hypocritical attempt to debunk very outdated and frankly unintelligent expressions of creationist attempts to explain the nature of our existence at a time of geocentric astronomical understanding, a flat and two sided earth , an ignorance to natures most basic and observable tendencies like gravity (I hate the word law for there are NONE). While arguing against archaic and long rejected ideas of nature by creationists in an archaic unintelligent and primitive time of course easily demonstrates MODERN evidence to disprove such claims that he leads you to believe the only explanation left is that of an atheists perspective of evolution which bases itself upon a half assed assessment of the evidence blatant misrepresentations all in the name of close minded ignorance centralized upon an idea of there being no creator and will distort if not refuse acknowledgment of evidence to the contrary. A mode of thought out of date in itself that falls sub-par to a scientific logic and reasoning applied within one of creationist belief that delves far deeper into an ocean far more interesting and bewildering. BTW the "law" of irreversibility is bulls*it for it requires linear time specifically forward as an aspect of evolution which is false for its only the measurement of changes and plays NO role in mutations and theoretically you can devolve (more time implication) to ANY previous stage with adequate time of exposure to specific conditions that do contribute/define mutations (habitat,reproductivity, diet, climate, radiation) that created (hehe)the desired target originally from ANY current descendants regardless of biological class for we are all products of our environment and if you control environment you control product.

    1. Kyle Knowlton
      please share this non out of date evidence for a creator you have.your best one or two pieces of evidence would be great.

    2. Soooo ... any evidence you wish to disregard gets labeled "out of date"? Look ... any such evidence is going to predate the earliest branching on your particular family tree ... and thus be "out of date". The only way you can win the debate is by crafting its rules and the only way creationists can win is by ignoring those rules. Stalemate.

    3. W Canaday
      i did not label it out of date (the original poster did) all i asked for was evidence that fit his/her criteria

    4. How about tell us what you are talking about? You're not going to snow anyone on this site with gibberish.

    5. Thanks for giving me a headache with your attempt of "gish gallop" you ain't smart so why try to be? I cannot say 1diot so I wont. (hehe) yourself!

    6. Interestingly, the Bible does not argue for a flat earth. Never has. Nor has it ever hinted at an earth mounted to any sort of substrate. Instead, it mentions an earth that is circular (the Hebrew of the time did not have a word for "sphere" and substituted the 2 dimensional representation of it) and "suspended from nothing".

      The geocentrism is an aberration of the Catholic church after the apostasy of the third century.

  5. Interesting video. There's a great documentary on Hulu called "Flight from Death: The Quest for Immortality" that might help explain why everyone seems to get their panties in a bunch the minute anyone mentions creationism or evolution.

  6. This is an interesting study in evolutionary process but it is full of the same sort of Creationist delusion as the most delusional Creationist presentation. It purports to 'disprove' those delusions and claim a victory for phylogenetic science over Creationist pseudoscience but uses the very same assumptions and argues along the very same lines. Thank God Richard Dawkins dealt so soundly with these delusions about God in his book The God Delusion - now we need not ever confuse evolutionary theory and Creation again.

    Repeat after me: Scriptures contain the story of God and His spiritual relationship with man. The histories and sciences contain the story of man and his physical relationship with the universe. Now, let's move on.

    1. "Scriptures contain the story of God and His spiritual relationship with man." Where is your proof? After you provide it, then we can move on AND NOT BEFORE.

    2. Do you really think the physical sciences explain everything? Which of your sciences adequately explain altruism? Altruism runs counter to evolutionary self-interest. At the very least, it wastes energy and at the very worst, it leads to extinction of the individual and termination of his genetic potential.

      There is more to the world than physical science. Are you blind to it?

    3. There's plenty of science around the value of altruism in social species. There are very real advantages for genes.

    4. And just what is "evolutionary self-interest?" One way or the other, religion explains nothing.

  7. This is an extremely interesting and informative documentary with irrefutable factual evidence. For those of you who try to argue against all of this extensive research, well, you are simply doing yourselves a disservice. Science is factual, belief is not. Spread the word about this video because more people need to watch it. Knowledge is power.

  8. religiontards--- that is what they are... you will never get these dummies to understand anything. They have a mental block, just like the Mormons, and Amish. Until these dummies die out, this world will be stuck in the mud...

    1. Relignoramuses might be a smoother concoction. The problem is that as long as these wilful ignoramuses are able to pass their bad seed on to others, they will never die out.

  9. Evolution is proven finally after people being persecuted for the thought

  10. Excellent work yet again Aron. But, like our so called "elections" 'consistence' may be futile. The virus that is religion doth make fools of them all.

  11. intresting

  12. I thoroughly enjoyed this, as well as the Foundational Falsehoods series. I find your arguments clear, and your use of sarcasm, irony, and humor actually help your case. I mean that truly, not ironically.

  13. Fantastic work, completely fascinating. However, it is strange that there are so many fossils that support other species other than our own (or is that my perception and there are gaps in other chains too).

    Also, the rate of evolution of what has resulted in humans in the past 100'000 years seems to have progressed far more aggressively than other animals and branches over a same time period. Perhaps like the cambrian explosion there was some type of catalyst.

    It would be interesting too hear if there has been any reasearch done on the comparative speed of evolution of humans- i.e. was the rate normal or exceptionally fast.

    1. You might find punctuated equilibrium interesting.

  14. "Special Olympian super bigot" is a horrible thing to say as it demeans those who participate in the Paralympics. It's somewhat bigoted of the narrator to say that, kinda ruins the intellectual integrity of the entire doco.

  15. There is no proof that we were designed. There is also no proof that we were not designed. Anyone that says otherwise simply doesn't understand that we know nothing about the creation of existence itself. The only reason why this even remains a debate, is because no one has the answer, otherwise it would have been laid to rest long ago.

  16. WOW! Are you people this dumb? You do not understand evolution.... no wonder America is failing... it is because of religion... Now we have bone head creationist bullshitting you with crap that you are buying into... In history this happened before with the Arabes or Muslims who lost their education to religion....

    1. OMG!! dude i dont know where you come up with the link between religion and education,if that really is the case, I would love to know which religion has caused u to loose ur education...and talk about something u have no idea

  17. Are you kidding me! Is this too hard for you m**ons to understand? Your pea brain cannot understand evolution but you do understand Religion... Then I give up on the human race... You dumb *** Creationist will hang on to your false bull**** no matter what.... st*pid is as st*pid does!!!! Keep your head in the mud... just quit talking....keep it in the mud....

  18. You know... My "ilk" have a saying: "God's being is too great for any man to comprehend, and his retribution too swift for any man to outrun."

    Remember that when you're turning in your math homework.

    1. @David Foster,

      Those starving children in Africa can't really outrun the retribution of your God... or that is not the work of your God... even if it isn't, him being omnipotent and omnipresent could easily stop that... unless he is cruel and he doesn't want us to understand his motives... which makes him incomprehensible, but certainly not great.

    2. Genesis 3:15 is being allowed to play out. That omnipotent God you refer to is fully capable of restoring life as he deems fit.

    3. How do you know this?

    4. and therein lies the dichotomy. Retribution? God has no more power to influence my life negatively than he does positively. And if that were so then why would he have children die and others have their disease cured? Retribution? I crawl from gods retribution and I look back and I see nothing much as the people in the line of a natural disaster see their lives being taken from them though they live a pure and good life preaching and going to some house on Sunday praising the glory of some figment in an ignorant societies reality based on some fairy tales told by ignorant people who had no idea what the natural world around was or where it all may have came from.

    5. "And if that were so then why would he have children die and others have their disease cured? "

      Actually, the Bible answers that question ... why not throw that gauntlet down the next time one of Jehovah's Witnesses comes to your door? If they can't answer it, scoff away. If they can ... well any scientifically minded honest person would have no choice but to acknowledge that their question had been adequately answered.

      And don't worry about Godly retribution ... it's just justice of the "what goes around, comes around" variety. Kind of like the cops busting on some guy caught in the act of beating an old woman. The score gets evened (plus a little) and the miscreant ends up behind bars where he can't beat on anyone else for a while.

    6. You don't know any more about god than the authors of the bible. So you're not fooling anyone.

  19. Oh, I see. That's really far from the actual etymology. Did you look at the definitions for the prefixes and words in question? The difference is really minor, whereas the actual etymology of the f-word and the "popular" myth regarding its origin are worlds apart. No matter.

    Why are you guys "arguing" with this David Foster guy. You cant have fact based rational discussions with someone who lives in a faith based reality. He probably thinks snakes can talk and all kinds of crazy stuff. His comments on astrophysics are embarrassing. The universe is not expanding into some space outside itself. It's expanding intrinsically. This guy doesn't even understand relativity well enough to discuss expansion. The idea that he's familiar with higher math is laughable.

    1. Your second paragraph phrases the concept beautifully and the statement about DF's risible failure to understand higher math is apropos and welcome. What a neat trick to have the universe trespass into a space outside itself. If it committed this unlawful act, would it still be the universe?

      However, the difference between the prefixes a and anti is great, cf. unmoral vs. antimoral, unpolitical vs. antipolitical.

      P.S. What is a "faith based reality."

    2. faith based reality refers to reality as seen from the view of a religious person where things can be true just because you believe they are, and in spite of evidence to the contrary

    3. I get it. Fantasy Land. Unfortunately, the type you describe is not worth the price of admission.

  20. what do you mean by "popular" etymology.

    1. With respect to the f word, that it is an acronym for For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge, when nothing could be further from the truth. The same thing with the word cop. Popular etymology has it as an acronym for Constable on Patrol when again nothing could be further from the truth.

  21. hey all
    am i the only one that notices that you are giving mr foster exactly what he wants? this doc is on phylegony/evolution and he has managed to bring the conversation to the big bang and cosmology. i do not have the knowledge on such subjects to confirm or refute his arguments but i do see the errors in his motives. mr foster stated "In fact, the salesmen of science were/are SO desperate to abolish the idea of a creator, that they had to come up with a creation myth of their own." meaning the big bang. his initial assumption was (in my opinion) to try to lend credence to his belief by trying to poke holes in the big bang theory. the error in that is common among believers that if (a) is false then (b) has to be true as if those are the only two possibilities. now that was tried on this doc by other posters on this particular thread and in my opinion they were unsuccessful. so all mr foster did was give up on the actual subject and move on to something else all the while not providing proof for an alternative. in closing (and this is not a complaint) i find it funny that the admin and both moderators were so easily taken off topic for so long. i am glad to know that i am not the only one lol.

    1. @over the edge,

      You're 100% right. We were trolled.

    2. So what? A lot of good information came out of it from you, Epicurus and Achem.

    3. Ha, Ha, love a good fight. Don't know if it was off topic though, we are talking about religion in general and for that science has to come into the picture.

    4. Well, of course it's what I want! I've already said numerous times that I enjoy this type of discussion. If that's what makes me a troll, then hey... Ya Got Me!

    5. And to the other, well... I've already said all I really need to say about the subject. Please re-read if you need clarification.

  22. I'd hardly consider my mistake glaring, in fact its very minor whether you look at the meanings of the prefixes "a" and "anti" or at the definitions of the words atheism and antitheism themselves. I do feel that I "missed the point". Still not sure what it was, were you being sarcastic or facetious? It can be hard to tell in writing.

    1. I thought it was clear from both my post and my response that I was being facetious. However, I do consider your mistake glaring and equate it with the popular etymology of the f word.

  23. @David Foster:

    You checked the math?? Then please show us the details of Einstein differential equation of Lorentz transformation "on the electrodynamics of moving bodies."

    1. And would you like that from Wikipedia, or Science Daily?

      I've already given you my arguments to the equations. Check them, or don't... I don't care.

  24. And, @ Vlatko, and Robertallen1, and whoever else,

    I defend what I believe --which, for the most part, I don't recall ever having told you-- with no more religious zeal than you do your own. So, kiss my ___!

    1. @David Foster,

      You've said it well. You only BELIEVE. We don't. We're just pointing you to what is already proven by science. We're not making things up.

    2. @Vlatko and Achems_Razor
      Re: David Foster

      This is exactly what I mean.

      1. He vaingloriously equates himself with Galileo, Newton and Darwin, little realizing that the scientific community of their day basically accepted the three and that Galileo's problem was not with other scientists, but with the church.

      2. As a paradigm of conceit, he of little mathematical education considers himself competent to "check the math" of his intellectual betters, forgetting that they got where they are by checking the math themselves--over and over again--and were qualified to do so.

      3. He defends what he believes. Well, so did Hitler and L. Ron Hubbard and so does the Flat Earth Society and Answers in Genesis. So what? But notice, when he is backed against a wall, his response is--well, you already know.

      Perhaps you can understand why such people deserve only contempt expressed in no uncertain terms.

    3. @robertallen1,

      "Perhaps you can understand why such people deserve only contempt expressed in no uncertain terms."

      Yes but if we allow that kind of conversation, very soon all this will turn into extreme word fight, with lot of swearing, degradation etc.

      This is virtual world. Don't hide behind it to unlish your despise. I bet you wouldn't call random people "stupid" in real life. Or would you?

    4. There's already a policy against swearing. However, in the case of Mr. Foster and others, the degradation is deserved.

      I'm having difficulty understanding your third paragraph. Obviously, you mean this is a virtual world, but I can't understand the second sentence or what you mean by "random people."

    5. @robertallen1,

      Sorry, I meant "world."

      Random people = you meet a stranger at the bus stop. You start conversation with him and he tells you that he is creationist. You try to argue but he refuses to listen. Would you call him stupid or ignorant, right there in the public.

    6. I don't speak to strangers at bus stops or anywhere else for that matter unless I have to, i.e., in controlled situations such as at a check-out stand, and I don't start conversations with people in person unless I know who they are. So it's difficult for me to respond to your hypothetical. However, if the person expressed himself intelligently and somewhat knowledgably (as most creationists can't and don't), I probably wouldn't, but on the other hand, if the person . . .

    7. I wouldn't bet 1 penny on that.

    8. And all I'm suggesting is that science may be mistaken. And I have given you a very simple explanation of why I believe that to be true.

      So... To re-state my position in the most simple possible terms: If the universe were only fourteen billion years old, then you would have seen the edge of it long before you were ever able to see a billion light years distance.

      But, you don't want to consider the possibility; and I probably have better things to do than to sit here and explain myself over and over, so...

      Have a Nice Day!

  25. All this over stamp collecting? :)

    1. Stamps come in such variety, my dad was a stamp collector when i was young, pasted them on many collector's books in those days.

    2. your fathers hobby was collecting stamps.

      notice how some religious people in here claim atheism is a religion?

      would you claim my NOT collecting of stamps a hobby?

      lol so dont you find it kind of funny when they say my lack of belief in a god is a religion?

      its like calling bald a hair colour, "off" is a tv channel annnnd NOT collecting stamps a hobby. lol

    3. Therefore, if someone asks you what your hobby is, you can answer that it is refraining from collecting stamps (and if you can say this with a straight face, you're a better man than I). If you substitute sex for stamps and as a consequence, someone reports you to the police as a sexual predator, just inform your arresting officers that your hobby is really refraining from sex, not having it--and then explain why.

      But to get down to the case in point. Theism=belief in a supreme being=religion. By the same token, atheism is also a religion; therefore, atheists also believe in a supreme being--whether they know it or not. Now, try to explain this to an agnostic.

    4. I don't follow your argument. your first paragraph is nonsensical. Theism does not equal religion by definition, nor does belief in a supreme being necessarily equate to religion. Look up the def of atheism. It is essentially anti-theism. Think about it, theism, a-theism. The "a" is short for "anti". Atheism certainly does not fit any definition of religion, nor do atheist believe in the existence of a deity. In fact the lack of this belief makes someone an atheist.

      By the way David Foster is unbelievably ignorant and obviously lacking intelligence as well.

      The universe is expanding at the speed of light. 14.6 or so billion light years form the origin. So the total span of reality is about 29 billion light years across.

    5. the a is not short for anti.

      the a is a prefix used in greek meaning "without" or "no"

      theist comes from greek word theos meaning god.

      atheist is one without god

    6. Besides the glaring error on the etymology of atheism (the prefix "a" means without as in amoral or atonal), you missed the point. Of course, it's absurd, illogical and contradictory to consider atheism a religion--but you are right about David Foster.

    7. One of many of my father's hobbies was collecting stamps.
      One of my hobby was to do things with him.
      People claim atheism is a religion?
      I think "they" equate it with belief...so to believe it (God) exist or to believe it does not exist....is my guess as to what they mean.
      As for me, i never liked any of the definitions of the word God....none.
      Your "not collecting stamps" is not a hobby, but while you are not collecting stamps you are having other hobbies.
      I find it funny that you use the word lack.
      A bald head would have a colour but certainly not a hair colour.
      Off is not a tv channel i get here, and i am no longer collecting stamps neither is my father. It all went to my nephew who may not be collecting stamps anymore.
      Are you coming to BC with your honey?

    8. hopefully one day. but i dont have any plans to presently.

    9. Wow!! I have a lot more hobbies than I thought. I've always felt so dull telling people I enjoy wood working, cycling and reading. Now I can include all the things I don't do. A real renaissance man.

      I used to collect stamps when I was in primary school. Is that a more legitimate hobby than not collecting stamps anymore?

  26. Some 1st of April, i would laugh mao if a few well known scientists (with quite a bit of humour) would write up some fake breaking news and see who bites.
    Normally if it comes from the top science roof, it has to be true and many will do their best to repeat word to word how it was explained to them, if not, a link can help. Of course we have to believe in the present information, humanity always did, either religiously or scientifically.
    As we all know if life could take us a 3000 yrs from now instantly....many of those realisations would be the joke of the day. We can only imagine 3000yrs from now...mind boggling!
    But who knows may be in 2012 we have it all figured out, as the Mayan "are said" to have concluded...it's the end of the world...we have the truth.

    Humans will be humans until we realize we are not.
    As humans we think we are what we are, a physical body.
    My prediction has always been, when science merges with spirituality, the wall will be crossed.

    1. Fake breaking news from scientists and see who bites? are you talking about war of the worlds by Orson Wells? come now Az...how long do you think that would last without some proof in our techie age, maybe 1/2 an hour?

      By the way did you check your pc for the maleware that is on the news? He who has that will be shut down from the internet this monday.

    2. Of course the scientists would know the joke but the mass including those who think they know it all, could be fooled.
      Ok, will make sure i use my pc as much as possible until monday.
      I saw this really noisy sport car in the streets of Nelson yesterday, made me think of you!

    3. I've always had this vision of one astrophysicist asking the other: "Quick... What's the absolute minimum number of years it would take for a massive star to form, live out it's existence, then explode into enough matter for a solar system to develop which can support life?"

      And the other one says:"Oh, probably about fourteen billion years, or so..."

      Then the first one says:"Great! Then that's how old we're going to tell everyone the universe is. All we need now is a good narrative. How about: 'Once upon a time there was this really dinky thing called a singularity...'"

    4. What possible reason would any scientist or all scientists have for doing this? Your entire argument makes no sense. If it appears that the universe is older than fourteen billion years, why wouldn't they say so. Does another ten billion years make that big a difference? Why even report that they have seen galaxies so far away that to people like yourself it would make them look foolish? They do it because they have the fact, data and the mathematical models to back them up. If you can't understand what they are saying, if the concepts are too confusing...try a little harder. Study never hurt anyone.

    5. sounds like something from the bible!

    6. @Azilda,

      Some people will seriously quote that joke, but I doubt any scientist in that given field will open his mouth before he applies the scientific method.

      But who knows may be in 2012 we have it all figured out...

      Who said that science is all knowing, all powerful and that have figured it all out. On the contrary, science admits that we don't know many things. But it admits one more thing: It is the best tool ever devised for discovering the truth.

      My prediction has always been, when science merges with spirituality, the wall will be crossed.

      Your predictions are religious in nature, and impossible. Spirituality is so far removed from the rational and real world, that is impossible to be reconciled with any scientific notion. "Spirituality" today is just a lucrative industry, nothing more.

    7. I know I stated that I have posted my last because I don't agree with your comment policy, but your communication with David Foster and Azilda have tempted me this once because I read a sense of frustration in your words and those of other knowledgable people people such as Achem, Over the Edge and Epicurus.

      As your responses indicate, both of them make statements about topics they know absolutely nothing about and don't want to learn about. Mr.Foster has indicated in previous posts that he puts his religion over science; hence, anything he writes is immediately suspect. Without knowing anything about it or even taking the effort to learn at least a little, Azilda has described biblical scholarship as a farce. As I have explained before, this puts her on the intellectual level of the most dyed-in-the-wool creationist. Her attitude which carries over into other fields explains why she has to be corrected so much of the time.

      Now perhaps you can see why I hold these two and others like them in utter contempt.

    8. @robertallen1,

      Sorry if I was rude to you, but we have to keep it "clean" as possible without personal disqualifications. I'm aware that it is very hard, but we have to try.

    9. You've never been rude to me and hopefully I have not been rude to you, but your recent responses to David Foster and Azilda, along with those of other knowledgable posters, are nothing more than well-deserved "personal disqualifications." A tactful approach just doesn't cut it with these types of people, for it simply inspires them to go on their merry way injecting others with the venom of ignorance, knowing full well that the opposition they are going to be met with is polite and easily brushed aside. Let them do the squirming, not the cognescenti. Hopefully, this explains my blunt approach--and yes, I take it personally when people try to pass off ignorance (and I don't mean venial mistake) for knowledge.

    10. Science Obviously doesn't have it all figured out....i never said Science has, it is people who read what science has to say who think and express themself as if they have it all figured out.
      My guess is that most scientists would never be as rude as some of the posters here, because they know that humans have always pushed knowledge further and further.
      Most scientist would have no reason to say "it's impossible...science will never merge with spirituality" (incorporeal or immaterial nature).
      But you can if you wish!

    11. @Azilda,

      I disagree. In fact I disagree with all of your comments about the "human nature" or "spirituality."

      You say: ...it is people who read what science has to say who think and express themself as if they have it all figured out.

      Now let me quote your previous comment: As we all know if life could take us a 3000 yrs from now instantly....many of those realisations would be the joke of the day. We can only imagine 3000yrs from now...mind boggling! But who knows may be in 2012 we have it all figured out...

      It seems to me that you're speaking about science, not the ordinary people. You know, today's achievements could be joke 3000 yrs from now.

      And regular people who chose to have confidence in science and not in "religion" or "spirituality", they also do not think they figured it all out. They are always open for rational input. You do have such an impression because they refuse to believe in what you believe. In this case some form of "spirituality", whatever that is.

      My guess is that most scientists would never be as rude as some of the posters here...

      Most of the scientists do not engage in theological debates, because it is nonsense for them. Some do, but they're polite as they can, because they appear in public, not on some forum under anonymous name.

      Most scientist would have no reason to say "it's impossible...science will never merge with spirituality"

      Go and try. Ask random scientists about your "idea." They will politely ask you to not waste their time. What you promote is "new age" acrobatics, and I'm pretty sure that "new age" has no place in science now, and not in near future.

    12. You are wrong...
      My statements were 2 different paragraphs:
      As we all know if life could take us a 3000 yrs from now instantly....many of those realisations would be the joke of the day. We can only imagine 3000yrs from now...mind boggling!
      But who knows may be in 2012 we have it all figured out, as the Mayan "are said" to have concluded...it's the end of the world...we have the truth.

      The first states that i know science doesn't have it all figured out.
      The second talks about what people say not science.

      You can put any of my words in your mind in the order you wish, that doesn't make them what i wrote, with my intent.

      What i promote is as possible as anything you bring about for the undisclosed future.
      Does my pointing some people's rudeness bothering you or something?

    13. @Azilda,

      I'm not putting any words in your mouth. I was just quoting you which means I copy/pasted your exact words. Now, if you wanted to convey something else with them, that is another issue. Either you don't clearly express yourself or I'm misunderstanding you.

      Anyhow, what you promote is your own version of God. Yes, everything is possible to happen in future. For example I could claim that dinosaurs will be back on Earth 1000 yrs from now, you can claim that spirituality will merge with science, and @epi could claim that pink elephants will live with us. Is all that probable? Of course not.

      And, no I'm not bothered when you point someone's rudeness. I'm too bothered with their rudeness, but take note that I'm also bothered with your idle chit-chat on many occasions.

    14. The way i use spirituality has nothing to do with religions at least not religion the way you describe it.

    15. @Azilda,

      Yes I know, but the argument is still religious in nature. You want your "spirituality" to merge with science.

      You know, some Muslims, claim that the Quran contains thousands of scientific facts and predictions, that we discover today. They're already trying to merge science with Islam.

  27. You ought to question what you're being told, no matter who's telling it.

    1. right and that is why there is mathematics to prove what is said about the expansion of the universe and the size and age.

  28. There's a real Creator phobia in some of the post, I have observed. This position is suposed to portray sophistication and intellectualism. People who are not DIRECTLY involved in big science would show much more intelligence if they did not try to look so knowledgeable on things such as publishing in science or the dialectics of science. The Faux certitude of many of these passionate science advocates contrasts markedly with the dialogical demeanor of many scientists, excluding those to whom science is their new ideology.

    1. What do you know about scientific publicatoin and the dialectics of science? From your posts, absolutely nothing.

    2. "There's a real Creator phobia in some of the post I have observed."

      You nailed it, explorerguy! In fact, the salesmen of science were/are SO desperate to abolish the idea of a creator, that they had to come up with a creation myth of their own... One which is easily disproved by some VERY simple mathematics.

      The myth --which I'm sure everyone here knows-- is that the universe began with a Big Bang, which occurred some fourteen billion years ago (give or take a few hundred million). The problem with that assertion (which, ironically, many still tout as proof) is that (according to scientific sources) we now have the technology to see some thirteen billion light years across space and time [Hubble is one such device; the binocular telescope at the Keck observatory in Hawaii is another].

      And do you know what they see when they look in any given direction at those thirteen billion year old locations, which are approximately 76+ billion-trillion miles from earth? GALAXIES! Fully-formed galaxies, appearing much like those in the near cosmos. Of course, these same salesmen will try to explain them away as having different compositions, lifespans, etc... But, to the naked eye, they appear no different than our own Milky Way.

      But, forget for a moment that there are such complex structures at these locations.. The mere fact that there is ANYTHING which constitutes physical matter at a location thirteen billion light years away --which, remember, is where these things were thirteen billion years ago-- demands that the time it must have taken to GET to that location (assuming the Big Bang actually did occur) is by orders of magnitude greater than the remaining ONE billion years (give or take a few hundred million) proposed by the current scientific theory. This is a basic point of logic which is always conveniently overlooked.

      So... Obviously, if this universe is so much older, there was plenty of time for countless other civilizations to have arisen (and fallen).. some of whom may have visited (or still do visit) this world from time to time, appearing to [us] primitive peoples as gods and deities. This might explain why the advocates of science are so gung-ho to blast any creationist theories out of the water.. Because the lovers of science --just as the lovers of religion-- WANT us to to believe that WE are the most advanced beings ever to exist in this universe. And a universe which might be as old as a hundred billion trillion years (if not eternal) makes that a highly questionable proposition to either faith.

    3. @David Foster,

      I see now. You've completely lost it. Sorry, but this comment shows how little you know about mathematics, Big Bang, Hubble, etc and still you argue.

      Once you've used the term Google Scientists. It appears you are indeed Google Scientist.

    4. Hehehe... So, are you saying that you don't understand what I just said? Let me simplify it for you...

      Human technology able to see thirteen billion light years.
      Objects thirteen billion years old visible at that distance.
      Maybe you would like to tell me how they got there in just a mere one billion years?

      And, Vlatko... Calling me incompetent doth not an argument make!

    5. @David Foster.

      Sorry I shouldn't have called you incompetent, cosmology is indeed confusing.

      1. The universe is 13.5 billion years old.
      2. The universe is expanding at the rate "age of the universe to the 2/3 power."
      3. RIGHT NOW, the size of the universe has expanded to roughly 46.5 billion light years since the Big Bang.
      4. Galaxies in the Hubble telescope deep field images weren't 13.5 billion light years away, they were much, much farther.
      5. Where you are sitting right now is where the big bang occurred. To confuse you even more, everywhere is where the big bang occurred.

      But back to your question. Earliest galaxies were formed around 0.5 billion years after BB. I don't know why you find that impossible.

    6. RIGHT NOW, the size of the universe has expanded to roughly 46.5 billion light years since the Big Bang

      And yet it's supposedly only fourteen billion years old. so... 46.5/14=...... That's three and a half times the speed of light for the universe to have expanded into the space which it currently occupies... Care to try again?

    7. I should qualify that by saying "the VISIBLE space in which it currently occupies". From the looks of it, we're not even CLOSE to finding the edge of the universe yet (if there even is such a thing).

    8. Cosmos at least 250x bigger than visible universe.

      Because the universe is expanding the photons have traveled 45 billion C years to get here; that makes the visible universe some 90 billion C years across.

      But even then the universe is much bigger, some stats from "Mihran Vardanyon and pals" at U of Oxford, because if the universe expanded at speed of C at inflation should be 10^23 times bigger. Vardanyon and pals use a technique called Bayesian model averaging. Accordingly with that the universe is most likely flat, and infinite, and also 250 times bigger than Hubble universe.

      Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1101.5476

    9. Galaxies in the Hubble telescope deep field images weren't 13.5 billion light years away, they were much, much farther...>/i>

      I wasn't gonna say it, but... OK.....

  29. ok i have read the paper and if i was qualified (and i am not) and asked to peer review this paper i would hold my nose and say that it is correct. the reasons for holding my nose are
    1.the choices in wording expressed in this paper are so ambiguous as to allow multiple conclusions while some possible conclusions many be right most are wrong. i believe this was on purpose to achieve the result that was shown by the original poster for this article
    2.the article brings up unrelated topics while true are only included to muddy the waters,show evolutionary theory as bad by the misuses in the past or list a bad idea in the past that has nothing to do with evolution but hopefully leave a bad taste in the mouth of the reader by mentioning these things in the same paragraph. examples of this are (taken from paper) "Darwinism’s fate contrasts with that of two other seminal nineteenth and early twentieth century discourses,Marxism and Freudianism. Nineteenth century Darwinism
    was at least as laced with ideology as they. It may not have sanctioned capitalist class warfare, as Marxists,semi-Marxists, and leftist liberals have alleged in their talk about ‘‘social Darwinism,’’ but at times it undeniably
    comforted racists, sanctioned imperialism, and actively promoted eugenics"
    3.the paper brings up past errors,incomplete knowledge in the past or other theories that have been dismissed (example Lamarckism,) and while not claiming that these are reasons that this means that modern evolutionary theory today is flawed it certainly hints at that.
    4. the paper brings up newer ideas and theories (epigenetics) that either challenge specific area of evolution or have not been completely adopted or understood and hints (again careful choices in wording) that this lends to a failure in the modern theory.
    in closing this paper actually says nothing to prove evolution wrong. and the reason in my opinion that epic cannot find a citation for this paper is that it says nothing new or scientific. it is more of a selective history of evolution.

    1. Are you saying that the paper cherry-picks and then draws sweeping conclusions based on spotty issues? Would it be inconvenient to ask for a few examples.

    2. robertallen1
      the paper actually draws no conclusions it just lists theories and ideas and leaves the conclusion open to interpretation. and like i said i will give great credit the the choices in wording no one sentence or paragraph actually says anything completely false. and while creator is mentioned (sparingly) they draw no conclusion example "We confess to hoping that it is creative. We think that it can be so because even if evolution has increasingly resulted in processes whose tendency to vary is adaptively entrained to their environments, particular variations at any and all levels of cycling, from cell to ecosystem, are
      adaptively shaped only by being amplified in subsequent cycles (generations). Whatever the answer, however, we are confident that a new and more general theory of evolution is evolving that will explain the different strategies by which unicellular organisms and complex metazoa have acquired their various forms of ‘‘evolvability"" as you can see that paragraph actually says nothing.

    3. Your analysis appears to indicate that while nothing said is totally false, nothing said is totally true; in other words, nothing is said.

      The sentence you quoted seems to stand for the proposition that the writers are confident that as more is discovered, more will be explained. Wow, what an observation! From what you've described, it's hard to believe that this paper was peer-reviewed and if so, who were the peers who reviewed it?

    4. robertallen1
      i have no idea who reviewed it. i seems like more of a political speech then a scientific article. but as i have stated what they said is correct from the right perspective. the paper also describes problems we had in the past along with new discoveries that require an update of the theory as we learn more.the conclusion i draw from this paper is we don't know everything and we might have to give up on or modify some areas of the theory as we learn more. and for that conclusion alone i support this paper. now just like the previous poster i an quoting only parts of the study but i do contest that the paper is just 14 pages of more of the same.

    5. Just another one of explorerguy's red herrings.

    6. I don't think he published that (hum), he just found it and quoted it.
      Why is that wrong? Why does that grant him an other attack on his character?

    7. @Az
      i don't think anyone said he published it. the responses were aimed at the fact that he cited a small quote from it as evidence for his claims. i am accusing him of confirmation bias. i am accusing him of not reading the paper. if these accusations are true then i believe it says a lot for his character

    8. I don't know what publishing "that" has to do with anything.

      Let's get this right. He quoted some snippets and gave false impression, i.e., distortion. In my book, that shows a major character flaw.

    9. See the comment of Over the Edge. I really don't know why you feel you have to rally to the defense of the indefensible and why you make judgments on science and statements about it when, as has been demonstrated by a number of posters, you know so little about it.

  30. peer review doesn't end at publication. there are examples of dishonesty and ulterior motives allowing a paper to get published that had no business getting published (see Richard Sternberg example from ben steins "expelled "). in many cases the review process continues after publication (example letters to the editor) and a paper can easily fail at that point. with that being said i have not read the paper in question. but in addition what epic has already pointed out. i have a hard time thinking the paper said what it is claimed to say by a previous poster. the only evidence i have at this point for my opinion is my past experiences of id sites claiming the same conclusion from other papers and studies only to find out they quote mined ,lied or misunderstood the papers conclusion.

  31. "We are a pack animal."
    "Cooperation is our defining survival characteristic."

    With all respect, that's only half the equation. We are a predator species that has adapted to work well in teams... like our brothers, the wolves. So within the group we cooperate very closely. But outside the group? We're killers. We compete with every other group for domination. Thus our deep enthusiasm for sports.

    What we need to develop is a league: an entity that goes above the individual teams, creating an environment in which all the teams have a chance to flourish. Otherwise our history will always just be a condition of dog eat dog.

    That begins with establishing a grounds maintenance crew-- a team dedicated to keeping the planet in usable shape.

    1. And just how do you propose going about this?

    2. The maintenance group would be comprised of people between 30 and 35 yrs old, half men, half women, half parents, half not, half single, half not, half country living, half city living, half school educated, half life/travel educated, half northerners, half southerners, half blackish, half whitish, ect
      ...no rich, no poor...just half.... that could work.

  32. While someone's religion might not reflect the absolute physical reality of how the earth or it's people came into being; if it's #1 objective is to keep the people aware of and in tune to the the up-keep and preservation of their own environment, then I fail to see how the so-called "truth" is even relevant.

    1. David - The problem is that if your model of reality is faulty, then how would you know how to preserve your environment? Is the environment real? What effect will specific actions have on the environment? How have we evolved to interact with the environment? All these questions require a reliable model of reality to answer. The "truth", or as closely as we can determine, is an essential foundation from which to assess all of our actions.


  33. Very intriguing information. A subject which, as you have stated, is very 'under-recognised'. I look forward to seeing much more of your work. Btw, as a side note, can I ask what are we to expect in the future? I only ask because the evolution of everything around us will, mainly, stem from humans. Recently, it would appear, more than ever, that we, as a species, seem to be dominating, or at least have an understanding of how, and manipulating evolution itself. True, for some time now we have, in an sort of esoteric manner, been carving our own evolution through the environment we have sculpted for ourselves (ref. marketing/advertising techniques and societal models, globally). But, as I have been studying this matter more closely, our evolutionary stage, right now, ties more closely with a sort of major 'reboot' of species; A matter I just recently heard mentioned (ref. TED)

  34. An interesting paper by evolutionist David Depew and Bruce Weber in the journal Biological Theory points out , quoting from this peer-reviewed paper:

    ...it is largely because Lamarckism, saltationist (sudden) mutationism, and inner-driven orthogenesis, to name the most enduring alternative traditions in evolutionary biology, failed to become mathematized empirical sciences with at least a foothold on value-neutrality that Darwinism still rules the evolutionary roost.

    Evolutionary theory is changing and like all sciences it is searching for answers to these questions of how mutations and selection can account for dramatic changes over time. This paper is honest enough to admit that the evolutionary synthesis has never provided a real account of ""how major forms of life evolved"

    1. How about providing us with the date of this article or perhaps the issue in which it appeared.

      Anyone can quote mine.

    2. @robertallen1
      the article he has referring to was published in Biological Theory
      Volume 6, Number 1 (2011). i cannot find a copy of the paper in its entirety.maybe others may have access i do not. while both authors work at universities i am unable to find any education background. from what i have pieced together from various sources is that the paper deals with the progression of evolution from Darwin to today. they list problems along the way and even critique Dawkins "the selfish gene" this paper seems more like a history of the problems that evolution faced and errors along the way than a dismissal of the actual current theory. one thing that i did find disturbing and maybe a clue to their intent was the frequency that the word "darwinism" is used and their own definition "Darwinism refers to its author's proposed causal explanation of evolution -- natural selection -- and to theories in which this process plays the dominant role in evolution, including human evolution.". again i have not read the paper and while only reading excerpts my take carries (and rightfully so ) very little weight. but seeing as explorerguy cited it maybe he can produce the entire article. he must of read it as nobody in their right mind would make such a sweeping claim without actually reading the paper. would they?

    3. Well, you know explorerguy.

      Depew and Weber have written a number of articles together and at least one book "Evolution at a Crossroads." Adding to the sinister nature of the matter, William Dembski has been the editor of most of them.

    4. I have the full text of the paper. I got it through my university journal subscription service (best part of being in university)

      i saved the pdf if anyone wants it you can add me on skype and i will send it. or i can email if you want but we dont really want emails left on the forum...so my skype name is Epicurus420

    5. Epicurus420
      hey i haven't used skype in years. i did sent you a request. if it is easier for you i give vlatko permission to give you my e-mail. i assume as admin he has access to that info

    6. Epicurus,
      sorry for double post (i really shouldn't multitask) did you read the paper and if so am i even close to right in my analysis?

    7. oddly enough im having an impossible time finding it cited in any other paper.

      the strength of a published piece is usually based on how many other published papers use it as one of their sources.

      i havent read the paper in its entirety. too lazy today. been running all over.

    8. Now are you saying being published is still not good enough? Once accepted by peer review, it has to be supported by peers reviewing the review.

    9. it is suspicious when a paper is published and never once cited by others. it means the ideas are bad or useless.

      no one said the peer review process was perfect.

    10. Right! and i have said it isn't.
      Bad, useless or not understood yet?

    11. Can you think of anything better than peer review?

    12. Chocolate spread on toast ;)

    13. Is that a British sounds. Sounds awful to me.

    14. nutella sir?! its delicious

    15. You're thinking of marmite, chocolate spread is an invader. Very welcome though :)

    16. Look up wiki on peer review and you will read some of the concerns, the politic and money involved in the process.
      Something better?
      Probably not better in most situation but more direct is what a lot of scientists are going for these days, straight to the mass through media. Of course many scientists still go along with the process, but as you know there are hundreds (thousands if you count from all countries) of scientists coming out of universities, and less time to wait to be reviewed (a very long process), time is flying these days.

    17. @az
      you stated "more direct is what a lot of scientists are going for these days, straight to the mass through media."i beg to differ i don't think a lot of scientists are going this route. people who wish to deceive,afraid their paper won't hold up or want their 15 min of fame may go this route. the public myself included cannot be expected to understand the sheer volume of information on the multitude of subjects that science covers. going straight to the public can only lead to confusion and or panic. if a scientist cannot wait to be reviewed he/she is dangerous and should be reprimanded for such actions. look what happened when the masses got a hold of some e-mails between climate scientists and the damage done by the conclusions that were later found to be baseless. or how one case of mad cow can ruin an industry country wide. or more recently a supreme court case can be 100% misrepresented because the media cannot read past page 1 before reporting. peer review while not perfect is by far the best way to achieve proper results and understanding.

    18. I guess you're admitting that there is nothing better than peer review. That's all the matters.

    19. possibly not understood yet. but more often than not it is wrong. especially when you look at it in context of the persons other work, where they work, who the journal they were published in is run by....etc.

      science is about scrutiny and skepticism even to its self.

    20. However, you must admit that peer review works fine just about all the time.

    21. 1. How good is the paper?

      2. How good is explorerguy's interpretation, as if I don't know?

  35. So evolutionary theory has no holes then? If not it is a seamless perfectly coherent science? I do not know any science that doesn't have holes , maybe that is the exception? Like the exceptionalism of planet earth?

  36. The BioLogos and Creationist camps still trying to either add "The God of the Gaps" into what remains unknown about abiogenesis in the case of the former, or to punch holes in evolutionary theory in the case of the latter. Meanwhile their book still says some really horrible immoral things and other stuff that is demonstrably factually incorrect. Be a Deist if you like and discuss the science of evolution, I wouldn't care because your beliefs would have no effect on me. If you're a Theist (Jew/Christian/Muslim, or one of thousands of other belief system subscribers dictated to by books and/or people occupying theistic heirarchical positions) then what you believe is demonstrably false and the imposition of those beliefs in the public sphere affects me and I will fight against that influence until it ceases to exist.

  37. ALso, wouldn't it be more reasonable to think that a quadrupled living animal that has attained homeostasis and is FULLY adapted to terrestrial life will over millions of years accumulate mutations to make their bones lighter (this would be against Wolfe's law), in order to fly agains gravity (and against all odds) just to prove evolution doctrine? And where are the fossils of these transitional creatures. Can anyone refer to websites with real pictures of real fossils?. ( I mean going from terrestrial to flying is not like the finches beaks of the Galapagos islands). What are the selective pressures involved? Anyone here can name some?
    ALso why are some of the same fossils found in different strata of the geologic column?

    1. There was a rather interesting doc I saw a while (here?) that showed exactly what changes a land creature might go through to evolve flight, and some of the pressures are pretty obvious...but what you're asking is a whole field of study, not a paragraph or two on a message board.

      As far as 'geologic columns' go, googling that came up with a bunch of creation websites and no real science ones, other than the obvious wiki page. So clearly this is a very important topic to creationists, and everyone else just goes to school. I think if you took a university course or two on geology you might get the answers you're looking for. The wiki page was pretty dry, I do admit, so it might not be a fun course of study.

    2. Kateye 70
      Do you have the name of his movie or documentary ?
      What I notice a lot, is that advocates of evolutionism (the majority of scientists now), know that science is based on skepticism and asking questions, and questioning what has been said. That's how science moves on. Evolution seems to be the exception. Nothing is tolerated that tries to point out the difficulties and implausibilities. In a sense it has become a majority dogma. Can the majority ever be wrong?

    3. Sorry, I really don't remember the name of the documentary, although it might be the one over the edge mentioned.

      Beyond the doc, I've also done reading on the subject, which may be what I'm really remembering--but again, as a layperson, my interest is intellectual, not career, so I don't keep lists of books or articles handy.

      I don't know why you think evolution is any exception to scientific rigor. I've never seen that it was or that anyone in the field thinks it is. I've not seen anyone on this board claim that, either, except creationists.

    4. @explorerguy
      yes science beats up its own theories better than anyone else could. when evidence is provided it is not just taken at face value it has to be demonstrated and repeated by others. errors have been made and there is no way to tell that we have everything right today. what i find funny is when an error (or deliberate lie) is found the creationists cite it as a failure of science in general and evolution specifically. what they never point out (or realize)is most if not all the time it is scientists that find these problems (examples Piltdown Man or Haeckel's embryo's). that is not a weakness or as you say "Nothing is tolerated that tries to point out the difficulties and implausibilities." but the strength. but the most vocal or famous proponents of ID twist the facts,quote mine.lie,or are willfully ignorant or as id favorite ken hovind puts it are stupid on purpose. you support ID fine. i am beginning to think Vlatko was right we have had 800+ posts concerning evolution, how about 800+ where we ask questions and you provide the POSITIVE evidence for ID? by positive i mean actual evidence not a perceived shortcoming of a scientific theory or a "it appears designed so it is" argument but actual proof. what do you say?

    5. "wouldn't it be more reasonable to think that a
      quadrupled living animal that has attained homeostasis
      and is FULLY adapted to terrestrial life
      will over millions of years accumulate mutations
      to make their bones lighter (this would be against Wolfe's law),
      in order to fly agains gravity (and against all odds)
      just to prove evolution doctrine?"

      Ok, do I understand this sentence correctly?

      By 'quadrupled', I have to assume you mean 'quadruped' (4-legged animal, not 'times four') that can internally regulate its own temperature. Ok, so we have a 4-legged creature with internal temperature control.

      will accumulate mutations (you said millions of years, not sure that is necessary, but ok) to make their bones lighter (against Wolfe's law, but from what I read, that refers to bone density changes for an individual creature based on its activity, not genetic changes over generations).

      in order to fly against gravity (flight of all types is obviously possible, it happens all the time, and not just with birds. Bats fly, and quite a few species have gliding capabilities--even certain snakes. They don't have feathers or wings but manipulate their bodies in such a way as to provide lift. But I digress.)

      just to prove evolution doctrine?


      The short version:

      "Wouldn't it be more reasonable to think that an animal (with 4 legs, self-regulating temperature, and adapted to dry land) will accumulate mutations to make their bones lighter in order to fly just to disprove evolution doctrine?"

      Seriously, what are you trying to say here? I don't think any creature evolves just to prove or disprove our theories.

    6. @Kateye70
      good reply. i tried to respond but the didn't know where to start. i have seen all those words before just not in that particular configuration

    7. Kateye70

      Yes quadruped (not quadrupled) sorry for the misspeling.
      Well, I am not just talking about gliding or liftting. I am talking about a world that has never really seen a creature fly up on the sky with the dexterity and aerodynamics of a bird, and then after millions of years these creatures that were fish or amphibians have changed to acquire such skill? This is absolutely incredible. I do believe in selective pressures, random mutations and natural selection but this is a bit too much for me to believe. Plus where are the fossils of these creatures of transitions between condition 1 and condition 2, we should have many of them to show this. The truth is they are not there to show there is this.
      Movement is a very complex set of sensory motor programs that give rise to special reflexes and reactions that is species specific. Evolution teaches these developed. However how can this science demonstrate that such dramatic transformation between the neural integration of r amphibian or aquatic life animals will change over millions of years. How can that be demonstrated? THere is too much certainty with too little evidence in evolutionary science.
      I am not going to accept this or that just because researchers do, because in science we all hold different views about a thousand things. Say for instances, there's plenty of evidence hyperthermia is an adjuvant in cancer treatment but do oncologists adopt it in this country. You can count on your right hand those who do. Everyday dozens of articles are published throwing questions on previous findings. I am just reading one right now (and mind you it is from the same author!!! let alone the fight that goes on between labs around the world on some point of view.

    8. I find it incredible that birds evolved from therapod dinosaurs, but the evidence is undisputable and like yours, my incredibility has nothing to do with it--and there is nothing dramatic about this transformation which took several million years. Now, try applying this to your second paragraph.

    9. Bats? Insects?

      Birds are not the only creatures to have evolved powered flight.

      Granted, they sing and are beautiful to watch. They give us great joy to observe. (It's why my favorite World of Warcraft class is druid--they get to transform into a bird, among other creatures! And yes, that is a pure fantasy game.)

      Are you talking about the concept of 'irreducible complexity?'

    10. @explorerguy
      did you watch the doc that was suggested to you by two posters? "The Four-Winged Dinosaur" right here at TDF. also did you watch the above doc?

    11. I'll bet he didn't watch anything recommended to him. It's not in his nature.

    12. robertallen1
      you are probably right but i figured third time is the charm

    13. Oh no, I will watch it. I didn't know the name of it.

  38. I took a look at the pages what I was referred to about the transitional fossils. What I saw was a bunch of mollusks, and animals engraved on stone that they don't even know what they really looked like (this particular one was " Possibly the best known of all transitional fossils, the Berlin specimen of Archaeopteryx lithographica". BUt wait! You don't even have the bones..or you can't analyse the physiology of that animal and that's supposed to be the best know of all transitional fossils? interesting..oh well.
    ALso the others I saw there were fish and things that look just like the ones that are alive today. Is the terminology 'transitional' given on just the basis of whether they are extinct? I don't see the logics in any of it. Some are life forms that we have today!

    1. The reason you don't see the "logics" in any of it is because, as Epicurus pointed out, you don't have the slightest understanding of science, in particular biology, and yet you think you know more than people who do.

    2. perhaps maybe you should take a biology class?

  39. Way earlier before work I said that no proof of god doesn't mean he doesn't exist. I really mean that. I'm way easy about saying I have no freaking idea what the nitty gritties of life and its usage of reality really mean or are. I tend to think things are weirder, and yes stratified down the line. But beyond this universe, what it is in, if anything. We all have no idea. We know our world, its all we'll know. As far as we know.

    1. Here's a scenario that is scientific fact . The earth could be hit by a big meteor or comet anytime,and humans could disappear from the face of the earth just like the dinosaurs.It happened already in the past and most recently in 1994 when Jupiter was hit by a fragmented comet (shoemaker levy 9).21 fragments of 2 km in size each according to scientists.
      If you ask any astronomer if this could happen on earth they will say that, yes it could happen,it could happen tomorrow or next week.This is science fact.
      If it does happen,and all humanity is extinct (like the dinosaurs)all the science theories will be destroyed,all the books of the world will be destroyed,all the philosophy all the art,everything that humans have created since we been here an earth.No more history.And if you give earth a little of time maybe it will come back to life, at least some organisms may survive.But no humans or large animals .
      So my question is
      What was the purpose of our existence ?

    2. Point well-taken. Purpose comes from within, not from without. As Richard Dawkins once asked, why can't people just appreciate and try to understand what we have rather than attaching a fanciful outside agent to it?

    3. nothing....so why do we do anything? there is no planned purpose and ultimately it is for nothing. nothing matters.

      however it is more fun to do something rather than nothing. and being an organism that has a brain and a central nervous system i have the ability to experience pleasure....so thats my goal.

    4. In that case evolution does not exist ,what is the purpose of evolution if we are extinct.

    5. evolution still exists.

      the purpose of evolution is for organisms to survive. but that doesnt mean the universe wont end and all life with it.

    6. @Juor:

      Evolution will always be evolving, have to fall back on science as it is, and take into consideration the other 10^500 parallel worlds/universes. and our multidimensional selves. Never say quit!

      Life always finds a way, just sayin!

    7. @Juor:

      Right, a high risk Asteroid 2011 AG5 discovered Jan 2011, will arrive and probably impact earth in 2040, researchers are trying to figure out how to deflect it.

      Just a while ago a very large Asteroid went past earth from the southern hemisphere where believe it or not, anybody is even hardly looking. It is not a matter of "IF" but a matter of "WHEN"

      Oh wait! the religee's will save us. floating up to the Rapture anyone?

    8. @Juor,

      You don't need a meteor. Our solar system will die anyway. As any other solar system. Even way before that, the conditions on Earth will render life impossible. At least life as we know it.

      Eventually, ever increasing entropy will tear apart galaxies, and the universe will become a very dark place. Just scattered particles.

      In fact there is a window of opportunity for life in the Universe to exist. From the formation of the very first solar system until the death of the last one.

      Considering the above, do you still need to ask what is the purpose of the existence of a carbon unit, that evolved on some mud ball orbiting an average main sequence G2 star in the Orion arm of some minor galaxy in the backwash of the Virgo Superclaster.

    9. The only answer i find to this fate is that our consciousness is independent from our body,it is at this moment only using this body and this planet and the experiences we all live to LEARN and evolve ,but an evolution of the mind that will survive death to keep on learning and evolving into a better being. If you put this possibility into the equation ,then everything has a purpose and there is no end.
      Then this planet is only a classroom in which we arrive to LEARN .

    10. @Juor,

      If "weather" serves us well, and if we don't kill each other in the meantime, it is inevitable our mind to survive death. We already move faster than evolution.

  40. @over the edge
    Then I think they are put in the same category of warmongers and super powerfull people, general sociopaths. And I do think sociopaths should be agressed, no doubt. But modern medicine evolved ;), into what it it is today, and thats why we live 80ish. Religion had no play in that. Our understanding of all science that we know of. Religion had no play in that (of recent). Mainly I see that religion is the rock in the stream of "real thought", but their numbers are dwindleing so quick, that they wont be able to stand 200 years if things remain tollerable. If fear takes dominance, then yes people will cling to their teddy bears.

    1. @Maddox 1414
      i can live with that lol

  41. Honestly I think anybody should be able to believe whatever they want to believe. It's when you cross the line and agress another persons mode. If people only have 80 odd years to live, I say let them do whatever, if they can. If somebody wants to live life in a piggy costume and be a crazy f*** more power to him. Its where he starts sniffing at you on the street corner, whispering sweet, the fetuses are humans in your ear that gets my prime directive all pissed off. Other than that, let the ignorant bathe in their ignorance, be happy your smart and not let them affect you.

    1. @Maddox 1414
      while i agree what if these people make children wear the piggy costume and scare them into never taking it off? what if they wish to corrupt the system that gave all of us that 80 some odd years instead of 20-40?

  42. @addalled
    No matter how unintelligent people claim you are...you were certainly smart enough to keep all the smart people busy for 2 solid days.

    You first comment was :
    "And yet not one scientifically verifiable transitional fossil has been discovered proving that one kind of living thing eventually becomes another kind of living thing."
    The first to reply to you wrote at the end of his comment:
    "Then what business do you have posting this blog?"

    Rarely have i seen someone get so much attention in such short time.
    At least you're best at that.

    1. @Az
      i am not sure you know how important it is to protect science from these attacks. i am not afraid of the ideas but i am very afraid of the destruction that these ideas wish to cause to the principles of science if they lie and cheat their way in. science is a haven for facts and evidence. it cares not what you think only what you can prove. it is asking the big questions and providing answers more fantastic and wonderful than anyone could imagine. science is the original level playing field.race,sex,language,title,religion and so on gets you no further than any other. it boils down to who has the most proof plain and simple. a German patent clerk between ww1 and w2 rewrote the physics books because he had more proof. need i say more.

    2. I agree science is the only way to understand our physical reality.

      I also agree that many people will question the results of science for the simple reason that science's theories has been shown to be replaced with new findings for ever before.

      Should these people be treated as traitor and unintelligent?

      Many scientists have doubted the theory of evolution in the past and their opinion is still readily available, thanks to the net.
      Here is a link to one such site:
      detectingdesign dot com slash quotesfromscientists dot html

      What do we do when our information does not seem to reach someone? I suppose we write a concise explanation of what best we can offer and leave it at that while trusting that that someone will continue to be curious about the subject and learn at an appropriate time for this person, the same way it was given to us.


    3. If they don't have the background, they are unintelligent. If they do something unscientific, they are traitors.

    4. @Az
      not to be picky but "science's theories has been shown to be replaced " but when a theory is replaced (more commonly updated) it is a scientific theory backed by empirical evidence that does so. Id is supernatural and right or wrong it is not science.and that is well explained in epics link "Should these people be treated as traitor and unintelligent?" this actually bothers me a little. a long time ago (shortly after you joined tdf) you pointed out that i was personally attacking someone(his tdf name was ben if i recall) and while i forget the exact words you had a very good point. since then with rare exceptions i try to attack someones argument and possibility their knowledge on a particular subject or their motives but i never called anyone a traitor ever or unintelligent.

    5. Your posts are always to the point, respectfull and free of name calling.
      You don't need to resort to that strategy...your social intelligence keeps you from doing that.
      Qualitative intelligence paired with quantitative intelligence!
      I always say better reactions can improve the world faster than good actions.

    6. I am fascinated by the supernatural.....ID? not the ID we are told about....the ID we haven't thought of yet.
      the one before before or the one after after.

    7. @Az
      i think i understand your views regarding spirituality. and from what i gather it is closer to consciousness and philosophy or maybe Buddhism than it is to ID. please feel free to correct me if i am wrong. and i think (and i disagree but that is ok) that you feel that science may discover or explain it someday. but i don't recall you demanding that your ideas be included into science curriculum or claim you have scientific proof for these ideas. that is where your ideas differ. i am not so naive to think science has all the answers or ever will. i don't think that every good idea or discovery has to be born out of a lab. but science has developed a system that has provided many (some would argue most if not all) of the ideas that have occurred over time and that system is important to protect.

      p.s you are a bad girl you kookoo and dewflirt always drag me off topic lol and we are close to off topic here

    8. Are you talking about, the idea of biology being little machines that are from extra terestrial or universal energies vs. the idea that the whole run is just a simulation on a extra universal computer?

    9. Don't be misled by the volume of "scroll down I answered that" posts...but I don't think addelled is dumb, just not very mature. I have the mental image of a 12-year-old kid on summer vacation sitting at a computer laughing like crazy while copy-pasta from the ID website. (It would certainly explain the inability to come up with any real rebuttals, not to mention the whining at being asked to actually read anything.)

    10. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I have the image of an uneducated adult so conceitedly ignorant that he doesn't know how ignorant he is. This would also explain his inability to come up with any real rebuttals and his spurning of any of the knowledgable literature and his downright refusal to watch the documentary from Dr. Miller recommended by Epicurus--on the grounds of its length.

    11. So what? It's not much of an accomplishment.

    12. Totally agree with you. It took 700 comments to come to this conclusion.

    13. Please note, there were two other ignoramuses posting as well, David Foster and exploreguy so, addallad doesn't deserve all the "credit."

    14. I would like you to note that you were asked yesterday by the owner of the site to not call people ignoramuses.

    15. That's what they are, whether you like it or not.

  43. After 820 posts, I can't believe this food fight is still going on!

  44. He certainly has been self admittedly ignorant to the point of rudeness. To others more so than myself, still...

    Ticked me off a bit considering the straight forward question I asked.

    The answer unfortunately is not so straight forward, but I would like to read an honest attempt from him, and see where we could go from there.

    I think he feels besieged and has a duty to retort to people he believes are attacking him personally, which is why he tends to respond only to the blunter posts. It is understandable if not particularly becoming.


  45. typical americans, wherever the word 'creationism' or 'evolution' is mentioned there must be at least 1000 comments...

    1. Also the obligatory dig at Americans I see...

  46. I wish I could find this video I saw about a year ago.. It was on The Long Now foundation's website; but they pulled it for whatever reason (I'm not going to speculate why). It was a biologist giving his presentation on how DNA works within the cell, and how the cells themselves function as a whole. His understanding of how life functions was, to say the least, 'unique'. Bummer, it's no longer available. It was one of the more fascinating videos I had ever seen. Goes to the basic theme of this discussion (believe it or not)

    You may also be interseted in Carl Zimmer's lecture on Viral Time. Also relevant, but not nearly as fascinating.

    FWIW, I recommend The Long Now Foundation for many other fascinating videos, if lectures are your thing.

  47. My problem with the concept of ID is;

    One way to distinguish whether or not a thing has been designed, is when it is evidently different (discernible function, no possibility of existence via unguided means) from a thing that has not been designed. Otherwise, there can be frame for reference. If we had no sense of hearing, we would have no concept of sound nor silence. In this sense the claim about a thing being designed is actually a much larger claim that the great majority of things are not designed.

    The only other way is to have evidence for the designer, its tools and materials, its methods, or its (yet unmade) designs. In this sense, the claim of a designer (of any natural thing) is a claim for the existence of a god.

    Either way it is a rather ill thought out repetition of the philosophical watchmaker argument.

    Evolution is not concerned with design, which happens after an observed problem is countered by a design of a functional object to deal with it. Evolution is concerned with adaptation, which happens in reverse to design. The adaptation occurs first, which then enables a problem to be overcome.

  48. You know that is not what he is saying..."Not NY Times. That is not peer-review."
    "Unfortunately the moderator won't let me post links. Even from the NY Times."
    I am sure every one knows, him included that peer review is not something you file with the NY Times...cheap shot.

    When you guys get in a pack against someone, you are ruthless.

    1. It may seem like a 'pack', Az, but when someone is as relentless about mouthing assertions without backing them up as addalled (addled) has been, they kind of deserve what they get. I pointed out yesterday to addalled that he/she was not going to get a spoonfed education from this site, but he/she has gone on making unsubstantiated statements and refused to cite sources.

      Personally, I'm with you, in that there are mysteries beyond what we will ever answer in this lifetime on the spiritual front, but I don't use that as an excuse to ignore the physical evidence in front of me. If all this discussion does is to get addalled looking a little closer at what he/she assumes is the only answer, then it is worth the time and attention.

    2. I see you're an idealist. While your idealism is probably wasted on addalled, others viewing this thread might benefit from your idealism--and that's far more important.

    3. lol, not so much an idealist as a hopeful optimist =)

    4. You overrate him. From his myriad posts, it seems safe to conclude that he doesn't know this.

    5. @Azilda,
      "When you guys get in a pack against someone, you are ruthless" now i don't know if i am part of the pack you are referring to . but all most of us are asking for is evidence to back up claims or good reasons for denying the evidence we have provided. i have not attacked him personally (did question his knowledge of evolution) only his arguments. now if vigorously seeking the facts backed by evidence and trying to protect a discipline (science) from corruption makes me ruthless then so be it. but even i offered to take a break to allow my fellow debater to catch up. and if you think we are ruthless look into the peer review conditions. sorry for the rant i am getting tired of having someones tone during the debate taking precedence over their message. and i have tried to be more polite as of late if that makes any difference.

    6. You are one of the most intelligent and knowledgeable posters on this site and as such, I don't believe you need to justify yourself to her or offer anything in the nature of an apology. Your blogs speak for themselves and I, for one, have learned a lot from them. Keep up the good work.

  49. Now, I felt this docu was really just directed at christians with the agression and sarcasm and all. And really all this was old news for me on the "what evolution is" train of thought. Except for the actual phylogeny. What it DID get me thinking of though is that absolute atheists in some ways can be just as bad as christians. They BELIEVE with all there heart there is no chance of a god. Now me being a scientist I look at that as just as bad a position of professing there is no doubt there is a god. We really still have no idea what existsance really means and why we're a part of it. As we see things there is no evidence of god, that proves nothing.

    1. Purpose and so-called meaning of existence are non-scientific considerations which belong to Cloudland. If there is no evidence, forget it. When some surfaces (which so far it has not), it will be considered.

  50. Excellent discussion, gentlemen (if I can assume you are all male) (other than Az). I'd like to hop in with a response to this comment: "The evidence for design is far greater than the evidence for Darwin's magical mutations creating new 'species'."

    Is there anyone out there who disputes the fact that there is genetic variation in any species? And that in fact genetic variability is inherent in any kind of sexual reproduction? If there is, maybe you're in the wrong discussion. The basic fact of all sexually derived life forms is that with negligible exceptions, we each have two different parents. And we resemble each of them in large degree-- but not entirely. That's why every population contains a variety of individuals, none of them genetically identical.

    By that process, given a sufficient number of iterations, you can come up with an individual so different from his remote ancestor that he can be defined as belonging to a new species.

    Since, say, the time of the Cambrian Revolution, around 540 million years ago, we have had time for a half billion generations. That's more than enough to account for the full variety of phyla and families of eukaryotic life we see on earth today.

    Now let's look at a shorter term: the past four million years. During that time we see skeletal remains that strongly resemble humans. But the older ones, maybe 1-4 MYA, are not exactly like us. They're transitional between humans and the other apes. Whereas the younger remains, certainly within the most recent 200,000 years, are in fact, almost exactly like us.

    You can't study this stuff in much detail without coming away with an understanding of how evolution molds and guides us all. And, for those of you who maintain a belief in God, isn't all this a magnificent proof of God's handiwork? What more elegant system could have been devised for populating a planet capable of housing carbon-based life forms?

    1. The real beauty is that it can be explained without bringing a creator, a religious concept, into it.

    2. You mean this place just popped up one day? With no design other than what's inherent in its structure, hence no Designer? Could be, I suppose. We don't really have any evidence one way or the other. So in my mind, this stays an interesting question for only so long.

      One thing we do know, though. If you look at the world for only as long as human beings have been in charge, there's currently no competent management. So if there's a bearded Guy in the Sky, he no longer takes an active interest in the project.

    3. Could be his only hand in it was to design the process and let it play out. And if the universe doesn't care if we kill ourselves, then why should He? Hmm... Why, indeed!

    4. Or it could be that everything just *is*. A mystery to be sure, but the need for something, anything, to be in charge is a human need, not the universe's.

    5. Richard Dawkins once asked why people can't study and appreciate what is rather than bringing in outside agents to "explain" the whole thing.

    6. Richard Dawkins always use what was brought in before him though.

    7. What does that mean? Give it another try.

    8. To bring it home, i will say...Dawkins is like you, he repeats what his peers say except he is a lot more directly involved. Your 200+ comments on this thread is a proof of that, you brought nothing new and you resorted to belittling and insults.

    9. Fine. That means he's learned something--however, he has done something with his learning which redounds to his credit.

      And as far as bringing anything new to this thread, you have done less than I.

    10. Again... who said anyone was "in charge"?

    11. I'm In charge

    12. Perhaps "in charge" was not the best choice of words...but the need for an authority figure is pretty basic to our species.

      We learn most of what we need to survive. It goes back to infancy and early childhood, when a child's survival of the hazards of everyday life depends on its ability to accept the authority of an older, more experienced person's assessment of immediate threat. It's why children see the world in absolutes (YES that's good, NO that's bad), and only later, as we mature past adolescence into later adulthood, do we come to comprehend the nuances in between.

      So, I'm not saying *anyone* is "in charge", only that it is an innate human need to see the world around us in those terms.

      But apparently ThisDarkChest is in charge, so no worries =)

    13. It could be that the sum of ALL thoughts happening at once every nanoseconds is the "creator" forging a moving futur. The mind being the moving carpet of which the bodies walk on.
      It could be, that before being physical we were spiritual (immaterial) and dreamt this illusion.
      It could be that we wake up from the illusion and in that instant all vanish.
      It could be that all that is, is not.
      How to know what we don't know?
      When enough thoughts converge together, an idea is created and it's physical appearance is seen (with our senses), prior to that it did not exist.
      But if enough see that we are not, if enough accept the illusion, the illusion is what will be.
      Noticed how this illusion has been suggested by great minds (scientists) lately?
      When the fruit is ripe is falls on it's own.

    14. "It could be that all that is, is not.
      How to know what we don't know?"

      How, indeed.

      Until we pass from this world into the unknown, we will not know. In the meantime, we are stuck with figuring out what we *can* know, accepting that our understanding is both limited and flawed.

      Thus my problem with the whole concept of "ID," which claims to know for certain.

    15. ID claim that "they do know" that they want it to be designed.
      No one can claim to know for certain, even them, not a 100%.
      The most religious have moments of doubts, even if a few in a life time, and out of doubts they go back to wanting it to be designed....with all their will.

    16. What an interesting topic for an article, the role of wishful thinking in religion and how it leads to scientific distortion.

    17. I would say the same about scientists though.
      Moments of doubts happen to every 1....even you...i am sure it has and it "may" still.
      One can never say never, because life has a way to bring doubts when least expected.

    18. Wrong. As brought out in the documentary, "Crockoducks" a la Ray Comfort are an impossibility.

      wrong. Anyone who engages in wishful thinking is not practicing science.

    19. Ray Comfort is a clown, a jester....not a good example. All court need one to make people laugh.

    20. "No one can claim to know for certain even them[sic] not a 100%." So when I provide a counterexample, you claim it is no good on the grounds of the nature of Ray Comfort.

    21. I have no doubts that Ray Comfort has doubts.....he is not paid to express them.

    22. That's not the point.

    23. Az...dead on! all of us are collapsing the waveform from the vast sea of unlimited probabilities from the quantum foam, to structure our present reality, so say many physicists.

      Will make a scientist of you yet! lol. All this religious illusion garbage will fall by the wayside, the only place that the so called gods reside is in the minds of people anyway, if enough people start thinking for themselves would be no room for religious mumbo-jumbo.

      I'm just sayin'...Carl Sagan.

    24. Religion will lay flat on it's ground, and science will be turned on it's head.

    25. "Religion will lay flat on it's ground, and science will be turned on it's head."

      Beautiful, a philosopher Poet. I'm so proud of you.

    26. "It could be that the sum of ALL thoughts happening at once every nanoseconds is the "creator" forging a moving future. The mind being the moving carpet of which the bodies walk on.
      It could be, that before being physical we were spiritual (immaterial) and dreamt this illusion.
      It could be that we wake up from the illusion and in that instant all vanish."

      Good observations, Az. I think the word for this kind of thinking is Atman, the Hindu word (or one of them) for all of existence. We are each motes in the eye of Atman. The world is its dream.

      I can never remember his name, but around 5- or 600 AD a very bright guy in India had this to say:

      The world is boundless in every direction; it has no beginning and it has no end.
      As it has no beginning, it cannot have been created.
      As it has not been created, there cannot have been a Creator.

    27. Apparently, at the "time," he had nothing better to do.

    28. A bearded Guy in the Sky seems to imply preordination. So all one has to do is get on his good side and clean up in Las Vegas.

    29. You know what they say about 'ass u me'--no we're not all male =) But welcome to the discussion!

      You give such a coherent, elegant assessment, and graciously allow for a belief in god--yet if you aren't yet aware, ID does not allow for transitional forms or new species. Period. Just ask addalled--no, wait, addalled (addled?) doesn't answer questions, just refers you to earlier non-answers.

    30. Hi Kat,

      Sorry, I didn't notice you there. You were just lurking, not commenting. Whenever I enter a room, I do like to look around to see who's male and who's female.

      Thanks for getting the gist of my comment. Whether or not there's a god, or many gods, or no gods, is just not a question that needs to be asked when discussing the evolution of life forms. Whatever it is, it is exactly what it is.

    31. As I indicated in an earlier post, that's one of the beauties of the whole thing.

    32. M Elivin,

      You forget that children are NOT mutated form of their parents. You forget that mutations in homeostatic system are typically disastrous and typically spell NON-survival. Your logics of what you see in mutations in lower forms of live (which by the way there's evidence they were present in the same time of the 'cambian explosion'), when applied to higher life forms gives birth to the explanations of evolutionary theory, but can they be extrapolated like that without being left with enough guess work?

      You also forget that the more time you put into the equation the more vulnerability you bring to the survival of any living system. ,Our planet is subject to all kinds of forces that destroy life. Thus the more complicated the idea of survival becomes. In a few thousand years we are seeing the ominous development of pathology and all kids of disease entities. Due to medicine and artificialization of life, we are witnessing the survival of the sickest. What do you think millions of years would do to help survival in a hostile earth?

      Have you ever cultured cells in a dish.? Do you know how fragile they are? Do you know how fragile time makes things? Why does evolution extrapolate so much and gets away with things without being able to show it?

    33. EG: Children are not necessarily mutated forms of their parents. They're just different replications. Other than identical siblings, no two are alike. That has to do with the reproductive process, with two sets of genes mixing into a blend. The mix doesn't come out the same way each time-- it's like two casseroles made by the same cook using the same recipe.

      So we can forget mutations, and the story will play out in much the same way. A variety of individuals exists in some species. Then evolutionary pressure takes place. Maybe it's a huge flood that puts everything underwater. After the flood, only those who can swim pretty well survive to propagate. And from then on, that species can swim pretty well-- even though in the original species, maybe only one in a hundred could.

      That's the way life changes. Judging from today's political headlines, in the future all human beings might be natural Republicans-- the Dems having gone extinct. :)

    34. And maybe the Republicans are headed in the same direction.

    35. Michael Elvin,

      Thanks for your comment, but you did not comment on the main points I made.

    36. "Thanks for your comment, but you did not comment on the main points I made."

      I did address your first paragraph. Life can evolve quite well without mutations. But if you try to refute evolution by saying that most mutations are deleterious, it's not a good argument.

      Let's take the AIDS virus, because it makes lots & lots of mistakes when copying itself (that is, mutations). It's very mutable. And let's say that only one mistake in a million happens to confer an advantage. All the others are fatal.

      But in an infected person, there are many millions of viruses. So if just one happens to confer an advantage, that's the only one that gets to reproduce. And so the retrovirus adapts to adversity by becoming a new strain. That's why this virus acts in such a seemingly intelligent manner: it can quickly outsmart most strategies that are designed to defeat it.

      Note that as far as we know, it does this entirely without possessing consciousness. Sentience is not required for this system to work. Likewise no Intelligent Creator is required for the universe to work. It does so purely through the laws inherent in large numbers.

      As for your other comments, I don't understand most of them. For instance "Your logics of what you see in mutations in lower forms of live (which by the way there's evidence they were present in the same time of the 'cambian explosion'), when applied to higher life forms gives birth to the explanations of evolutionary theory, but can they be extrapolated like that without being left with enough guess work?"

      Say what?

    37. All the other posts so far have been clear, why can't yours be?

      Again, what are you talking about?

    38. Roertallen1: Anything that conjectures some of the evolutionary reasoning or logics will be very uncomfortable and fuzzy for your mind and foreign to your lexicon. Anything that poses a critique to it will be considered garbage...LOL No approach questioning some of the evolutionary issues will be clear no matter how flawless the language may be! just face it!

    39. Don't try to pass off your inability to write clearly as a hallmark of the depth of your "thought." It has as much validity as the reasons you have given for not subjecting anything you might author to peer review.

      Let's face it, you write gibberish because you have nothing to offer which ties in with your refusal to face peer review.

  51. This is a most interesting video.

  52. Darwing based his observation on observable morphology . The discussion of what selective pressures, drifts, speciation and other mutational changes have brought about highly complex integrated physiological system that no one tackles very well in evolution. So people usually present how appearance of the skeletons change. The is the most simple thing to study in the basic sciences, the anatomical characteristics. Delve into the systems physiology and you will quickly understand that homeostasis means constancy and evolving from constancy is quite a lead of the imagination. Moreover in an adult animal such as those portraid in fossils, mutation, just as we see today are typically fatal when they are they affect the physiology of that animal. not so with bacteria because they do not have a system's physiology to depend on.

    1. Just what are you getting it?

  53. It smells sulphurous in here. Be seeing you ;-)

  54. the problem i see here is the inability to agree on what makes a "transitional " fossil on one side (the one i agree with) the claim is all fossils are transitional and there are many that show traits of transition. and on the other side the rejection of those fossils as not true transitions. so i will try a different analogy as to try to get my message across. if we look at the "evolution " of the English language we see that has roots in Latin then French/Spanish/Italian then Germanic then old English and modern English (i know i slipped steps trying to save text space). very few would argue this development. we have writings showing many different steps along the way and we see the common ancestor in the similarity of words showing more similarities with more recent evolution than older evolutions (except the scientific input of Latin) but i know of nobody who can show when old English became modern English or when German became English and so on. the fact that we don't have and will never have the exact first truly modern English writings doesn't mean that it did not descend from old English. it was a gradual thing with no sudden change from one to the other. on a side note i live very close to Quebec and i speak a very interesting version of Franglais that nobody in France would consider french but i could still communicate.

    1. I understand what you're trying to do and it sort of works, but not quite as well as you would like it to.

      First of all, let's get the order right. English went from a dialect of Frisian, a Germanic language, acquiring Latin words after Caesar's invasion of the island. Then with the conquest of England by the Norman French in 1066, the language not only took on large numbers of French words, most of them with Latin roots, but within 300 years (in linguistic terms, half a minute), the grammar changed from an inflected to an uninflected language, a transformation as massive as the Cambrian explosion or the extinction of the dinosaurs. So it was far from the gradualism which you attempt to illustrate

      Secondly, the linguistic "fossil record" is considerably more complete than the biological fossil record and as a result we are able to see changes (at least in the written word) as they actually took place. So little extrapolation is needed. If by modern English, you mean English pretty much as it is written today, that doesn't begin until the 15th or 16th centuries, but one way or the other, we have plenty of examples and the differences as well as the transitions are plain to see. I could discuss spelling, strong and weak verbs, past participles, all of which don't seem to have analogues in biology and am willing to do so, but only if requested to do so (knowing full well that I won't be).

      Therefore, much as I would like to, I cannot completely buy into your analogy however well-intentioned it is. There seems to be no adequate analogy to biological evolution which is probaly why some find it difficult to grasp due either to inability or volition.

    2. @robertallen1
      your knowledge on this matter would be greatly appreciated. i know that my analogy was sloppy and incomplete and from what i have gathered from your previous post i would have much to learn from you on this subject. but maybe this doc is not the forum for this discussion

    3. You have provided me with much information so I see no reason why I shouldn't do the same for you. If I can be of any assistance, please let me know.

  55. I challenge anyone here to provide evidence of how large mammals came to exist from fish and from there how birds evolved from other animals. Anyone wants to comment? I also would like to know, why if species have each taken their speciation, why is it that most nature 99.9% of life forms that have eyes have two and not one. If anyone wants to comment on those I will get more clear what your evolutionary logics is. No quoting of anyone, Mr Darwin or any criationists or ID or what not. Just basic facts and basic axiomatic logics.

    1. @explorerguy,

      You've got us. Damn. Now what your religion says about mammals? Made of dust, 6000 years ago. Hmmm...

    2. I do not believe in theories such as intelligent design or religionists. My only disappointment is that when a critique is made of a theory people cannot see it for what it is. They have to evoke, religion, institutions faith, or what not. It is this kind of dogmatic science that will not admit complexity of opinions and dialectics any longer because it also became a religion and totalitarian academic massification. As a researcher myself, I cannot expound on it from someone who knows the inside stories of science on such a limited space and time constraints. However I do no what used to be good scientific dialogue, before people became fundamentalists about their positions.

    3. First you say you do and they you say you don't. I question your sincerity.

    4. @explorerguy
      ok i will try. and by your request i will post from memory.
      1- "how large mammals came to exist from fish" well there are many fossils showing the transition from water to land and back again (whales today still have all the bones necessary for hind legs). no animal decided to leave the water but mutations could have risen to allow an animal to leave to water for a short time in order to escape a predator, take advantage of a new food source or lay eggs (many examples of these things exist today in many forms. if another mutation allowed an animal to go farther from water or stay on land longer then more new food sources could be used and so on. i am not claiming that this is what happened but there are fossils that point to this conclusion. again siting specifics from memory is difficult

      2. next "why is it that most nature 99.9% of life forms that have eyes have two" well because even tho we do evolve and create new species we do not leave our evolutionary history so if the first animals with eyes had two that is the way it will stay unless selective pressures arise within a species for a different path. for example there are moles and fish that live in total darkness so all are born blind but still have much of what is needed to see but as time goes on they may reuse these functions or "parts" for other purposes or the eyes may disappear altogether.

    5. Once again, who said that large mammals evolved from fish? However, birds did evolve from theropod dinosaurs and there is a fine documentary about the velociraptor on this site, not that you'll watch it.

      "Why if species have taken their speciation" What is that supposed to mean or do you know? And what does it have to do with having two eyes. As a matter of fact, do you know anything about the development of the eye. For your information a number of species such as octopi have far more.

      What you need is a crash course in environmental biology--or perhaps nothing can cure your wilful ignorance.

    6. I have seen some documentaries and the abundance of underwhelming evidence and most of it rhetoric of evolutionary thinking pattern, making HUGE leaps of extrapolations and generalizations about things they cannot prove or even show. They show similarities and that's supposed to mean something. How does this science gets away with murder in the face of the crevice and rigor of statistical significance to show something WAS indeed an effect and not 'Random", baffles me utterly!

    7. @explorerguy
      correct me if i am wrong but. these statistical improbabilities that you refer to claim that life could not arise from "random chance" alone don't they (please cite study so i can check for myself)? but evolution isn't random it is directed by natural selection removing the "chance" from the equation.

    8. You've seen some documentaries. Which ones? The only reason you're baffled is because you're wilfully ignorant. How about reading a standard textbook on evolutionary biology so that you know something about the subject which you are subjecting to your boeotian criticism.

  56. Interesting day, a 9 + hours argument when in the futur it may be experienced that this whole reality is an illusion.

    1. @Az
      great water things down some more lol. just kidding i was wondering you were going to show up (always welcome of course). what is your take on the debate so far?

    2. My take on it, is that at one time the world over agreed with intelligent design and then Darwin puplished his findings and the world started agreeing with him (after much dissagreement). I suspect someone else will come with something new and it will change that again. This time, as i wrote below it may have to do with understanding the reality we accept now, in a whole different way.
      May be give it an other 2000 yrs or less or more. What would a robot or a non being, say (think) about intelligent design or evolution?
      We push the boundaries always, always have. (while arguing)

      Science alone of all the subjects contains within itself the lesson of the danger of belief in the infallibility of the greatest teachers in the preceeding generation . . . Learn from science that you must doubt the experts. As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.
      Richard Feynman

    3. Actually the preponderance of the scientific community agreed with Darwin; it was basically the religees who made the trouble, as they always do when it comes to hard knowledge as opposed to belief, superstition and fairy tale. For the last 150 years, evolution has stood. I don't have a crystal ball, but I suspect that it will continue to do so for some time to come.

      The medical world once believed that disease was caused by various humors, among them bile and phlegm, the cure for which was blood letting. Today we know better, demonstrating the fundamental beauty of science: it changes with the amassing of information. That's more than I can say for religion.

    4. The existing scientific concepts cover always only a very limited part of reality, and the other part that has not yet been understood is infinite. Whenever we proceed from the known into the unknown we may hope to understand, but we may have to learn at the same time a new meaning of the word `understanding'.

      I agree totally all religions are wrong for the simple reason that they are walled off (with thick as a brick walls) just as science can and has been walled off. Fortunately science accepts to change it's opinion readily because science cannot "stay" walled off by it's very nature. It cannot stay controlled because new researchers always come from under. Religion is controlled by the top and it's control is passed over from top to top over the people under.

    5. Az...Right, I was away for about 5 hours of this argument, so had to put my speed reading skills into play, lol. 700+ e-mails, but it is handled, no problem.

      You said it in a nutshell, it is all illusion anyway.

  57. I have a question for anyone who believes in intelligent design.

    How do you know, when a thing has been designed?

  58. @addalled
    please provide a detailed definition for speciation. you ask for speciation then deny evidence given as not speciation so what specifically and in detail are you asking for?

  59. I think the movie is well done. Amazed at the use of fantasy. Is evolution deep down a big fantasy? Why so much branching is species from little microscopic life to lions and every possible thing in between? Doesn't that argue against evolution? It is more like if it was a explosion. And what about the cambrian explosion, speaking of bombs.

    1. @explorerguy,

      It is a good thing that creationists are watching these videos. You should also watch "Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism" or "Why Do People Laugh at Creationists"?

    2. No, it supports evolution just as the Cambrian explosion does.

  60. But evolution is a fact. How can you go outside anywhere on the planet and not realize that? Natural selection, competition for resources, and changing environments all cause life to adapt. Thats all evolution is. The explanation for how life adapts. There is no other explenation for this phenomena. There is no 3rd theory. Show me this 3rd theory. And creationism is a poor attempt at religious nut jobs to validate a book that was written thousands of years ago, and then rewritten about a thousand times since. The world was flat back then remember? And you want to trust that book of lies? I mean im not trying to say there isnt a god, because no one knows the answer to that old question, but i will guarantee you that any monotheistic religion is completely false in every way. So that being said, creationism is a twisted lie. Not a theory. It is a lie and its evil to teach children this nonsense. They will grow up insane, literally. I can't believe that a thinking human being could actually entertain the thought of creationism after all the scientific evidence brought forth by many fields of science supporting evolution. The whole universe is evolving. Stars explode to make new ones and new planets so life can have a chance to take hold and evolve itself. We see this happening everywhere. We have proven that heavy metals come from stars. Maybe something put this all into motion billions of years ago, who knows? But to say some creator came down and made the earth 5000 years ago and made every individual insect, bacteria, mammal, reptile, ect. is complete ignorance. We should have left this argument in the 20th century. We have no more time to dwell on obvious truths. Bigger problem face us and we are still arguing about whether we came from monkeys. Pathetic.

    1. But again it's hard to believe that Catholics deny the need for birth control.

  61. Darwin proposed the idea of Natural Selection -- much of which he recanted later in life. However, most "Darwinists" I've ever come across mistake Darwins ideas for Survival Of The Fittest -- more of a political stance, than one of science.

    1. If you credit Darwin as being the first to propose the idea of natural selection, you're wrong, for the idea goes back at lerast to Empdocles--and there was also Lamarck. Even suggesting that Darwin proposed it is inaccurate. He merely bolstered it with massive amounts of evidence. In addition, Darwin never recanted natural selection. Also, you confound evolution with social Darwinism, two different animals. It's obvious that you've been getting you information from creationist websites and not from reputable sources. This does not say much for you.

    2. Jeezuz H. McGillicutty... You just have an argument for everything, don't ya? How then would you have liked me to say it.... "Darwin put forth the idea..."? ... "Darwin expounded upon the idea..."? ... "Darwin eluded to the idea..."?

      Dan is right, you are Trollius Maximus!

    3. How about something like Darwin elaborated on the idea . . . and provided considerable proof.

  62. You just destroyed your whole argument when you said that "Evolution is still just a theory. No proof exists to substantiate the claims that humans evolved in the manner in which it states." Any sense you made up until that point was destroyed with that obsurd statement. Good day.

  63. Here's a related conundrum. Who or what domesticated plant and animal species?

    In other words who was patient enough to spend centuries domesticating a wild grain in the hopes that it might one day yield an as yet undiscovered bread? There are several factors that needed changing so this was no easy task and who would have known it was worth the effort over countless generations?

    Who was willing to breed wild auruchs for untold centuries (huge and dangerous) in the hopes of getting a bit of milk from it?

    Before you scoff there is scientific data to analyse here. Wild oats had 7 chromosomes while domesticated has more than 40. This was domesticated more than 10,000 years ago by cave dwellers. Or was it?

    The Russian Academy of Science has been attempting to domesticate wild Rye for the past 150 years in a continuously ongoing experiment - to no avail. It's still inedible wild (Altai) Rye.

    Just food for thought and troll bait but still a valid point to consider...

    1. Who? This assumes a conscious and willing agent and renders your entire post silly.

    2. Just because the Russians can't domesticate wild rye doesn't mean that plant domestication has to be the result of a conscious thought process. It occurs as the result of some type of pressure of one species upon another. I seriously doubt the people who domesticated grains were thinking about making bread.

      There's a much more complex set of interactions between species than you seem to think. Was it really humans who domesticated plants and animals?

      Or did they domesticate *us* to benefit themselves? Cows, goats and other barnyard animals have a pretty easy life in return for giving some milk or eggs while alive and their flesh once they no longer use it themselves.

      More food for thought: People seem to think humans are the only ones who domesticate other species and influence plants, yet...consider the ant.

    3. Heh.. More likely, beer!


    4. "Cows, goats and other barnyard animals have a pretty easy life"

      Oh yeah... Happy Times on the Feed Lots!

    5. Don't confuse modern agriculture with early domestication. There were definite benefits for those species that joined with humans.

      Edit: Glad you enjoyed my answer, I think I was a little short with this one, but that's only because I am not a fan of agri-business. And I think animals in less industrialized parts of the world still have it pretty easy, considering what's happening to all their wild cousins and non-relatives.

    6. Wut? You said they "have" a better life. Or did you mean the part about the beer?

    7. Love it! Great answer :-) And I had considered aphid farming ants etc I was just trying to stimulate out of the box thinking and you rewarded me with a polite and stimulating answer.

  64. Hehehe... Now MY posts are starting to disappear. And guess what... No defamatory language, cursing, or inappropriate linkage... Just a straight-forward, carefully crafted examination of sub-special relationships.

    Don't look now, mr. moderator, but your agenda is showing... ;-)

    1. @David Foster,

      Which posts? As far as I can see everything you've posted is here. It is easier to immediately assume that there is an agenda... right. Funny you actually think that posters here can't cope with your arguments... if any.

    2. Vlatko,

      He might be right. There's one about WWII which I received in my e-mail but which I cannot find on the site. I mention this because I would like to comment on it.


    3. @robertallen1,

      You're right. It was marked as spam by the system. I approved it.

      P.S. Tone down the personal attacks. Stay with the arguments. Don't call people ignoramuses, etc.

    4. @Vlatko,

      Ok, then I will re-post (this will be a dramatic simplification, as the original feeling is lost)..

      It was in response to robertallen1's implication that the inquisition was one of the greatest human tragedies ever...

      I asked him: Why, then, did we drop the bomb on Japan?, seeing that 1) we had already won the war, and 2) we had not intended the bombs for Japan, but Germany. I also pointed out that this even killed more people than all of the inquisitions (Spanish or otherwise). And I asked: What religion did he intend to blame that on?

      Not that important, really, as I would only expect to be called an imbecile for asking it.

  65. Hugh Ross- Origin of the Universe

  66. i think there needs to be a clarification on some points. speciation is slow and there is no claim within evolution that a dog evolves into a cat (actually it is evolutionarily impossible). evolution only claims that a species will accumulate mutations (changes) over time and when enough of these changes occur then there is a speciationary event. it isn't all at once nor is the new species going to be radically different from the original. if this speciation occurs over a long enough period of time and continues to occur then these differences will accumulate and the differences between the original and the current species will become more pronounced. at no time will this new species grow out of its history and if it ever does it will raise serious questions about the validity of evolution.a dog (or its future species) will always be a member of it's Class.order.family and so on and will never cross over to another class,order,family and so on. that is what i see as the problem. there are those that require proof that would violate what evolution demands and therefore this proof cannot be given

    1. Exactly. And as I understand it the further back in the phylogenetic chain a species is (i.e., the simpler it is), the greater number of mutations it can engender. Please correct me if I have not stated this accurately.

      But there is one thing I need clarification on (although I think I know the answer): In light of your first paragraph, how is the change from theropod dinosaurs to birds explained.

    2. @robertallen1
      the evolution from theropods to birds can be explained. first off the theropod fossils we have show hollow bones which makes flying possible but also provides more flexibility and could have originally evolved to allow faster running and also the lighter weight would require less energy to be consumed (food) to sustain life. the fossils also provide the three towed design preferred by birds the first and fifth toes (trying to recall from memory so i could be wrong) are greatly reduced which is also an adaption for speed. also not only do some fossils show the remnants of wings but others that have not fossilized the feathers show the evidence on the bones where feathers attached. these feathers not only could have evolved to keep an animal warm but also the rudimentary wings could have been first used for balance while running (see ostrich ) or early forms of gliding. there are of course other examples but i hope this shows how the evolution could have occurred while showing the advantages of any intermediary species would have gained prior to flight. i hope this answers your question

    3. Only in part. I guess my question is more genetic. Isn't it the consensus that scales basically metamorphosed into feathers? If so, it stands to readson that line of theropods must have had such a gene in its allele, but this gene remained dormant (not turned on) for many millions of years and, of course, turning it on ushered in the feathered kingdom. I hope I'm making sense.

      Also, I'm a bit leery of the phrase "could have." From what I've read about velociraptor and similar species, "could have" changes to "did." Please correct me if I'm wrong.

    4. @robertallen1
      the reason for "could have" is partly due to the fact that i do not claim to be an expert,am typing from memory (too lazy to verify if my memory is correct) and also that even tho we do have the specimens showing these changes there is no way (as far as i know) to be 100% correct in their original uses or if these uses are the only reasons for the adoption. while the jury is still out recent discoveries and hypothesis seem to see the development of feathers deriving from follicles rather than scales. this is the development i prefer but i do not claim it as fact.

    5. O.K. Then is there a consensus about whether follicles developed from scales?

    6. @robertallen1
      pretty much a consensus that sales did develop into follicles but i do not remember there being a proposition that it was a dormant gene for feathers only a modification of an gene that was in use to produce scales then follicles. i hope i am not splitting hairs (no pun intended) and again i am treading on the edges of my knowledge so i reserve the right to be mistaken.

    7. I think you understand why I'm bringing this up because changes a la Ray Comfort cannot occur while birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs which on the face of it sounds just as fantastic.

  67. "superstition", "dogma", and "faith" have no teeth. Only "knives", "guns", and "bombs" have teeth. And these are not products of superstition; these are products of science. After all; you can't throw an inquisition without all of those nifty torture devices.

    1. @David Foster,

      Yes they have.

      If I'm superstitious that you're a witch, i might burn you alive.

      If I believe that 42 virgins are waiting for me after death, I might crash an airplane into a building.

      If I'm dogmatic enough I might convince several hundred people to commit suicide (Jonestown).

      See those things have teeth indeed.

    2. There might be some argument as to who actually crashed those planes. but I digress...

    3. Please don't forget the Inquisition, Spanish and otherwise.

  68. Moderator not allowing me to comment?

    1. Seriously, the moderator has thrown out two of my responses? I must have touched a nerve.

    2. "I must have touched a nerve. "

      Could be that you swore, or used derogatory remarks. The blog software has a built-in P.C. filter.

    3. I thought of that. I posted again, being extra careful of my language, still denied.

    4. @Emily Bernier
      not accusing you of anything but look into the " comment policy" i would suspect that the answer to your question is contained within. i have had comments take a while to appear at times and it has always been because of reasons listed within the policy

  69. If you really want to know the truth of any theory, you have to have an open mind.And to have an open mind you CAN NOT belong to any group or organization of any kind,either religious or scientific. Religious people have to believe in what their religion says or they will have to suffer the consequences (whatever they may be) and scientist also have to be very careful of what they say because they also could suffer the consequences
    of their actions.In other words neither religious people can think out of the box nor scientists can think out of the box,which limits their capacities.
    About Evolution,another possibility of evolution is "Artificial evolution" and that's when a living creature is transformed by DNA manipulation,and in a matter of a fraction of time is changed compared to what nature would take. That has already happened in the GMOs .And believe me it is also being done on humans.Another way of altering DNA and making you evolve is by the radiation that's everywhere,pollution,fertilizers etc.So you can bet we are evolving but not naturally.

    1. "..to have an open mind you CAN NOT belong to any group or organization of any kind, either religious or scientific..."


      All those little "isms" and "ologies" by which we define ourselves... little boxes we put ourselves into, which constrain our thinking... Throw 'em out!!

    2. The driving of the discussion of evidence and what good evidence is made of toward ISMs is really a great way to avoid the analysis of arguments. People here write anonymously. If the quest is to just discuss and keep discussing I can understand. If the quest is to weigh things and possibly ponder on what's being said, it is no use just throw new sciences that are even more controversial to advocate for.

    3. It would seem to me "the quest" is to bash religion over the head with science until dead. I can only guess it's because a lot of people blame religion for all of the atrocities that happened throughout human history. I, however, don't see things as being quite so cut-and-dry. So I don't imagine I'm going to make many friends here. Too bad, too. Most of ya seem pretty smart, otherwise.

    4. And religion, that vortex of ignorance, should be bashed over the head with science. Making friends has nothing to do with it.

    5. This is not about the documentary, I was just wanting your opinion. If you don't blame religion for all the atrocities that happened, then what do you blame? How do you explain this?

    6. If people misunderstand terminology in evolutionism, I think they do it the same with the charged word.."religion"..What do they mean. Religion is to be studied phenomenologically and not biologically or socially. You can study it historically. Religion is an individual experience, a transcendental reality. What people are talking about is Center powerful churches made of politicians who have used the disguise of faith to conduct their agenda. You call that religion..I think people should reconsider if they have any understanding that religion is about the heart, and the conscience.

    7. In other words, religion is crap.

    8. The third option appears at last :-) Uniformitarian kryptonite too if you ask me. Catastrophism appears in many guises and Jour's are as good as any. The point is there has been an outside influence on a formerly stable state of affairs.

      The truth is most likely to be a sensible combination of both Uniformitarianism and Catastrophism but its nearly impossible for either side to ever admit that.

    9. If you contend that there has been an outside influence on a formerly stable state of affairs, you must first define and describe it and then scientifcally prove it. Otherwise, it's meaningless conjecture.

    10. Meaningless conjecture? Are we reduced to having to scientifically prove the existence of asteroids, cosmic rays, pollution, laboratory induced genetic modifications etc etc?

      Unless I can prove these things right here in this forum they don't exist do they?

      I thought this conversation could get no more banal but it just did.

    11. That's not what I'm saying and you know it. You must first define and describe this outside influence and then prove its effect--and I don't mean something as basic as the sun's and moon's effect on the earth.

    12. It has nothing to do with an open mind, thinking "out of the box" (whatever that is) or a group. It's simply the hard evidence and the well-founded, logical conclusions drawn from it which religion lacks.

      But you're right, we can manipulate evolution up to a point, but it's still evolution.

    13. Religion is more often a reaction to nature, rather than an attempt to define it. And for most cultures it worked fine for eons, until 'civilized' man came and beat it out of them. That's the point I think YOU are incapable of comprehending!

    14. Reliance on hard evidence (read rationalism or naturalism) replaced reliance on baseless superstition, faith, dogma (read religion). Had religion worked fine for eons "in most cultures" (whatever this means) this would not have happened.

      You're obviously as ignorant of history as you are of science.

    15. Well, Einstein... It means that WHATEVER they believed, they never did as much damage to the planet as the scientifically-minded industrialists who eventually conquered them!

    16. So religion is better than science because all of the bad things that "scientifically-minded industrialists" have done to our planet?

      I see you haven't heard of the Crusades or the Inquisition. How about the recent poisonings of female students by the Taliban?

    17. "So religion is better than science because all of the bad things that "scientifically-minded industrialists" have done to our planet? "

      Yeah, pretty much...

    18. In other words, superstition, dogma and faith supersede hard evidence. This says everything about the level of your intelligence.

    19. Tell me, Einstein... Why did we bomb Japan? We didn't NEED to do that... the war was effectively over! In fact; we never intended to bomb Japan in the first place. Those things were designed to take out the Germans. Only, someone made the mistake of winning the war in Europe before we got the chance to use our nifty new firecracker... which, by the way, more people died as a result of than were killed during the entire inquisition! So, whose religion are you gonna blame for that one?

    20. For your information, at the time Germany surrendered, the Japanese army numbered several million and their leaders were not about to give up. There was plan afoot to invade the Japanese mainland, but it would have taken some time to execute (probably another year or so) and would have resulted in 1,000,000 casualties. As it turned out, the war ended speedily after the two bombings with the number of deaths estimated at 220,000. Despite the bombings, the religious zealots who made up the higher eschelon of the military wanted to fight to the last man. The only reason Japan surrendered was because the Emperor took command. So you can blame the Japanese religion and once again science came to the rescue.

      Why don't you read up BEFORE posting?

    21. "So you can blame the Japanese religion and once again science came to the rescue."

      That's what you call a rescue?

      Despite the official story, Japan was in no condition to fight another ground war. They had virtually NO recources left; and they were down to training milking girls as ground troops. There was no need for an invasion. Although, you're right about one thing; a ground war probably WOULD have senselessly killed millions, instead of the mere 220,000 inflicted by the bombs.

      And despite all that, Buddhism and Shintoism remain strong to this day. So much for your "rescue".

    22. "Despite the official story"--so you know something no one else does. However, you're right, Japan like Germany was depleted of its resources.

      And yes, science did come to the rescue by reducing the possible collateral damage.

      Now what does the present state of Buddhism and Shitoism have to do with this?

    23. Well, you would THINK that if they had anything to do with anything you suggest, that their eradication would have been part of the peace agreement. After all; that IS what we were "rescuing" them from, no?

    24. I would also have thought that elimination or execution of the Emperor would have been part of the peace agreement, but we settled for Tojo. So what?

    25. Well, YOU are the one who suggested we were rescuing them from their abominable religion, not ME! You tell me So What.

    26. No, I did not suggest that and you know it. Such a deliberate mischaracterization and misstatement merit the personal attacks.

    27. [quote] "So you can blame the Japanese religion and once again science came to the rescue." [end quote]

    28. Where in this quote did I indicate that we waged war on the Japanese religion. You've still mischaracterized and this doesn't say much for you.

    29. [quote] "SO YOU CAN BLAME THE JAPANESE RELIGION..." [end quote]

    30. It was quite clear (except apparently to you) that I meant that the Japanese religion was at the heart of the resistence on the part of those of the upper military echelon, not that we were waging war on the Japanese religion. If you can't understand this, then the problem is yours.

    31. Religion had nothing to do with Japan's entering the war.

    32. Did I say anything about the reasons behind Japan's entrance in the war?

    33. Robert, don't you see what is happening here? You are blaming religion for the ambitions of MEN! Even if I were to agree that religion was the primary motivation behind what the Japanese leaders did during WWI, it would NOT indicate that their religion was inherently "evil", in some way. Nor would it indicate that Christianity is inherently "evil", were I to concede that it was the motivation behind the leaders of the inquisition. For the most part, most of the religious people I know are caring, peace-loving individuals. But YOU say they are all "evil" and should be considered "our enemy" simply because they believe something which science cannot prove.. Which is why I asked you if you would be willing to consider your grandmother your enemy based on the same logic. I'm sorry that that pissed you off.

    34. I also know a lot of caring, peace-loving atheists. And quite frankly, religion is fine provided it does not venture outside the church, the home or the self, but when it does--well, by now you should be aware of the results.

      Don't flatter yourself, your question about my grandmother didn't piss me off, it simply showed you up for what you are.

    35. "Don't flatter yourself, your question about my grandmother didn't piss me off, it simply showed you up for what you are. "

      Yeah... Someone whom you think is a 'religee', and therefore fit for the slaughter.

      Don't bother to reply, I won't be talking to you any more.

    36. No, I have come to believe something that many who were actually there have openly stated. And were it not such a pain in the a$$ to post links here, I would also be happy to do your homework for you on that, as well.

    37. And just keep on calling people ignern't... It'll look great on your resumé.

    38. Your comments speak for themselves.

    39. "Your comments speak for themselves. "

      I should most certainly hope so!

    40. @Juor
      you stated "If you really want to know the truth of any theory, you have to have an open mind" while i agree i do have some questions. when you say theory do you mean a scientific definition or a layman's definition it may sound picky but it is important? also "scientist also have to be very careful of what they say because they also could suffer the consequences " i agree again but a scientist only has to be careful when he cannot back up what he says with evidence. if he has the evidence the consequences are usually money,grants,fame and possibly a Nobel prize. yes a scientist has to stay within the box as far as his/her pursuit of science is concerned. but the box is only confining if you step outside of natural processes for natural phenomenon.but outside of science a scientist can hold any belief they want and many are religious.

  70. If the evolutionary explanation was so irrefutably true, wouldn't it be just logical to expect to see thousands of more fossils displaying the incremental differences that make up a development of different species and corroborate the idea of 'gradualism' you insist on. We would see actually just as much of those transitional, in-between forms as we would of all the other animals. Actually we would see more of those transitions than the final products if nature was just evolving. We would see thousands of fish with all kinds and sizes of feet, legs and head and nervous system modifications that would eventually and together turn them into mammals. The modifications in the lung system and metabolic systems which are extremely more complex to talk about they are never mentioned, and evolutionists typically do not make any bones about that. Actually it is a bones science! Instead, we do not see these transitional species and those that are purported as transitional fossils are few and far between. They should however constitute THE MAJORITY!

    Another issue is homology. That similarities bespeaks of a designer is very basic simple logics. Trying to say it is not just makes evolutionists look unintelligent designers of a theory that categorizes things but can't explain the real mutations that make change of that magnitude ever possible. Therefore evolution is big on categorizations. As this movie points out a this would not be the case if there was a designer. That logics is so deeply flawed that it borders greek sophistry. The fossil record and carbon dating or other dating methods have equally an great amount pitfalls that DO NOT fit the paradigm yet those are never mentioned. Evolutionary science is typically is presented in College books as a very clean science. Texts never raise or mention any of the difficult points or issues that are known that do not fit the paradigm of interpretation favoring evolution. Evolutionary teaching is being passed on to the population who does not understand the ins and outs of evidence generation through scientific methods thinking,as flawless, undeniable, and irrefutable reality while upholding it as a scientific theory. We are being introduced to a new scientific paradigm of cynicism and canonical dogmas. No science is flawless and devoid of controversy.. we know that. To make this story more gripping yet. This new scientific paradigm finds itself justified enough to allow that those in academic institutions can harass and denigrate the capacity and work of any scientist or professor in academia who dares bring out any conjecture of questioning of the reasons, quality or nature of the evidence and the logics behind it. In a sense, we have come back to the medieval science in that one respect at least where dogmas are upheld in totalizing ways and intolerance dominates the landscape. And all this in the name of science.

    1. Of course the fossil record is incomplete. What you can expect after the passage of so much time? However, like all forms of life, all fossils are intermediate species and by definition constitute THE ENTIRETY, not THE MAJORITY.

      If you understood basic evolutionary biology, you would realize that fish are far too developed to evolve into mammals, just as giraffes can't turn into seals or griffins are biologically impossible. In other words, evolution occurs slowly along phylogenetic lines.

      Your characterization of evolution as solely a "bone science" is an insulting and ignorant distortion. What about DNA, genetics, radiometrics, microbiology? And worse yet, your attribution of the workings of nature to a creator is as illogical and unfounded as your treatment of evolution as solely a "bone science," and the fictitous problems in the fossil record and in radiometrics postulated by creationists such as yourself.

      You are clearly unqualified to comment on academia. First of all, any professor who espouses creationism in the classroom should be terminated, for creationism is not science, but religion and by such espousal a professor abrogates his responsibility. Secondly, as no one has come up with a viable scientific alternative to evolution, evolution is here to stay, whether you like it or not.

  71. Ain't this fun? We should do this more often!

    1. I may be wrong, but I detect a note of insincerity. So it is not fun.

  72. The collection of data provides "evidence"... Evidence leads to forming a "theory"... The repeated testing of a particular theory, which produces consistent results, constitutes "proof" (or, if you prefer: "fact")... Therefore; since evolution is a process which occurs over many thousands if not millions of years, it may be many millenia before we have what can legally be called: "Proof of Evolution".

    1. Once again, you don't know what you're talking about. Obviously, you have not read about the e coli experiments. Obviously, you are unaware that evolutionary speed varies considerably, cf. cockroaches and bacteria to sharks and turtles. Obviously you know nothing about the breakthroughs in DNA, molecular biology, genetics, and radiometry which in large part obviate the need to wait for millions of years--and all of these advanced techniques have repeatedly confirmed evolution.

  73. And yet not one scientifically verifiable transitional fossil has been discovered proving that one kind of living thing eventually becomes another kind of living thing.

    1. Have you ever been to a natural history museum? Obviously not. Have you have read anything about evolution--and I don't mean from some ignorant creationist webstie? Obviously not? Have you ever tried to learn anything about basic biology? Obviously not. Did it ever occur to you that we are all transitional, obviously not?

      Then what business do you have posting this blog?

    2. Nice rant. But it is no secret that the lack of fossil evidence is a big problem for Darwinism.

    3. Now, that's where you are mistaken. Darwinism is entirely based on the fossil record. What is missing (or, at least severely lacking) in that record is how we went from a one-pound to a three-pound brain in just a few hundred thousand years. For this, I might be willing to entertain a "Theory of Intervention".. at least until more data becomes available.

    4. Actually, I should correct that... The "Theory of Evolution" is based on the fossil record. "Darwinism" is the open worship of Charles Darwin for having proposed it.

    5. Again, you don't know what you're talking about. Modern Darwinism (read evolution) is based on more than just the fossil record; there's also DNA, genetics, molecular biology, just to name a few. And "open worship" has nothing to do with it. I suggest that you learn something before posting further. Try "The Ancestor's Tale" of Richard Dawkins.

    6. Sorry dude...But no legitimate scientist will deny that the the fossil record for Darwinism is lacking. Their explanation is that even without fossil evidence, Darwinism is the only possible explanation. But that is nothing more than extrapolation and projection. Evolution within species is not evidence of speciation.

    7. "Evolution within species is not evidence of speciation." You obviously don't understand evolution and you've certainly not read much about it--and I don't mean on some ignorant creationist website. Your objection to extrapolation and projection which are at the core of science renders you unqalified to judge your intellectual betters (read scientists).

    8. No objection to those but it's not evidence of speciation. Do you even know what speciation is?

    9. Have you read about the e coli experiments? Obviously not. It's you who knows nothing about speciation, much less about evolution in general. Trying reading more.

    10. That's not fossil evidence. And an arbitrary loosely-defined definition of what constitutes a "species" is another trick used to prop up Darwinism.

    11. You don't get it. It doesn't have to be fossil evidence--but again, your wilful ignorance of evolution and basic biology prevents you from either knowing or acknowledging this.

      Once again, you refuse to reveal the sources behind your boeotian assertions, all of which I've encountered many times.

      P.S. Before you go any further, how about looking up the scientific definition of species BEFORE commenting on it?

    12. If you aren't aware of the "missing link" then don't expect me to fill you in. Do you own research. I believe you are just claiming ignorance to avoid discussing it. And as I have said, the definition of "species" is arbitrary and has been loosed up in order to prop up Darwinism.

    13. You have merely reiterated your ignorance.

      Once again, two questions remain unanswered:
      1. What are your sources?
      2. What in your mind is the difference between evolution and Darwinism.

      Or are your answers too embarassing?

    14. @addalled
      so if i give you proof of speciation you would be happy? this doc has already provided evidence of "transitional" fossils . could you provide a definition of "kind" for me? and yer the long term e-coli experiment is not only speciation, but is exactly what evolution predicts. sorry but the fact that you don't agree with it doesn't mean that it isn't speciation. please don't try to redefine scientific terms because you don't understand them

      @Daniel Jones
      yes darwin had doubts and he did wonder about the development of the eye. but here is the thing the science of evolution did not stop when darwin published and if you are going to go into irreducible complexity please understand that it has been explained thoroughly even to the point that behe (the man who proposed it) doesn't bring it up any more

    15. Of course,since Darwin, the development of the eye has been proved beyond a doubt to have been evolutionary.

      Thanks for the update on Behe. Score one for science. Have you heard anything recently about Demke?

      As I understand it from having read some of Darwin's letters, the doubts that he expressed seem to have been basically, "Did I miss something?" (a concern of all scientists) and when his peers answered "No," he felt reassured. His second concern was the possible reaction of the religious community. Also, like the true scientist that he was, he went into some detail as to how evolution could be disproved. All these things have been distorted by creationists and the like to portray Darwin as a man who did not believe his own theories.

    16. @robertallen1
      don't get me wrong behe is still a creationist as far as i know he has just abandoned the "irreducible complexity" argument when confronted by scientists. did you mean William A. Dembski? if you did he is still up to his old tricks (had a book released in 2010 did not read it). i agree totally with your explanation of Darwin's questions of his theory. not only is it correct but what science demands of itself.

    17. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a few months ago, didn't you indicate that you had started "The Creationists" by Ronald L. Numbers? The reason I bring it up is because of your last sentence " . . . not only is it correct, but what science demands of itself." Just about every one of the large cast of characters in the book has failed to realize or understand this and thus has a lot in common with several of the posters on this site.

    18. @robertallen1
      i did get the book you suggested but sadly i have not read it as of yet i have been on a Jerry Coyne reading (and watching) marathon but i am looking forward to the book

    19. I realize that it is a long read, but I'm extremely interested in your take on it.

    20. I understand it very well. Your "proof" relies on an arbitrary definition of "species" that is based on political convenience and not biology. And it's also a typical tactic to use cellular deviations as "evidence" because it is much easier blur the lines between what constitutes a different "species".

    21. @addalled
      you stated "Your "proof" relies on an arbitrary definition of "species"" no it does not . the definition of species i use is the scientific one. we are discussing the validity of a scientific theory and so it seems rational to me to use the scientific term. again please define kind for me so i can either provide you with examples or explain why it is not in line with the theory of evolution? i am not trying to blur the lines but i feel that you wish to demand proof that is not only impossible but if the proof i feel you are asking for is ever provided it would do more to disprove evolution than prove it. so again what "proof" are you demanding and please be as specific as you can?

    22. For example I think we can all agree that a beagle and wolf can be considered the same kind. So using common descent, tell me where this kind originated in the evolution tree.

    23. "For example I think we can all agree that a beagle and wolf can be considered the same kind. So using common descent, tell me where this kind originated in the evolution tree."

      Ummm if I'm not mistaken, dogs and wolves can still interbreed. Which means they are still the same 'kind' or if you prefer, 'species'. So not sure where your question was actually going...

      Edit: My bad, should have said 'genus,' not 'species.'

    24. Yes, they are the same kind. As I said they were.
      So using common descent, tell me where this kind originated in the evolution tree.

    25. The best I can do here is quote Over The Edge:

      Kingdom: Animalia
      Phylum: Chordata
      Class: Mammalia
      Order: Carnivora
      Family: Canidae
      Subfamily: Caninae
      Tribe: Canini
      Genus: Canis
      Species: C. lupus

      From Wikipedia
      The domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris) is a subspecies of the gray wolf (Canis lupus), a member of the Canidae family of the mammilian order Carnivora. The term "domestic dog" is generally used for both domesticated and feral varieties.

      The most likely ancestral candidate of Canis lupus is Canis lepophagus, a small, narrow skulled North American canid of the Miocene era, which may have also given rise to coyotes.

      There's much more on both those Wiki pages, just as a start. Does that answer your 'common descent' question?

    26. And please also provide the link to the fossil evidence.

    27. @addalled
      o know that the post wasn't directed at me but (apologies Kateye70) but please watch the doc this discussion concerns

    28. @addalled
      but beagle and wolf are not the same species and this doc (did you watch it) explains the answer to your question in greater detail than i could on this forum (the post would be way too long). also nowhere in evolution does it claim that a species can evolve into something that violates it evolutionary history. but here is a list of the taxonomy wolves (source wiki)
      Kingdom: Animalia
      Phylum: Chordata
      Class: Mammalia
      Order: Carnivora
      Family: Canidae
      Subfamily: Caninae
      Tribe: Canini
      Genus: Canis
      Species: C. lupus

    29. Acorrding to your politically convenient definition of "species" that is true. But it is an arbritrary definition used to prop up Darwinism. But Darwinism does support the idea of speciation. That is fact.

    30. You don't even know what a species is and you make such a comment. Why don't you look up its definition and also when it was formulated (I'll give you the answer to the latter, before Darwin was born), but again you'd rather just spout your ignorance.

      I'm not going to repeat my unanswered questions because you're obviously too embarassed to respond to them.

    31. Yes I'm embarassed...for you. I've answered your questions. The fact that you don't like the answers is not my problem.

    32. It's not a matter of likes and dislikes, but knowledge and intelligence.

      So now you relegate your inability to answer to likes and dislikes when it's a matter of knowledge and intelligence of which have shown neither.

    33. I answered all your questions. You did not answer mine. But now's your big chance. Go!

    34. @addalled
      it is not my definition it is the definition. we cannot make up our own definitions to fit our claims. i am sorry but your arguments are getting ridiculous. you don't like a definition so you discard it? here is the dictionary definition of speciation "the formation of new species as a result of geographic, physiological, anatomical, or behavioral factors that prevent previously interbreeding populations from breeding with each other". not my or your definition but the actual definition (source dictionary dot com) please feel free to provide an alternate definition with source provided

    35. Well of course you can point to any number of Darwinistic-friendly sites with their arbitrary politically-correct definition. If I point to ID-friendly sites that have a different definition can I count on you do accept that definition?

    36. Let's compare the qualifications of those who write on "Darwinistic-friendly" sites to those on "ID-friendly sites." And while we're at it, let's compare their statements.

      And get this through your head, political correctness has nothing to do with it.

    37. Do you even know the scientific definition of a species?

      Now I'll repeat my three unanswered questions:

      1. What are your sources?
      2. What in your mind is the difference between evolution and Darwinism?
      3. What makes you think that there has to be room for a creator in the scheme of things?

    38. (Answered) There is no source to prove a negative. The burden is on the Darwinist to prove that verifiable transitional fossils have been discovered proving that one kind of living thing eventually becomes another kind of living thing
      (Answered) Evolution can include intra and inter species evolution. The latter is the area of controversy. Darwinism leaves no room for a designer and supports the idea of speciation
      (Answered) There doesn't HAVE to be room for a designer. But there is overwhelming evidence (DNA) that there is a designer. The evidence for design is far greater than Darwin's magical mutations.

    39. I've already read this, so reiteration will do you no good.

      P.S. You have not presented any overwhelming DNA evidence of a designer.

    40. And yet you have not provided a single scientifically verifiable transitional fossil has been discovered proving that one kind of living thing eventually becomes another kind of living thing.

    41. Read up on the velociraptor--not that you will.

      One again, it doesn't sink in. Every living thing is transitional. I'll state it again: Every living thing is transitional. What part of this don't you understand?

    42. Yes. Transition with a species. We agree on that. Unless you mean something else. Please provide fossil evidence for speciation.

    43. You don't even know what a species is or how speciation works and what's worse, you don't even want to know. "Transition with[in] a species." You don't even know anything about ring species.

      How many times do I and others have to drum it into you that every fossil ever discovered and every currently living thing and every obsolete form life is the result of speciation.

    44. And it's true because...well, because you say it's true?

    45. Wrong as usual. It's not what I say; it's what those in the know say--and I don't mean your creationist ignoramuses. Now, why don't you read up on ring species. I gave you a source.

    46. Science is not done by consensus. Science is about evidence.

    47. Wrong as usual. Science is done by consensus of the scientific community (read specialists in their field) based on evdience. It's what is known as peer review.

    48. @ robertallen1 your comments bear the hallmarks of the Genus Trollus, species Maximus. It's a shame because even if you were right all you have done is shown your side to be a petulant and self-aggrandising.

      Whenever I find someone attacking another's character in a debate I tend to discount their arguments. Immaturity should have no place in establishment science and yet that is all it ever seems to offer.

      "Danger Will Robinson, there's another out of the box theory on the horizon. Quick,....let's assassinate the bearer of the ill tidings lest he rock our boat and destabilise our status quo!

      If Occam were to take his razor to this problem he would probably choose neither the creationist nor the Darwinian perspective and take one look around him at the modern world and conclude that a secular third influence was at stake. And it's not up to Occam to explain that third influence. It could be anything from radiation induced mutation to extraterrestrials or even time travelling humans to be frank and anyone who discounts those as possibilities is as much of a zealot as any Uniformitarian or Creationist.

      We do not know all there is to know and the wise man leaves his options open. A wise man also knows how to avoid the trap of "well if it isn't Darwin you must be saying God did it then" There is no ipso facto mutual exclusivity at play here.

    49. In case you didn't know it, there is the concept of critical thinking which involves discounting what is often passed off as certainties such as the existence of a creator.

      Remaining wilfully ignorant says a lot about a person's character. Creationists and the like have access to the same sources as everyone else; yet, not only do they choose to remain ignorant, but to palm off their ignorance on others, especially in public education. Therefore, it is fitting and proper to accost them with petulance and self-aggrandisement.

      Who cares what the Earl of Occam might do or believe if he lived in this day and age?

    50. "there is the concept of critical thinking which involves discounting what is often passed off as certainties such as the existence of a creator. "

      ...or as in touting "theory" as "fact".

      "Therefore, it is fitting and proper to accost them with petulance and self-aggrandisement."

      Only if you happen to be correct in assuming you know what they truly believe -- which, at least in my case, you are not.

    51. I believe that you're been corrected as to your concept of scientific theory, so you might as well drop it. Your comments have clearly spoken for themselves, especially the one beginning this post.

    52. you said "What is missing (or, at least severely lacking) in that record is how we went from a one-pound to a three-pound brain in just a few hundred thousand years."

      Actually there is a very interesting theory having to do with fire and the advent of cooked food, which, being much easier to chew than when raw, led to a reduced jaw muscle size, which in turn led to the elimination of attachment ridges for said jaw muscles and the need for fused skull bones, which allowed the development of a large brain case, and eventually the birth of large-headed babies through our upright-walking-adapted pelvises...and, uh, that all started several million years ago. (Not sure from your comment as to when you think we developed our larger brains.)

      As stated elsewhere, there are many pieces to the evolutionary puzzle, and not all of them are in the fossil record. Although if you look at all the hominid skulls, you can see the reduction of the attachment ridges very easily. As far as I'm aware (admittedly could be wrong), we are the only species whose young are born with unfused skull bones.

      I <3 this site, thank you Vlatko!

    53. I am familiar with the theory of fire being the cause of our increased brain capacity. Actually, at this point I would prefer to call it a hypothesis, as there is only minimal data to support it. But I don't dispute the possibility.

      And I wasn't eluding to "when" this transformation occurred, but to the reality that two pounds of grey matter seems to have taken a remarkably short time to evolve. Geologically speaking, what should have taken maybe another hundred million years of evolution somehow magically appeared overnight.

    54. "Geologically speaking, what should have taken maybe another hundred million years of evolution somehow magically appeared overnight."

      I don't think anything 'magically appeared overnight', but since a. we're not rocks, and b. mutations can make big differences in one generation, there's nothing magical about it.

      Evolutionary change doesn't have to be either steady or slow. A significant behavioral change could easily have led to a major biological change in a (relatively) short period of time, especially since the benefits of adaptability are so great.

    55. Exactly and it might not follow a straight line except when it comes to a specific species. Do you have any thoughts on punctuated equilibrium?

    56. "Do you have any thoughts on punctuated equilibrium?"

      Hehe, I'm not a scientist, just an avid reader/learner. But I do try to keep an open mind. I have a feeling that both punctuated equilibrium and phyletic gradualism both occur--natural processes operate independently of our wish to make them easily comprehensible.

      @addalled, you are out of your depth here. Asking people on this board to spoon-feed years of learning in a few posts won't happen, especially since you seem unwilling to look up any of the answers for yourself on Wikipedia, much less do any in-depth reading.

      You may wonder why there is so much resistance to ID ideology here, but it is simply that most of us consider intellectual dishonesty to be just that. Dishonest.

    57. Thank you for your answer which I agree with wholeheartedly as well as with your response to addalled, especially your characterization of ID as intellectually dishonest.

      Are you Canadian? The reason I ask this is because most of the informed people who post here are.

    58. Thanks! Actually, no, I am Texan by birth. I was fortunate enough to have parents who believed in life-long learning.

    59. Well, it certainly rubbed off.

    60. But *two whole pounds of brain matter* in just a few millenia? Even you've got to admit, that's pretty extraordinary!

    61. Personally, I find it a lot more extraordinary than your fairy-tale religion.

    62. "..your fairy-tale religion."

      There you go again... Assuming you know how I think all because I asked whether or not you would count your grandmother among your enemies for subscribing to a religion. How juvenile can you be?

    63. How ignorant can you be? But what can one expect from a person who places religion above science.

    64. It's no secret that there is plenty of fossil evidence coupled with advances in microbiology, DNA analysis, genetics and radiometry and the only problem with Darwinism (read evolution) lies in your fairy-tale imagination. Ignoring the evidence and pretending that it doesn't exist amounts to an ignorant rant--and not a nice one.

      Now, from where are getting your "information" or are you too ashamed to tell?

    65. If you aren't aware of the "missing link" then maybe aren't as informed as you think you are.

    66. Anyone who has studied basic evolutionary biology knows that there is no such thing as the "missing link," a term used by newspapers to sell copy and creationists and the like to pass on their ignorance. So it's you who are not as informed as you think you are.

    67. Denying that there is a "missing link" is a typical response. What else can you do when the facts are against you? But denying that it is a problem doesn't make it go away.

    68. From your posts, you have no idea what the facts are and are obviously ashamed to reveal your source(s).

      Now, once again, the problem is not with evolution but with your ignorance of it--and it's unfortunate that that won't go away.

    69. Personal attacks against me show that you have waved the surrender flag. I have no problem with evolution. My problem is with Darwinism.

    70. Your ignorance deserves attack, personal and otherwise, for you state when you should ask.

      Now, what in your mind is the difference between evolution and Darwinism?

    71. It's a common to tactic by Darwinists to confuse the public by claiming intra-species evolution as evidence of inter-species evolution (speciation).

    72. The old micro v. macro evolution argument, a stale creationist tack. First of all, where does one end and the other begin? Secondly, why don't you read up on this BEFORE commenting?

      That leaves two questions which you refuse to answer:
      1. What are your sources?
      2. What in your mind is the difference between evolution and Darwinism?

    73. Yes, "speciation" is a scientifically recognized word. Perhaps you should read up on it. It is not a "creationist trick".

      And as you know, you can't prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the Darwinist claiming that a scientifically verifiable transitional fossil has been discovered proving that one kind of living thing eventually becomes another kind of living thing. Where's your proof?

    74. You obviously have a problem with reading comprehension. It is clear from my post that I was not referring to speciation, which is one of the bases of modern biology, but to the fallacious creationist distinction between micro and macro evolution. So your first sentence is an outright lie.

      Second, why didn't you read up on the velociraptor BEFORE writing your ignorant second paragraph?

      Third, I will reiterate the my two questions to which you refuse to provide answers:
      1. What are your sources?
      2. What in your mind is the difference between evolution and Darwinism.

      P.S. I hope against hyope that you give serious consideration to Over the Edge's response and try to learn something before posting further.

    75. Proving a negative is a logical fallacy. It is the burden of the person making the claim that there is scientifically verifiable proof that a transitional fossil has been discovered that one kind of living thing eventually becomes another kind of living thing.
      Evolotion can include change within a species. Darwinism is about speciation. There is no room for a designer in Darwinism. Darwinists have hijacted the word "evolution".

      P.S. I hope you will read up on Intelligent Design so you will not look close-minded and ignorant of the various dissentions to Darwinism.

    76. I have read up on intelligent design which is more than I can say for you as far as basic evolutionary biology.

      Now, you still haven't answered my two questions, so I'll just keep repeating them until you do:

      1. What are your sources?
      2. What in your mind is the difference between evolution and Darwinism.

      And now I'll add a third:
      3. Why does there have to be room for a designer in the scheme of things?

    77. (Answered) There is no source to prove a negative. The burden is on the Darwinist to prove that verifiable transitional fossils have been discovered proving that one kind of living thing eventually becomes another kind of living thing
      (Answered) Evolution can include intra and inter species evolution. The latter is the area of controversy. Darwinism leaves no room for a designer and supports the idea of speciation
      (Answered) There doesn't HAVE to be room for a designer. But there is overwhelming evidence (DNA) that there is a designer. The evidence for design is far greater than Darwin's magical mutations.

    78. 1. You still haven't answered the question. What are the sources of your statements about evolution?

      2. You still haven't answered the question. What in your mind is the difference between evolution and Darwinism.

      3. What is this overwhelming evidence of a designer?

      Let me add a fourth question:

      4. What in your mind is speciation?

      As Over the Edge has indicated, you don't know what you're talking about and seem to be parroting what you have read on creationists websites.

    79. (Answered) There is no source to prove a negative. The burden is on the Darwinist to prove that verifiable transitional fossils have been discovered proving that one kind of living thing eventually becomes another kind of living thing
      (Answered) Evolution can include intra and inter species evolution. The latter is the area of controversy. Darwinism leaves no room for a designer and supports the idea of speciation
      (Answered) But there is overwhelming evidence (DNA, complexity,etc.) that there is a designer. The evidence for design is far greater than Darwin's magical mutations.
      (Answered) Speciation is when a *species* transforms into another species.

      Oh, and I guess I could also say: " you don't know what you're talking about". (Can we quit posting such juvenile comments please?)

    80. Now you relegate your inability to answer some relevant questions and provide evidence to back your assertions (especially about overwhelming DNA evidence of a creator) to the level of puerility.

      You obviously need to read a lot more about speciation. I suggest, probably in vain, the article in Wikipedia.

      Again, as others have also demonstrated, you don't know what you're talking about and I suggest that you read up on your subject before you post again.

    81. Asked and answered. It's not my fault that you don't like the answers.
      Perhaps you need read up some more on speciation. You don't know what you're talking about and I suggest that you read up on your subject before you post again.
      (See how both sides can play that game) Unfortunately for you I am not intimidated by those tactics.

      And I'm still waiting on that scientifically verifiable transitional fossil has been discovered proving that one kind of living thing eventually becomes another kind of living thing.

      Still waiting....

    82. How many times do you have to be told that all species are transitional?

      Once again, you have not revealed the sources of your "knowledge" of evolution. So one can conclude only that they are too embarassing for you to mention.

      It's you who needs to be intimidated into reading up--and I'm not the only one who thinks so.

    83. You can tell me as many times as you want. There is no proof of a negative. It's called a logical fallacy. Look it up and read about it. You might learn something.

      The burden is on you to provide proof that a scientifically verifiable transitional fossil has been discovered proving that one kind of living thing eventually becomes another kind of living thing.

      How many times do I have to request that?

    84. And once again, I and several others have told you that EVERY FORM OF LIFE IS TRANSITIONAL!

      You've already forgotten that I suggested you read about the velociraptor. There is also an excellent documentary about it on this site--not that you will because you would rather remain ignorant.

    85. "The burden is on you to provide proof that a scientifically verifiable transitional fossil has been discovered proving that one kind of living thing eventually becomes another kind of living thing."

      Good heavens, L2Wiki! Even if you don't like a particular Wiki article, they still cite sources that you can go to for a deeper answer.

      But, again from Wikipedia:

      (/wiki/transitional_fossil ...go figure! I broke the first paragraph into easy-to-read sentences and phrases)

      Transitional versus ancestral

      A source of confusion is the notion that a transitional form between two different taxonomic groups must be a direct ancestor of one or both groups.

      The difficulty is exacerbated by the fact that one of the goals of evolutionary taxonomy is to identify taxa that were ancestors of other taxa.

      However, it is almost impossible to be sure that any form represented in the fossil record is a direct ancestor of any other. In fact, because

      evolution is a branching process

      that produces a complex bush pattern of related species

      rather than a linear process producing a ladder-like progression,

      and because of the incompleteness the fossil record,

      it is unlikely that any particular form represented in the fossil record is a direct ancestor of any other.

    86. That is about explaining why there are no transitional fossils. So we still do not have fossil evidence that one species has transformed into another.

    87. As long as you keeping harping on this blatant lie, I will keep repeating that all living things past and present are transitional.

    88. I hear you saying that. But just because you think that "lots of small changes" = "species change" that doesn't make it true.

    89. How many times do I have to tell it's not what I think, it's what those in the know (the specialists) know.

      As Kateye 70 has pointed out, like those of your ilk, you refuse to read up on anything, And yes, "lots of small changes" eventually add up to "species change." You would find out about this if you took the time to learn something about ring species. Again, there's a fine introductory article on this on Wikipedia.

    90. I'll admit that "lots of small changes" eventually add up to "species change" sounds logical. But that is called extrapolation and projection. It's just as likely that "lots of small changes" amount to nothing more than just "lots of small changes".

    91. It's not only logical; it's true.

      Again, why don't you read up BEFORE posting--and I'm not the only who has suggested you do so. You know nothing about evolution and obviously don't wish to know anything about it.

    92. Of course you're going to say that. I could also suggest that you "read up BEFORE posting" and that "You know nothing about blah blah blah". Both sides can play that game. It's a debate tactic attempt to discredit and intimidate.

      But just because something "seems" logical doesn't make it true.

    93. I have read up and spent considerable time doing so. Not, what's your excuse?

    94. So have I. So let's avoid the personal attacks.

    95. I really don't believe you and if that's a personal attack, you deserve it.

    96. Well implying that I'm uninformed, etc is a personal attack.

    97. You're right.

    98. @addalled
      you stated "just because you think that "lots of small changes" = "species change" that doesn't make it true." i couldn't agree more but again look up the "long term e-coli experiment" it is observed speciation that can be demonstrated repeated and independently verified. the problem is that you reject the definition of species and refuse to define kind in any specific way (i assume that is on purpose). you cannot change what evolution demands as evidence and then point out short comings with your invalid claims as evidence to it's failure. i believe you are doing this on purpose and do not wish to have a honest discussion on the facts. your purpose in my opinion is to muddy the waters in an attempt to hold on to personal beliefs. on that note what is your alternative explanation to evolution? i assume you have an alternative as nobody in my opinion would argue this hard without holding personal views.

    99. And as I have said before it seems very convenient to choose the "e-coli" as an example because it is easy to blur the lines as to what constitutes a new "species" at a cellular level. My believe is that there is a designer. It takes more of a leap of faith to believe in Darwin's magical mutations. We see it in the complexity of DNA, the "evolutionary tree" that looks less and less like a tree with each new discovery (debunking common descent), the Cambrian explosion, the changing capabilities of so-called "Neanderthals" who were previously portrayed as ape-like brutes but now seem positively human (burying their dead, painting, tools, etc.)

    100. @addalled
      where exactly am i blurring the lines of the definition of species? what is wrong with the definition i provided? you make these claims but site no proof for my errors. forget your opinion show me the proof of my error in definition? again can you provide a scientifically accepted or even dictionary definition (provide source) of speciation that the long term e-coli experiment doesn't constitute speciation? why does the cambrian explosion debunk common decent? and finally please provide the proof FOR your designer. please do not show what you think of as proof against evolution but positive proof for your argument. something you can demonstrate and test and please?

    101. I've been trying to get addalled to do this for several hours. Maybe you'll have more luck.

    102. @robertallen1
      as you realize i have no illusions that i will get anything of value out of my discussion with deniers. but again i will not allow their fallacies to go unchallenged. as jack1952 pointed out the fence sitters are my target not the fanatics

    103. The cure for fence sitters is education. For once you have it, you will find fence sitting an uncomfortable position. However, like you, I cannot allow fallacies and out-and-out lying and misrepresentation to go unchallenged.

    104. I don't have proof of a designer. But design and complexity indicate there is a designer. But I don't have proof. It is the likely explanation. Just as you don't have proof of Darwin's magical mutations but state unequivocally it is the ABSOLUTE explanation.

    105. Wrong again.

      Design is only in your imagination and complexity has to be relative to something. So there is nothing likely about your argument for a designer for which you have admitted that you have no proof.

      By the way, just what are these "magical mutations" of Darwin or do you know?

    106. That's the difference between ID'ers and Darwinists. ID'ers only claim that there is evidence of a design because that is what the evidence shows. Darwinists project and extrapolate that there is no designer even though there is no fossil evidence.

    107. Just how does the evidence show this?

    108. Tired of having to keep typing this over and over. Scroll up or down to find it.

    109. I don't need to scroll up and down. I recall your "answer" and there was no logic or intelligence to it.

    110. @addalled,

      You don't have a proof, but it looks like there is designer. What a reasoning?

      Now take e book and read through all the EVIDENCE from comparative physiology and biochemistry (genetics), comparative anatomy, paleontology, geographical distribution, observed natural selection, observed speciation, artificial selection, computation and mathematical iteration, that DEMONSTRATED and VERIFIED the occurrence of evolution.

      Finally if it was designer, he must have been drunk when he was making life on Earth. Life form may be complex (from our perspective) but it is far from perfect. There are countless of "stupid" and "useless" solutions found in many organisms.

    111. Once again, evolution is not Darwinism. Evolution within a species is not evidence of Darwinism.

    112. You still haven't answered the question what in your mind is the difference between evolution and Darwinism?

    113. This is the last time I am answering this. Evolution can be intra or inter-species. The latter being the point of controversy. Darwinism is about speciation and also the lack of a designer but instead postulates that all changes occur via magical mutations.

    114. @addalled
      what? again speciation has been demonstrated to you . please define what you see as inter-species evolution as i feel that your definition is not compatible with the claims of evolution. please give detail and examples and cite sources? i don't think what i have asked of you here or in previous posts is too much at ask. do you think that evolution claims that for example that a crocoduck is even possible?

    115. Do you mean site sources or cite sources?

    116. @
      robertallen1 thanks fixed

    117. Common descent is all about speciation. I don't buy that and with each new discovery the "evolutionary tree" looks less and less like a tree.

    118. Why should it look like a simple tree in the first place?

    119. Common Descent...look it up.

    120. An answer such as this shows that you have no idea of the concept of common descent even though a child of five could probably understand it.

    121. And your answer with no rebuttal is even worse.

    122. The best rebuttal is for you to read up on common descent--and I don't mean on some ignorant creationist website.

    123. @addalled
      so you don't buy the theory of evolution. that is already clear to me and others. what do you mean ""evolutionary tree" looks less and less like a tree"? do you mean the visual representation or the ideas that the tree is trying to convey? again where is your proof for ID. and where is the definition of speciation i provided flawed? anybody can make claims and deny evidence but backing up those claims and denials with evidence is not your strong suit. what has become clear to me in your arguments is that you don't understand evolution fully enough to make informed arguments and you would rather not take advice given to you to study the subject honestly out of fear that knowledge may prove false something you hold dear

    124. You should know about Common Descent and the evolutionary tree. So that will be left as an exercise for the reader.

      Without fossil evidence of speciation ('missing link') there will always be doubts about Darwinism. And just reclassifying something arbitrarily as a "new species" is not a valid way to prove speciation.

    125. @addalled
      the classification wasn't arbitrary applied it was speciation. again where was the definition i provided flawed? and yet again where is the proof for ID?

    126. Not gonna type it all again but DNA, Cambrian Explosion, new discoveries about "neanderthals" either support design or are problematic for Darwinism.

    127. @addalled
      you have made claims but provided no proof. why is DNA, Cambrian Explosion proof against evolution? and again (and i will keep asking this) what is your definition of speciation and back it up with sources. you can't can you?

    128. Not gonna type all this again. Scroll up or down and find it.

    129. @addalled
      i did scroll i see your slaims and conjecture,misrepresentations and opinion what is missing is actual veritable proof. and no you did not give a detailed definition of speciation backed up with sources.

    130. Speciation is the process of a species evolving thru evolutionary processes into another species. Source: Every dictionary in the world.

    131. @addalled
      thank you. so the fact that the long term e-coli experiment is one species evolving into another species is clear to you. because that is a fact observed repeated and tested fact. let me guess you are mow going to redefine species or change species to kind right?

    132. There is a definition for unicorns also...doesn't mean they exist. But for purposes of discussion I can accept that speciation is a word with meaning...albeit something never proven or demonstrated.

    133. @addalled again what about the long term e-coli experiment. it is proven demonstrated and observed in real time. why isn't that speciation?

    134. It's speciation only if you have a loose definition of what constitutes a new species. It's all arbitrary.

    135. @addalled

      And what is the definition of a new species? Enlighten us.

    136. @addalled
      i used the scientific definition to prove it is a new species. it is not a loose definition and i even asked you for a specific definition and it is speciation according to your own definition

    137. Speciation is a word...of course. Just like unicorns is also a word.

    138. And so is idiocy.

    139. @addalled
      now you are just getting silly we can define both unicorn and speciation but i can show evidence for only one. you stated "it's not evidence of speciation. Do you even know what speciation is? i gave a definition of speciation that you did not refute but even worse you gave your own definition. you claimed that there is no evidence for speciation and i gave an example that fits both of our definitions, now you brought up speciation before i posted a single comment to you "Evolution within species is not evidence of speciation." the comment you were replying to did not bring up speciation. you see you brought it up and not just to claim it as some word like unicorn but to try to support your argument. it was important to you until it was no longer useful for your argument.

    140. For purposes of discussion I will accept that speciation is a word with a definition just as I accept unicorn is a word with a definition. But that doesnt mean either exists in reality.

    141. @addalled
      but i showed you it exists in reality. again why is the long term e-coli experiment not speciation. i see as i predicted you are now using the word kind. ID supporters are nothing if not predictable. so help me out what is the scientific definition of kind?and please be specific. if it cannot be defined scientifically it cannot be shown scientifically

    142. Alright I just did some research on that. Turns out that the "junk" DNA already existed. So the information was already there and the mutations only switched it on. So the mutations did not result in any new information added. Bottom line: DEBUNKED

    143. @addalled,

      Alright I just did some research on that...

      Yes, no need of reading books, papers. Why would you need that, if you can only consult some random creationist website for a minute. Rock on.

    144. @addalled
      wow really? please provide a source for that claim? next where in the theory of evolution or either of our or any definition does it claim that new "information" needs to be added in order for speciation to occur? keep grasping at straws.

    145. Oh really? So if that's the case then why do you want to know the source if it is irrelevant? What is it that makes this a new "species"?

    146. Becuase if you make a factual claim, you must back it up, whether relevant or irrelevant.

    147. Bottom line: Bottom line: you don't know what you're talking about. Junk DNA is proof of evolution, not refutation. You're simply not intelligent enough to be able to debunk anything.

    148. @addalled,

      Ok since you massively troll, let's back up and check what you actually believe in.

      Speciation - No, Intra species evolution - Yes

      Which according to you means:

      Darwinism - No, Evolution - Yes

      ID designed the species and said: You can evolve now, but just within your species. You can't mix.

      So when did the Intelligent Designer designed the species?
      Is ID deciding when a specific species to die out?
      Were all the species designed simultaneously or gradually over time?
      Why ID has some flawed designs in his portfolio?
      Why ID was working on a trial - error basis?

      So far enough.

    149. Good questions. But not sure we can tackle all of that tonight. I can add a gazillion questions myself. But the topic was does "evolution" always equal speciation. The answer is no. So it's important that discussions of this type quit allowing Darwinists to hijack the word "evolution" as if it is the same as "Darwinism". It's not.

    150. @addalled,

      Nah... I think, we should take the ball to your ballpark. What do you say? We've done 450+ comments on Evolution. Now lets do 450 more on ID. We'll ask you answer. OK.

    151. @Vlatko,
      lol you or robertallen1 (or someone else) can have my share of the questions on that subject i have seen enough mental and verbal gymnastics performed by our ID friend concerning evolution. not sure i could handle the flexibility needed to try to justify ID

    152. @over the edge,

      Well I had one rule, never start an argument with creationist, but in this case I thought what the hell. Now I regret that I broke my rule.

      Circular logic, dodging the questions, failing to prove his arguments, etc., etc. I'm done.

    153. Don't worry circular logics and dodging questions are also things constantly done by evolutionists. More often is ignoring what others who have proposed something different have to say. There is NO argument to the question of providing evidence for this overall development and evolution of fish animals into mammals with fur and all that goes. Evolution will never have any evidence for how this happened and they have to live and die with that.

    154. @explorerguy,

      And that is your proof for ID. If it is, it says much about flawed ID logic.

      Evolution doesn't explain the things good enough for me, therefore I believe in ID. IS that what you're saying?

    155. I believe in ID because we all do! We all believe that everything around us was designed. I will not make exceptions to this logics because this is just plain deduction from reality. I believe that life had to be designed because evolutionists themselves and biology of plasticity predicates teleology. Complex system only develop if there are genes hold a program. This logics of the genes randomly mutating and creating things over selection over millions of years is mathematically implausible and mathematicians who are not creationists or religions have stated it very adamantly. You do not need to get into the fine detail to read the line of reasoning is contrary to everything else reality tells you. THis exceptionalism granted to this amazing planet is now viewed through the eyes of an unguided process but this doesn't fly in the logics of many scientists and health professionals and the common people. Neither is naturalism the only paradigm we use to understand life's complex realities expressed by the human mind when all its dimensions are respectively taken into account. So...no, it is not because evolution doesn't have logical answers (it has simplistic answers and utterly unidirectional ones based only in biology). We all believe in design we just came to idolize science and the jargon, because we are flawed and inherently limited.

    156. @explorerguy,

      If you believe in ID that doesn't mean we all do. You need to make peace with you that not all people believe in your fairy tales. Having said that you need to ask yourself why is that?

      Plus the well known ID cliche (probability and statistics being used to justify the anti-evolution stance) is not working. Just browse the web. You have to dig out something more convincing from those creationist websites.

    157. "I believe in ID because we all do!" That certainly demonstrates the lhe level of your critical abilities, along with the statement "but this doesn't fly in the logics of many scientists and health professionals and the common people." Who cares what the so-called common people and health professionals (whatever that might mean) think about a scientific speciality? Might does not make right.

      You are as ignorant of mathematics (in particular probability) as you are of basic evolutionary biology and just what the "biology of plasticity" is is beyond me, much less how it predicates teleology (whatever that means).

      "Because we all do." Speak for yourself.

    158. And you can keep bashing everyone as ignorant of this or that because you don't know who you are talking to or you would think twice. If that's how you respond to my arguments, why respond, if you do not respond. If I am telling you that probabilistically the idea of time in evolutionary biology is absurd and you do not believe that people like Berlinsky (a published scientist and professor in European and USA universities) show in their writings, and others too. What can I do. You just don't believe it. It is better to say you don't believe in my data than try to judge whether I know anything of probability or stats, which you do not know and I am not telling you either.

    159. Please see Epicurus' resopnse. Published is one thing, peer-reviewed is another. And Berlinsky, a member of the Creation Istitute, did not get very good peer reviews. However, Wilf and Scott did. So it's not merely disagreement but sheer ignorance and deception on your part.

    160. You're the one with the circular logic. You're the one who keeps dodging questions. You're the one who doesn't understand that just because something is different doesn't mean that it merits serious consideration or for that matter any consideration at all.

      By the way, who said fish (and I assume that you're excluding whales, porpoises, dolphins and the like) evolved into mammals? Considering the level of your ignorance, who are you to state that evolution will never have evidence for how all this happened, especially when more is being uncovered every day?

    161. If it is uncovered every day you should be able to cite AT LEAST ONE example to show that an amphibian because a mammal or things of that sort. Show just one piece of evidence and I will be satisfied
      Otherwise you will find yourself on the circular logics that you are accusing me of.

    162. Excuse me, but I don't believe I ever said that an amphibian became a mammal. So don't distort. Now read about the velociraptor or watch the documentary, not that it'll do any good.

    163. And you call these mental gymnastics? Please don't denigrate the term.

    164. Once again, the answer's yes. And once again, the only hijacking has been done by you.

    165. Over the Edge has asked you time and time again to define species, but obviously you try to hide your ignorance by failing to do so.

    166. KInd is the better term. Species no longer means anything consistently. Its arbitrary.

    167. @addalled,

      You obviously didn't watch the documentary. That is the main problem with the creationists. Confirmation bias.

      And you didn't answer the two questions.

    168. O.K. How do you distinguish one kind from another.

      And once again you're wrong. Species means something quite consistent and those who understand it know a lot more about the subject than you do.

    169. All your think you know about Darwin and evolution is obviously gleaned from creationist websites and not from a reading of the primary sources or any reputable text.

      Now, without looking, what is a species?

    170. Finally, an answer. "We've already established that intra-species evolution can occur without speciation." Now do you see how ridiculous your statement is? Probably not.

      P.S. "Every dictionary in the world" is not a source.

    171. Well a dictionary is no good if you deny that intra-species evolution occurs. There's nothing else for us to discuss.

    172. First you quote from some dictionary which you refuse to identify and then state that the definition is no good if it doesn't fit in without your nonsense. You need help.

    173. I will accept any dictionary of your choosing if you can show me that speciation has nothing to do with one species evolving into another species. This is the common definition among all sides. Not sure what is the issue here.

    174. If you mean that one species suddenly transforms itself into another, it doesn't work that way. If you mean one species sharing a common ancestor with another, then you are on the road to understanding speciation.

    175. I'm saying common descent is wrong. And the fossil record confirms that there are no transitional fossils.

    176. Who cares what you say? You don't know enough to make any difference.

    177. Well that was certainly a compelling rebuttal.

    178. I thought so.

    179. Why don't you take the time to state what you want to say in one concise comment and leave it at that. 12hrs of argument got you nowhere and an other 12hrs will get you nowhere else.
      Just saying.
      in other words let people who agree discuss between themself....they shall get very tired of it.

    180. I did but people kept asking the same thing over and over.

    181. I asked you something else but you ignored, deflected and claimed you didn't have time.

      yet 4 hours later you are still here doing the same thing to everyone else.

    182. "...but people kept asking the same thing over and over."

      And they know that if they keep it up, eventually your head will explode.

    183. Then they could claim that as an example of speciation. Voila! Instant new species!

    184. @addalled,

      You should contact the media. They are still looking for the missing evidence for ID.

      BTW you managed to avoid these questions:

      When did the Intelligent Designer designed the species?
      Is ID deciding when a specific species to die out?
      Were all the species designed simultaneously or gradually over time?
      Why ID has some flawed designs in his portfolio?
      Why ID was working on a trial - error basis?

    185. When did the Intelligent Designer designed the species? A: Don't know.

      Is ID deciding when a specific species to die out? A: "Deciding"? Strange question but since ID is not a "being" the answer is NO. There is a designer and there is design.

      Were all the species designed simultaneously or gradually over time? A: Many were simultaneously as evidenced by the Cambrian Explosion. Others came before and a few after.

      Why ID has some flawed designs in his portfolio? A: Don't know. But this is an irrelevant question anyway. Bridges are designed and fail but that doesn't mean they weren't designed.

      Why ID was working on a trial - error basis? A: "Working"? ID is not a being. But plenty of designed things fail.

    186. There seems to be a lot that you don't know and a good bit of it you try to pass off as irrelevant. So why don't you wait until you learn something, especially about evolutionary biology and in particular about the Cambrian explosion, before posting again?

    187. Sorry you don't like the answers. But much of that was irrelevant and you know it. So now you've gone back to insults. And please don't try to claim that the Cambrian Explosion is evidence FOR Darwinism. I've seen others try to shoehorn in some explanation but they just end up embarrassing themselves.

    188. The only answer you've provided is, "Gee, I don't know." You're the embarassment and for those who know a lot more than you do, the laughing stock.

    189. I answered "don't know" on one question. And you don't know either. But that doesn't stop Darwinists from making up something anyway.

    190. No scientist "makes up something," but you do.

    191. "...please don't try to claim that the Cambrian Explosion is evidence FOR Darwinism."

      Why wouldn't it be evidence for evolution? --eagerly awaiting a clear, detailed answer and not a claim that the question is either irrelevent or insulting.

      (I object to the term "Darwinism" which implies he is some type of cult leader, but I'm assuming that 'evolution' is what you really mean.)

    192. We've all been seeking elucidation on the difference, as addalled see it, between evolution and Darwinism

    193. I object to using the term evolution as Darwinism. Evolution can occur without speciation.

    194. The problem is you don't know what you're talking about. The beauty is that Kateye 70 does.

    195. Maybe you should define exactly what you mean by "evolution" and by "Darwinism".

      It sounds like you mean by evolution "change only within a species" and by Darwinism "change leading to new species (speciation)."

      Is this correct?

      If so, its a wonderful example of redefining terms to suit an agenda, since the scientific community refers to speciation as evolution.

    196. @Kateye70,

      Exactly, yesterday we spent around 50 comments establishing that.

    197. SMH.

      I think I'll use the terms "evolution, change leading to speciation" and "idism, change going nowhere."

      (Idism still begs the question though...What happens when enough changes accumulate that two individuals whose ancestors were able to mate cannot produce offspring because of those changes. Are they still the same species?)

    198. @Kateye70,

      What happens when enough changes accumulate that two individuals whose ancestors were able to mate cannot produce offspring because of those changes. Are they still the same species?

      We should let @addalled answer that.

    199. Isn't this what the concept of ring species is all about?

    200. the cambrian explosion is a perfect example of evolution.

      your ignorance on the subject is getting embarrassing.

      it is clear you are discussing this with people who most likely go to or have gone to school for this very subject and you are continually making yourself look silly.

      just stop for everyones sake.

    201. Nice rant. Totally lacking in information though. Just attacks.

    202. everytime i try to inform you, you choose to ignore me. why would i continue?

    203. Wow.

      Epicurus went to all the trouble to not only repeat a very good analogy that he gave previously, and to further explain why you are having so much trouble understanding his answer, and you accuse him of 'ranting' and 'attacking'.

      You're not only lazy but deliberately misconstruing the polite response you got.

      In my opinion, you owe Epicurus an apology, and an honest attempt to understand his analogy. You don't have to agree with it, but you're the one who asked.

    204. @addalled,

      Honest answers. You admit you don't know a lot about ID. You also claim that the designer is not perfect, it is not a "being", and made a lot of mistakes. That sounds very human, and ordinary don't you think?

      Having said that, it appears that you only have problems with the Evolution in some instances. You don't prescribe to supernatural, omnipotent, omnipresent, creator.

      If that is the case, why don't you write an article and submit it to peer-review. You can seek help from the scientists that support ID. Honestly.

    205. "Peer-review" remind me of the Justice system, not infaillible but most likely right in the paradigm it is situated in time.
      And i must add controlled by money and power.
      I imagine many scientists must be so tempted to do without.

    206. I'll take peer review any day.

    207. of course, you prove my point! and you would have 300 yrs ago.

    208. And just what is your point, that there's something inherently wrong with peer review? What it amounts to is the uneducated trying to judge the educated.

    209. @Azilda,

      Yes, lets all hold hands and sing kumbaya. Whatever you give... we'll take.

      Without that "peer-review", today you wouldn't have the possibility to type that "peer-review" sucks.

    210. I never said peer-review sucks. I see both sides of p"i"ssiblities...even if one side is thin.
      No kumbaya needed...cheap shot Vlatko...one of a few directed at me.
      But who cares?

    211. You've basically said the same thing about peer review as you did about biblical scholarship. Again, it's the uneducated trying to judge the educated.

    212. What do we know? What don’t we know? What do we “know” about what KNOWING is?

      Our answers to these questions affect our lives deeply yet are often treated lightly. I think it behooves us to go with what works best in Life furthering and Life enriching ways. The most demonstrable vehicle for this is the Sciences. Creationists, ID’ers and Religionista’s etc. Have always failed to propose anything like a better alternative ... not forgetting that small matter of evidence.

      Thankfully Science never rests on its laurels. (Lol) It never declares itself All Knowing, All Loving and All Forgiving. Far from it, ScienceGod is a vicious baby eating ignorant B@stard God, only interested in one thing... The Truth! Warts and All.

      The Spiritual One

    213. have to go to work....but would love to answer your post...will when i return.
      The inspirited 1

    214. I agree with it all....knowing that i know less than 1% of what i would like to know.

      "Science is an intellectual activity carried on by humans that is designed to discover information about the natural world in which humans live and to discover the ways in which this information can be organized into meaningful patterns. A primary aim of science is to collect facts (data). An ultimate purpose of science is to discern the order that exists between and amongst the various facts."
      Dr. Sheldon Gottlieb in a lecture series at the University of South Alabama

      Every one in my opinion is a scientist of life, some make it a job. We are all in our own way on the biggest lab there is, earth. The children of this generation may come up with the grandest discovery, they have the best tool we never had which gives them access to thoughts from every corners of the earth almost instantly.
      With a computer anyone can get an education even the poorest (who often are extremely determined). Humanly Activated Computers will unveil religions for what they are...a controlling entity made of power and greed, but it is my opinion that personal spirituality will also be elevated. What could that be? Imagine if God was the Source and the Source was us all combined together.

    215. Thanks Azilda, you are in inspirational figure to me and I’m sure to many others. That you share this ever increasingly powerful and philosophic voice with us is music to my ears. Who cares how you got to know what you do, it rings true for so many of us in the most wonderful tones that resonate deeply, truly and not a little madly. (In the sweetest and most musical way) Keep composing and painting the world for us dear Az, not so many see it as vividly as you do. I feel your canvas is getting broader yet more defined all the time, this Savage Garden is all the prettier for your fragrant plantings, all that you need will surely come.

      The Devouring One

    216. There's plenty of ID-friendly peer- reviewed articles already. Unfortunately the moderator won't let me post links. Even from the NY Times. I've tried. Also posted a list of PhD's from institutions such as Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, etc that dissent from Darwin and that was blocked also.

    217. First of all, the NY Times doesn't constitute peer review.

      Second, unless you redefine peer review to include creationists, there are no ID-friendly peer-reviewed articles.

      Now, why don't you ask Vlatko or one of the moderators how to post links or would you rather just complain?

    218. @addalled,

      If you want to disprove Evolution submit your peer-review to VALID scientific journals and institutions. Not NY Times. That is not peer-review.

      It will be examined by the "PEERS". If it contains sound, empirically proven data, it will become the discovery of the century. That will be something. If I would you I would do it.

      Also the ID lists are well known. They constitute 5% of the scientific community. There is nothing to hide there.

    219. Vlatko:

      Could you please instruct addalled on how to post links to sites. We all need a good laugh.

    220. Do you consider these valid:

      IEEE International Conference on Systems, Protein Science, Journal of Molecular Biology, Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, Quarterly Review of Biology, Cell Biology International, Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum, Physics of Life Reviews, Annual Review of Genetics,...

    221. @addalled,

      WOW, and what happened with those ID papers submitted to all those organizations and journals. They were accepted or they were laughed at.

      Now post the links (live blank between the dot and the com, example: topdocumentaryfilms. com/falsifying-phylogeny/)

    222. oooo actually answered something...Not coherently but kudos for the attempt.

      "ID" "Intelligent DesignER" posits a "being." Presumably, if intelligent, this posited being had some type of decision-making capabilities, one would think. The whole concept of design implies a decision-making process.

    223. There's design and there's a designer. A bridge is designed but the designer has the decision-making capabilities. The bridge doesn't THINK itself into extinction or into failure.

    224. From your own post:

      "Is ID deciding when a specific species to die out? A: "Deciding"? Strange question but since

      ID is not a "being"

      the answer is NO."

      Your own words. Just sayin'

    225. Yep. There's design and a designer. Not the same thing.

      There's a computer program and a computer programmer. Two different things.

    226. Again, assertion is not proof. Again, where's the substantiation?

    227. I found it. Your link is on.

    228. Thanks for stating the obvious. Again.

      Perhaps instead of say "ID" you should type out when you mean "intelligent design" (process) versus "intelligent designER" (being).

      So, while I understood the meaning of the question as:

      "Is [the] Intelligent DesignER [being] deciding when a specific species to die out?"

      you answered as if it were

      "Is Intelligent Design [process] deciding when a specific species to die out?"

      Well and good, but I'd like the answer to whether you think a being is deciding when specific species die out, although I suppose the presumed process could include such die-out instructions.

      Perhaps you could share your thoughts as to which it is and how you know the answer is NO.

    229. It could be a changing environment that causes some extinction. I don't think you have to believe that a designer is "DECIDING" the species into extinction. But I don't play the same game as the Darwinists and claim to have all the answers when I clearly don't.

    230. Ah, the strawman ploy. So who's playing a game now? Show me a "Darwinist" who claims to have all the answers.

    231. "I don't play the same game as the Darwinists and claim to have all the answers when I clearly don't."

      I think the number of people who are "Darwinists" in the sense that you understand it would be vanishingly small. It's not something you believe in the way a Methodist or an animist would believe in something. It's a general theory that makes sense in light of all the observed facts. So most scientists accept it as the best working theory they have. The last thing they would do would be to take it as a matter of faith-- although for most it's a matter pretty well settled by now.

      The other advantage, pointed out a number of times already here, is that it's constantly getting reinforced by the findings of different disciplines. That is, the paleontological evidence is supported by the DNA evidence, etc. When in fact either body of evidence alone, looked at closely enough, is sufficient to convince most rational people that it's a credible argument.

      But if you're invested in it NOT being the case, no evidence is required. It's just, prima facie, not so. And in fact I have to say, you've provided us with virtually nil in the nature of evidence against evolution. And that's despite the patience of a number of people in asking that you produce some evidence. We'd love to see it, if you've got any. Really we would.

      BTW you'll not find a single developmental biologist or population geneticist who claims we now have "all the answers". The field is wide open, and evolving every year. And everyone in it would be MOST interested in looking at some serious evidence that questioned the way we look upon the theory.

      So please, Add, give us some red meat to chew on.

    232. Assertion is not proof. Now, how about the substantiation that everyone's been asking you for?

    233. "Some bacteria began to access citrate for food."

      ***Important part below***

      " However, the new function probably resulted from loss-of-information mutations. "

      “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution.” The Quarterly Review of Biology. 85 (4): 419-445.

    234. @addalled
      i am assuming here (correct me if i am wrong) but are you stating that evolution cannot happen due to a loss of information?

    235. Well if you want to claim that a LOSS of information is an example of speciation, then that's pretty flimsy. Apparently the author of the paper thought it was pretty significant.

    236. @addalled
      i guess that is as good of an answer i am going to get (was hoping for a yes or no) . but a loss of information or a "turning off" of a gene or a series of genes resulting in speciation is not out of line with the theory of evolution. here is where the problem lies in my opinion. you can reject evolution if you wish you can reject scientific definition if you wish but it is intellectually dishonest to say that evolution does not stand up to claims it never made. so therefore it is wrong. speciation occurred and continues to occur in accordance with the rules guidelines and definitions that are scientifically accepted. there are mountains of fossils,dna evidence,archaeological evidence and so on all collected and exposed to the scientific method. you are welcome to reject this method if you wish but changing the rules and misrepresenting the definitions in order to prove a point is wrong.

    237. You have to admit that it's a pretty big leap to claim that "evolution" via a mutation in a simple single-celled organism that results from a *LOSS* of information will also apply to complex, multicellular organisms? Really?

      Is that really all you got?

    238. @addalled
      this will be my last comment to you on this doc. the sheer refusal to accept valid evidence and the what i feel is deliberate vagueness of comments coupled with you refusal to answer direct questions with anything of substance has lost its appeal.
      your debating style is akin to showing up to Yankee stadium wearing skates a Darth Vader helmet and a badminton racket and demanding to play. when you are told that the rules dont allow that you complain and still demand to play. then you point out that the guy behind the plate is wearing a mask so why can't you. you are told that his mask is within the rules but yours isn't so you demand they change the rules. maybe the manager is an easy going guy so he asks about your previous experience in the minors to that you reply none . he explains that in order to prove yourself you need stats and experience to back up your claim of being able to play. and you reply that you can play and you don't need experience. after you are asked to leave you claim that the process for becoming a baseball player is flawed and doesn't follow the rules you made up. just like the manager might i entertained the idea for a while as it might prove entertaining but in the end it ends up sad.Id doesn't want equal treatment it wants special treatment.

    239. i can show you many examples of the genetic code gaining information.

    240. So what is everybody's obsession with the E Coli experiment? It is clearly weak.

    241. what do you mean? it is a perfect example of speciation.

    242. No, all the posts have shown the weakness to be clearly on your side.

    243. I just posted something. It didn't even have a link but I'm not seeing it. Do you have any sway with the moderator?

    244. @addalled
      this is an honest attempt to help. try reading the comment policy (located in blue above the comment box) and if that doesn't work try directing your comments to the admin or moderators directly and be patient

    245. Someone, please help addalled post a link or two.

      That's the best I can do.

    246. @addalled
      you stated "Many were simultaneously as evidenced by the Cambrian Explosion" how long do you think the cambrian explosion was ?

      and also again why is the long term e-coli experiment not speciation. i know you don't think it was but you never gave evidence as to why other than you don't like the definition

    247. I posted where I found the debunking info but the moderator blocks all my links.

    248. @addalled
      how long do you think the cambrian explosion was? and could you summarize why the experiment isn't speciation ?

    249. "Some bacteria began to access citrate for food."

      ***Important part below***

      " However, the new function probably resulted from loss-of-information mutations. "

      “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution.” The Quarterly Review of Biology. 85 (4): 419-445.

    250. you have ignored every example of transitional fossils i have given you and WILLFULLY CHOSEN to remain ignorant. good for you.

    251. Well I had somebody else tell me that ALL FOSSILS are transitional. ALL OF THEM. So I really don't know what is the official position of the Darwinian movement. Are all fossils transitional or just some?

    252. every living organism is in the process of transitioning however like the example i told you with the pictures everyday of you from 9 to 60 you wouldnt notice any drastic changes however when we find fossils its like finding one of those pictures seperated from the constant flow of pictures so when you see individual pictures you start to notice vast changes, these would be considered transitional if they were such a change that we then had to classify the organism as a new species.

      once again, you might want to get a good understanding of how biologists classify organisms and you will better understand.

      you are basically trying to learn how to understand the mathematics of gravity without first learning calculus.

    253. /facepalm

      To repeat your own quote: "Scroll back to find the answer."

    254. Once again, ALL FOSSILS ARE TRANSITIONAL. I trust that there are no words beyond your comprehension.

    255. That's gonna make for a HUUUGE Wikipedia page that lists all the transitional fossils. Can you imagine how long that will take to load?

    256. @addalled,

      Scroll down the comments (LOL... sounds familiar).

      @Epicurus gave you a link to Wikipedia list of all transitional fossils (twice I think). And it takes long to load indeed.

      He also gave you an intelligent 1000+ words rebuttal for your ID peer-review papers.

      Not to mention his clean analogies, that you somehow interpret as insults.

    257. That Wikipedia page is incomplete. I've been told that ALL FOSSILS are transitional. So it's really gonna take a long time to load now when those are added. Also can you imagine how much printer paper that will require?

    258. Your point?

    259. Well if we include ALL FOSSILS then that's gonna take a lot of printer paper.

    260. So?

    261. I guess you're not that concerned about the environment. That's a lot of dead trees.

    262. WOOHOOO! got your attention with an insult, I apologise sincerely, I did not mean it. I will edit my posts.

      Now that you're listening,

      How do you know when a thing that has been designed has been designed?

    263. At least you got his attention and if an insult is what it takes, go for it. After all, he has insulted everyone's intelligence.

    264. >.<

      Why are you pretending to misunderstand the answers you were given?

      The Wiki page is a list of fossils which illustrate the points at which species can be seen to change.

      The "ALL" answer simply points out that,
      in the broader context,
      every being that has ever lived,
      is living now,
      or ever will live
      are transitional forms of whatever species they belong to
      at whatever point in time they happen to exist in.

      Therefore, of the vanishing few beings that became or will become fossils, ALL are technically transitional.

      (I know you have trouble reading posts all the way through, so I've put the phrases of my complex sentence on separate lines so you can scan them more quickly.)

    265. Most considerate of you, but probably abortive.

      He's probably seeking an ur-creature which never existed because it couldn't have.

    266. What does that have to do with anything?

    267. How much have you read about DNA, the Cambrian Explosion or the Neanderthals? All your posts indicate next to nothing, except perhaps what you might find on a creationist website.

      Once again, what have you read of Charles Darwin?

    268. @addalled,

      You really do expect to find fossil records which will contain the missing information as on a "movie". Just roll the tape and the transformation of the species will be uncovered. Duck - Crocodile - Something Else -Etc.

      To find that kind of preservation of countless of fossils stretched over million of years is virtually impossible. There is no such site on Earth and there will never be.

      At best we can hope for bits of information, gathered from partial skeletons, because as I've said fossils are vanishingly rare. But even they are uncovering a little bit of transitional info.

    269. I disagree. There should be tons of fossil evidence for speciation. By Darwinists own admission there is very little.

    270. A first-grader could understand Vlatko's explanation. You obviously can't or don't want to.

    271. An "explanation" is no substitute for fossil evidence.

    272. Better get your fossil hunting cap on then.

    273. @addalled,

      How do you disagree with that is beyond me. I'm forced to quote this again and again, for the tenth time maybe:

      "It isn't easy to become a fossil… Only about one bone in a billion, becomes fossilized. If that is so, it means that the complete fossil legacy of all the Americans alive today - that's 270 million people with 206 bones each - will only be about 50 bones, one-quarter of a complete skeleton. That's not to say, of course, that any of these bones will ever actually be found. Bearing in mind that they can be buried anywhere within an area of slighly over 9.3 million square kilometres, little of which will ever be turned over, much less examined, it would be something of a miracle if they ever were." - Bill Bryson.

      I think your last statement: "There should be tons of fossil evidence for speciation" cemented your position. Too bad, I thought you knew better.

      And probably robert was right. You gather info not from actual science books, but from creationist websites, which i find really sad.

    274. Of course you have to say that. Without fossil evidence your only defense is to claim that it just doesn't exist.

    275. @addalled,

      Hahahaha.... Probably it doesn't exist, but even if it exists, it will be virtually impossible to discover it. Certainly not in way you want it.

      Now since we've established that speciation is true, empirically proved, and we know the very definition of it, what else can we say.

      The proof for ID? Empirical? You don't have one. Too bad. Back to square one.

    276. Exactly. It doesn't exist. Speciation only exists on paper when someone arbitrarily decides that a new "species" has been created.

    277. @addalled,

      Probably it doesn't exist in the fossil record, not that it never happened. Are you sure you're reading all comments in full.

    278. I got too many responses to reply to. Maybe not.

    279. As Over the Edge has been telling you over and over, there is nothing arbitrary about identifying a new species, but you think you know more than those who have seriously studied the subject--and you wonder why the personal attacks.

    280. Of course there's nothing arbitrary. *wink wink* Science has always been immune to politics *wink wink*

    281. You seem to think that you are equipped to go against than those who, unlike you, have actually studied the subject. That makes you pathetic.

    282. You're right. It should be left as an exercise for the reader, namely you.

      Now, just how much of Darwin have you read--and I'm talking about the primary source, not claptrap from a creationist website?

    283. Probably more than you if you aren't aware of Common Descent.

    284. That's not an answer. It's a distortion. Where did I write that I was not aware of common descent?

      Now how much of Darwin have you actually read--I know it's difficult, but try to be truthful.

    285. How much have you read? And how much have you read of Intelligence Design? Do you even know the difference between YEC and ID?

    286. Young Earth Creation and Intelligent Design. And I didn't have to look this up for I've read a lot intelligent design, creationism and other forms of charlatanism. Now, what have you read of Darwin whom you profess to know so much about?

    287. I have read what I need to know. I don't read books cover to cover. But I'm pretty sure the parts I read about common descent are in there. And while it wasn't in the book Darwin himself acknowledged the lack of fossil evidence.

    288. If you don't read books from cover to cover how do you know that you've read what you need to know? Sounds pretty skimpy to me. Being "pretty sure" that the parts you read about common descent are "in there" (wherever that is) is not even approaching enough. And just where did Darwin acknowledge the lack of fossil evidence? And no peeking on a creationist website. This is about you, not about a bunch of ignorant contributors.

    289. I am not the only one who's asking you about the difference between what you term Darwinism and what you term evolution, a question you haven't even begun to answer--and I can see why?

      Also, once again, just what are "magical mutations?"

    290. Tired of typing this multiple times. Do a search on this page.

    291. @addalled,

      And what is Darwinism? It is just a movement that acknowledges the work of Darwin.

      You're looking for an evidence for movement. It is like looking for an evidence for the EURO CUP 2012.

    292. In this context think of Darwinism as Darwinian evolution. Does that help?

    293. Well then, what's the difference between evolution and Darwinian evolution?

    294. I think the problem here is that the "ID" websites try to conflate the state of science in the 1800's, when Darwin's theories were new, with the vast body of scientific work that has been done since then.

      Acknowledging that Darwin only gave us the first word on evolution, and not the last, means having to answer all the new evidence and advancements in thinking since then, errr, intelligently.

      I mean, Darwin was a great guy and all, but not the only evolutionary thinker on the planet, ya know?

    295. Your parents did a good job with you. You're right. Empedocles and Lamarck came before Darwin and while much has been done in the 150 years since Darwin, the basic structure which he so well outlined has remained unchanged.

      I agree with you that Darwin was a great guy, even though he was completely wrong about genetics which seems odd considering that he bred dogs. Well, Newton denied the existence of imaginary numbers.

    296. @addalled,

      Right, and that is your own made up context. There is no such thing as Darwinian Evolution.

      There is only Theory of Evolution. Darwin only scratched the surface. He couldn't look into DNA. Now get a book and read about all the EVIDENCE that I pointed out below.

      And for the fossils, we may never find your "missing link" because the fossils are vanishingly rare. If today 300,000,000 Americans die, and left like that, after considerable amount of time, we'll be able find only one partial fossil skeleton as their legacy.

      The absence of fossils is not the evidence for your creator, and it is not a counter evidence for evolution, because there are hundreds of other evidence pointing to evolution, and none for ID.

    297. Sorry but you don't get to hijack the word evolution. Whether you like it or not the term "Darwinian Evolution" is not going away. Even non-IDers are recognizing its flaws so evolution Darwinism.

    298. @addalled,

      Hmmm... you're not making any sense. You caught yourself in semantics.

      Darwinian Evolution vs. Evolution
      Darwinism vs. Evolution

      So what is it? Is there Evolution and Darwinian Evolution according to you? Or Darwinism and Evolution?

      You have to realize that there is only Theory of Evolution which was first proposed by Charles Darwin. It is that simple. Since then it was proven right countless of times. Or I'm missing something?

    299. Well of course you want to hijack the term "evolution" so that it always means Darwinian evolution. That's to your benefit.

    300. @addalled,

      I don't understand a word you're saying. Could you be not so vague, so I can respond properly.

      The guy "officially" proposed the theory but ever since countless of evidence showed up that he couldn't simply dream about.

      So again, what exactly are you saying? Are there two kinds of evolution "Darwinian Evolution" and "Evolution", or not.

    301. If someday human evolve and have 12 toes, is that evidence of speciation?

    302. @addalled,

      The answer: NO.

      My turn. Several questions tough.

      Marine fish that over 10,000 generations has undergone change and is able to live into new freshwater colonies in isolated lakes and streams, is evidence for speciation or not?

      Once the same population splits into two geographically isolated populations come back into contact. They have evolved such that they are reproductively isolated and are no longer capable of exchanging genes. Is that evidence for speciation?

      Are Island genetics, insular dwarfism, Mayr bird fauna, Petroica multicolor, Ring species, etc., evidence for speciation?

    303. For purposes of this discussion let's say they are. But since we all agree that not all evolution is speciation then let's quit using "evolution" as if it automatically means "Darwinian evolution". Evolution within species is not a problem for ID'ers.

    304. @addalled,

      If your answer is yes (which in fact is) then you agree that speciation is true. Speciation doesn't mean evolution within species.

      Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise, as I've shown with the evidence, which are BTW empirical and observable.

      Since you agreed on the presented evidence, don't you think your "missing link" in the fossil record is obsolete.

    305. No, we are still looking for fossil evidence to confirm speciation. But for purposes of clarity in discussion I will accept "Darwinian Evolution" as the term for speciation evolution.

    306. More nonsense. Yet can't understand what every first-year biology student knows: you can't have evolution without speciation. One implies the other. How much clearer does this need to be made to you?

    307. So if I evolve to have 12 toes I am a new species? AWESOME!

    308. Why did you feel the need to post that twice?

    309. You apparently missed it the first time.

    310. missed what?

    311. @addalled
      you asked "So if I evolve to have 12 toes I am a new species?" no because you (sadly) will still be able to successfully breed and pass on your genes to viable offspring.again showing your lack of understanding of even the basics of evolutionary theory

    312. Yes I will pass on genes. (???) Still not evidence of speciation. Try again. It looks like you are having trouble understanding Darwinian theory.

    313. @addalled i don't think you understood having 12 toes isnt speciation that is what i meant. this will be my last comment to you for a while because your claim of too many questions from several posters seems fair to me so i will give you a break. just please answer me why the long term e-coli experiment isn't speciation according to your own definition?

    314. It's not fossil evidence. But that's not a deal killer in this case. But it's a typical thing for Darwinists to pick something like that as an example because it is easy to just arbitrarily claim that this is a new species. Whereas something the size of a mammal is not so easy to reclassify as a new species. There would clearly be comparisons made that would likely cause it to fall into an existing species.

    315. @addalled
      nobody "just arbitrarily claim that this is a new species" no it doesn't it fits the definition given by both you and i . why is it not a new species. i have come to the conclusion you haven't even watched this doc. my reason for that is that you have brought up mammals multiple times but much of what you ask for is explained in detail within the doc. again answer me why it is not speciation and i will give you a break from my posts for a while. saying that it is easy to reclassify as a new species is not only wrong but does nothing to prove it is not a new species.

    316. I've only mentioned mammals once. But feel free to pick something else and it still applies.

    317. @addalled,

      Yes it applies indeed since e-coli is the most suitable for proving speciation in a laboratory (horizontal gene transfer).

      Now how about answering those two questions:

      What is your definition of a new species?
      How do you know Samuel Morrissey's watch was designed?

    318. Samuel Morrissey's watch at one time was a refrigerator. Then it was arbitrarily designated to be a watch.

    319. @addalled,

      How do you know that? Buy it looks, design. What made you think it is intelligently designed?

    320. Aaah... forget it. I was polite to you, and asked a simple question. You refused to answer it, even when prompted twice by Vlatko. I was interested in what you might say at first but now I couldn't care less.

      I guess you are intimidated by the logical consequences of an honest answer. Judging by your rhetoric, you should be too.

      @Vlatko cheers for prompting.

      'I believe God made me in one day.'
      'Yeah. Looks like he rushed it'
      - Bill Hicks

    321. Sorry but I can't give full attention to everybody. I've had too many responses to respond to. I've been typing nonstop.

    322. You took the time to post gobbledegook instead of a real answer though, didn't you?

      I sympathise, my advice is; stop typing.

    323. That comment of accusing people of posting gobbledegook is convenient because that way you don't have to respond to any of the arguments used. Me and I am sure others can read the poverty in these types of reactions. Try to see what's in it for you because deflecting will not get you anywhere. That is such a stereotyped reply when things get uncomfortable.

    324. Neither You nor Adallad have asked me a question, how can I be deflecting?

      Also, it wasn't an accusation, it was an observation. proof:

      I asked 'How do you know my watch has been designed?' to which adallad replied 'Samuel Morrissey's watch at one time was a refrigerator. Then it was arbitrarily designated to be a watch.'

      You answered my question with an answer that implies we (or any other life form for that matter) are not designed. I was sure this was not what you intended, so I replied, have another go.

      Your comment is a weak attempt to project your own faults on to me.

      Have another go.

    325. He wrote, "gobbledygook instead of a real answer." If you're going to quote entirely. Quoting out of context reveals intellectual poverty.

    326. No it's factual. But I'm logging off.

    327. Now you link speciation with size. Do you also believe in the tooth fairy?

    328. I link speciation with someone's pen and paper and a snazzy name for their new arbitrary species.

    329. @addalled,

      You didn't answer some questions.

      What is your definition of a new species?
      How do you know Samuel Morrissey's watch was designed?

    330. @addalled,

      If we could speed up the reproduction cycle of a big mammal in a laboratory it would be awesome. But since we can't, we have to use e-coli.

    331. Or just find transitional fossils. Oh yeah...they already tried that and haven't found any.

    332. For the umpteenth time, all fossils are transitional. What more do you want?

    333. All fossils are transitional because....well, because you say so. Got it.

    334. Once again, you can't get it into your head that it's not what I say; but what those in the know (i.e., the experts) say. However, if you can find me a prototype, I will retract my statement.

    335. lol no all fossils are transitional because all life is a new set of chromosomes in a particular order. evolution is the change of allele frequency in a population over time. that happens it is a fact. so every living being is a transition since we arent exact copies of our parents.

      if you take a picture of yourself when you are 9 and one every day since then until now, will you be able to point to when it was you became an adult? of course not. but if you see them in large increments you will notice the vast changes.

    336. That was well said.

    337. They aren't transitional in the sense that they are evolving into a new species. But we are changing intra-species. There has not been a single scientifically verifiable transitional fossil showing a species changing into another species.

    338. what do you mean by species. what is a species?

      you can see LIVING transitional species in the ensatina salamanders of California. just look up RING SPECIES. those are transitional.

      perhaps the confusion comes from you not understanding what SPECIES means. which is okay most first or second year biology students still dont know what it means.

    339. Good question. Nowadays what constitutes a "species" is loosely defined so as to prop up Darwinism and make it appear that new species are being "evolved" all the time. So the word has become meaningless.

    340. no not true at all the word has very much meaning and even more meaning when you start to understand each animal according to their proper phylogenetics.

      what would be the purpose for scientists all over the world to "prop up darwinism"?

    341. The purpose? Well without all these new "species" there wouldn't be much evidence for Darwinism. The fossil evidence isn't there so creating new "species" (on paper at least) is the best way to support the claims of Darwin.

    342. what do you mean the fossil evidence isnt there? i work with the fossil evidence all the time. i hold 3 million year old australopithecine fossils in my hands all the times.

      now what would be the REASON or PURPOSE for continuing some conspiracy about evolution?

    343. You found the missing link? Contact the media dude! They're still looking for this.

    344. how old are you?

    345. Whjy? You gonna send the Darwin mafia after me?

    346. ooookay, i guess i dont need any answer other than that.

    347. You do? I envy you. By the way, did you hear about Lonesome George?

    348. yes i did! that actually made me very upset lol.

    349. I was not surprised, but I was stunned and for a few minutes, I couldn't do anything but think of that tortoise whom I never met but saw so many videos of. I really liked him.

    350. Again, how many times have heard this today and how many times has it been refuted?

    351. None.

    352. Now where have I heard this before?

    353. Well only 15% of Americans are part of the Darwin cult. So you probably heard it from the other 85%. Source: Gallup

    354. So what? When it comes to science, might doesn't make right.

      Is this your final stand? If so, it's a pathetic one.

    355. @addalled
      nice quote mining yes 15% of Americans believe in evolution without god. but 46% believe in god without evolution and 32% believe in god guided evolution. but in the same poll 25% of those asked that had a degree believed in god without evolution. so education matters and if you look at other countries (sorry the U.S isn't the only opinion that counts) the stats change

    356. @addalled
      i am serious did you watch the documentary you are commenting on? AronRa demonstrated that the type of fossil you are looking for has been found but creationists never seem to recognize it. in his in depth explanation on canines he showed many examples and also asked since dogs and bears share a common ancestor and therefore both have similar traits when is this ancestor a full dog and when is its cousin a full bear? again a transitional fossil will never stop belonging to it's ancestry and one animal never gives birth to a completely different animal. as pointed out in the above doc you can show a creationist a fossil and he/she will claim it is 100% human while another will claim it is 100% ape (we are still apes) but neither will understand that all fossils are transitional

    357. lol oh goodness OTE.....you think any of the creationists would WATCH this?!?!

      oh you....lol

    358. @Epicurus
      lol i had to watch Ben Stein's doc expecting a creationist to watch AronRa still leaves me with the short end of the stick

    359. i bought expelled from the store just so i would know it was one less copy someone would end up watching......lol

    360. I thought it had some good things in it! lol

    361. what parts did you like and i will tell you how they are dishonest.

    362. You must be rich. However, I suggest you lend out your copy to anyone who will watch it, creationist or otherwise.

    363. lol it was expelled, it cost like 5 dollars. i live in canada, they were basically trying to give the thing away. most people here dont buy into that nonsense.

    364. Says a lot for your country. Well, if no one will watch it, you can always use it as a door stop.

    365. @robertallen1
      as long as he makes it a box set including "flunked"

    366. Touché. In that way, it'll make an ever better door stop.

    367. You keep saying this in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This doesn't say much for you.

    368. You should contact the media because they are still looking for the missing link.

    369. you should realize the media uses terms that are not entirely scientific.

    370. @Epi,

      He's just trolling. He is not here for a real debate.

    371. Riiiight...it's just a big conspiracy isn't it? And it's been going on for years. In fact, we have been brainwashed so well that 85% do not believe in Darwinism (source:Gallup) I would do the same thing if I were you. Just deny that the problem exists.

    372. what are you talking about?

      so because 85% of people believe something that means it is true? where did you get that number from anyways?

      and are you really saying that all scientists are pushing some global conspiracy? if so why would they do that?

    373. The concept of a "missing link" between humans and apes arose in the 19th century, when the fossil record was largely incomplete. Large gaps separated species, casting doubt on the theory of evolution. But in the last 130 years, a plethora of fossils have been discovered, greatly narrowing the gaps between species. The Australopithecus afarensis fossil known as "Lucy" is considered to be a key fossil bridging the gap between humans and primitive hominids.

    374. Haven't they found another one about a million years older which does the same thing?

    375. ya it all depends on what they want a transition of.

    376. I don't quite understand your answer. As I understand it, they had found a fossil about a million years older than Lucy which is also showed the transition you were discussing.

    377. Which media?

    378. All of them. That's bad news for you. There's a big conspiracy to perpetuate the missing link myth. Even liberal news outlet. It's gonna be an uphill battle for you.

    379. So now there's a conspiracy. I hear Hammond chord organ music in the background.

    380. You define speciation first than you can make the e-coli experiment say exactly what you need it to say. What does that prove regarding the evolution theory that all the diversity and life forms were not designed or that primitive forms became staggering complex ones , and then there's the rest of nature, fungi, trees, mollusks and all kind of life forms and not to mention the closed system the eco system really is..all evolved together the plants to give food and so one..and everything was synchrony all along. Fairy tales are also true!

    381. @explorerguy
      what? so because speciation was predicted first and those predictions were proven true that i a bad thing? are you accusing the scientists that performed these tests of falsifying evidence? if so that is a serious claim and requires either an apology or detailed proof of the falsification. it doesn't prove that a designer never existed (cannot prove a negative) it only proves that a designer is not necessary for evolution to exist. nothing i have stated disproves ID but as i was told earlier (correctly) the onus is on the person making the positive claim. what is your positive observable,repeatable and verifiable proof that there is a designer

    382. No, by nature fairy tales are not and no, speciation has already been defined. And no, evolution does not describe purpose. Three wrongs in a row.

      If you're positing the existence of a creator, you must be prepared to prove it scientifically and what you have written is far short of the mark.

    383. Read Mary Jane Ebehardt. She's an evolutionary biologist and she discourses beautifully on the need of purpose for development. I know, coming from an evolutionist sounds a bit controversial. But it is not. Not every one sees evolutionism in the same way. Before saying evolution does not describe purpose you should ask yourself everything has a purpose in nature and in a biological system. It is Evolutionary theory that cannot describe this, because it counteracts (in some people's idea) the pillars that hold this 'doctrine' together.

    384. And evolutionary theory (that is theory in the scientific sense) is not concerned with purpose, merely the process, the mechanism. Everything else is unscientific and not worth of consideration in this context.

    385. @addalled,

      Either you're a kid or you're deliberately trolling. That is exactly the same what @overtheedge said. If you can pass on your genes mating with a human with normal number of toes you're not a different species.

    386. Ummmm.. Yes I am saying that evolution can occur without species changes. There's Darwinian evolution and there's intra-species evolution. Darwinian evolution is not a synonym for evolution as evolution can occur without species change. Darwinists need to quit trying to hijack the word evolution.

    387. Are you just pretending to be dense? Once again, evolution cannot occur without speciation. There is no distinction between evolution and Darwinism. The term evolution was around long before Darwin and thus was not hijacked by those whom you describe as Darwinists. Why do you refuse to read anything outside of your fraudulent creationist websites?

    388. FACT: Evolution can occur without speciation. I can't believe you are disputing something so obvious.

    389. It's back total ignorance again. No, it can't. By definition, it can't.

    390. So can inter-species evolution occur without intra-species evolution?

    391. Like a true creationist, you distort, that's not what I wrote or anything even close.

    392. I was asking a question. Not quoting you. Can you answer it?

    393. Interspecies evolution and intraspecies evolution are two different processes...and yes, either occurs without the other.

      Although interspecies evolution is pretty much limited to plants, there is recent evidence that it also can occur in animals.

      Gives a whole new meaning to the term 'puppy-love,' doesn't it?

    394. About as much trouble as Dr. Tyson has understanding astronomy. About as much trouble as Dr. Horner has understanding the biology of the tyrannosaurus.

    395. And as ring species clearly demonstrate, speciation does not happen over night or with a flick of the evolutionary wrist.

    396. Or you could be just a freak of nature like a two-headed snake. It depends on the circumstances.

    397. Or you could be just one of nature's little anomalies like a two-headed snake.

    398. You mean like a mutation? Which is typically regressive and not a "magical mutation" as Darwin believed that would result in something more advanced.

      Or "neanderthals", which were likely just humans with some rare anomaly.

    399. @addalled,

      Or "neanderthals", which were likely just humans with some rare anomaly.

      Hahaha.... I can't believe I'm reading this. That's it, I'm out.

    400. Neanderthals just 50 years ago were portrayed as ape-like brutes. Now we know that they buried their dead, had paintings, used advanced tools, etc. Hmmm...seems like it is it time to reclassify them as a new species.

    401. On what basis? Again you have not provided us with your definition of a species.

    402. Scroll up or down to find it. Species is an arbitrary word that has become meaningless. Kind is better terminology.

    403. And I asked you what separates one kind from another and you could not provide an answer just as you cannot provide answers to a lot of what's been requested of you not only by me but by others who are a lot more knowledgable on the subject.

      P.S. Once again, there is nothing arbitrary about the word species, only your inability to define it.

    404. Well I'm classifying you as wrong. It's not arbitrary. I've decided that you are wrong. If you don't agree then you don't understand the word "wrong". Wrong is whatever I decide it to be. It's not arbitrary.

    405. "Wrong is whatever I decide it to be. It's not arbitrary." Humpty Dumpt but with a built-in contradiction.

    406. As usual, you have it wrong. Few mutations result in something "more advanced."

      Does the term hominid mean anything to you?

    407. Most are regressive. Those will more than cancel out any non-regressive mutations. You certainly are not going to trigger a new species. Mutations are more likely to cause a species to go extinct than evolve into a new species.

    408. What is a regressive mutation? So much wilful ignorance in one afternoon and part of a morning.

    409. Seriously? You've never heard of a regressive mutation?

    410. Don't try that. You pretend to know something. Provide all of us with a definition of a regressive mutation or is this tantamount to your failure to provide us with your definition of a species?

    411. Do you know what a mutation is or do I need to look that up for you too?

    412. Now, you're distorting. We were talking about what you term a regressive mutation and I asked you for a definition which you are unable to provide as you are unable to provide a lot of things which have been asked for not only by me but by others on this site, people who know a lot more about the subject than you even want to.

    413. Sorry dude but I've been typing nonstop for a while now. Some things you are just going to have to do on your own. I can't respond to every silly thing that should be obvious or either you should take the initiative and look it up yourself if you dont understand it.

    414. You can't respond to anything is more to the point because you don't understand or even want to take the steps to understand anything. It's the height of ignorant conceit to try to go up against your intellectual betters.

      P.S. I'm not dude.

    415. I assumed robert was a dude's name.

    416. You assumed correctly, but I am not a dude and I resent being addressed that way.

    417. Lighten up sir.

    418. @addalled,

      Will you start answering the questions posed, or you'll continue with dodging, manipulating, cherry picking... Some fine questions are waiting for your answer.

    419. I'm tired of typing. Scroll up or down and you will find all the answers you need.

    420. @addalled,

      Hahahah... ahh. Short term memory loss or something.

      My questions about ID, and the question about the "watch." You never answered those.

      Never mind, if you wish to concede like that.

    421. The evidence for design is far greater than the evidence for Darwin's magical mutations creating new "species".

    422. @addalled,

      OK show us the evidence. We're waiting. And answer the unanswered questions please.

    423. DNA complexity, Cambrian explosion, an evolutionary tree that doesnt look like a tree, "primitive" neaderthals that buried their dead, used tools, had paintings, no transitional fossils, neverending Darwinian "breakthroughs" getting debunked, etc.

    424. @addalled,

      Well none of them proves ID. They only question Evolution. And not even that. Are you sure you know what actually "evidence" is.

      Come on you can do it better. Some tangible, empirical evidence for the Intelligent Designer.

      And answer my questions about the ID if you will. Would you like me to repeat them to you?

    425. I've already answered. If this isn't enough evidence then it just shows you are closed minded and not someone that can be influenced by facts or logic.

    426. @addalled,

      What did you answer? If you consider those as evidence you do have a real problem with the definition of evidence. But that does not surprises me since you also had problems with the definitions of species and speciation.

      Are you losing the ground a little bit. Calling me closed minded.

    427. The last resort. If you who have far more education in the subject don't believe me who has far less, then you are just being closed-minded and as such you are hopeless.

    428. cambrian explosion....how long did that event take?

      the evolutionary tree is just more fancy language. its not meant to be taken literal. its more like a web or ring of life.

      neandertals burying their dead doesnt disprove evolution at all.

      what darwinian breakthroughs are debunked and by who?


    429. I like to read dude. Try it sometime.

    430. i dont think you do.

      i personally am in university for this very subject, this is what i base my life around.

      i really dont think you know what you are talking about.

    431. The question is what do you read. From your posts, your selection is questionable.

    432. I've been trying to find this out all day.

    433. Get this straight. You lack both the intelligence and knowledge to debunk anything.

    434. Can you elaborate on this or is it taxing your ignorance to too great a degree?

    435. I already have. Not willing to do a rehash.

    436. Let's see. You're already alive. You don't get to evolve any more. You're just gonna die. Maybe you'll pass some genetic material on, maybe you won't. Point is, you're done evolving.

      If some descendent of yours has a 12-toe mutation that either provides a benefit for survival, or piggybacks with a different mutation that provides a survival benefit or is geographically isolated from other humans, or is sexually selected for, or one of the myriad other ways mutations can give rise to new species, then possibly, just possibly, that descendent could in fact go on to found a new species.

      Mind-boggling, isn't it?

    437. And a lot more fascinating and tantalizing than that creationst crap.

    438. We do not all agree that not all evolution is speciation, as a matter of fact, you can't have one without the other.

      Now again, how much Darwin have you read?

    439. We've already established that intra-species evolution can occur without speciation.

    440. No, we haven't and we never will, for logically the statement is nonsense.

    441. So if humans evolve to have 12 toes they are a new species? I guess that is typical of how Darwinists attempt to "prove" speciation.

    442. Well, OK. This time I'll address my question to you personally, as an evident promoter of ID.

      How do you know, whether or not a thing has been designed?

    443. Well DNA evidence is a pretty good start.

    444. But my gold watch doesn't have DNA. Was it not designed?

    445. Yes it was designed. There's no evidence that it "evolved" from a microwave is there?

    446. But you said DNA evidence was evidence of design. I was pointing out that it is not, as things that are designed do not have DNA.

      You are missing my intended point, so to make it easier, how do you know my watch has been designed?

      [edit for clarity]

      I am not saying my watch wasn't designed, I am asking you how you know.

    447. Your watch was designed because we design things. More over we NEVER see major transformations in living things. We can deduct easily and be sure that the logics we are using is not flawed, but axiomatic.

    448. The question is about how you know, not why it was. It is a simple question. You have not answered it.

      to take your answer and expound for politeness sake.
      'because we design things' - By that definition, since 'we' did not design us, we are not designed.

      Have another go.

    449. Not good enough. What is the logical connection between DNA evidence and the supposed existence of a creator?

    450. Speciation is a fact. The world couldn't exist without it. You keep talking about Darwinists (whatever they are). Once again, how much Darwin have you read?

    451. Asked and answered. How much of Hugh Ross have you read? Oxygen is something the world(people) couldn't exist without. But we are doing just fine without speciation. Different species are a good thing. But speciation is not necessary to our world.

    452. "But we are doing just fine without speciation. Different species are a good thing." Like Vlatko and Over the Edge, I can't believe that a rational person is writing this. You can't have different species without speciation.

    453. Only if you don't believe in a designer and choose to believe in magical mutations instead.

    454. You've answered your own question.

    455. I didn't but I will. The answer is no.

    456. You're the one doing the hijacking as evidence by your posts regarding you "definitions" of evolution v. Darwinian Evolution (and I still don't know what this means), species and speciation.

    457. I've done all I can do for you. You're on your own now.

    458. Your first sentence has been my point all along. Evolution is evolution. Even Lamarckian evolution (although later disproved) still stands for the principle of evolution.

    459. Wrong as usual. As you have no idea what a species is much less how speciation works, who are you to characterize the e coli experiment as a blurring of the lines of what constitues a new species "at a cellular level (whatever that is)?

      Your belief in a designer is merely an illogical religious belief supported by nothing, not by what you to believe to be the complexity of DNA (which really isn't all that complex), the evolutionary tree (which is merely a representation of common descent, not a debunking of it), the Cambrian explosion (which you obviously know next to nothing about for you don't understand speciation or for that matter want to) and the Neanderthals (who were merely another form of hominid). The only leap of faith is not in Darwin, but in your inability and lack of desire to understand the basics of evolutionary biology.

    460. Well I see a lot text there but no evidence to back up your claims...just your opinions and personal attacks.

    461. Crack open a standard evolutionary biology text.

      You and others like you deserve the personal attacks.

    462. "That is about explaining why there are no transitional fossils. So we still do not have fossil evidence that one species has transformed into another."

      Well, what it actually said was...no, re-read it yourself.

      Then go to this Wiki article: /wiki/List_of_Transitional_Fossils

      Again, heavily-sourced article that you can peruse for yourself.

      I try not to make personal comments, but my, you are lazy.

    463. Those may look convincing but they have not crossed the threshold of being scientifically verifiable evidence of speciation. There should be no need to scratch and claw to find transitional fossils. The evidence should be overwhelming. And the term "missing link" is not something dreamed up by ID'ers. The media is hostile to ID'ers and yet even they know that the fossil evidence for Darwinism is lacking.

    464. Who are you to be talking about "scientifically verifiable evidence of speciation" when you have no idea either of speciation or scientific verifiability and don't want to? And you wonder why the media is so hostile to IDer's.

    465. I could say the same thing about you. How do attacks on me disprove the evidence for design?

      But you are correct about the media. They are hostile to ID'ers. And yet they still acknowledge that there is a "missing link" in Darwinism even though they have every reason to just along with all Darwinian claims. But yet they don't. Could it be that there really is no verifiable fossil evidence?

    466. As Over the Edge and others have repeatedly asked you, present direct, scientific evidence for an intelligent designer, not just conjecture and illogical conclusions. Despite your protestations to the contrary, evolutionary biologists are able to do this in support of their claims (as a matter of fact, they are required to), why can't you do the same thing?

      Speaking your evidence, where's yours for a "missing link." As a matter of fact, what do you mean by the term or do you know?

    467. How can I provide proof for something that is missing? I can't prove a negative. That is a logical fallacy. Please try to keep up. I'm tired of having to keep typing that.

    468. What's missing is only in your imagination.

    469. What is this "Darwinism" you keep referring to? Some cult of Darwin?
      He wasn't the only person of his generation to hypothesis about evolution--we only know his name because he published first.

      If you really mean "There's no evidence for evolution," say that.

      As far 'evidence' goes, I'm not doing your work for you. If you can't be bothered to read the articles and go to the cited works, fine.

      I'll challenge you instead: Where's the fossil evidence for ID?

    470. Is there such a thing as fossil evidence for ID when ID makes no speciation claims? That doesn't make sense.

    471. In other words, ID makes no sense period. First semi-intelligent thing you've come up with.

    472. You asked me to provide fossil evidence for ID. I guess you could say that ALL fossils are evidence of ID. But as ID makes no claim of speciation then the fact that no fossil evidence exists that shows speciation is in fact proof of ID.

    473. No, I would not be stupid enough to say that ALL fossils are evidence of ID which renders the rest of your post sheer gibberish.

    474. It makes as much sense as denying the plethora of fossil evidence already pointed to.

      It would be nice if there were *any* evidence for "ID." Then there could actually be a discussion with merit.

      Other than some mythology handed down from a middle-eastern tribe, what evidence for "ID" do you have to offer us?

      I mean, the stories are nice and all, but there are many creation myths offered by many different cultures. What makes this one better than the others?

    475. I'm tired of having to keep retyping this. Scroll up or down and you will find it.

    476. Let me state it differently:

      "because of the incompleteness the fossil record, it is unlikely that any particular form represented in the fossil record is a direct ancestor of any other."

      because of the incompleteness the fossil record, it is unlikely that any particular form represented in the fossil record

      because of the incompleteness the fossil record, it is unlikely that any particular form

      because of the incompleteness the fossil record, it is unlikely

      because of the incompleteness the fossil record,

      because of the incompleteness

      because of the

      because of


      (sorry, Vlatko, couldn't resist!)

    477. @Kateye70
      thanks that made me laugh

    478. "because of the incompleteness the fossil record, it is unlikely that any particular form represented in the fossil record is a direct ancestor of any other."

      So common descent is debunked.

    479. omg I evolved into a troll! and you didn't even notice even though the evidence was right there in front of you!

    480. The operative word here is "direct," not "common." You simply don't comprehend what Kateye 70 is writing and don't even want to.

    481. So then we are back to the missing link? No fossil evidence? I'm glad we have come full circle.

    482. You've hit the nail on the head. One of the problems with creationists is that because they either can't or won't even try to understand it, they procrusteanly endeavor to simplify evolution to the point of absurdity. Addalled is a textbook example of this. What they don't or refuse to realize is that although we can't say with certainty that species A directly evolved from species B, we can establish descent.

  74. A little wrong about this one, ill keep my thumb for another speech!

  75. Even Darwin doubted his own theory of evolution. In private correspondences he admitted that it was the development of the eye that made him lose sleep at night. That and the fact that nearly every form of life had a missing link in the fossil record, appearing fully complete after each successive mass extinction event (we've had 5) . And also the fact that dozens of species havent changed one iota since the time of the dinosaurs or even before ( flies, frogs, turtles, sharks, cockroaches and on and on)

    But if the theory (and that's all it ever was) of evolution is wrong that does not mean that some guy floating on a cloud with a harp is to blame/thank for life as we know it.

    It just means we should keep an open mind and look for a third possibility....

    People are so easily distracted, divided and conquered by semantics, and they inevitably resort to name calling and character assassination which is a shame.

    1. The "guy floating on a cloud" theory might be what Pat Robertson expects people to believe in. But it has nothing to do with what I am saying. If anything it's guys like him who do well to explain all of the militant atheism nowadays.

    2. Not only have you distorted Darwin, but you've distorted the scientific concept of theory. You've also failed to mention how evolution has been verified time and time again by techniques more sophisticated than those to which Darwin had access: molecular biology, DNA, radiometrics. In short, evolution is a fact, not the conjecture you make of it--and the so-called "open mind" is merely a smoke screen.

    3. No I mean it when I say there may be a third possibility. Keep that mind open matey :-)

    4. And just what might this third possibility be?

      I'll open my mind to it after the hard evidence has been produced AND NOT BEFORE!

    5. "evolution is a fact..."

      NOW who's distorting the scientific concept of "theory"?

    6. You are by not knowing what you're talking about.

    7. Calling me ignorant is not a well-formed argument.

    8. Your statements reveal your ignorance.

    9. You, sir, have taken it on faith that the "theory" of evolution is, indeed, a "fact"; and now seek to have anyone who might dare question it declared a heretic and the enemy. I fail to see how your stance differs in any way from that of a 'religionist', whom you so vehemently despise!

    10. Religion is based on the fraudulent concept of faith or assertion without proof. On the other hand, science is based solely on evidence and conclusions drawn from it, not faith. So once again, you don't know what you're talking about and like most of your ilk, you attempt to bring science down to the level of religion and it won't wash.

    11. Hehehe... I'm sure that an actual "scientist" might disagree with you. YOU are no SCIENTIST... You are an ATHEIST PRIEST! There's a difference.

    12. So you're saying that modern Darwinism (read evolution) isn't based on what I enumerated? No, an "actual scientist" would not disagree with me.

      P.S. I don't profess to be a scientist.

      P.P.S. What makes you think I'm an atheist, another of your baseless conclusions?

    13. ..."another of your baseless conclusions..."

      My <"baseless conclusion" is that you're just looking for an argument. So am I, really; but at least I stay on my side of the fence! lol

      "What makes you think I'm an atheist..

      Gee, I dunno... Maybe the fact that you bash religion?!

    14. "Gee, I dunno." Is the most accurate statement you've made so far. Did other options ever occur to you? Or is it the same as with my lineage? In other words, don't try to reason, you're not good at it.

    15. Does stomping your feet and calling everybody ignern't actually work for you in real life, or is it purely an internet thing?

    16. Again, you mischaracterize. Ignorant applies to those who don't know, such as you.

    17. ...as well as to those who accuse others of not knowing, when they clearly have no clue as to what the other person knows.

    18. You certainly have revealed what you don't know.

    19. "You certainly have revealed what you don't know."

      And how have I done that, exactly? By offending your grandmother?

    20. "Like most of "my ilk""? What exactly is "my ilk", pray tell? Did I ever once say that I did not agree with the theory of evolution?

    21. Hhhmmm, ...Sure evolution exsists to adapt in stage(s). It was created then 9in stages adapting thru the yrs.. Chicken/egg thing,. PEACE!

    22. Is it possible for you to couch your thoughts in plain, standard English?

  76. "No proof exists to substantiate the claims that humans evolved in the manner in which it [evolution] states." With that statement, you have justified the practice of reminding creationists (and you seem to be one) just how stupid (read wilfully ignorant) they are and the superior tone taken in doing so, for they are unworthy of any respect at all.

    You obviously need to read up on science because, as Over the Edge has pointed out, you have no idea what a scientific theory is, and evolutionary biology because you are blind to the many and varied substantiations of evolution using, among other things, the fossil record, genetics and DNA.

    In short, you don't know what you're talking about, as epitomized by your question "Do you interact with any religious people in real life?" Who cares what religious people think about evolution? It's what the experts (read scientists) think about it that matters.

    1. This is the type of response that defeats its purpose. It is not based on facts or in the spirit of education but a personal attack. The attacked will invariably try to defend her state of ignorance and the truth of the issues of evolution gets lost in the bad feeling this comment can only generate. Many people have vested psychological and sociological reasons for their religious opinions. Their fear of their mortality clouds all reason. Challenge that fear and they will react unreasonably. They will see you as an agent of the devil and your behaviour will be evidence of this affiliation. Your anger becomes their weapon in a propaganda war. Perception, as much as reality, is a strong influence on the belief system of the populace.

      If the devout try to impose their religious views onto the public education system and the government process, reply with a firm and judicious application of the law. The law is neutral and should never favour a specific sector of the population. Allow any personal beliefs but explain that religion is illegal in the public sector and is so for good reason.

      The facts and the law should be enough to stop any religious malfeasance as long as we do not allow our differences to become a war of wills.

    2. If tact is what you're getting at, I don't believe in it. These ignoramuses should be asking, not stating.

    3. Why? So that you can state how ignern't we are for not agreeing with everything you say?

      Anyway... real life beckons... I'll check back later to see what clever insults you've come up with.


    4. Agreement has nothing to do with it. Knowledge does.

  77. Listen peeps, a--holes will be a--holes. They come from all walks of life and live all over the world. You can also find groups of a--holes who point the finger at other groups of a--holes, blaming them for the world's problems. This is not helpful. Spewing hatred and making sweeping accusations only breeds more hatred and spreads misinformation. Where does it end?

    Maybe I'm wrong here. Maybe you ought to keep telling creationists how stupid you think creationism is... yeah, that sounds promising. They need to be reminded that they themselves are stupid for believing in such a thing. Be sure to repeat this sentiment many times over in a superior tone of voice. Pat yourself on the back for being so smart. Expand your knowledge of the world by watching another documentary about the failings of religion, written and produced by an atheist who despises religion.

    I was a little heavy on the sarcasm there, my apologies. There seems to be a double standard here. Evolution is still just a theory. No proof exists to substantiate the claims that humans evolved in the manner in which it states. Yet I've been given a hard time for questioning it... why is that? Creationists are instantly attacked upon inquiry, I see it all the time. Anti-creationists: When did you first start hating creationism? Do you interact with any religious people in real life?

    I have no agenda here, I don't care what you believe about our origins. I simply want us all to be conscious of our decisions. Group-think has become a disease in our culture. We take sides and make decisions based on ideology alone. Is that wise? We didn't even create these ideologies, we just submit to them. What a strange concept...

    1. @Emily Bernier
      you stated "Evolution is still just a theory" no it is a fact . the theory is the explanation of said fact. just like the theory of gravity is just a theory. are you claiming gravity isn't a fact because the explanations of its mechanics remains a theory? a theory is as high of a standard that an explanation gets within science. also i am not sure who your rant was directed at but you did ask a question in your prior post and i offered to help with the answer politely if i can. but i require an elaboration as i am not sure what you were referring to

    2. The fossil record and genetics have proven that evolution is fact. Any in depth study of those disciplines and you cannot doubt it. If one wants to fit a creator in the evolutionary theory that would be one's own choice. However, it is a theory based on faith not fact and cannot be proven. Even the Bible tells us that faith is the driving force in Christianity. Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1, KJV). In other words, it can't be proven. Evolution, on the other hand, has been proven. All you have to do is ask any question concerning an issue that you have doubts about or are uncertain of and there are those who will show you the hows and whys of evolution. There is a logic in the theory that is almost impossible to refute.

    3. so what are your questions about evolution?

    4. @Emily Bernier,

      You had me at: "Evolution is still just a theory. No proof exists to substantiate the claims that humans evolved in the manner in which it states." Arrrggghhhhh.

    5. Wow, The irony here is too much. And the projection is so clear that i feel like i can see you physical manifestation of your own insecurities.
      The difference between evolution and creationism one side has all the evidence (real proof that is verifiable in the physical world) and the other has none. that is just reality. Watch this doc to find out why.
      And I don't care what you believe about god, but if you deny what is observably true, then I have to question your intelligence. We don't want to tell you are stupid, we really don't. we wish everyone can tell the difference between reality and fantasy, and you still can show you are not stupid. just look at the physical evidence (reality) and ditch non-physical evidence (fantasy) and start from there.

    6. No proof exists to substantiate the claims that humans evolved in the manner in which it states."

      Maybe part of the problem lies in the apparent confusion between "data", "evidence", and "proof". Any bit of evidence which appears to support a particular conclusion is not necessarily proof of that conclusion. I would, however, disagree that there is not enough data to support a theory. Even I go head-to-head with creationists on that one.

  78. Wonderful, smart and based in scientific fact. this is a great series and should be mandatory education for all; I love his humor to help break up the facts. And with regard to other comments, I don't believe we need to keep our minds open and accepting to religious tards who refuse to accept there place in reality. Religion is nothing more than an evolutionary tool we needed to bring folks together for breeding, it is nothing more than a social network - let's continue to evolve and get rid this blight that's separating our own species. We must fight them as they fight reason; we must tax them as political organizations since they demand "their say"; we must continue to seek truth through science, not fairy-tales. And no, you don't have the right to believe anything you want religious people, you don't give anyone else that right unless they believe what you believe. Your book has killed enough, let it retire with other foolishness as it represents. And one more thing, stop crapping on our planet just because you think heaven is waiting - evolution is waiting, please evolve out of your religious delusion.

    1. You're right. Tact has no place here.

  79. Huh.

    Watching this is like taking a comfortable bath in warm brain-juice ^_^

  80. It's no wonder creationists come to their conclusions. They and the people they give talks to would fall alseep or die of old age by the time they got half way through the branches of evolution. Easy answer, eliminate several branches and draw conslusions from that.

    1. It's such a shame that life (read evolution) is too complex for the creationist mind to grasp, especially as it does not fit into their crotchet of a well-ordered universe.

      Back in the 70's or 80's, Dr. Dawkins said it all when he asked why people have to make up fairy tales when the truth is far more tantalizing.

    2. I like to think that Michael Woods says it all, " The ancients say God made Man, because he liked hearing the stories". Im still trying to figure out if that quote was meant to be sarcastic or not; I think so

  81. Interesting...I didn't know that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny was proven incorrect... I took Biology in the early 90's... interesting.

    Well, I'm a Christian but I don't find evolutionary Biology to be a disproof of God.

    Good post. I will have to watch again though because he rushes through his explanations... I found myself having to backup

    1. The entire argument rests on the belief that all Creationists think like Pat Robertson. And they call US narrow-minded! lol

    2. Right

    3. Have you read "The Creationists" by Ronald L. Numbers? I suspect not.

    4. Uh, no... Have you ever read The Bible?

      (Don't feel bad if you haven't... Pat Robertson apparently never did either! lol)

    5. Yes, I have and not only that, but I have read many books of both apocrypha, not only that but I have also read a number of works antedating the bible, but most imporantly, I've also studied the history of the Bible and the cultures which produced it.

      I hope this answers your question. Now how about answering mine, have you read "The Creationists" by Ronald L. Numbers? Again, I suspect not.

    6. See the second word of my previous reply.

    7. Well then, it's well worth the time to read, but in the 2003 edition.

    8. Mr Foster,
      If People read the bible, from cover to cover, they would be enlightened enough and would cross over to be a non believers. they can't cherry pick, now! there is so much stupid nonsense in the book that i consider it a comic book. The Greatest comic book of all.

    9. No doubt, that happens. I just take it to be a historical record (not accurate, by any means) of how we went from thinking like cavemen to thinking like capitalists. I never suggested that anyone should take it as fact. I only suggest that it's a valid commentary on the human condition. In other words, it gives one a sense of what it is like to live under oppression, where one is considered "the enemy".

    10. In fact, had anyone bothered to ask me what I personally believe, I would have said: "None of the above".

    11. One more thing... When people come back and read this 2000 years from now, they will also consider it a comic book (that's assuming they don't already). :-)

  82. When I was a kid and I made the mistake of suggesting that birds evolved from dinosaurs, I got laughed right out of biology class. That was almost 40 years ago, back when we believed that the earth was only 4.3 billion years old. But in the 21st century, where we currently believe that the earth is 4.6 billion years old --a mere 300,000,000 years later-- my theory can now be taken seriously. Hooray for evolution! :-p

    1. Oh...you were that kid? Wow. We heard about you all the way up in North Saskatchewan.

  83. Great documentary. Thanks

  84. we cannot prove precisely as we have been told, what we are and how the universe works. but our pride in the 1% will forever be their ca laps in false hope and easy understanding.

    1. @Thomas Keddy
      so let me get this straight. you deny this and other evidence for the fact of evolution because a 2000 year old book without any original copies remaining, written by unknown authors,translated into and out of various languages multiple times,edited, interpreted and reinterpreted , a book in conflict with itself history, science and logic.making supernatural claims without any empirical evidence and not supported by any unbiased sources. versus a testable, repeatable,observable theory and fact that is not only compatible with what we know about the natural world, but supported by mountains of evidence we can see for ourselves. is that what you are claiming?

    2. Obviously he does, but there is a bigger problem--and that's with the documentary itself. Most of it sounds like jabber--and this does his field no justice. Major concepts are either not well-explained or glossed over at supersonic speed. For instance, while he says that it is impossible for something like monkeys to spout wings, he indicates that birds are descended from theropod dinosaurs. While both statements are true, he never clearly states why one change is impossible and the other isn't. The problem is that some creationist can twist this horrible exposition to his own nefarious purpose. To make matters worse, as he never explains what phylogeny is, his discussion of various phylogenic websites is as meaningless as most of his presentation is incomprehensible. I really wanted to learn more about biology, and in particular phylogeny, but I didn't.

      P.S. I hate to sound nit-picking, but by original copies, do you mean of the books which now comprise both testaments or of the bible itself?

    3. @robertallen1
      your issues with the doc are noted and while i agree that many things were skipped over he tried to stay on the topic of Phylogeny and while not exhaustive his explanations of canines and felines were very good. on the subject of wings he did explain that we have to live within our evolutionary history and a human (or horse or monkey in the doc) would not grow bird wings because we are on a different path and we diverged long before the evolutionary pressures and precursors for bird wings came to be. that is not to say that some future pressures and circumstances will not allow us to fly(very unlikely) but if we do it will not be by a similar path as birds as we lack the necessary precursors for that to happen. also our weight would have to be greatly reduced including our large brain and even tho many don't use it to it's potential i cannot imagine a circumstance where hollow bones and the loss of a great part of our brains would be beneficial as a precursor (among many others). by original copies i mean we don't have the first written or even the first copy of that or the copy of that the oldest i know of is the "John Rylands Papyri." which is approx three inches square and written around around A.D. 117-138. i will admit that most of what i know about such things i learned from Bart Ehrman. he has a (or two) talks on keen talks and my favorite of his is "misquoting Jesus " which i found on youtube

    4. I have no problem with his content, only with his delivery which is simply too fast and sing-song, making it very difficult to follow his train of thought or even want to. He seems to be reading a script at breakneck speed. All this goes against the ostensible and laudable purpose of this documentary and plays into the hands of the evil and ignorant creationists. Also, I take issue with his failure to define phylogeny, which is certainly on topic.

      By referring to the John Rylands Pipyri, by original, you must mean one of the books of the New Testament and not the entire Bible as we in the west know it. I see you like Bart Ehrman too. I have read about seven of his books and found several of them fascinating, especially "Misquoting Jesus," which you mentioned, and "Forged." I think he should be required reading for every creationist.

  85. i liked it he is unapologetic and his delivery feels like a well informed but frustrated reply directed at those who would deny the facts. i could close my eyes while listening and imagine this doc as Aronra having a drink at a bar when confronted by Ray Comfort and his verbal feces and just letting him have it. but maybe that's just me ;)

    1. As I mentioned earlier, I find his delivery to be too fast and sing-song to have the effect which it should.

  86. It was written lets make man in our image. of course we have been able to change and also create. we were made in heavens image, this is why we are not apes.

    If you cannot feel that you are soo important and sooo valuable, then you will never find eternity.

    1. I notice that all your cap-locked comments have been deleted as well they should be, considering how ignorant they are, just like this one.

  87. I can't fault what I saw of the content, but I would liken the presenters style of delivery, to the drone on a set of bagpipes. A bad noise with not enough gaps in it. :D

  88. I wish this had been better executed. While the narrator obviously knows his topic, he goes too fast for comprehension and his sing-song delivery dulls his well-taken points.

  89. wow great doc but the speaker was massively monotone and spoke way tooo fast! jesus now that i think of it this was a extremely dry doc...move on

  90. I like it :3

    *Calls in a Bulbasaur and has it magically Evolve*

    Shaaady >:3

  91. Ah! the wrath of AronRa!... puts fear into the very foundation of the religious religee's, that are nowhere to be seen, Semper-Fi-OORA! A winning battle cry.