# Evolution



## PadawanBater (Mar 1, 2010)

I was just curious what the ratio was here who accept evolution as a verifiable, provable scientific theory, which accounts to essentially scientific fact, and those that believe it's not true.

So do you believe it or not?


----------



## herbose (Mar 1, 2010)

That's a nobrainer.


----------



## undertheice (Mar 1, 2010)

to a certain extent the theory is provable, but there is a great deal that is assumption and should be looked at skeptically. blindly accepting that we can understand what has transpired to lead us to our present state is really no better than the unquestioning belief in the creation myth. what must be accepted is that we can never _know_ what happened in the past, so the processes involved in what we call evolution will always remain in doubt. 

i've often heard folks state that evolution is a "fact" and i can only believe that those people simply do not understand the basics of scientific inquiry. we can't reproduce the subtle changes over the vast expanses of time that have been theorized to have been responsible for the creation of present species, so evolution is unprovable on the larger scale. like all of nature's "long term projects", we can only infer the larger design from that bit of the scheme we can observe or reproduce.


----------



## HoLE (Mar 1, 2010)

don't even get me started,,evolution all the way


----------



## Jerry Garcia (Mar 1, 2010)

As an anthropologist and archaeologist, I find it laughable anyone would say they don't accept it. It's not a matter of accepting it or not accepting it, it's just what happened. That's like saying I don't accept that the earth revolves around the sun, or I don't accept that the sky is blue.

You don't have a choice to accept it or not, that's just the way it is


----------



## Brazko (Mar 1, 2010)

True Logic and Reasoning, So Refreshing... btw, I believe in Evolution, but I don't think it's scientific fact. I have belief in the evolution concept and process because of what science presents and the subtle indicators we are able to observe. Still, you must have belief in evolution, because it is simply not scientific fact, reproducible, and has never been verified by any scientist that would place their life on the line behind it, I may be wrong so please inform here if there has been 1 to do so >>>> (Last name , First name )<<<<<<... Evolution has as many theories as the next myth, apples and oranges...Yes, but like all other introspects, no two are the same. Honestly imo, I was under the impression by some that science and belief had no room to co-exist...... 

It's just that according to the modern scientific method, the theories of evolution don't stand up fully. Does this mean the theories are wrong, NO, it simply means we are Monkeys ... nevertheless, I believe in evolution





undertheice said:


> to a certain extent the theory is provable, but there is a great deal that is assumption and should be looked at skeptically. blindly accepting that we can understand what has transpired to lead us to our present state is really no better than the unquestioning belief in the creation myth. what must be accepted is that we can never _know_ what happened in the past, so the processes involved in what we call evolution will always remain in doubt.
> 
> i've often heard folks state that evolution is a "fact" and i can only believe that those people simply do not understand the basics of scientific inquiry. we can't reproduce the subtle changes over the vast expanses of time that have been theorized to have been responsible for the creation of present species, so evolution is unprovable on the larger scale. like all of nature's "long term projects", we can only infer the larger design from that bit of the scheme we can observe or reproduce.


----------



## undertheice (Mar 1, 2010)

Jerry Garcia said:


> You don't have a choice to accept it or not, that's just the way it is


it is a sad day for science when one of its own expresses such a closed minded approach to a theory that cannot possibly be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. science seldom produces any final answer, its goal should always be understanding through the production of ever more detailed questions.


----------



## PadawanBater (Mar 1, 2010)

undertheice said:


> to a certain extent the theory is provable, but there is a great deal that is assumption and should be looked at skeptically. blindly accepting that we can understand what has transpired to lead us to our present state is really no better than the unquestioning belief in the creation myth. what must be accepted is that we can never _know_ what happened in the past, so the processes involved in what we call evolution will always remain in doubt.
> 
> i've often heard folks state that evolution is a "fact" and i can only believe that those people simply do not understand the basics of scientific inquiry. we can't reproduce the subtle changes over the vast expanses of time that have been theorized to have been responsible for the creation of present species, so evolution is unprovable on the larger scale. like all of nature's "long term projects", we can only infer the larger design from that bit of the scheme we can observe or reproduce.


I disagree with this. It's been proven dozens of times. 



Brazko said:


> True Logic and Reasoning, So Refreshing... btw, I believe in Evolution, but I don't think it's scientific fact. I have belief in the evolution concept and process because of what science presents and the subtle indicators we are able to observe. Still, you must have belief in evolution, because it is simply not scientific fact, reproducible, *and has never been verified by any scientist that would place their life on the line behind it*, I may be wrong so please inform here if there has been 1 to do so >>>> (Last name , First name )<<<<<<... Evolution has as many theories as the next myth, apples and oranges...Yes, but like all other introspects, no two are the same. Honestly imo, I was under the impression by some that science and belief had no room to co-exist......
> 
> It's just that according to the modern scientific method, the theories of evolution don't stand up fully. Does this mean the theories are wrong, NO, it simply means we are Monkeys ... nevertheless, I believe in evolution


I would put my life on the line in support of evolution.



undertheice said:


> it is a sad day for science when one of its own expresses such a closed minded approach to a theory that cannot possibly be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. science seldom produces any final answer, its goal should always be understanding through the production of ever more detailed questions.


Would you say the same thing to a scientist who believes in the theory of gravity...?


----------



## Jerry Garcia (Mar 1, 2010)

Brazko said:


> It's just that according to the modern scientific method, the theories of evolution don't stand up fully. Does this mean the theories are wrong, NO, it simply means we are Monkeys ... nevertheless, I believe in evolution


No, we are not monkeys, we are apes. There's a difference. Though monkeys and apes are related...we are all in the order primata.

Evolutionary theory is empirically provable and does in fact follow the "modern" scientific method.



undertheice said:


> it is a sad day for science when one of its own expresses such a closed minded approach to a theory that cannot possibly be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. science seldom produces any final answer, its goal should always be understanding through the production of ever more detailed questions.


Just because it can't be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt doesn't mean it isn't true. We know enough through the fossil record and extant living creatures to discern things started as one thing and EVOLVED into another, usually in response to an environmental stress, predation threat, etc.

That's it. It's not open to debate, because we have evidence (fossils) that prove it.

And humans NEVER lived with Dinosaurs either...despite what people at the Creation "museum", if you can call it that, would have you believe...
http://creationmuseum.org/


----------



## mindphuk (Mar 1, 2010)

undertheice said:


> to a certain extent the theory is provable, but there is a great deal that is assumption and should be looked at skeptically. blindly accepting that we can understand what has transpired to lead us to our present state is really no better than the unquestioning belief in the creation myth. what must be accepted is that we can never _know_ what happened in the past, so the processes involved in what we call evolution will always remain in doubt.
> 
> i've often heard folks state that evolution is a "fact" and i can only believe that those people simply do not understand the basics of scientific inquiry. we can't reproduce the subtle changes over the vast expanses of time that have been theorized to have been responsible for the creation of present species, so evolution is unprovable on the larger scale. like all of nature's "long term projects", we can only infer the larger design from that bit of the scheme we can observe or reproduce.


Maybe you need to learn some basics of science. Evolution is indeed a fact. Evolution merely means that species change over time and the modern synthesis includes genetic confirmation to this fact. The theory part is the mechanism which Darwin proposed as natural selection. So like gravity, it is both theory and fact depending on how you use the term. 
You're insistence on reproducibility should not be limited to the large changes that occur over geologic timescales. Historical sciences like cosmology and evolution are certainly experimented on in the laboratory. More important than reproducibility are predictions based on the science and evolutionary biology has made many predictions which have been verified. In fact, no other theory in all of science has as much confirmatory evidence as evolution.


----------



## mindphuk (Mar 1, 2010)

[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times] [/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times]*If every fossil were magicked away, the comparative study of modern organisms, of how their patterns of resemblances, especially of their genetic sequences, are distributed among species, and of how species are distributed among continents and islands, would still demonstrate, beyond all sane doubt, that our history is evolutionary, and that all living creatures are cousins. Fossils are a bonus. A welcome bonus, to be sure, but not an essential one. It is worth remembering this when creationists go on (as they tediously do) about "gaps" in the fossil record. The fossil record could be one big gap, and the evidence for evolution would still be overwhelmingly strong. At the same time, if we had only fossils and no other evidence, the fact of evolution would again be overwhelmingly supported. As things stand, we are blessed with both.*
--Professor Richard Dawkins, _The Ancestor's Tale_[/FONT]


----------



## one11 (Mar 1, 2010)

PadawanBater said:


> I was just curious what the ratio was here who accept evolution as a verifiable, provable scientific theory, which accounts to essentially scientific fact, and those that believe it's not true.
> 
> So do you believe it or not?


 
i dont think its a matter of believe it or not, as believing that it's a possibility. So yes I believe it is possible.


----------



## cmt1984 (Mar 1, 2010)

im glad to see the poll results are 100% for evolution. i always looked at evolution as a fact. most people still consider it to be a theory and there is an alarming number who dont accept it at all but with the fairly recent discoveries of "missing link" fossils i dont see how anyone can deny it. i read a study not too long ago about how in 1995 there were a very small number of people who didnt have a certain muscle in their forearms and as of 2005 that number had almost doubled....evolution in the making. just imagine what the human race will look like in a million or so years...if we last that long that is.


----------



## Brazko (Mar 1, 2010)

PadawanBater said:


> I would put my life on the line in support of evolution.


 
Why? Why hasn't anybody spilled the beans yet, and let the rest of the World community in on the secret of how we evolved. What information are you withholding? Please, Share!! 




PadawanBater said:


> Would you say the same thing to a scientist who believes in the theory of gravity...?


The Force of Gravity is measurable, verifiable, and reproducible. That is why the proof of gravity, which is scientific fact, goes un-questioned. However, although Gravity is fact, the theory of gravity is not..., You should know this 



Jerry Garcia said:


> No, we are not monkeys, we are apes. There's a difference. Though monkeys and apes are related...we are all in the order primata.
> 
> Evolutionary theory is empirically provable and does in fact follow the "modern" scientific method.


Jo G, I see your logical and reasoned mind didn't get the Monkey bit, it wasn't supposed to be (nevermind)....

The evolutionary theory is not empirically provable because it does in fact follow the "modern" Scientific method.. That is why it is not Scientific fact. Changes within a species has been documented, but I haven't personally came across the "one thing into another" empirical proof yet.. I mean personally, I can observe the likeness in species, but never ran across the fossils and scientific evidence that demostrated and explained this is why and how. Could you please provide the resources you and others have used to show this empirical data. I believe what we have observed and what science has been able to uncover so far points to the possibility and likeness that species evolved from a singular. But so far, this theory has failed to become complete due to the "modern" scientific method. Let's not confuse Evolution as being fact vs. the Evolution theory being fact. There is a difference.


And please, could you discern as what you are calling fact (Anybody). Evolution is fact to me in the sense that I can observe the changes in a species. Evolution in theory is simply without commanding scientific proof in how and what we evolved from. So although I believe it to be possible and probable, it doesn't make it scientific fact or, closed to discussion, but if it's a touchy issue for you all, I rather not discuss .

I'm still in awe that Belief has been used so repetitiously in this thread so far, It's like blasphemy


----------



## PadawanBater (Mar 1, 2010)

Brazko said:


> Why? Why hasn't anybody spilled the beans yet, and let the rest of the World community in on the secret of how we evolved. What information are you withholding? Please, Share!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You're right, "belief" is probably the wrong word to use, as one doesn't "believe" in the theory of evolution, one accepts it. So that's probably the more appropriate word to use.

For the proof;

-tiktaalik - without a doubt, one of the strongest fossils in existence that supports the theory. It's a transition from a water dwelling animal to a swamp/marsh dwelling animal. It's the first creature we've discovered that shows the earliest signs of the wrist bones. These bones were predicted to exist in this animal, at the location it was discovered because of the age of the rocks it was in. Scientists checked the age of known sites, decided they needed to search for rocks between 400-375 million years old (as we have plenty of fossils dated older than 400 million years with no remnants of wrists or other appendages, and other fossils younger than 375 million years old with clear signs of wrists and legs) went to the site that was the least explored, and vuala! there it was, sitting in the exact location as the theory predicted!

-gene sequencing - without a shadow of a doubt PROVES we are related to other animals

-mitochondrial DNA - PROVES without a shadow of a doubt we evolved from parent organisms that were significantly different than we are today, and PROVES that we descended from the great ape subspecies

-fossils 

-the fact each species that descended from organisms like tiktaalik (which would include all mammals, all reptiles and all amphibians) have the same pattern of anatomy - head with all five senses linked to the brain, two limbs on the top part of our bodies with one bone linking to the body followed by two bones linking to the fingers (or toes), two limbs on the bottom part of our bodies that follow the same pattern as well. Is it just a coincidence almost every animal on the planet shares this common anatomical pattern?

-I'd mention DNA, the building blocks of all life and that each living organism ever discovered has the same exact pattern, ATGC - but it's not exactly _proof_.

-it's been observed dozens of times by scientists, yes MACRO evolution, one species into another species has been observed. 

followed by a thousand other things I didn't list... but there's a start.

I'm proud of you Braz, I remember a while back you were much more skeptical about the theory, it looks like you've been making some progress!


----------



## mindphuk (Mar 2, 2010)

Not to mention the most damning evidence to anyone that claims evolution isn't a fact is the twin nested hierarchy of species. This is confirmed in both directions, from the bottom up with phylogeny and from the top down with gene sequencing. Evolution occurred because these is no other reasonable explanation for what we see in nature. It is confirmed many times over with every new discovery a possibility to falsify the claims but nothing ever does. It supports and is supported by every other major branch of science. It meshes seamlessly with chemistry, plate tectonics, nuclear physics, anthropology, genetics, paleontology, geology, earth science, and even astronomy. Evolution is the foundation for all of modern biology, without it, there is no biology. No theory has been as successful in making predictions as evolution. In light of the mountains of evidence, nothing else makes sense. 

Brazco, you must no nothing of the scientific method if you don't think evolution is scientific. The Origin of Species was wholly scientific. It provided a clear explanation of the hypothesis, it made predictions, and listed ways that it could be falsified. It's not considered a classic of modern science for nothing.


----------



## Brazko (Mar 2, 2010)

, I've never been Skeptical of evolution.., you don't follow well sometimes Paddy....., The first thread I posted in this section was about evolution, an all inclusive nut in the shell thread. The information you just shared is not scientifically conclusive to Macro evolution.. This has nothing to do with assumptions, or beliefs.. As a matter of fact, it has everything to do with assumptions, and beliefs. That is why it is not Fact, or Law... (Macro) The theory .. It doesn't matter what I believe, It's not Scientific fact, Yet!!



PadawanBater said:


> I'm proud of you Braz, I remember a while back you were much more skeptical about the theory, it looks like you've been making some progress!


Ditto



mindphuk said:


> Not to mention the most damning evidence to anyone that claims evolution isn't a fact is the twin nested hierarchy of species. This is confirmed in both directions, from the bottom up with phylogeny and from the top down with gene sequencing. Evolution occurred because these is no other reasonable explanation for what we see in nature. It is confirmed many times over with every new discovery a possibility to falsify the claims but nothing ever does. It supports and is supported by every other major branch of science. It meshes seamlessly with chemistry, plate tectonics, nuclear physics, anthropology, genetics, paleontology, geology, earth science, and even astronomy. Evolution is the foundation for all of modern biology, without it, there is no biology. No theory has been as successful in making predictions as evolution. In light of the mountains of evidence, nothing else makes sense.
> 
> Brazco, you must no nothing of the scientific method if you don't think evolution is scientific. The Origin of Species was wholly scientific. It provided a clear explanation of the hypothesis, it made predictions, and listed ways that it could be falsified. It's not considered a classic of modern science for nothing.


----------



## Brazko (Mar 2, 2010)

Question - Did we evolve from a singular species, or a select gene pool?


----------



## mindphuk (Mar 2, 2010)

Brazko said:


> , I've never been Skeptical of evolution.., you don't follow well sometimes Paddy....., The first thread I posted in this section was about evolution, an all inclusive nut in the shell thread. The information you just shared is not scientifically conclusive to Macro evolution.. This has nothing to do with assumptions, or beliefs.. As a matter of fact, it has everything to do with assumptions, and beliefs. That is why it is not Fact, or Law... (Macro) The theory .. It doesn't matter what I believe, It's not Scientific fact, Yet!!
> 
> 
> 
> Ditto


Ditto my ass!
Again, you don't understand science by your very words. There is no hierarchy in science that theories somehow turn into facts or laws. Laws are merely observations as are facts. Theories are the explanations that tie all of the facts and laws together. Only theories have this explanatory power and only theories can make predictions of things not yet observed. 
No one is saying you're skeptical of evolution but you are misusing terms and misunderstand what the scientific method is about. Theories however are merely models, approximations of reality. Every theory will eventually be superseded by a modification. Einstein did it to Newton and we know that as powerful and successful as general relativity and the standard model of quantum mechanics have been, we know that they both can't be correct. The standard model is missing a fundamental force of gravity while general relativity breaks down at the quantum level. 

Just as we see the effects of gravity and subatomic particles that we can't see, we likewise see the effects of biological evolution. General relativity, atomic theory and evolution are all built on the same scientific method of observation, hypothesis, testing and falsification. What part specifically of the scientific method does evolution fail? As I explained before, just because we can't run a million-year 'experiment', doesn't mean that we aren't able to test the claims of evolution by indirect methods. We only have indirect evidence for chemistry and atomic theory, do you put them in the same category of not following the scientific method?


----------



## mindphuk (Mar 2, 2010)

Brazko said:


> Question - Did we evolve from a singular species, or a select gene pool?


It's very unlikely a single species since prokaryotes have a lot of horizontal gene transfer.


----------



## HoLE (Mar 2, 2010)

accept 14

not accept 0

whats everyone doin,,readin the bible


----------



## Brazko (Mar 2, 2010)

O.K. This is pointless. I did not give an hierarchy from theories to laws, The two are exactly that, not the same. That is my point tho.. Both consist of facts, but there is a difference and that is the exact point I'm making.. I'll share this with you and 

 

Words have precise meanings in science. For example, 'theory', 'law', and 'hypothesis' don't all mean the same thing. Outside of science, you might say something is 'just a theory', meaning it's supposition that may or may not be true. In science, a theory is an explanation that generally is accepted to be true. Here's a closer look at these important, commonly misused terms. 

*Hypothesis* 
A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true. 
Example: If you see no difference in the cleaning ability of various laundry detergents, you might hypothesize that cleaning effectiveness is not affected by which detergent you use. You can see this hypothesis can be disproven if a stain is removed by one detergent and not another. On the other hand, you cannot prove the hypothesis. Even if you never see a difference in the cleanliness of your clothes after trying a thousand detergents, there might be one you haven't tried that could be different. 
*Theory* 
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis. 
Example: It is known that on June 30, 1908 in Tunguska, Siberia, there was an explosion equivalent to the detonation of about 15 million tons of TNT. Many hypotheses have been proposed for what caused the explosion. It is theorized that the explosion was caused by a natural extraterrestrial phenomenon, and was not caused by man. Is this theory a fact? No. The event is a recorded fact. Is this this theory generally accepted to be true, based on evidence to-date? Yes. Can this theory be shown to be false and be discarded? Yes. 

*Law* 
A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'. 
Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened. 
As you can see, there is no 'proof' or absolute 'truth' in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations. Note, however, if you define proof as arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the evidence, then there is 'proof' in science. I work under the definition that to prove something implies it can never be wrong, which is different. If you're asked to define hypothesis, theory, and law, keep in mind the definitions of proof and of these words can vary slightly depending on the scientific discipline. What is important is to realize they don't all mean the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably. 



mindphuk said:


> Ditto my ass!
> Again, you don't understand science by your very words. There is no hierarchy in science that theories somehow turn into facts or laws. Laws are merely observations as are facts. Theories are the explanations that tie all of the facts and laws together. Only theories have this explanatory power and only theories can make predictions of things not yet observed.
> No one is saying you're skeptical of evolution but you are misusing terms and misunderstand what the scientific method is about. Theories however are merely models, approximations of reality. Every theory will eventually be superseded by a modification. Einstein did it to Newton and we know that as powerful and successful as general relativity and the standard model of quantum mechanics have been, we know that they both can't be correct. The standard model is missing a fundamental force of gravity while general relativity breaks down at the quantum level.
> 
> Just as we see the effects of gravity and subatomic particles that we can't see, we likewise see the effects of biological evolution. General relativity, atomic theory and evolution are all built on the same scientific method of observation, hypothesis, testing and falsification. What part specifically of the scientific method does evolution fail? As I explained before, just because we can't run a million-year 'experiment', doesn't mean that we aren't able to test the claims of evolution by indirect methods. We only have indirect evidence for chemistry and atomic theory, do you put them in the same category of not following the scientific method?


----------



## mindphuk (Mar 2, 2010)

Brazko said:


> O.K. This is pointless. *I did not give an hierarchy from theories to laws*, The two are exactly that, not the same. That is my point tho.. Both consist of facts, but there is a difference and that is the exact point I'm making.. I'll share this with you and


You're trying to teach me? Priceless!
You're the one that said, "That is why it is not Fact, or Law... (Macro) The theory .. It doesn't matter what I believe, *It's not Scientific fact, Yet!!*" 
That implies you think that theories are eventually proved and become facts. That is a hierarchy. 

Keep dodging the questions I asked you.


----------



## Brazko (Mar 2, 2010)

NO, (pause) Yes, theories are based on facts, facts are summarized into laws, laws do not change, theories do, evolution is fact, the theory of evolution is not... I said ditto, that included the don't follow so well part too....

I'm not trying to teach you anything, I'm trying to clarify my view, but I keep hearing creationist, unicorn, what time is the Deacon meeting... 

What question am I dodging? Why did you dodge my question, with the prokaryotic reply...?

I thought to myself... Pointless, no need to answer!





mindphuk said:


> You're trying to teach me? Priceless!
> You're the one that said, "That is why it is not Fact, or Law... (Macro) The theory .. It doesn't matter what I believe, *It's not Scientific fact, Yet!!*"
> That implies you think that theories are eventually proved and become facts. That is a hierarchy.
> 
> Keep dodging the questions I asked you.


----------



## mindphuk (Mar 2, 2010)

Brazko said:


> NO, (pause) Yes, theories are based on facts, facts are summarized into laws, laws do not change, theories do, evolution is fact, the theory of evolution is not... I said ditto, that included the don't follow so well part too....
> 
> I'm not trying to teach you anything, I'm trying to clarify my view, but I keep hearing creationist, unicorn, what time is the Deacon meeting...
> 
> ...


How was my answer a dodge? You gave two options and I answered with one. Did you not understand it? 
That is unlike the questions I posed to you which you never attempted to answer, to tell me how specifically evolution fails in the scientific method. 
Do you think atomic theory is a fact? How about general relativity? These were the questions you dodged.


----------



## motoracer110 (Mar 2, 2010)

Thought i would bring this up. Evolution is a THEORY. The same scientists that strongly believe in evolution also believed in global warming and we all know that turned out as a FALSE prediction. I wouldn't go off of science for your proof.


----------



## converseking (Mar 2, 2010)

HoLE said:


> don't even get me started,,evolution all the way


 im w/ this guy


----------



## motoracer110 (Mar 2, 2010)

10 facts that prove evolution is false

Scientific Fact No. 1 - Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong 


Help! I can't fly. My head is too big, and my wings are too small. 


The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more consistent basis. However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have many laughable flaws. One of the best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment. The wing was much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary natural selection concept that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of generations improving a wing that was useless? The theory of evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a species. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage and the opposite from natural selection. According to natural selection the members of the bird species with the smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the largest numbers. According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly. Evolution is simply nonsense. This is so funny. We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists actually believe this nonsense. 



Scientific Fact No. 2 - Species Without a Link Proves Evolution is Wrong 

The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution. This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic and scientific proof. Evolutionists line up pictures of similar looking species and claim they evolved one to another. Humans are a great example. There are hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes. Petrified skulls and bones exist from these creatures. Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture. This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species. They never do this with giraffes and elephants. These pictures are placed in all evolutionists' text books to teach kids this nonsense. The picture is simply a grouping of individual species that does not prove evolution. 


Scientific Fact No. 3 - Single Cell Complexity Proves Evolution is Wrong 

Scientists a century ago believed the smallest single living cell was a simple life form. The theory developed that perhaps lightning struck a pond of water causing several molecules to combine in a random way which by chance resulted in a living cell. The cell then divided and evolved into higher life forms. This view is now proven to be immature to the degree of being ridiculous. The most modern laboratory is unable to create a living cell. In fact, scientists have been unable to create a single left-hand protein molecule as found in all animals. 


Scientific Fact No. 4 - Human Egg and Sperm Proves Evolution is Wrong 

The evolutionist ignores the problem surrounding the human female egg and the male sperm in the evolutionary theory. The female egg contains the X-chromosome and the male sperm contains either an X-chromosome for the reproduction of a male or a Y-chromosome for the reproduction of a female. The female eggs all develop within the ovaries while she is a baby (fetus) within her mother's womb. Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring. Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent change. Females cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons. 


Scientific Fact No. 5 - DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong 



The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed. 


Scientific Fact No. 6 - Chaos From Organization Proves Evolution is Wrong 

The second law of thermodynamics proves that organization cannot flow from chaos. Complex live organisms cannot rearrange themselves into an organism of a higher form as claimed by evolutionists. This is scientifically backwards according to the second law of thermodynamics that has never been proven wrong. Scientists cannot have it both ways. The second law of thermodynamics is proven to be correct. Evolution lacks any scientific proof. Evolution is simply an empty theory. 


Scientific Fact No. 7 - Chromosome Count Proves Evolution is Wrong 

There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Man could not evolve from a monkey. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation. Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible. Evolutionists prove that getting a college education does not impart wisdom. 


Scientific Fact No. 8 - Origin of Matter and Stars Proves Evolution is Wrong 

Evolutionists just throw up their hands at the question of the origin of matter because they know something cannot evolve from nothing. They stick their heads in the sand and ignore the problem. The fact that matter exists in outrageously large quantities simply proves evolution is wrong. The "Big Bang" theory doesn't solve the problem either. Matter and energy have to come from somewhere. 



Scientific Fact No. 9 - Lack of Life on Mars Proves Evolution is Wrong 

Two NASA two land rovers named Spirit and Opportunity explored Mars during 2004. The topography shows obvious signs of past liquid rivers flowing in numerous places. The rovers have proven that water was once abundant on the surface of Mars, but they have not been able to find any signs of life or any signs of past life on the planet. Mars has a proven history of flowing water on the surface and an atmosphere suitable to support life forms. The planet has had all of the conditions necessary to provide the "spark" of life according to the evolutionary theory, yet there is no life on Mars. The river beds and river banks show no signs of vegetation or trees. The ground has no fossils and no organisms. The place is absolutely sterile.


Scientific Fact No. 10 - Radio Silence from Space Proves Evolution is Wrong 

Mars is not the only place that shows no signs of life. The entire universe lacks any sign of life. There are no radio signals that can be related to intelligent life forms. None of the billions of galaxies has been found to emit any intelligent radio signals. Scientists have been pointing every type of radio telescope possible into space for several decades in hopes of finding an intelligent signal. No signs of life beyond Earth have been found. We are alone.


----------



## converseking (Mar 2, 2010)

Evolution is a THEORY that could be dead wrong bt i'd much rather believe in that theory then the many fairy tales in all the diff religons in the world. i mean most of the stuff people believe coulda just been thought up and written down by people or sum jackass who got jus as baked 1000-10,000 yr's ago as we all get right now.


----------



## Brazko (Mar 2, 2010)

You dodge it in the sense of that you simply will not understand.., I started to explain it within the terms of only using eukaryotics, but it is Pointless... so moving on.

In short, Atomic theory was proven not to be fact and continues to change, not the facts, the theories predicted from the facts (get it, Am I clear). General Relativity is not complete, it is based on facts but is not conclusive within itself.. therefore a Theory





mindphuk said:


> How was my answer a dodge? You gave two options and I answered with one. Did you not understand it?
> That is unlike the questions I posed to you which you never attempted to answer, to tell me how specifically evolution fails in the scientific method.
> Do you think atomic theory is a fact? How about general relativity? These were the questions you dodged.


----------



## mindphuk (Mar 2, 2010)

Brazko said:


> You dodge it in the sense of that you simply will not understand.., I started to explain it within the terms of only using eukaryotics, but it is Pointless... so moving on.
> 
> In short, Atomic theory was proven not to be fact and continues to change, not the facts, the theories predicted from the facts (get it, Am I clear). General Relativity is not complete, it is based on facts but is not conclusive within itself.. therefore a Theory


You are correct that they are incomplete but they have been confirmed to the point they can be considered factual. The basics are most definitely correct, there will only be slight modifications, tweaking if you will. 

Since you think theories can be proved an become facts, why don't you tell us one scientific theory that has made such a transition. Though I doubt you will answer since you continue to avoid my other direct question about what part of the scientific method does evolution fail. 

I don't understand? I think I understand much more about biological science than you do. How does limiting your question to eukaryotes only make any sense since evolution doesn't think that we came from a single eukaryotic species but the first life was prokaryotic therefore the answer has to be there.


----------



## mindphuk (Mar 2, 2010)

motoracer110 said:


> 10 facts that prove evolution is false
> 
> Scientific Fact No. 1 - Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong
> 
> ...


This is so full of fail it's not even worth responding point-by-point especially since much of this is merely straw man tactics.


----------



## motoracer110 (Mar 2, 2010)

mindphuk said:


> This is so full of fail it's not even worth responding point-by-point especially since much of this is merely straw man tactics.


Ummmm this is not TACTICS this is FACT. you dont know what you are talking about do you?


----------



## Brazko (Mar 2, 2010)

Theories don't get proved, that is why they are not fact, however working towards theories, we utilize the facts into working laws.., that law becomes scientific fact.

I feel you know a lot more about biological science. The point is we don't know enough about our ancestral past to conclude the theory, into a science, that becomes law.. Fact


Yes, the answer is there, so the theory on evolution is not conclusive and varies at that point between those stages and beyond. I did not say evolution does not follow the scientific method, mattter of fact I stated just the opposite. This discussion is an illusion of your own making because you are polarized. You are going through a cycle. I'm not that person, and that is not this discussion. That is a theory and not a Fact!!






mindphuk said:


> You are correct that they are incomplete but they have been confirmed to the point they can be considered factual. The basics are most definitely correct, there will only be slight modifications, tweaking if you will.
> 
> Since you think theories can be proved an become facts, why don't you tell us one scientific theory that has made such a transition. Though I doubt you will answer since you continue to avoid my other direct question about what part of the scientific method does evolution fail.
> 
> I don't understand? I think I understand much more about biological science than you do. How does limiting your question to eukaryotes only make any sense since evolution doesn't think that we came from a single eukaryotic species but the first life was prokaryotic therefore the answer has to be there.


----------



## PadawanBater (Mar 2, 2010)

motoracer110 said:


> 10 facts that prove evolution is false
> 
> Scientific Fact No. 1 - Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong
> 
> ...





mindphuk said:


> This is so full of fail it's not even worth responding point-by-point especially since much of this is merely straw man tactics.


Goddamn that's ridiculous! Every single one of those claims is utterly retarded, unbelievable. I started out correcting it, but that shit would take too long..

As to "it's just a theory! not a fact!" - here you go.

[youtube]VxnvmmhxPUo[/youtube]


----------



## Brazko (Mar 2, 2010)

In both replies, I perceive theories in the same sense and light..and capable of discerning the difference. Neither exclaimed any difference as to why a theory is factual, because that is simply what they are...theories not facts, no matter how less or, important the other were. They both stated more or less that facts are not important to theories, and that was my point made. 




PadawanBater said:


> As to "it's just a theory! not a fact!" - here you go.
> 
> [youtube]VxnvmmhxPUo[/youtube]


----------



## motoracer110 (Mar 2, 2010)

PadawanBater said:


> Goddamn that's ridiculous! Every single one of those claims is utterly retarded, unbelievable. I started out correcting it, but that shit would take too long..
> 
> As to "it's just a theory! not a fact!" - here you go.
> 
> [youtube]VxnvmmhxPUo[/youtube]



so do you believe in global warming because a bunch scientist told you it is happening??????????


----------



## PadawanBater (Mar 2, 2010)

motoracer110 said:


> so do you believe in global warming because a bunch scientist told you it is happening??????????


Absolutely. 

https://www.rollitup.org/politics/299672-global-warming-update.html

Just like I'll believe the Dr. if he tells me I have cancer. That's kinda the idea... you trust the professionals, the guys who are actively studying the stuff you've got questions about. Why would you believe the guy with little experience? Would you let that same guy fly the plane you're traveling in?

[youtube]T5kumHLiK4A[/youtube]


----------



## mindphuk (Mar 2, 2010)

Brazko said:


> I did not say evolution does not follow the scientific method


It appears you have very short term memory of your own statements


> It's just that according to the modern scientific method, the theories of evolution don't stand up fully.


You still seem to be misunderstanding scientific laws. They are no more factual than theories. They are just a set of observations. Laws are subject to change if we observe something counter to that law. Newton's Laws of Motion had to be modified to work at relativistic speeds. Coulumb's Law had to be modified for QED. 
Theories are the set of facts put together to form an explanation of those facts. The theory of gravity takes the things we know about gravity (that masses attract proportional to their mass, etc.) and attempts to explain why - because the curvature of spacetime that pushes things together. We are not pulled to the earth, spacetime pushes us down to the earth. Quantum gravity attempts to explain how it works in the subatomic level. 

The Theory of Evolution takes the facts that we know about evolution, that species are related and display a twin nested hierarchy, that geologic time is necessary for the large scale changes, the earliest lifeforms on this planet were simple and more complex species did not arrive until much later, and combines them into a theory that explains what we see in genetics and the fossil record. That is that environmental pressures select for the organisms that are most able to survive and those traits are passed down to the next generation. This is natural selection, the MECHANISMS for evolution are the only theoretical parts, everything else is a fact because it is an observation. Even the theoretical part of common ancestry is de facto proven by modern genetics. Yes I know nothing is ever 'proven' in science, but there is too much overwhelming evidence for common ancestry, it cannot be dismissed. Theories are the backbone of science. Raw facts and laws have no power to explain nature, only theories do. To continue to complain that something is not a fact *YET *misunderstand what a theory and a fact is and that theories are built upon facts. 
The funny thing is you acknowledge theories don't become facts then one sentence later say


> The point is we don't know enough about our ancestral past to conclude the theory, into a science, that becomes law.. Fact


You seem very confused.


----------



## mindphuk (Mar 2, 2010)

motoracer110 said:


> Ummmm this is not TACTICS this is FACT. you dont know what you are talking about do you?


I know that most of that bullshit copy and paste misrepresents what evolution actually claims, hence a strawman. 
I would say I know quite a bit more about science and evolutionary biology than you do and have the credentials to back it up.


----------



## mindphuk (Mar 2, 2010)

motoracer110 said:


> 10 facts that prove evolution is false
> 
> Scientific Fact No. 1 - Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong
> 
> ...



This is ridiculous. You are dismissing the talent and expertise of forensic anthropologists and paleontologists. No one is lining up skulls because of the way they look. They look at all of the fossil that is available to them and use specific features, bony prominences, etc. to determine for example if they walked upright, their brain size, and see that they have many features that non-human apes have as well as many human features, telling us they are an intermediate between modern humans and our chimpanzee common ancestor. We also are able to tell that some of these humans developed along their own branch before going extinct and are not our direct ancestors but cousins. That doesn't disprove human evolution in the slightest. 
And yes, we do it for elephants and giraffes as well as whales, fish, dinosaurs, birds, and every species of which we find fossils.  



> Scientific Fact No. 3 - Single Cell Complexity Proves Evolution is Wrong
> 
> Scientists a century ago believed the smallest single living cell was a simple life form. The theory developed that perhaps lightning struck a pond of water causing several molecules to combine in a random way which by chance resulted in a living cell. The cell then divided and evolved into higher life forms. This view is now proven to be immature to the degree of being ridiculous. The most modern laboratory is unable to create a living cell. In fact, scientists have been unable to create a single left-hand protein molecule as found in all animals.


 This is utterly irrelevant to how life, once it exists, does evolve. 



> Scientific Fact No. 4 - Human Egg and Sperm Proves Evolution is Wrong
> 
> The evolutionist ignores the problem surrounding the human female egg and the male sperm in the evolutionary theory. The female egg contains the X-chromosome and the male sperm contains either an X-chromosome for the reproduction of a male or a Y-chromosome for the reproduction of a female. The female eggs all develop within the ovaries while she is a baby (fetus) within her mother's womb. Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring. Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent change. Females cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons.


Sexual selection is a very efficient way to get more variety in the genome. More variety means more chance that some offspring will inherit traits favorable to the environment. The strawman here is that no one is claiming the gametes pass along environmental factors, this would be Lamarkian inheritance, not Mendelian. A big FAIL here too. 


> Scientific Fact No. 5 - DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong
> 
> The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed.


More stupidity. The average human contains about 50-100 mutations. This is observable fact. Error checking is not infallible. 



> Scientific Fact No. 6 - Chaos From Organization Proves Evolution is Wrong
> 
> The second law of thermodynamics proves that organization cannot flow from chaos. Complex live organisms cannot rearrange themselves into an organism of a higher form as claimed by evolutionists. This is scientifically backwards according to the second law of thermodynamics that has never been proven wrong. Scientists cannot have it both ways. The second law of thermodynamics is proven to be correct. Evolution lacks any scientific proof. Evolution is simply an empty theory.



The sun provides energy to the earth. It is not a closed system. This old creationist lie has been debunked so many times it's sad to see people still cling to it.  


> Scientific Fact No. 7 - Chromosome Count Proves Evolution is Wrong
> 
> There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Man could not evolve from a monkey. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation. Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible. Evolutionists prove that getting a college education does not impart wisdom.


Plants change their DNA count all of the time. Just more scientific ignorance by the author. Human Chromosome 2 is the fusion of two chimp chromosomes and includes a central telomere and TWO centromeres on either side. Chromosome count can change and there is ample evidence for it. 


> Scientific Fact No. 8 - Origin of Matter and Stars Proves Evolution is Wrong
> 
> Evolutionists just throw up their hands at the question of the origin of matter because they know something cannot evolve from nothing. They stick their heads in the sand and ignore the problem. The fact that matter exists in outrageously large quantities simply proves evolution is wrong. The "Big Bang" theory doesn't solve the problem either. Matter and energy have to come from somewhere.


The origin of matter has nothing to do with evolution of biological organisms. Does atomic or chemical theory have to tell us where atoms came from? Does germ theory have to explain where microorganisms come from? To say that we don't know where matter came from is a problem for evolution is to say that it is a problem for ALL of science but you seem to only have this problem with evolution. 



> Scientific Fact No. 9 - Lack of Life on Mars Proves Evolution is Wrong
> 
> Two NASA two land rovers named Spirit and Opportunity explored Mars during 2004. The topography shows obvious signs of past liquid rivers flowing in numerous places. The rovers have proven that water was once abundant on the surface of Mars, but they have not been able to find any signs of life or any signs of past life on the planet. Mars has a proven history of flowing water on the surface and an atmosphere suitable to support life forms. The planet has had all of the conditions necessary to provide the "spark" of life according to the evolutionary theory, yet there is no life on Mars. The river beds and river banks show no signs of vegetation or trees. The ground has no fossils and no organisms. The place is absolutely sterile.


So because we haven't found life elsewhere YET means that life elsewhere is non-existent? You have absolutely no basis in fact to say that Mars is or was suitable to support, let alone create, life forms. 


> Scientific Fact No. 10 - Radio Silence from Space Proves Evolution is Wrong
> 
> Mars is not the only place that shows no signs of life. The entire universe lacks any sign of life. There are no radio signals that can be related to intelligent life forms. None of the billions of galaxies has been found to emit any intelligent radio signals. Scientists have been pointing every type of radio telescope possible into space for several decades in hopes of finding an intelligent signal. No signs of life beyond Earth have been found. We are alone.


This has absolutely nothing to do with how life evolves. It means that there aren't radio signals on the specific bands that SETI searches currently bombarding earth. Its absolutely meaningless. Lack of evidence of intelligent life in our immediate corner of the universe hardly discounts the possibility of life everywhere else. We have only search a small portion of our own galaxy. Light takes time to reach us and we would not have seen any evidence of a civilization farther out than the time they have been around. SETI has not looked outside the hydrogen line until very recently. There are many other frequencies that we could be searching for but haven't so it's quite possible we have missed signals. 

You really should learn some science yourself, it will really help you rid yourself of disinformation like this copy/paste you found so compelling.


----------



## motoracer110 (Mar 2, 2010)

PadawanBater said:


> Absolutely.
> 
> https://www.rollitup.org/politics/299672-global-warming-update.html
> 
> Just like I'll believe the Dr. if he tells me I have cancer. That's kinda the idea... you trust the professionals, the guys who are actively studying the stuff you've got questions about. Why would you believe the guy with little experience? Would you let that same guy fly the plane you're traveling in?



 hahahahahaha you just proved my point THANK YOU... Global warming has already been proven to be false my friend. I think you are BLIND to the FACTS or you just dont want the facts to be true, but they are. You should really open your eyes to what is really going on. thats all i have to say.


----------



## Pipe Dream (Mar 2, 2010)

I think it's common sense I don't see how it could be disputed. Now I'm not sure on the exact concepts of THE theory of evolution but it's obvious that evolution takes place IMHO.

Just look at species like the hog island boa. Once just a typical boa constrictor which was up to over 15' in length the continent was seperated by tectonic movement and the hog island boas evolved into a smaller species of boas because of the isolation and inbreeding and environmental changes. They became smaller because their was less large prey and changed colors to adapt to their new environment.


----------



## Brazko (Mar 2, 2010)

This has turned into the Twilight Zone... Are you going to go back and misrepresent everything I say or, are you going to come to grips with the facts , Do you see in bee lines when reading, or is your mindphuked. Pointless, you get a cookie for this one. 

Here you go....

The theory of Evolution is a Fact.


NOT

This is Fanaticism at it's finest

Bye, Bye

 





mindphuk said:


> It appears you have very short term memory of your own statements
> 
> 
> You still seem to be misunderstanding scientific laws. They are no more factual than theories. They are just a set of observations. Laws are subject to change if we observe something counter to that law. Newton's Laws of Motion had to be modified to work at relativistic speeds. Coulumb's Law had to be modified for QED.
> ...


----------



## Jerry Garcia (Mar 4, 2010)

Pipe Dream said:


> I think it's common sense I don't see how it could be disputed. Now I'm not sure on the exact concepts of THE theory of evolution but it's obvious that evolution takes place IMHO.
> 
> Just look at species like the hog island boa. Once just a typical boa constrictor which was up to over 15' in length the continent was seperated by tectonic movement and the hog island boas evolved into a smaller species of boas because of the isolation and inbreeding and environmental changes. They became smaller because their was less large prey and changed colors to adapt to their new environment.


This is known as the island effect.


----------



## Jerry Garcia (Mar 4, 2010)

mindphuk said:


> This is ridiculous. You are dismissing the talent and expertise of forensic anthropologists and paleontologists. No one is lining up skulls because of the way they look. They look at all of the fossil that is available to them and use specific features, bony prominences, etc. to determine for example if they walked upright, their brain size, and see that they have many features that non-human apes have as well as many human features, telling us they are an intermediate between modern humans and our chimpanzee common ancestor. We also are able to tell that some of these humans developed along their own branch before going extinct and are not our direct ancestors but cousins. That doesn't disprove human evolution in the slightest.
> And yes, we do it for elephants and giraffes as well as whales, fish, dinosaurs, birds, and every species of which we find fossils.
> 
> 
> ...


All good responses.


----------



## mindphuk (Mar 4, 2010)

Jerry Garcia said:


> All good responses.


Thank you.
I noticed he hasn't been back to respond even though he's been on this site. Should I hold my breath?


----------



## PadawanBater (Mar 4, 2010)

Glad to see these poll results. 

Why's pot illegal again?


----------



## Brazko (Mar 4, 2010)

PadawanBater said:


> Glad to see these poll results.
> 
> Why's pot illegal again?


It makes You think.. , and then the system will fall apart.. It's for your own good...


----------



## Pipe Dream (Mar 6, 2010)

Brazko said:


> It makes You think.. , and then the system will fall apart.. It's for your own good...


 lol your right.....thinking for yourself is over rated anyways.


----------



## morgentaler (Mar 6, 2010)

Most people get their information on the "global warming debate" from reporters, not from scientists or research papers.
Reporters are usually incompetent in matters of science, and will outright lie to spice up articles. I've been interviewed by, and interned at, newspapers and saw the ridiculous amounts of fabrication going on.

If you get away from the reporters it comes down to the following:
People hear the phrase 'climate change' and freak out, denying it. Except that the climate is ALWAY changing. They confuse that with "Global Warming".
The scientific observations indicate that over the past 20-30 years there has been a very slight increase in temperature. Whether it is anthropogenic isn't certain, but based on the environmental impact the best approach is to treat it as such and adapt human activity to mitigate the effects if at all possible.
That's it. 
Even small changes in temp would affect the way storms and other natural phenomenon behave, and due to the population densities in coastal areas that makes the potential impact significant.

But when you read it in a paper, on a news site, or see it on TV it's hyperbolic bullshit with only a modicum of truth.
Like when the fudge factor used by the scientists was revealed in the leaked emails. The media neglected to mention that the fudge factor was a modification used on the statistical analysis to account for changes in environment that affected some of the standards like tree growth.

Eg. If you were measuring the amount of carbon dust that settled out of the air in your living room over a 3 month period while living downwind from a coal mining operation, you would see a trend. Then your roommate starts burning candles in the living room 2 weeks before the measurements are to end. You know the candles are there. You know how much carbon is being emitted. You can now fudge your measurements based on the statistical anomaly created by the introduction of the aberration.




Back on to the topic of evolution: If you don't have a basic understanding of genetics, you don't have even the slightest qualifications to say that evolution is not fact. You can sit back and watch Maury Povich say "You are NOT the father." all day, but if you don't understand the principles behind how DNA testing works you might as well be pooh-poohing Feynman's work in Physics.
Just by observations of phenotype alone, the mountain of evidence supporting evolution is staggering. And the ignorance of those who think the concept of evolution started with Darwin only shows how proud of their own stupidity they really are. Darwin had the tenacity to determine the mechanism that drove evolution, but evolution itself was known for centuries, with discussion of the concept occurring 2,000 years ago, albeit using differing words (languages evolve too).
Once Watson and Crick turned biology on its ear with their DNA research in 1953, the floodgates of verification opened. Not only does *every* single genotype observed indicate that the process of evolution is fact, you can map the progress using modifications from transcription errors, endogenous retroviruses, changes in codon location, etc.

The only alternative to evolution is that SkyGod Crankypants magicked everyone into existence. And if you don't think there's enough evidence for evolution, you sure as hell shouldn't be looking to Crankypants for help because the evidence in that department is sorely lacking.

You may not agree with Darwin's theory, but that's still just the mechanism for change - not the change itself.


----------



## morgentaler (Mar 6, 2010)

motoracer110 said:


> In fact, scientists have been unable to create a single left-hand protein molecule as found in all animals.


Thalidomide, you fucking genius.


----------



## ThatGuy113 (Mar 8, 2010)

Some sort of evolution has happened.


----------



## Brazko (Mar 11, 2010)

Ummmm, Yeah!! This thread has evolved into a complete lie.

Pitiful

P'zzuurrp!! 



ThatGuy113 said:


> Some sort of evolution has happened.


----------



## PadawanBater (Mar 11, 2010)

Evolution ftw

How do opponents of evolution explain things like skin tones, languages, genetic immunities, etc...?


----------



## Brazko (Mar 12, 2010)

I don't believe you'll find many or, any opponents to evolution, including me.

That's why I don't understand why would you begin to alter your polling question. Some changes where necessary for clarity, but now you've fudged the facts. Typical charlatan gimmick 

Evolution is vital to our survival, not your agenda 

what U smoking on Paddy? 





PadawanBater said:


> Evolution ftw
> 
> How do opponents of evolution explain things like skin tones, languages, genetic immunities, etc...?


----------



## PadawanBater (Mar 12, 2010)

Brazko said:


> I don't believe you'll find many or, any opponents to evolution, including me.


Think again bro...




> That's why I don't understand why would you begin to alter your polling question. Some changes where necessary for clarity, but now you've fudged the facts. Typical charlatan gimmick


How did I alter the question?




> Evolution is vital to our survival, not your agenda



Not sure what you mean by that..


----------



## Brazko (Mar 12, 2010)

I'm thinking and I may have exaggerated on the if any at all, but I'll stick with the not many, to very few people that oppose evolution on this forum 



PadawanBater said:


> Think again bro...


 
Come on Man...., Really.., I mean Really? Hey if you don't know, I'll just chalk that one up to me being High, Crazy, and Dislexic for the past week or so.. ( no problem they are all curable)




PadawanBater said:


> How did I alter the question?


"The faithful don't think, they feel." -Reality Activist 





PadawanBater said:


> Not sure what you mean by that..


----------



## PadawanBater (Mar 12, 2010)

Brazko said:


> I'm thinking and I may have exaggerated on the if any at all, but I'll stick with the not many, to very few people that oppose evolution on *this forum *


Unfortunately the forum demographics don't match the rest of the US population.




> Come on Man...., Really.., I mean Really? Hey if you don't know, I'll just chalk that one up to me being High, Crazy, and Dislexic for the past week or so.. ( no problem they are all curable)


I didn't alter anything. I still don't know what you mean.. 




> "The faithful don't think, they feel." -Reality Activist


I completely stand by that quote.


----------



## Brazko (Mar 12, 2010)

Exactly, that was my point.., Who were you expecting to answer that question?



PadawanBater said:


> Unfortunately the forum demographics don't match the rest of the US population.


 
Well, other than me just being High, Crazy, and Dislexic for the past week. I thought your poll first stated "who believes in evolution" then "who accepts evolution" now "who accepts the theory of evolution". And the latter change which I think is a significant difference came about 25 votes later. Is it a big deal?, NO. Would the voting probably been a little different?, Yes... Significantly different, NO.

But the changes seemed to come about when the fact of evolution happens and implications that the theory of evolution was a fact were being discussed. Which to a certain extent it is based on scientific facts, but still lacks the content to be considered a Scientific fact in complete theory, by science standards alone. (my opinion) 

As you can see I was really tripping: Crazy, High, & Dislexic at the time >>> No problem  




PadawanBater said:


> I didn't alter anything. I still don't know what you mean


I didn't say you couldn't stand by it, I think I said just the opposite. Unlike you tho', I believe that people of faith "Think", as well as, that atheist are capable of "Feeling"... but that's just my Theory..






PadawanBater said:


> I completely stand by that quote.


----------



## PadawanBater (Mar 12, 2010)

Brazko said:


> Exactly, that was my point.., Who were you expecting to answer that question?


Well of course the RIU community. I forget the real initial reason I posted the poll, I think it was something along the lines of drawing a connection between pot smokers and free thinkers - as smoking pot leads you to question things.




> Well, other than me just being High, Crazy, and Dislexic for the past week. I thought your poll first stated "who believes in evolution" then "who accepts evolution" now "who accepts the theory of evolution". And the latter change which I think is a significant difference came about 25 votes later. Is it a big deal?, NO. Would the voting probably been a little different?, Yes... Significantly different, NO.





> But the changes seemed to come about when the fact of evolution happens and implications that the theory of evolution was a fact were being discussed. Which to a certain extent it is based on scientific facts, but still lacks the content to be considered a Scientific fact in complete theory, by science standards alone. (my opinion)
> 
> As you can see I was really tripping: Crazy, High, & Dislexic at the time >>> No problem


Lol you must be high bro! The polls been the same since day 1. 




> I didn't say you couldn't stand by it, I think I said just the opposite. Unlike you tho', I believe that people of faith "Think", as well as, that atheist are capable of "Feeling"... but that's just my Theory..





>


I think faith contaminates legitimate inquiry. There is no room for any kinds of feelings when dealing with science.


----------



## Brazko (Mar 13, 2010)

, Is this what is called Creationist Games.. 

I call it the F.O.S by all means....,


----------



## Miss MeanWeed (Mar 13, 2010)

What about the 'Aliens created us as slaves' theory? Does that fit in anywhere?


----------



## afrawfraw (Mar 13, 2010)

PadawanBater said:


> Well of course the RIU community. I forget the real initial reason I posted the poll, I think it was something along the lines of drawing a connection between pot smokers and free thinkers - as smoking pot leads you to question things.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




If someone begins an investigation without a 360 degree view, his/her chances of failure increase substantially. If you cannot conceive an idea, how can you see it? I can conceive an idea of other entities out there IF DISCOVERED. But after scientists "Opened the skies" and revealed there were no "Heavens", It didn't register when it should have...No? 

"When people say, 'Everyone thought the world was flat', who are they? Every one in the scientific community KNEW the world was round. But proclaiming such an idea was punishable by death, either legally or through panic"


----------



## stonesour (Mar 15, 2010)

Its all theory, nobody knows either way. Things adapt in nature, but im my opionion dont change into other things. Viruses stay viruses, they just adapt they dont turn into squirrels... saying that evolution is fact is just laughable to say the least. crocodiles, mosquitoes, ect. have been around for millions of years actually before some dinasaurs, but they havent evolved.


----------



## mindphuk (Mar 15, 2010)

stonesour said:


> Its all theory, nobody knows either way. Things adapt in nature, but im my opionion dont change into other things. Viruses stay viruses, they just adapt they dont turn into squirrels... saying that evolution is fact is just laughable to say the least. crocodiles, mosquitoes, ect. have been around for millions of years actually before some dinasaurs, *but they havent evolved.*


Really? 
Crocodile Evolution
Mosquito Evolution


----------



## CrackerJax (Mar 15, 2010)

It takes all kinds.... I guess.


----------



## stonesour (Mar 15, 2010)

CrackerJax said:


> It takes all kinds.... I guess.


look I was just like everyone else, I used to preach about evolution and my disbeliefs in the afterlife until august of 2006. I was in a major car accident. 3 out of 4 people died, i was the only one that survived. When it happend I was knocked unconscious or even died im not sure, but when i was asleep or dead or whatever something came to me, something so powerful and told me that it was not my turn to die and that everything was going to be alright, Then i woke up on the street caughing blood and the only thing that was going through my mind was that feeling. long story short I came to realize there is something way more powerful out there that is bigger than me and this world and im not going to take a chance of being wrong and doubtful. Evolution whatever, there IS something beyond what I know here on earth and I know that for a fact. Just passing that along, I know it wont change anyone but at least gives you a reason why I dont believe in the whole "there is no god" thing and evolution. Call him god or not but there is something out there big time.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Mar 15, 2010)

Evolution is fact. It's not a question of belief, it's a question of being void of emotional reliance on religion and using simple logic to accept it as fact.

To those who say Evolution does not exist because it cannot be seen, do you accept that WW2 happened? Did you need to see it happening to believe it or did you rely dates and retelling of events as fact?

To address the point of "viruses turning in to squirrels," evolution is not saying that this will happen, *as the process of evolution has no goal.* All life has a common ancestor, species diverge to occupy different ecological niches which become available when extinction, etc. occur in order to guarantee survival and reproduction of their genetic material.

I would be happy to address any other creationist arguments.


----------



## one11 (Mar 15, 2010)

evolution is a joke. our brain capacity is unmatched anywhere within the natural world. the complexities of the human mind prove that we did not come from monkeys. yes our skin tone and body features have adapted to their surroundings. since crackers lived in colder climates, the skin pigment lightened to allow more vitamin D from the sun. and vice versa with our black brothas.

take a look back on early human history. see how rapidly we grew and developed into the race we are now. my friends, we are an example of an extra-terrestrial biology experiment.


----------



## PadawanBater (Mar 15, 2010)

Evolution is so obvious, I really don't understand how someone could deny it today...

-DNA proves it
-Genes prove it
-Fossils prove it
-Geology proves it
-The fact we create vaccines to fight virus' already knowing which way it will evolve, proves it
-Every living organism ever discovered is based on the Carbon element and DNA
-Every living organism past amphibian (all of which share a common ancestor) have the exact same basic anatomical layout - two arms on top of the body, two legs on the bottom, a top, bottom, left and right physical orientation, one bone at the base of the arm followed by two to the hand, same feature for the leg, one bone connecting to the body, two bones connecting to the feet. - if that doesn't prove it, it's damn strong evidence
-Take one look at a bonobo or chimpanzee and tell me we're not related


----------



## mindphuk (Mar 15, 2010)

one11 said:


> evolution is a joke. our brain capacity is unmatched anywhere within the natural world.


Whale brains are much bigger than ours. 


> the complexities of the human mind prove that we did not come from monkeys.


Really, how? Why does having a complex brain prove we didn't evolve from a species that gave rise to apes that also have complex brains?


> take a look back on early human history. see how rapidly we grew and developed into the race we are now. my friends, we are an example of an extra-terrestrial biology experiment.


Yep, it only took a few million years to develop into us. Now if you think that's rapid, than what is slow?


----------



## mindphuk (Mar 15, 2010)

Patrick Bateman said:


> Evolution is fact. It's not a question of belief, it's a question of being void of emotional reliance on religion and using simple logic to accept it as fact.
> 
> To those who say Evolution does not exist because it cannot be seen, do you accept that WW2 happened? Did you need to see it happening to believe it or did you rely dates and retelling of events as fact?
> 
> ...


Donchya love the creationist arguments?
Dogs giving birth to cats and crocoducks are the creationist idea of what evolution is. If these things actually occurred, it would FALSIFY evolution. These things can only happen by magic, not nature.


----------



## afrawfraw (Mar 15, 2010)

stonesour said:


> look I was just like everyone else, I used to preach about evolution and my disbeliefs in the afterlife until august of 2006. I was in a major car accident. 3 out of 4 people died, i was the only one that survived. When it happend I was knocked unconscious or even died im not sure, but when i was asleep or dead or whatever something came to me, something so powerful and told me that it was not my turn to die and that everything was going to be alright, Then i woke up on the street caughing blood and the only thing that was going through my mind was that feeling. long story short I came to realize there is something way more powerful out there that is bigger than me and this world and im not going to take a chance of being wrong and doubtful. Evolution whatever, there IS something beyond what I know here on earth and I know that for a fact. Just passing that along, I know it wont change anyone but at least gives you a reason why I dont believe in the whole "there is no god" thing and evolution. Call him god or not but there is something out there big time.


Something to ponder...

"The whole-brain analysis indicated that, vs. controls, survivors showed significantly increased ALFF in the left prefrontal cortex and the left precentral gyrus, extending medially to the left presupplementary motor area... [and] region of interest (ROI) analyses revealed significantly increased ALFF in bilateral insula and caudate and the left putamen in the survivor group..."

http://neuroskeptic.blogspot.com/2009/09/trauma-alters-brain-function-so-what.html


----------



## stonesour (Mar 15, 2010)

afrawfraw said:


> Something to ponder...
> 
> "The whole-brain analysis indicated that, vs. controls, survivors showed significantly increased ALFF in the left prefrontal cortex and the left precentral gyrus, extending medially to the left presupplementary motor area... [and] region of interest (ROI) analyses revealed significantly increased ALFF in bilateral insula and caudate and the left putamen in the survivor group..."
> 
> http://neuroskeptic.blogspot.com/2009/09/trauma-alters-brain-function-so-what.html


The thing that came to me in the accident I associated it with being "all mighty" pure, powerful, and mostly holy. The only thing I ponder now is how to live for god. I honostly dont think it was self awareness or anything like that. I have pondered on other ideas of what it was but Im pretty much done with that. Its been four years and I KNOW exactly what it was.


----------



## stonesour (Mar 15, 2010)

mindphuk said:


> Donchya love the creationist arguments?
> Dogs giving birth to cats and crocoducks are the creationist idea of what evolution is. If these things actually occurred, it would FALSIFY evolution. These things can only happen by magic, not nature.


Well i guess it was magic that turned us from apes to man...LOL


----------



## PadawanBater (Mar 15, 2010)

stonesour said:


> The thing that came to me in the accident I associated it with being "all mighty" pure, powerful, and mostly holy. The only thing I ponder now is how to live for god. I honostly dont think it was self awareness or anything like that. I have pondered on other ideas of what it was but Im pretty much done with that. Its been four years and I KNOW exactly what it was.


Dude, it's this attitude of absolute that is the problem.

You KNOW exactly what it was? I'm sorry man, it's good that you survived but you don't KNOW shit about that experience. You had a traumatic event happen where 3 people you knew were killed and you barely escaped alive, you attribute your survival to God because you live in a society in which everything good gets attributed to God and everything bad was us being punished by a justified God... 

You heard a voice, big deal. I hear voices in my head all the time. It's you, your conscious, yourself, your thoughts. If it was God, you would know by other means other than "feeling" it.


----------



## mindphuk (Mar 15, 2010)

stonesour said:


> Well i guess it was magic that turned us from apes to man...LOL


Maybe you missed it earlier but apes didn't turn into man. Humans ARE apes. We have been classified as primates even before Darwin. It was the creationist Carl Linnaeus that showed that we belong to the group of animals known as primates. 

Your spiritual experience had absolutely nothing to do with evolution and even if there really is a god it does not in any way disprove evolution. I find it hard to believe that your single experience is the reason you decided to ignore science and claim evolution as false. If it really was the reason, then your logic fails.


----------



## stonesour (Mar 15, 2010)

PadawanBater said:


> Dude, it's this attitude of absolute that is the problem.
> 
> You KNOW exactly what it was? I'm sorry man, it's good that you survived but you don't KNOW shit about that experience. You had a traumatic event happen where 3 people you knew were killed and you barely escaped alive, you attribute your survival to God because you live in a society in which everything good gets attributed to God and everything bad was us being punished by a justified God...
> 
> You heard a voice, big deal. I hear voices in my head all the time. It's you, your conscious, yourself, your thoughts. If it was God, you would know by other means other than "feeling" it.


you obviously have bigger problems than this discussion if that is the case. Maybe you should do some soul searching or see a doctor.


----------



## mindphuk (Mar 15, 2010)

stonesour said:


> you obviously have bigger problems than this discussion if that is the case. Maybe you should do some soul searching or see a doctor.


Maybe you didn't know but hearing voices is quite normal. 
I think it's only a problem if you actually listen to them and believe they are real.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Mar 15, 2010)

one11 said:


> evolution is a joke. our brain capacity is unmatched anywhere within the natural world. the complexities of the human mind prove that we did not come from monkeys. yes our skin tone and body features have adapted to their surroundings. since crackers lived in colder climates, the skin pigment lightened to allow more vitamin D from the sun. and vice versa with our black brothas.
> 
> take a look back on early human history. see how rapidly we grew and developed into the race we are now. my friends, we are an example of an extra-terrestrial biology experiment.


Surely this is a joke. Lol, it's funny that you began your post stating evolution was a joke, and then provided proof of its existence later on. You must understand the process of evolution is incredibly slow. Now, if you believe the world is 5000 years old or any of those other glorified fairy tales, please disregard the previous as there is no hope for you comprehending the following. Humans are the way they are today thanks to the process of natural selection. Obviously genetic traits which allow us to feel emotions, have a thought process, comprehend abstract ideas presented us with an evolutionary advantage. The way we live as humans today are direct consequences of evolution.


----------



## PadawanBater (Mar 15, 2010)

stonesour said:


> you obviously have bigger problems than this discussion if that is the case. Maybe you should do some soul searching or see a doctor.


Way to quote mine dude...

I hear voices in my head all the time. It's you, your conscious, yourself, your thoughts.

I'm not trying to be hostile towards you, I'm just pointing out what you're doing is no different than what people do with UFO's or ghosts. They see something, and _think_ they *know* what it is, so they attribute preconceived ideas to whatever it was, even though they have absolutely zero conclusive evidence to support it. It's just the way human brains are hardwired and the society that we live in perpetuates it and enforces it. How many times do you hear the old "light at the end of the tunnel" story? Or what about the "alien abduction" story? ... Why do almost all the people who draw pictures of their alien abductors draw similar pictures? Big heads, little bodies, thin arms and legs, big eyes... it's the classic alien "image" all of us have in our minds, so we *automatically* attribute that to the unknown phenomena we experience.

It's really that simple.


----------



## CrackerJax (Mar 15, 2010)

stonesour said:


> look I was just like everyone else, I used to preach about evolution and my disbeliefs in the afterlife until august of 2006. I was in a major car accident. 3 out of 4 people died, i was the only one that survived. When it happend I was knocked unconscious or even died im not sure, but when i was asleep or dead or whatever something came to me, something so powerful and told me that it was not my turn to die and that everything was going to be alright, Then i woke up on the street caughing blood and the only thing that was going through my mind was that feeling. long story short I came to realize there is something way more powerful out there that is bigger than me and this world and im not going to take a chance of being wrong and doubtful. Evolution whatever, there IS something beyond what I know here on earth and I know that for a fact. Just passing that along, I know it wont change anyone but at least gives you a reason why I dont believe in the whole "there is no god" thing and evolution. Call him god or not but there is something out there big time.


Well, I sure am glad you stopped preaching about Evolution....

You don't seem to understand it very well.


----------



## KBRoaster (Mar 15, 2010)

Reading through many of these posts, it seems that a lot of people don't know the difference between natural selection and evolution. Perhaps I can help.

Evolution is a fact. We have skeletal and DNA evidence to back up any claim. Evolution is the cornerstone of biology. All the sciences tie into one way or another; which btw, is way too pervasive not to have a different POV if it were not a fact!

Natural selection is the mechanism in which we believe evolution to have occurred. This is the gray area where you "can't" prove it. A large part is due to the time constraints we have as a human.

I think so much of it is people are just too insular and won't look outside their box. If it doesn't make sense using "their" logic than it ain't true. With all the rhetoric these dumbasses spew, no wonder my beloved home state is a laughing stock with the text book changes (Texas).

Well, my suggestion is to use reason and logic and then you won't look like an idiot. To me saying you don' t believe in evolution is like saying you don't believe in gravity.


----------



## afrawfraw (Mar 15, 2010)

KBRoaster said:


> Reading through many of these posts, it seems that a lot of people don't know the difference between natural selection and evolution. Perhaps I can help.
> 
> Evolution is a fact. We have skeletal and DNA evidence to back up any claim. Evolution is the cornerstone of biology. All the sciences tie into one way or another; which btw, is way too pervasive not to have a different POV if it were not a fact!
> 
> ...


It is also very difficult to come to the realization that you are a blip on the time line and as a single entity, your life has no impact or long term effects. People don't realize we have been on this planet for a second.


----------



## CrackerJax (Mar 15, 2010)

Wait.... I'm floating!!!


----------



## undertheice (Mar 15, 2010)

CrackerJax said:


> Wait.... I'm floating!!!


that's it, i'm officially denying the existence of gravity! from now on i will firmly believe that the only reason we all don't float away is that dirt sucks.


_this theory also has the benefit of explaining any mysterious disappearances at sea._


----------



## CrackerJax (Mar 15, 2010)

I smell colors!!


----------



## afrawfraw (Mar 15, 2010)

I feel the warmth...Oh shit, I gotta go!


----------



## Miss MeanWeed (Mar 15, 2010)

The ALIENS did it
*

DARWINISM vs. CREATIONISM* 
*A Checkered History, A Doubtful Future*​ *by Lloyd Pye*​Starting with the Sumerians, the first great culture 6,000 years ago, through the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans, everyone accepted that some form of heavenly beings hadcreated all of life and, as a crowning achievement, topped it off with humans. Now, consider that for a moment. Today the CEO of a medium-sized corporation can verbally issue an instruction to be carried out company-wide and have no hope it will reach the lower echelons intact. So the fact that most historical cultures, from first to most recent (our own), believed essentially the same creation story is astonishing in its consistency. 
Naturally, such long-term consistency made it extremely difficult to challenge when the accumulation of scientific evidence could no longer be ignored. Charles Darwin is usually credited with issuing the first call for a rational examination of divine creation as the belief system regarding the origins of life and humanity. However, in his 1859 classic, The Origin Of Species, he skirted both issues in an attempt to placate his eras dominant power structure  organized religion. Though he used the word origin in the title, he was careful to discuss only how species developed from each other, not how life originated. And he simply avoided discussing humanitys origins. 
Ultimately, pressure from both supporters and critics forced him to tackle that thorny issue in 1871s The Descent Of Man; but Charles Darwin was never comfortable at the cutting edge of the social debate he helped engineer. 
The true roots of the challenge to divine creation extend 65 years prior to Darwin, back to 1795, when two men  a naturalist and a geologistpublished stunning works. The naturalist was Erasmus Darwin, Charles Darwins grandfather, a brilliant intellectual in his own right. In The Laws Of Organic Life he suggested that population numbers drove competition for resources, that such competition was a possible agent of physical change, that humans were closely related to monkeys and apes, and that sexual selection could have an effect on species modification. In short, he dealt with nearly all of the important topics his grandson would later expand upon, except natural selection. 
The geologist was a Scotsman, James Hutton, whose Theory Of The Earth suggested for the first time that Earth might be much older than 6,000 years, then the universally accepted time frame established a century earlier by Anglican Bishop James Ussher. (Many if not most of todays mainstream Christians are convinced that the creation date of 6,000 years ago is Holy Writ, even though mortal Bishop Ussher arrived at it by the mundane method of calculating the who begat whoms listed in the Bible.) 
Hutton studied the layering of soils in geological strata and concluded that rain washed soil off the continents and into the seas; at the bottom of the seas heat from inside the planet turned soil into rock; over great stretches of time the new rocks were elevated to continent level and slowly pushed up to form mountains; then in turn those mountains were weathered away to form new layers of soil. This unending cycle meant two things: Earth was not a static body changed only superficially at the surface by volcanoes and earthquakes; and each layering cycle required vast amounts of time to complete. 
The significance of Huttons insight, to which he gave the jawbreaker name of uniformitarianism, cannot be overstated. However, he couldnt challenge Usshers 6,000 year dogma because he provided no alternative to it. He was certain that 6,000 years was much too short a time span for any weathering cycle to be completed, but in the late 18th century there was no way to accurately measure geological eras. That would have to wait another thirty-five years until Sir Charles Lyell, a far more methodical British analyst and researcher, could firmly establish uniformitarianism as the basis of modern geology. 
Lyell took Huttons work and ran with it, creating a three-volume series called Principles Of Geology (1830-1833) that convincingly provided the time lines and time frames Hutton lacked. Bishop Usshers 6,000 year dogma still held complete sway with ecclesiastics everywhere, but the worlds burgeoning ranks of scientists could see that Hutton and now Lyell were correct; the earth had to be millions of years old rather than 6,000. But how to convince the still largely uneducated masses of Usshers fallacy? Like Hutton before him, Lyell and his supporters could not break through the dense wall of ignorance being perpetuated by religious dogma. However, they had knocked several gaping cracks in it, so when Charles Darwin came along in another thirty years (1859), the wall was ready to begin crumbling with an echo that reverberates to this day. 
Darwin was strongly influenced by Lyell, who published the first of his geology tomes while Darwin was at Cambridge completing his last year of theological training (he only studied nature as an avocation). He took the first volume of the trilogy on his fateful voyage aboard the H.M.S. Beagle and devoured it along the way. Masterfully written and persuasively argued, it made such an impression on the 22-year-old that in later life he said, I really think my books come half out of Lyells brain. I see through his eyes. So between Lyells genius and his grandfather Erasmus unconventional views about nature instilled during his childhood, young Charles set sail toward his destiny with a blueprint of his revolutionary theory in mind and a tool to build it in his hands. 
Without saying it outright, Darwins bottom line was that lifes myriad forms managed their own existence from start to finish without divine help. This did not take God entirely out of the equation, but it did remove His influence on a day-to-day basis. The irony is that Charles Darwin did his work reluctantly, being a devout man who had trained to become a minister. Nonetheless, the schism he created between evolution (a term he never used; his choice was natural selection) and God was the battering ram that breached the forbidding wall of dogmatic ignorance that had stood for thousands of years. 
Though breached, that wall did not come down entirely. Instead, an ideological war erupted on both sides of what remained of it, pitting Darwinists against Creationists in intellectual bloodletting that eventually forced some of the wounded to seek relief in compromise. Both sides might be content, they suggested, if God could be acknowledged as the initiator of all life, followed by a hands-off policy thereafter to let nature take its evolutionary course. All well and good. But instead, both sides adopted a winner-take-all strategy, unwilling to make even marginal concessions to the other sides point of view. 
Allowing no room for compromise left both sides open to continuous attack, and the salvos they exchanged were fierce and relentless. James Hutton and Charles Lyell had proven beyond reasonable doubt that the earth was immensely older than 6,000 years, yet they and their supporters had been overwhelmed by the oppressive power of ecclesiastic influence. Now, however, Darwins arguments supporting gradual changes over equally vast amounts of time tipped the scales in favor of science. Public opinion began to shift. The uniform rejection of old became tentative acceptance at an ever-increasing rate.  
This alarming turn of events forced all but the most ardent Creationists to seek ways to appease their critics, to put themselves back in the drivers seat of public opinion. Bishop Usshers unyielding time line of 6,000 years was gradually coming to symbolize their willful disdain of reality, like a chain draped around their necks, drowning them as the tide of understanding shifted the sand beneath their feet. They began to modify their insistence that God had created everything in the universe exactly as recounted in the Bible. They could suddenly see the wisdom of granting Him the latitude to accomplish His miracles in six eras of unspecified length rather than in six literal days. 
Of course, Creationists did more than hit the reverse pedal on their sputtering juggernaut. The brightest of them dug deep into Darwins emerging theory to discover holes nearly equal to the ones scientists were exposing in religious dogma. In 1873, only fourteen years after The Origin Of Species, geologist J.W. Dawson, chancellor of McGill University in Montreal, published The Story Of The Earth And Man, which was every bit as well written and as carefully argued as Darwins masterpiece. In it Dawson pointed out that Darwin and his followers were promoting a theory based on three fallacious gaps in reasoning that could not be reconciled with the knowledge of their era. What is so telling about Dawsons three fallacies is that they remain unchanged to this day. 
The first fallacy is that life can spontaneously animate from organic material. In 1873 Dawson complained that the men who evolve all things from physical forces do not yet know how these forces can produce the phenomenon of life even in its humblest forms. He added that in every case heretofore, the effort (to create animate life) has proved vain. After 127 years of heavily subsidized effort by scientists all over the world to create even the most basic rudiments of life, they are still batting an embarrassing zero. In any other scientific endeavor, reason would dictate it is time to call in the dogs and water down the fire. But when it comes to Darwinian logic, as Dawson noted in 1873, here also we are required to admit as a general principle what is contrary to experience. 
Dawsons second fallacy was the gap that separates vegetable and animal life. These are necessarily the converse of each other, the one deoxidizes and accumulates, the other oxidizes and expends. Only in reproduction or decay does the plant simulate the action of the animal, and the animal never in its simplest forms assumes the functions of the plant. This gap can, I believe, be filled up only by an appeal to our ignorance. And thus it remains today. If life did evolve as Darwinists claim, it would have had to bridge the gap between plant and animal life at least once, and more likely innumerable times. Lacking one undeniable example of this bridging, science is again batting zero. 
The third gap in the knowledge of 1873 was that between any species of animal or plant and any other species. It is this gap, and this only, which Darwin undertook to fill up by his great work on the origin of species; but, notwithstanding the immense amount of material thus expended, it yawns as wide as ever, since it must be admitted that no case has been ascertained in which individuals of one species have transgressed the limits between it and other species. Here, too, despite a ceaseless din of scientific protests to the contrary, there remains not a single unquestioned example of one species evolving entirelynot just partiallyinto another distinct and separate species. 
To be fair, some of todays best-known geneticists and naturalists have broken ranks and acknowledged that what Dawson complained about in 1873 remains true today. Thomas H. Morgan, who won a Nobel Prize for work on heredity, wrote that Within the period of human history, we do not know of a single instance of the transformation of one species into another if we apply the most rigid and extreme tests used to distinguish wild species. Colin Patterson, director of the British Museum of Natural History, has stated that No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has gotten near it. And these are by no means extraordinary disclosures. Every scientist in related fields is well aware of it, but shamefully few have the nerve to address it openly. 
By the time Darwin died, in 1882, one of his most zealous supporters, German zoologist Ernst Haeckel, had produced a series of drawings that showed the developing embryos of various mammals (rabbit, pig, chimp, man) were virtually identical until well into their gestation.  This had been a great comfort to Darwin in his old age, but by 1915 it was clear that Haeckel had forged the drawings. Nonetheless, they served Darwinists so well that Haeckels forgery conviction at the University of Jena, where he taught, was conveniently overlooked, and his drawings can still be found in modern texts supporting evolution. In fact, any reader of this article who was taught evolution in school will very likely have seen Haeckels drawings in textbooks and been assured they were legitimate. 
A more widely known fraudulent attempt to support Darwins flagging theory was Englands famous Piltdown Man hoax of 1912, which was an ancient human skull found in conjunction with a modern orangutans lower jaw that had been doctored (its teeth filed down to look more human) and aged to match the look of the skull. This was much more important than Haeckels fraud because it provided the desperately sought missing link between humans and their proposed ape-like ancestors.  
Nearly all of Englands evolutionary top guns swung in behind the fraud, and their colleagues worldwide joined them with such zeal that it took 40 years to expose it for what it was. However, the damage it caused to the search for truth had already been done. The world became so convinced that Darwinian evolution was true and correct, it was just a matter of time before Creationists would draw a line in the dirt and call for a last great battle to decide the issue once and for all. That battle did come, to an obscure American hamlet called Dayton, Tennessee, 75 years ago (July, 1925). 
The Monkey Trial, as H.L. Mencken dubbed it, revolved around John Scopes, a 24-year-old gym teacher and football coach who once substituted for the regular biology teacher in Daytons high school. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) chose him as its point man because he vocally disagreed with a new Tennessee law that banned the teaching of evolution instead of, or alongside, the Biblical account of creation. He also was unmarried, incurring no risk to a family by allowing himself to be prosecuted. 
Though now one of many so-called trials of the century, this one drew 200 reporters from 2,000 newspapers across the country and the world. It has since generated hundreds of books, plays, television movies, and feature films. In October, 1999, George magazine chose it the fourth most important event of the 20th century. Yet historian Garry Wills has astutely called it a nontrial over a nonlaw with a nondefendant backed by nonsupporters. Its most profound moment involved nontestimony by a nonexpert, followed by a nondefeat. Without question it can stand alongside the O.J. Simpson debacle as a world-class black eye for the American legal system. 
All during the trial Clarence Darrow, a staunch Darwinist and Scopes lawyer, tangled with William Jennings Bryan, an equally staunch Creationist who represented the State of Tennessee. Both were outstanding advocates and renowned orators, and each was certain he could outtalk the other and convince the world of the rightness of his vision of creation. However, Darrows rapier wit shredded Bryans assertions that the Bible was a literal record of Gods sacrosanct word. Bryan won from a legal standpoint because the issue in question was whether Scopes had defied his states law, which he admitted all along in order to get the trial arranged in the first place. Scopes was convicted and fined $100, which was later overturned on a technicality, so in the end he was vindicated.  
More than anything else, the Monkey Trial was staged to settle the Darwinism-Creationism debate once and for all by pitting the most eloquent defender of each in a mouth-to-mouth duel on a world stage that no one could ignore. And when the dust had settled it was clear the rolling tide of history would not be turned. The mounting support for Darwinism crested in a tsunami of doubtand even ridiculethat crashed down on Creationists everywhere, sweeping them from the dominant positions they had enjoyed for centuries, into the social and political backwaters they endured for decades. 
Though clearly knocked down by the Darrow/Scopes haymaker, the Creationists were far from out. They lowered their profile and became relatively inactive through the Depression and the years of World War II, waiting until society stabilized in the 1950s. Then they rallied their troops and resumed attacking educational systems, where young minds were being indoctrinated with Darwinist dogma. And this time they did it right. Instead of wasting effort and money lobbying state legislatures, they moved out into the heartland and focused on local school boards, insisting belief in evolution was costing America its faith in God and religion, and destroying morality and traditional family life. 
When the social eruptions of the 1960s appeared, Creationists were quick to say We told you so! They blamed the teaching of Godless evolution as a primary cause, demanding that religion be put back in schools as a quick way to return to the good old days. At the same time, they hit upon their most brilliant tactic yet: formally changing their basic tenet from Biblical Creationism to Creation Science. Then, in an equally brilliant stroke, they shifted from lobbying school boards to getting themselves elected to them. Predictably, they enjoyed great success in the Bible Belt girdling the Deep South.  
Apart from making most real  scientists gag every time they hear it, Creation Science provided Creationists with the cachet of authority they had been seekingand needingsince Darwin so thoroughly sandbagged them. And, it has been remarkably effective in shifting public opinion away from the scientific position. Gallup Polls taken in 1982, 1993, 1997, and 1999 show the percentage of Americans who believed God created human beings in their present form at one time within the past 10,000 years was 44%, 47%, 44%, and 47% respectively. In a recent Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll asking people what they thought about human origins, 15% said they accepted Darwinian evolution, 50% believed the Biblical account, and 26% felt there was truth on both sides. The most perceptive group might well have been the 9% who said they were not sure. 
One could argue that those numbers are more of a comment on Americas failing educational system than on the effectiveness of Creationist strategies. But in any case, the Creationist cacophony reached a fever pitch in August of last year, when the Kansas State Board of Education voted by a 6 to 4 margin to eliminate from the states high school curricula the teaching of not only biological evolution, which received virtually all media focus, but also of geologys Old Earth theories, and of cosmologys Big Bang of universal creation. The Kansas School Board went after science across the board.  
That vote has been by far the high point of the modern Creationist offensive, but courts are still loath to accept any comparison between so-called Creation science and what is considered real science. In 1981 Arkansas and Louisiana passed laws requiring that Creationism be taught in public schools. In 1982 a U.S. District Court declared the Arkansas law unconstitutional. In 1987 the Louisiana case made its way to the Supreme Court, which ruled Creationism was essentially a religious explanation of lifes origins and therefore favored one religion (Christianity) over others (Islam, Hindu, etc.). 
As usual, after the 1987 defeat the Creationists went back to the drawing board and devised yet another shrewd strategy, which has carried them through the 1990s and into this new millennium. They have transformed Creation Science into theories they call Sudden Appearance outside the Bible Belt, or Intelligent Design within it. Both versions carefully avoid referring to God by name or to specific aspects of religion, but they strongly focus on the Achilles heel of Darwinism, which is that all species thus far discovered in the fossil record appear suddenly, whole and complete, males and females, leaving no plausible way they could have evolved by Darwinian gradualism. 
Fortunately for Darwinists, the legal protection provided by the Supreme Court currently trumps the Achilles heel their rivals keep pointing out. But that tide is running and running strong. Eventually it will turn on them the way the tide of ignorance turned on Creationists when Darwin appeared, and then again at the Monkey Trial. But as long as its legal protection remains intact, Darwinist dogma is in no imminent danger of being confronted with Creationist dogma in the nations classrooms. In fact, all this could soon be moot because many school districts have responded to the pressures being applied to them by refusing to teach either viewpoint, which will leave a large and serious hole in the educational background of our next generation of students. 
Despite the extreme volatility of these issues, and the immediate rancor received after aligning with the wrong side in someone elses view, any objective analysis will conclude that both Darwinists and Creationists are wrong to a significant degree. Indeed, how could it be otherwise when each can shoot such gaping holes in the other? If either side was as correct as, say, Einsteins general theory of relativity, which  apart from occasional dissonance with quantum mechanics  has faced no serious challenge since Einstein revealed it to an awestruck world in 1915, there would be no issues to debate: one side would be declared right, the other would be wrong, and that would be that. 
We all know right when we see it, just as we all should know wrong. Anyone without a vested interest should be willing to accept that the earth is vastly older than 6,000 years. Likewise, despite widespread proof of the noticeable changes in body parts called for by microevolution, there is no clearly definitive evidence for the innumerable species-into-higher-species transformations required by macroevolution. If Charles Darwin were alive today and could be presented with the facts that have accumulated since his death, even he would have to admit his theory has turned out wrong. 
Let us make the assertion, then, that both Darwinists and Creationists are wrong to such a degree that their respective theories are ripe for overthrow. It is simply a matter of time and circumstance before one or another piece of evidence appears that is so clear in its particulars and so overwhelming in its validity, both sides will have no choice but to lay down their bullhorns and laptops and slink off into historys dustbin, where so many other similarly bankrupt theories have gone before them. But until that happens, what about those who would choose to explore more objective and possibly more accurate scenarios for the creation of life itself and human life in particular?  
Because of their all-out, do-or-die strategies, Darwinists and Creationists stand at opposite ends of a very wide intellectual spectrum, which leaves a huge swath of middle ground available to anyone with the courage to explore it. Moreover, the signposts along that middle ground are numerous and surprisingly easy to negotiate. All thats required is a willingness to see with open eyes and to perceive with an open mind. 
The basic Darwinist position regarding how life began is called spontaneous animation, which J.W. Dawson complained about back in 1873. It is the idea that life somehow springs into existence suddenly, all by itself, when proper mixtures of organic and inorganic compounds are placed into proximity and allowed to percolate their way across the immensely deep chasm between non-life and life. Based on everything known about the technical aspects of that processfrom 1873 until nowit is quite safe to say spontaneous animation doesnt have the proverbial snowballs chance of enduring.  
Ignore the howls of protest echoing from far off to our right. Here on the middle ground reality rules, and reality says there is simply no way even the simplest life formsay, a sub-virus-sized microbe utilizing only a handful of RNA/DNA componentscould have pulled itself together from any conceivable brew of chemical compounds and started functioning as a living entity. To cite just one reason, no laboratory has ever found a way to coax lipids into forming themselves into a functional cell membrane, which is essential for encasing any living microbe. Then there is permeability, which would also have to be a part of the mix so nutrients could be taken into the cell and wastes could be expelled.  
Fred Hoyle, a brilliant English astronomer and mathematician, once offered what has become the most cogent analogy for this process. He said it would be comparable to a tornado striking a junkyard and assembling a jetliner from the materials therein. This is because the complexity evident at even the tiniest level of life is mind boggling beyond belief. In short, it could not and did not happen, and anyone insisting otherwise is simply wrong, misguided, or terrified of dealing with what its loss means to their world view. 
So, if spontaneous animation is simply not possible, how does life come into existence? How can it be? Here we must call on an old friend, Sherlock Holmes, who was fond of saying that in any quest for truth one should first eliminate whatever is flatly impossible. Whatever remains, however unlikely, will be the truth. With spontaneous animation eliminated, that leaves only one other viable alternative: intervention at some level by some entity or entities. (Ignore the rousing cheers erupting far to our left.)  
Before anyone in our group of middle-ground explorers goes jogging off toward those would-be winners, understand that entity or entities does not mean God in the anthropomorphic sense espoused by Creationists. It means some aspect or aspects of our present reality that we do not officially acknowledgeyetbut which nonetheless exist and act on us, and interact with us, in ways we are only just beginning to understand. 
As of today, all human beings are bound by three dimensions. We are born into them, we live in them, and we die in them. During our lives we struggle to fit all of our personal experiences into them. Some of us, however, undergo experiences or receive insights which indicate other levels of reality might exist. These dont manifest in our usual corporeal (body) sense, but in purely ethereal forms that nonetheless have enough substance to make them perceivable by those locked into the three known dimensions. 
For as woo-woo metaphysical as that might seem at first glimpse, please take a closer look. There is a slowly emerging branch of new science which deals with these other dimensions. Called hyperdimensional physics, it concerns itself with devising and executing experiments thathowever brieflyprovide glimpses into these other realms of reality. It is not greatly different from the earliest days of Einsteins time-and-motion studies, when he was trying to break the 200-year-old academic straitjacket imposed by Newtonian physics. Now Einsteins revolutionary physics has become the straitjacket, and hyperdimensional physics will eventually become the means to break out of it and move humanity to a much higher level of awareness and understanding of true reality.  
Detailing these experiments is grist for another mill, but suffice to say that string theorists are leading the charge. (Their subatomic theory of everything requires ten or more new dimensions in order to be considered valid.) In due course they and others will progress from the barest glimpses being obtained at present to fully opening the doors to those other dimensions. When they do, they are likely to find them populated by the kind of entity or entities discussed earlier, beings who are not necessarily God with a capital G, but rather gods with small gs. Perhaps, even, the same plural gods mentioned in Genesis (Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.) But that, too, is grist for another mill. However, it does lead into an analysis of how humanity came to be as it is. 
The problem is simple: nobody in any conceivable position of power wants to confront the truth about human origins. No scientist, no politician, no clergyman could hope to preserve his or her authorityat  whatever levelafter actively coming forward with the truth about this incendiary subject. They have all seen colleagues disappeared from their ranks for stepping out of line, so they know retribution is swift and sure. 
As noted above, Creationists insist that God (a singular male now, reduced from the genderless plurals of original Biblical text) created man in His own image, after His own likeness. Well, if thats true, He must have been having a heck of a bad day, because we humans are a poorly designed species. True, we do have highly capable brains, but for some reason we are only allowed to use a relatively small portion of them. (Now we will hear frantic howls of protest from the scientists off to our right, but ignore them. If 100 idiot savants can access 100 different portions of their brains to perform their astounding intellectual feats, then those same portions must be in our brains, too, but our normalcy keeps us from being able to access them. Period.) 
Morally we are a terrible mishmash of capacities, capable of evil incarnate at one moment and love incarnate the next, while covering every range of emotion in between. Physically we carry more than 4,000 genetic disorders, with each of us averaging about 50 (some carry many more, some many less). New ones are found on a regular basis. No other species has more than a handful of serious ones, and none which kill 100% of carriers before they can reach maturity and reproduce. We have dozens of those. So how did they get into us? Better yet, how do they stay in us? If they are 100% fatal before reproduction is possible, how could they possibly spread through our entire gene pool? 
If we assume God was at His best the day He decided to create us, functioning in His usual infallible mode, that gives Him no legitimate excuse for designing us so poorly. Surely He could have given us no more physical disorders than, say, our nearest genetic relatives, gorillas and chimps. A little albinism never hurt any species, not those two or ours or dozens of others that carry it, so why couldnt He just leave it at that? What could have been the point of making us much less genetically robust than all the other species we are supposed to be masters of? 
There is no point to it, which is my point. It simply didnt happen that way. 
Now, lets examine the Darwinist dogma that humans descended from primates (chimps and gorillas) by gradually transitioning through a four-million-year-long series of prehumans known as Australopithecines (Lucy, etc.) and early Homos (Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus, etc.). Even though Australopithecines undoubtedly walked upright (their kind would have left the famous pair of bipedal tracks at Laetoli, Tanzania, 3.5 million years ago), their skulls are so ape-like as to be ineligible as a possible human ancestor. But lets assume that somehow they bridged the evolutionary gap between themselves and early Homos, which indeed are in the ballpark of physical comparison with humans.  
Notice that in any series of photos showing the skulls of the Homo prehumans, little changes over time except the size of their brains, which increase by leaps of roughly 200 cubic centimeters between species. Every bone in those skulls is much denser and heavier than in humans; they all had missing foreheads; huge brow ridges; large, round eye sockets holding nocturnal (night) vision eyes; wide cheekbones; broad nasal passages beneath noses that had to splay flat across their faces (no uplift of bone to support an off-the-face nose); mouths that extend outward in the prognathous fashion; and no chins.  
Each of those features is classic higher primate, and they predominate in the fossil record until only 120,000 years ago, when genuinely human-looking creaturesthe Cro-Magnonsappear literally overnight (in geological terms), with absolutely everything about them starkly different from their predecessors. In fact, the list of those differences is so lengthy, it is safe to say humans are not even primates! (More howls of outrage from off to our right, but please keep to the middle ground and consider the evidence.) 
According to our mitochondrial DNA, humans have existed as a distinct species for only about 200,000 years, give or take several thousand. This creates quite a problem for Darwinists because they contend we are part of the sequence extending back through the Australopithecines at four million years ago. Furthermore, we should follow directly after the Neanderthals, which followed Homo Erectus. But now the Neanderthals, which existed for about 300,000 years and overlapped Cro-Magnons by about 100,000 of those, have provided mitochondrial samples which indicate they are not related closely enough to humans to be direct ancestors. This compounds yet another serious transition problem because human brains are on average 100 cubic centimeters smaller than Neanderthal brains! How might that have happened if we are on a direct ancestral line with them? 
Anthropologists are now left with only Homo Erectus as a possible direct ancestor for humans, and Erectus supposedly went extinct 300,000 years ago100,000 before we appeared. Obviously, something had to give here, andas in wartruth has been the first casualty. Recently anthropologists started reevaluating Homo Erectus fossils from Indonesia and guess what? They are now finding possible dates as early as 30,000 years ago, well beneath the 120,000 years ago Cro-Magnons first appeared in the fossil record. Such a surprise! However, scientists still have to account for our sudden appearance and our wide array of new traits never before seen among primates.  
Understand this: humans are not primates! Yes, we do fit the technical definition of having flexible hands and feet with five digits, but beyond that there is no reasonable comparison to make. We dont have primate bone density (theirs is far more robust than ours) or muscular strength (pound for pound they are 5 to 10 times stronger than we are); but we do have foreheads; minimal brow ridges; small, rectangular-shaped eye sockets holding poor night-vision eyes; narrow nasal passages with noses that protrude off our faces; mouths that are flat rather than prognathous; we have chins; and we are bipedal. 
Apart from those skeletal differences, we dont have primate brains (that is an understatement!), throats (we cant eat or drink and breathe at the same time; they can); voices (they can make loud calls, but we can modulate them into the tiny pieces of sound that make up words); body covering (they all have pelts of hair from head to toe, thick on the back and lighter on the front; we have no pelt and our thickness pattern is reversed); we cool ourselves by sweating profusely (they tend to pant, though some sweat lightly); we shed tears of emotion (no other primate does); we do not regulate our salt intake (all other primates do); we have a layer of fat of varying thickness attached to the underside of our skin, which primates do not have; that fat layer prevents wounds to our skin from healing as easily as wounds to primate skin; human females have no estrus cycle, as do all primates; but the number one difference between humans and primates is that humans have only 46 chromosomes while all higher primates have 48! 
This last fact is the clincher. You cant lose two entire chromosomes (think how much DNA that is!) from your supposedly parent species and somehow end up better. And not just better, a light year better! It defies logic to the point where any reasonable person should be willing to concede that something special happened in the case of humans, something well beyond the ordinary processes of life on Earth. And it did. The missing chromosomes, it turns out, are not actually missing. The second and third chromosomes in higher primates have somehow been spliced together (there is no other term for it) by an utterly inexplicablesome might call it miraculous technique. 
Once again, the only plausible explanation seems to be intervention. But by whom? The same hyperdimensional entity or entities that might have created life in the first place? Not necessarily. Certainly that would have to be considered as a possibility, but humans  were probably a breeze to create relative to initiating life and engineering all subsequent forms. That leaves room for three-dimensional assistance. In other words, we could have been created as we are by other three-dimensional beings who for reasons of their own decided to make us in their own image, after their own likeness. 
Accepting such a heretical explanation would certainly go a long way toward resolving these anomalies about humanity: (1) our many inexplicable differences from primates; (2) our all-too-sudden appearance in the fossil record; (3) our much-too-recent speciation; (4) our lack of a clear ancestor species; (5) our astounding number of genetic flaws; and (6) the unmistakable splicing done to our second and third chromosomes. The last two are, not surprisingly, hallmarks of hybridization and genetic manipulation, which is exactly how human origins were accounted for byget thisthe ancient Sumerians! We began this essay with them, and now we will end it with them. 
As was noted at the beginning, the Sumerians were Earths first great culture, emerging fully-formed from the Stone Age around 6,000 years ago (shades of Bishop Ussher!). They utilized over 100 of the firsts we now attribute to a high civilization, among them the first writing (cuneiform), which they inscribed on clay tablets that were fired in kilns (another first) into stone. Thousands of those tablets have survived, and in many of them the Sumerians describe a period wherein hundreds of three-dimensional gods (with a small g) came to Earth from another planet orbiting in a long clockwise ellipse around the Sun rather than in a counterclockwise circle like the other planets. 
While on Earth, those vastly superior beings decided to create for themselves a group of slaves and servants they would call Adamu. It was written in stone over 4,000 years ago (1,500 years before the Old Testament) that those gods agreed to make the Adamu in our own image, after our own likeness. They did it by processes that sound remarkably like genetic engineering, in vitro fertilization, and hybridization. Perhaps most remarkable of all, they said they did it around 200,000 years ago, precisely when our mitochondrial DNAagainst all expectationssays we originate as a species! 
When the task of creating the Adamu was complete, the first of them were put to work in the Lower World of deep, hot mineshafts in southern Africa, wherenot to put too fine a point on itnearly every modern authority agrees that humankind originated. Eventually a surplus of slaves and servants became available, so that group was sent to work in the lush Upper World home of our alleged creators, which they called the E.Din (home of the righteous ones) located in the Tigris-Euphrates Valley of modern Iraq. 
All went well until the end of the last Ice Age, around 15,000 years ago, when the gods realized the immense icecap covering Antarctica was rapidly melting, and at some point in the future its massive edges would drop into the surrounding oceans and cause gigantic tidal waves to sweep across Earths lowlands, where their cities were. Because all Adamu could not be saved, several of the best were chosen to survive in a specially constructed  boat able to withstand the immense tsunamis that were certain to strike. 
When the time came, the gods boarded their spacecraft and lifted off into the heavens, from where they watched the devastation below and were shocked by the level of destruction. But when the waters receded enough for them to come down and land in the Zagros Mountain highlands, above the now mud- and sludge-covered E.Din valley, they joined the surviving Adamu to begin rebuilding their decimated civilization. 
Again, not to put too fine a point on it, but most scholars now agree that modern civilization (settlements, farming, etc.) inexplicably began around 12,000 years ago in the Zagros Mountain highlands, where settlements would be extraordinarily difficult to build and maintain, and where terrace farming in poorly watered, sparse mountain soil (not to mention arid weather) would be vastly more demanding than in any fertile, well-watered lowlands. Yet the same scholars do not accept that there was any kind of worldwide flood event which may have caused a prior civilization to have to reboot itself in dry highlands. 
In general, modern scholars scoff at all similar correlations to the Sumerian texts, considering them nothing more than an extended series of coincidences. They insist the Sumerians were merely being overly creative while forming incredibly sophisticated, richly detailed myths. After all, the myriad wondrous things they described over four thousand years ago simply could not be an accurate record of their primitive reality.  
Or could it? 

 Back to List of Essays​ *[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]All Original Material C[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]opyright 2007[/FONT]*
*[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]© Lloyd Pye[/FONT]*​


----------



## afrawfraw (Mar 15, 2010)

afrawfraw said:


> It is also very difficult to come to the realization that you are a blip on the time line and as a single entity, your life has no impact or long term effects. People don't realize we have been on this planet for a second.





Miss MeanWeed said:


> The ALIENS did it
> *
> 
> DARWINISM vs. CREATIONISM*
> ...


SSSSSHHHHH! These posts are meeting for the first time...


----------



## mindphuk (Mar 15, 2010)

Miss MeanWeed said:


> The ALIENS did it
> *
> 
> DARWINISM vs. CREATIONISM*
> *A Checkered History, A Doubtful Future*​ *by Lloyd Pye*​Starting with the Sumerians, the first great culture 6,000 years ago, through the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans, everyone accepted that some form of heavenly beings hadcreated all of life and, as a crowning achievement, topped it off with humans. Now, consider that for a moment. Today the CEO of a medium-sized corporation can verbally issue an instruction to be carried out company-wide and have no hope it will reach the lower echelons intact. So the fact that *most historical cultures, from first to most recent (our own), believed essentially the same creation story is astonishing in its consistency.*


I stopped reading after that epic fail. If Mr. Pye is going to use that as the first premise in his hypothesis, his conclusion will be wrong because the premise is blatantly false.


----------



## CrackerJax (Mar 16, 2010)

Heh... the very first sentence lets you know it's all BS. What a surprise.... man nominates himself as the crown jewel of the planet. 

What a surprise that our religion reflects the very same thing.


----------



## Handson (Mar 17, 2010)

I'm not a believer in us turning from dumb apes to intelligent beings over the space of 5000 years and too much information has been destroyed in the past. Ancient South American scripts were burnt by the conquistadores, and the Ancient Egyptian Library of Alexandria was also destroyed. 

I believe in genetic manipulation from things from another planet or dimension.

Don't get me wrong, I believe in evolution. For example, the cannabis plant evolves faster than humans 

Here's a line from one of my favourite hip hop tunes

'Yo the holy scripts from Genesis 126
Says let us make man in our image under our likeness
First of all whos they?
You see if God was truly a single entity thats not what he would say


----------



## afrawfraw (Mar 17, 2010)

Handson said:


> I'm not a believer in us turning from dumb apes to intelligent beings over the space of 5000 years and too much information has been destroyed in the past. Ancient South American scripts were burnt by the conquistadores, and the Ancient Egyptian Library of Alexandria was also destroyed.
> 
> I believe in genetic manipulation from things from another planet or dimension.
> 
> ...


I don't believe we evolved from another ape species in 5,000 years...I don't think anyone does...It took a hair or two longer, my friend.


----------



## Handson (Mar 17, 2010)

afrawfraw said:


> I don't believe we evolved from another ape species in 5,000 years...I don't think anyone does...It took a hair or two longer, my friend.


You get my drift


----------



## Philly_Buddah (Mar 17, 2010)

Handson said:


> I'm not a believer in us turning from dumb apes to intelligent beings over the space of 5000 years and too much information has been destroyed in the past. Ancient South American scripts were burnt by the conquistadores, and the Ancient Egyptian Library of Alexandria was also destroyed.
> 
> I believe in genetic manipulation from things from another planet or dimension.
> 
> ...


Yea I agree with all of this. I definitely believe in Evolution, but I dont believe that we just came about randomly. Theres still missing links, things that dont add up, and Ive seen too much proof of the contrary.

Have you listened to Canibus' new album? It came out last month.

Theres a lotta exposing going on and hidden messages in there too. Channel Zero is definitely a classic now

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCex_58Rg28
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mq86umv6eC0


----------



## one11 (Mar 17, 2010)

mindphuk said:


> Whale brains are much bigger than ours.
> Really, how? Why does having a complex brain prove we didn't evolve from a species that gave rise to apes that also have complex brains? Yep, it only took a few million years to develop into us. Now if you think that's rapid, than what is slow?


 
Okay. Ask a whale to build a nucleur reactor. By brain capacity I meant what we can concieve with our minds is incredible. Do you think monkeys or dogs dream of galaxies and can explore their consciousness as we do? Can they love another so unconditionally? And now that I think of this, Dogs CAN love unconditionally huh. This is the impact of human interaction. Love is contagious. Im saying there was an outer intervention. Evolution, in ways, could have happened. But there was something else at play here, intelligent life was pollonated on this planet. Believing Evolution completely is limiting and reduces so many possibilies. Think for yourself and don't let others tell you what is fact. Besides, what makes a fact a fact? Someone ELSE tells you it is, instead of you finding out for yourself.


----------



## mindphuk (Mar 17, 2010)

one11 said:


> Okay. Ask a whale to build a nucleur reactor. By brain capacity I meant what we can concieve with our minds is incredible. Do you think monkeys or dogs dream of galaxies and can explore their consciousness as we do? Can they love another so unconditionally? And now that I think of this, Dogs CAN love unconditionally huh. This is the impact of human interaction. Love is contagious. Im saying there was an outer intervention. Evolution, in ways, could have happened. But there was something else at play here, intelligent life was pollonated on this planet. Believing Evolution completely is limiting and reduces so many possibilies. Think for yourself and don't let others tell you what is fact. Besides, what makes a fact a fact? Someone ELSE tells you it is, instead of you finding out for yourself.


We are biased from being able to manipulate the environment and live where vision rules versus underwater where sound becomes dominant. They appear to have a very complex language which is a definite sign of intelligence. http://www.physorg.com/news11980.html

And no, I don't think dogs think in the abstract, I never suggested that animals with smaller neo cortex than people but certain whales are the exception

I don't accept evolution because I want to, I do because that's what the evidence says. I don't understand why people can't accept that intelligence was evolutionary as well. Recent research says that it was probably a big role in sexual selection. To grow a big brain has a detriment to the individual, like peacock feathers, it is wasteful and it requires enormous amounts of glucose/energy to maintain. These types of traits are exclusively sexually selected. However, intelligence was extremely important during population bottlenecks like Toba. Here, only humans that could adapt, move south and begin to adapt to a new environment and learn to exploit the resources there and learn to fish off of the coast of S. Africa. Intelligence must have played a role, you don't see other apes able to migrate and adapt so easily.


----------



## afrawfraw (Mar 17, 2010)

one11 said:


> Okay. Ask a whale to build a nucleur reactor. By brain capacity I meant what we can concieve with our minds is incredible. Do you think monkeys or dogs dream of galaxies and can explore their consciousness as we do? Can they love another so unconditionally? And now that I think of this, Dogs CAN love unconditionally huh. This is the impact of human interaction. Love is contagious. Im saying there was an outer intervention. Evolution, in ways, could have happened. But there was something else at play here, intelligent life was pollonated on this planet. Believing Evolution completely is limiting and reduces so many possibilies. Think for yourself and don't let others tell you what is fact. Besides, what makes a fact a fact? Someone ELSE tells you it is, instead of you finding out for yourself.


What is so fantastic about humans again? We have done more damage to this planet than ANY OTHER LIFE FORM to date! We always consider ourselves the "Top" of evolution...But are we really geared to survive? Do you REALLY believe we will outlive crocodiles or bacteria as a species?

We suck...


----------



## Handson (Mar 18, 2010)

Philly_Buddah said:


> Yea I agree with all of this. I definitely believe in Evolution, but I dont believe that we just came about randomly. Theres still missing links, things that dont add up, and Ive seen too much proof of the contrary.
> 
> Have you listened to Canibus' new album? It came out last month.
> 
> ...



I haven't got it yet, get paid Friday though


----------



## Miss MeanWeed (Mar 18, 2010)

*THE LITERAL CREATION OF MANKIND AT THE HANDS OF YOU-KNOW-WHAT *
*
by Lloyd Pye*​ In 1905, a 25-year-old patent clerk named Albert Einstein demolished the 200-year-old certainty that Isaac Newton knew all there was to know about basic physics. In a technical paper only a few pages long, Einstein sent a huge part of his current &#8220;reality&#8221; to history&#8217;s dustbin, where it found good company with thousands of other discards large and small. In 1905, though, Newton&#8217;s discard was about as large as the bin would hold.
Now another grand old &#8220;certainty&#8221; hovers over history&#8217;s dustbin, and it seems only a matter of time before some new Einstein writes the few pages (or many pages) that will bring it down and relegate it to history. And, as was the case in 1905, every &#8220;expert&#8221; in the world laughs heartily at any suggestion that their certainty could be struck down. Yet if facts are any yardstick&#8212;which should always be the case but frequently isn&#8217;t&#8212;Charles Darwin&#8217;s theory of evolution by natural selection is moving toward extinction.
Please note this: not everyone who challenges evolution is automatically a Creationist. Darwinists love to tar all opponents with that brush because so much of Creationist dogma is absurd. Creationists mulishly exclude themselves from serious consideration by refusing to give up fatally flawed parts of their argument, such as the literal interpretation of &#8220;six days of creation.&#8221; Of course, some have tried to take a more reasonable stance, but those few can&#8217;t be heard over the ranting of the many who refuse.
Recently a new group has entered the fray, much better educated than typical Creationists. This group has devised a theory called &#8220;Intelligent Design,&#8221; which has a wealth of scientifically established facts on its side. The ID&#8217;ers, though, give away their Creationist roots by insisting that because life at its most basic level is so incredibly and irreducibly complex, it could never have simply &#8220;come into being,&#8221; as Darwinists insist.
Actually, the &#8220;life somehow assembled itself out of organic molecules&#8221; dogma is every bit as absurd as the &#8220;everything was created in six days&#8221; dogma, which the ID&#8217;ers understand and exploit. But they also suggest that everything came into existence at the hands of a God or &#8220;by means of outside intervention,&#8221; which makes clear how they&#8217;re betting. &#8220;Outside intervention&#8221; is a transparent euphemism for (with apologies to J.K. Rowling) You-Know-What, which to Darwinists, Creationists, and ID&#8217;ers alike is the most absurd suggestion of all. Yet it can be shown that You-Know-What has the widest array of facts on its side and, in the end, has the best chance of being proved correct.
Virtually every scientist worth their doctorate will insist that somehow, someway, a form of evolution is at the heart of all life forms and processes on Earth. By &#8220;evolution&#8221; they mean the entire panoply of possible interpretations that might explain how, over vast stretches of time, simple organisms can and do transform themselves into more complex organisms. That broad definition gives science as a whole a great deal of room to bob and weave its way toward the truth about evolution, which is ostensibly its goal. However, among individual scientists that same broadness of coverage means nobody has a &#8220;lock&#8221; on the truth, which opens them up to a withering array of internecine squabbles.
In Darwin&#8217;s case, those squabbles were initially muted. Rightly or wrongly, his theory served a much higher purpose than merely challenging the way science thought about life&#8217;s processes. It provided something every scientist desperately needed: a strong counter to the intellectual nonsense pouring from pulpits in every church, synagogue, and mosque in the world. Since well before Charles Darwin was born, men of science knew full well that God did not create the Earth or anything else in the universe in six literal days. But to assert that publicly invited the same kind of censure that erupts today onto anyone who dares to openly challenge evolution. Dogma is dogma in any generation.
Darwin&#8217;s honeymoon with his scientific peers was relatively brief. It lasted only as long as they needed to understand that all he had really provided was the outline of a forest of an idea, one that only in broad terms seemed to account for life&#8217;s stunningly wide array. His forest lacked enough verifiable trees. Even so, once the overarching concept was crystallized as &#8220;natural selection,&#8221; the term &#8220;survival of the fittest&#8221; was coined to explain it to laymen. When the majority of the public became convinced that evolution was a legitimate alternative to Creationism, the scientific gloves came off. Infighting became widespread regarding the trees that made up Darwin&#8217;s forest.
Over time, scientists parsed Darwin&#8217;s original forest into more different trees than he could ever have imagined. That parsing has been wide and deep, and it has taken down countless trees at the hands of scientists themselves. But despite such thinning, the forest remains upright and intact. Somehow, someway, there is a completely natural force at work governing all aspects of the flow and change of life on Earth. That is the scientific mantra, which is chanted religiously to counter every Creationist&#8212;and now Intelligent Design&#8212;challenge to one or more of the rotten trees that frequently become obvious.
Even Darwin realized the data of his era did not provide clear-cut evidence his theory was correct. Especially troubling was the absence of &#8220;transitional species&#8221; in the fossil record. Those were needed to prove that over vast amounts of time species did in fact gradually transform into other, &#8220;higher&#8221; species. So right out of the chute the theory of evolution was on the defensive regarding one of its cornerstones, and more than 140 years later there are still no clear-cut transitional species apparent in the fossil record.
Because this is the most vulnerable part of Darwin&#8217;s theory, Creationists attack it relentlessly, which has forced scientists to periodically put forth a series of candidates to try to take the heat off. Unfortunately for them, in every case those &#8220;missing links&#8221; have been shown to be outright fakes and frauds. An excellent account is found in &#8220;Icons Of Evolution&#8221; by Jonathan Wells (Regnery, 2000). But scientists are not deterred by such exposure of their shenanigans. They feel justified because, they insist, not enough time has passed for them to find what they need in a grossly incomplete fossil record.
The truth is that some lengthy fossil timelines are missing, but many more are well accounted for. Those have been thoroughly examined in the past 140-plus years, to no avail. In any other occupation, a 140-year-long trek up a blind alley would indicate a wrong approach has been taken. But not to scientists. They blithely continue forward, convinced of the absolute rightness of their mission and confident their fabled missing link could be found beneath the next overturned rock. Sooner or later, they believe, one of their members will uncover it, so they all work in harmonious concert toward that common goal. Individually, though, it&#8217;s every man or woman for themselves.

* * * * *​ 
Plants and animals evolve, eh? All right, how do they evolve?
By gradual but constant changes influenced by adaptive pressures in their environment that cause physical modifications to persist if they are advantageous.
Can you specify the kind of gradual change you&#8217;re referring to?
In any population of plants or animals, over time random genetic mutations will occur. Most will be detrimental, some will have a neutral effect, and some will confer a selective advantage, however small or seemingly inconsequential it might appear.
Really? But wouldn&#8217;t the overall population have a gene pool deep enough to absorb and dilute even a large change? Wouldn&#8217;t a small change rapidly disappear?
Well, yes, it probably would. But not in an isolated segment of the overall population. An isolated group would have a much shallower gene pool, so positive mutations would stand a much better chance of establishing a permanent place in it.
Really? What if that positive mutation gets established in the isolated group, then somehow the isolated group gets back together with the main population? Poof! The mutation will be absorbed and disappear.
Well, maybe. So let&#8217;s make sure the isolated population can&#8217;t get back with the main group until crossbreeding is no longer possible.
How would you do that?
Put a mountain range between them, something impossible to cross.
If it&#8217;s impossible to cross, how did the isolated group get there in the first place?
If you&#8217;re asking me just how isolated is isolated, let me ask you one: What kind of mutations were you talking about being absorbed?
Small, absolutely random changes in base pairs at the gene level.
Really? Why not at the chromosome level? Wouldn&#8217;t change at the base pair level be entirely too small to create any significant change? Wouldn&#8217;t a mutation almost have to be at the chromosome level to be noticeable?
Who says? Change at that level would probably be too much, something the organism couldn&#8217;t tolerate.
Maybe we&#8217;re putting too much emphasis on mutations.
Right! What about environmental pressures? What if a species suddenly found itself having to survive in a significantly changed environment?
One where its members must adapt to the new circumstances or die out?
Exactly! How would they adapt? Could they just will themselves to grow thicker fur or stronger muscles or larger size?
That sounds like mutations have to play a part.
Mutations, eh? All right, how do they play a part?

* * * * *​ 
This game of intellectual thrust and parry goes on constantly at levels of minutia that boggle an average mind. Traditional Darwinists are one-upped by neo-Darwinists at every turn. Quantum evolutionists refashion the work of those who support the theory of peripheral isolates. Mathematicians model mutation rates and selective forces, which biologists do not trust. Geneticists have little use for paleontologists, who return the favor in spades (pun intended). Cytogenetics labors to find a niche alongside genetics proper. Population geneticists utilize mathematical models that challenge paleontologists and systematists. Sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists struggle to make room for their ideas. All perform a cerebral dance of elegant form and exquisite symmetry.
Their dance is, ironically, evolution writ large throughout science as a process. New bits of data are put forth to a peer group. The new data are discussed, written about, criticized, written about again, criticized some more. This is gradualism at work, shaping, reshaping, and reshaping again if necessary, until the new data can comfortably fit into the current paradigm in any field, whatever it is. This is necessary to make it conform as closely as possible to every concerned scientist&#8217;s current way of thinking. To do it any other way is to invite prompt rejection under a fusillade of withering criticism.
This system of excruciating &#8220;peer review&#8221; is how independent thinkers among scientists have always been kept in line. Darwin was an outsider until he barged into the club by sheer, overpowering brilliance. Patent clerk Einstein did the same. On the other hand, Alfred Wegener was the German meteorologist who figured out plate tectonics in 1915. Because he dared to bruise the egos of &#8220;authorities&#8221; outside his own field, he saw his brilliant discovery buried under spiteful criticism that held it down for 50 years. Every scientist in the game knows how it is played&#8230;and very few dare to challenge its rules.
The restrictions on scientists are severe, but for a very good reason. They work at the leading edges of knowledge, from where the view can be anything from confusing to downright terrifying. Among those who study the processes of life on Earth, they must cope with the knowledge that a surprising number of species have no business being here. In some cases they can&#8217;t even be here. Yet they are, for better or worse, and those worst-case examples must be hidden or at least obscured from the general public. But no matter how often facts are twisted, data are concealed, or reality is denied, the truth is out there.
There are two basic forms of plants and animals: wild and domesticated. The wild ones far outnumber the domesticated ones, which may explain why vastly more research is done on the wild forms. But it could just as easily be that scientists shy away from the domesticated ones because the things they find when examining them are so far outside the accepted evolutionary paradigm.
Nearly all domesticated plants are believed to have appeared between10,000 and 5,000 years ago, with different groups coming to different parts of the world at different times. Initially, in the so-called &#8220;Fertile Crescent&#8221; of modern Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon came wheat, barley, and legumes, among others. Later on, in the Far East, came wheat, millet, rice, and yams. Later still, in the New World, came maize (corn), peppers, beans, squash, tomatoes and potatoes. Many have &#8220;wild&#8221; predecessors that were apparently a starting point for the domesticated variety, but others&#8212;like many common vegetables&#8212; have no obvious precursors. But for those that do, such as wild grasses, grains, and cereals, how they turned into wheat, barley, millet, rice, etc., is a profound mystery.
No botanist can conclusively explain how wild plants gave rise to domesticated ones. The emphasis there is on &#8220;conclusively.&#8221; Botanists have no trouble hypothesizing elaborate scenarios in which Neolithic (New Stone Age) farmers somehow figured out how to hybridize wild grasses and grains and cereals, not unlike Gregor Mendel when he cross-bred pea plants to figure out the mechanics of genetic inheritance. It all sounds so simple and so logical, almost no one outside scientific circles ever examines it closely.
Gregor Mendel never bred his pea plants to be anything other than pea plants. He created short ones, tall ones, and different colored ones, but they were always pea plants that produced peas. (Pea plants are a domesticated species, too, but that is irrelevant to the point to be made here.) On the other hand, those Stone Age farmers who were fresh out of their caves and only just beginning to turn soil for the first time (as the &#8220;official&#8221; scenario goes), somehow managed to transform the wild grasses, grains, and cereals growing around them into their domesticated &#8220;cousins.&#8221; Is that possible? Only through a course in miracles.
Actually, it requires countless miracles within two large categories of miracles. The first was that the wild grasses and grains and cereals were useless to humans. The seeds and grains were maddeningly small, like pepper flakes or salt crystals, which put them beyond the grasping and handling capacity of human fingers. They were also hard, like tiny nutshells, making it impossible to convert them to anything edible. Lastly, their chemistry was suited to nourishing animals, not humans. So wild varieties were entirely too small, entirely too tough, and nutritionally inappropriate for humans. They needed to be greatly expanded in size, greatly softened in texture, and overhauled at the molecular level, which would be an imposing challenge for modern botanists, much less Neolithic farmers.
Despite the seeming impossibility of meeting those daunting objectives, modern botanists are confident the first sodbusters had all they needed to do it: time and patience. Over hundreds of generations of selective crossbreeding, they consciously directed the genetic transformation of the few dozen that would turn out to be most useful to humans. And how did they do it? By the astounding feat of doubling, tripling, and quadrupling the number of chromosomes in the wild varieties! In a few cases they did better than that. Domestic wheat and oats were elevated from an ancestor with 7 chromosomes to their current 42, expansion by a factor of six. Sugar cane expanded from a 10-chromosome ancestor to the 80-chromosome monster it is today, a factor of eight. The chromosomes of others, like bananas and apples, only multiplied by factors of two or three, while peanuts, potatoes, tobacco and cotton, among others, expanded by factors of four.
This is not as astounding as it sounds because many wild flowering plants and trees have multiple chromosome sets. But that brings up what Charles Darwin himself called the &#8220;abominable mystery&#8221; of flowering plants. The first ones appear in the fossil record between 150 and 130 million years ago, primed to multiply into over 200,000 known species. But no one can explain their presence because there is no connective link to any form of plants that preceded them. It is as if&#8230;.dare I say it?&#8230;.they were brought to Earth by something akin to You-Know-What. If so, then it could well be they were delivered with a built-in capacity to develop multiple chromosome sets, and somehow our Neolithic forebears cracked the codes for the ones most advantageous to humans.
However the codes were cracked, the great expansion of genetic material in each cell of the domestic varieties caused them to grow much larger than their wild ancestors. As they grew, their seeds and grains became large enough to be easily seen, picked up, and manipulated by human fingers. Simultaneously, the seeds and grains softened to a degree where they could be milled, cooked, and consumed. And at the same time, their cellular chemistry was altered enough to begin providing nourishment to humans who ate them. The only word that remotely equates with that achievement is: miracle.
Of course, &#8220;miracle&#8221; implies there was actually a chance that such complex manipulations of nature could be carried out by primitive yeomen in eight geographical areas over 5,000 years. This strains credulity because in each case in each area someone had to actually look at a wild progenitor and imagine what it could become, or should become, or would become. Then they had to somehow insure that their vision would be carried forward through countless generations that had to remain committed to planting, harvesting, culling, and crossbreeding wild plants that put no food on their tables during their lifetimes, but which might feed their descendants in some remotely distant future.
It is difficult to try to concoct a more unlikely&#8212;even absurd&#8212;scenario, yet to modern-day botanists it is a gospel they believe with a fervor that puts many &#8220;six day&#8221; Creationists to shame. Why? Because to confront its towering absurdity would force them to turn to You-Know-What for a more logical and plausible explanation.
To domesticate a wild plant without using artificial (i.e. genetic) manipulation, it must be modified by directed crossbreeding, which is only possible through the efforts of humans. So the equation is simple. First, wild ancestors for many (but not all) domestic plants do seem apparent. Second, most domesticated versions did appear from 10,000 to 5,000 years ago. Third, the humans alive at that time were primitive barbarians. Fourth, in the past 5,000 years no plants have been domesticated that are nearly as valuable as the dozens that were &#8220;created&#8221; by the earliest farmers all around the world. Put an equal sign after those four factors and it definitely does not add up to any kind of Darwinian model.
Botanists know they have a serious problem here, but all they can suggest is that it simply had to have occurred by natural means because no other intervention&#8212;by God or You-Know-What&#8212;can be considered under any circumstances. That unwavering stance is maintained by all scientists, not just botanists, to exclude overwhelming evidence such as the fact that in 1837 the Botanical Garden BIN RAS in St. Petersburg, Russia, began concerted attempts to cultivate wild rye into a new form of domestication. They are still trying because their rye has lost none of its wild traits, especially the fragility of its stalk and its small grain. Therein lies the most embarrassing conundrum botanists face.
To domesticate a wild grass like rye, or any wild grain or cereal (which was done time and again by our Neolithic forebears), two imposing hurdles must be cleared. These are the problems of rachises and glumes, which I discuss in my book, &#8220;Everything You Know Is Wrong&#8212;Book One: Human Origins&#8221; pgs. 283-285 (available now). Glumes are botany&#8217;s name for husks, the thin covers of seeds and grains that must be removed before humans can digest them. Rachises are the tiny stems that attach seeds and grains to their stalks.
While growing, glumes and rachises are strong and durable so rain won&#8217;t knock the seeds and grains off their stalks. At maturity they become so brittle that a breeze will shatter them and release their cargo to propagate. Such a high degree of brittleness makes it impossible to harvest wild plants because every grain or seed would be knocked loose during the harvesting process. So in addition to enlarging and softening and nutritionally altering the seeds and grains of dozens of wild plants, the earliest farmers had to also figure out how to finely adjust the brittleness of every plant&#8217;s glumes and rachises.
That adjustment was of extremely daunting complexity, perhaps more complex than the transformational process itself. The rachises had to be toughened enough to hold seeds and grains to their stalks during harvesting, yet remain brittle enough to be easily collected by human effort during what has come to be known as &#8220;threshing.&#8221; Likewise, the glumes had to be made tough enough to withstand harvesting after full ripeness was achieved, yet still be brittle enough to shatter during the threshing process. And&#8212;here&#8217;s the kicker&#8212;each wild plant&#8217;s glumes and rachises required completely different degrees of adjustment, and the final amount of each adjustment had to be perfectly precise!
In short, there is not a snowball&#8217;s chance this happened as botanists claim it did.

As with plants, animal domestication followed a pattern of development that extended 10,000 to 5,000 years ago. It also started in the Fertile Crescent, with the &#8220;big four&#8221; of cattle, sheep, goats, and pigs, among others. Later, in the Far East, came ducks, chickens, and water buffalo, among others. Later still, in the New World, came llamas and vicuna. This process was not simplified by expanding the number of chromosomes. All animals&#8212;wild and domesticated&#8212;are diploid, which means they have two sets of chromosomes, one from each parent. The number of chromosomes varies as widely as in plants (humans have 46), but there are always only two sets (humans have 23 in each).
The only &#8220;tools&#8221; available to Neolithic herdsmen were those available to farming kinsmen: time and patience. By the same crossbreeding techniques apparently utilized by farmers, wild animals were selectively bred for generation after generation until enough gradual modifications accumulated to create domesticated versions of wild ancestors. As with plants, this process required anywhere from hundreds to thousands of years in each case, and was also accomplished dozens of times in widely separated areas around the globe. Once again, we face the problem of trying to imagine those first herdsmen with enough vision to imagine a &#8220;final model,&#8221; to start the breeding process during their own lifetimes, and to have it carried out over centuries until the final model was achieved.
This was much trickier than simply figuring out which animals had a strong pack or herding instinct that would eventually allow humans to take over as &#8220;leaders&#8221; of the herd or pack. For example, it took serious cajones to decide to bring a wolf cub into a campsite with the intention of teaching it to kill and eat selectively, and to earn its keep by barking at intruders (adult wolves rarely bark). And who could look at the massive, fearsome, ill-tempered aurochs and visualize a much smaller, much more amiable cow? Even if somebody could have visualized it, how could they have hoped to accomplish it? An aurochs calf (or a wolf cub for that matter) carefully and lovingly raised by human &#8220;parents&#8221; would still grow up to be a full-bodied adult with hard-wired adult instincts.
However it was done, it wasn&#8217;t by crossbreeding. Entire suites of genes must be modified to change the physical characteristics of animals. (In an interesting counterpoint to wild and domesticated plants, domesticated animals are usually smaller than their wild progenitors). But with animals something more&#8230;something ineffable&#8230;must be changed to alter their basic natures from wild to docile. To accomplish it remains beyond modern abilities, so attributing such capacity to Neolithic humans is an insult to our intelligence.
All examples of plant and animal &#8220;domestication&#8221; are incredible in their own right, but perhaps the most incredible is the cheetah. There is no question it was one of the first tamed animals, with a history stretching back to early Egypt, India, and China. As with all such examples, it could only have been created through selective breeding by Neolithic hunters, gatherers, or early farmers. One of those three must get the credit.
The cheetah is the most easily tamed and trained of all the big cats. No reports are on record of a cheetah killing a human. It seems specifically created for high speeds, with an aerodynamically designed head and body. Its skeleton is lighter than other big cats; its legs are long and slim, like the legs of a greyhound. Its heart, lungs, kidneys, and nasal passages are enlarged, allowing its breathing to jump from 60 per minute at rest to 150 bpm during a chase. Its top speed is 70 miles per hour while a thoroughbred tops out at around 38 mph. Nothing on a savanna can outrun it. It can be outlasted, but not outrun.
Cheetahs are unique because they combine physical traits of two distinctly different animal families: dogs and cats. They belong to the family of cats, but they look like long-legged dogs. They sit and hunt like dogs. They can only partially retract their claws, like dogs instead of cats. Their paws are thick and hard like dogs. They contract diseases that only dogs suffer from. The light-colored fur on their body is like the fur of a shorthaired dog. However, to climb trees they use the first claw on their front paws in the same way that cats do. In addition to their &#8220;dog only&#8221; diseases, they also get &#8220;cat only&#8221; ones. And the black spots on their bodies are, inexplicably, the texture of cat&#8217;s fur.
There is something even more inexplicable about cheetahs. Genetic tests have been done on them and the surprising result was that in the 50 specimens tested, they were all&#8212;every one&#8212;genetically identical with all the others! This means the skin or internal organs of any of the thousands of cheetahs in the world could be switched with the organs of any other cheetah and not be rejected. The only other place such physical homogeneity is seen is in rats and other animals that have been genetically altered in labs.
Cue the music from &#8220;The Twilight Zone&#8221;&#8230;.
Cheetahs stand apart, of course, but all domesticated animals have traits that are not explainable in terms that stand up to rigorous scientific scrutiny. Rather than deal with the embarrassment of confronting such issues, scientists studiously ignore them and, as with the mysteries of domesticated plants, explain them away as best they can. For the cheetah, they insist it simply can not be some kind of weird genetic hybrid between cats and dogs, even though the evidence points squarely in that direction. And why? Because that, too, would move cheetahs into the forbidden zone occupied by You-Know-What.
The problem of the cheetahs&#8217; genetic uniformity is explained by something now known as the &#8220;bottleneck effect.&#8221; What it presumes is that the wild cheetah population&#8212;which must have been as genetically diverse as its long history indicates&#8212;at some recent point in time went into a very steep population decline that left only a few breeding pairs alive. From that decimation until now they have all shared the same restricted gene pool. Unfortunately, there is no record of any extinction events that would selectively remove cheetahs and leave every other big cat to develop its expected genetic variation. So for as unlikely as it seems, the &#8220;bottleneck&#8221; theory is accepted as another scientific gospel.
Here it is appropriate to remind scientists of Carl Sagan&#8217;s famous riposte when dealing with their reviled pseudoscience: &#8220;Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.&#8221; It seems apparent that Sagan learned that process in-house. It also leads us, finally, to a discussion of humans, who are so genetically recent that we, too, have been forced into one of those &#8220;bottleneck effects&#8221; that attempt to explain away the cheetah.
Like all plants and animals, whether wild or domesticated, humans are supposed to be the products of slight, gradual improvements to countless generations spawned by vastly more primitive forebears. This was firmly believed by all scientists in the 1980&#8217;s, when a group of geneticists decided to try to establish a more accurate date for when humans and chimps split from their presumed common ancestor. Paleontologists used fossilized bones to establish a timeline that indicated the split came between five and eight million years ago. That wide bracket could be narrowed, geneticists believed, by charting mutations in human mitochondrial DNA, small bits of DNA floating outside the nuclei of our cells. So they went to work collecting samples from all over the world.
When the results were in, none of the geneticists could believe it. They had to run their samples through again and again to be certain. Even then, there was hesitancy about announcing it. Everyone knew there would be a firestorm of controversy, starting with the paleontologists, who would be given the intellectual equivalent of a black eye and a bloody nose, and their heads dunked into a toilet for good measure. This would publicly embarrass them in a way that had not happened since the Piltdown hoax was exposed.
Despite the usual scientific practice of keeping a lid on data that radically differed with a current paradigm, the importance of this new evidence finally outweighed concern for the image and feelings of paleontologists. The geneticists gathered their courage and stepped into the line of fire, announcing that humans were not anywhere near the official age range of eight to five million years old. Humans were only about 200,000 years old. As expected, the howls of protest were deafening.
Time and much more testing of mitochondrial DNA and male Y-chromosomes now make it beyond doubt that the geneticists were correct. And the paleontologists have come to accept it because geneticists were able to squeeze humans through the same kind of &#8220;bottleneck effect&#8221; they used to try to ameliorate the mystery of cheetahs. By doing so they left paleontologists able to still insist that humans evolved from primitive forebears walking upright on the savannahs of Africa as long as five million years ago, but between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago &#8220;something&#8221; happened to destroy nearly all humans alive at the time, forcing them to start reproducing again from a small population of survivors.
That the &#8220;something&#8221; remains wholly unknown is a given, although Creationists wildly wave their hands like know-it-alls at the back of a classroom, desperate to suggest it was the Great Flood. But because they refuse to move away from the Biblical timeline of the event (in the range of 6,000 years ago), nobody can take them seriously. Still, it seems the two sides might work together productively on this crucial issue. If only&#8230;..
Apart from disputes about the date and circumstances of our origin as a species, there are plenty of other problems with humans. Like domesticated plants and animals, humans stand well outside the classic Darwinian paradigm. Darwin himself made the observation that humans were surprisingly like domesticated animals. In fact, we are so unusual relative to other primates that it can be solidly argued we do not belong on Earth at all&#8230;.that we are not even from Earth because we do not seem to have developed here.
We are taught that by every scientific measure humans are primates very closely related to all other primates, especially to chimpanzees and gorillas. This is so ingrained in our psyches it seems futile to even examine it, much less challenge it. But we will.
Bones. Human bones are much lighter than comparable primate bones. For that matter, our bones are much lighter than the bones of every &#8220;prehuman&#8221; ancestor through Neanderthal. The ancestor bones look like primate bones; modern human bones do not.
Muscle. Human muscles are significantly weaker than comparable muscles in primates. Pound-for-pound we are five to ten times weaker than any other primate. Any pet monkey is evidence of that. Somehow getting &#8220;better&#8221; made us much, much weaker.
Skin. Human skin is not well adapted to the amount of sunlight striking Earth. It can be modified to survive extended exposure by greatly increasing melanin (its dark pigment) at its surface, which only the black race has achieved. All others must cover themselves with clothing or frequent shade or both, or sicken from radiation poisoning.
Body Hair. Primates need not worry about direct exposure to sunlight because they are covered from head to toe in a distinctive pattern of long body hair. Because they are quadrupeds (move on all fours), the thickest is on their back, the thinnest on the chest and abdomen. Humans have lost the all-over pelt, and we have completely switched our area of thickness to the chest and abdomen while wearing the thin part on our backs.
Fat. Humans have ten times as many fat cells attached to the underside of their skin as primates. If a primate is wounded by a gash or tear in the skin, when the bleeding stops the wound&#8217;s edges lay flat near each other and can quickly close the wound by a process called &#8220;contracture.&#8221; In humans the fat layer is so thick that it pushes up through wounds and makes contracture difficult if not impossible. Also, contrary to propaganda to try to explain this oddity, the fat under human skin does not compensate for the body hair we have lost. Only in water is its insulating capacity useful; in air it is minimal at best.
Head Hair. All primates have head hair that grows to a certain length and stops. Human head hair grows to such lengths that it could be dangerous in a primitive situation. Thus, we have been forced to cut our head hair since we became a species, which might account for the sharp flakes of stones that are considered primitive hominid &#8220;tools.&#8221;
Fingernails & Toenails. All primates have fingernails and toenails that grow to a certain length and then stop, never needing paring. Human fingernails and toenails have always needed paring. Again, maybe those stone &#8220;tools&#8221; were not for butchering animals.
Skulls. The human skull is nothing like the primate skull. There is hardly any fair morphological comparison to be made apart from the general parts being the same. Their design and assembly are so radically different as to make attempts at comparison useless.
Brains. The comparison here is even more radical because human brains are so vastly different. (To say &#8220;improved&#8221; or &#8220;superior&#8221; is unfair and not germane because primate brains work perfectly well for what primates have to do to live and reproduce.)
Locomotion. The comparison here is easily as wide as the comparison of brains and skulls. Humans are bipedal, primates are quadrupeds. That says more than enough.
Speech. Human throats are completely redesigned relative to primates. The larynx has dropped to a much lower position so humans can break typical primate sounds into the tiny pieces of sound (by modulation) that have come to be human speech.
Sex. Primate females have estrous cycles and are sexually receptive only at special times. Human females have no estrous cycle in the primate sense. They are continually receptive to sex. (Unless, of course, they have the proverbial headache.)
Chromosomes. This is the most inexplicable difference of all. Primates have 48 chromosomes. Humans are considered vastly superior to them in a wide array of areas, yet somehow we have only 46 chromosomes! This begs the question of how could we lose two full chromosomes, which represents a lot of DNA, in the first place? And in the process, how could we become so much better? Nothing about it makes logical sense.
Genetic Disorders. As with all wild animals (plants, too), primates have relatively few genetic disorders spread throughout their gene pools. Albinism is one that is common to many animal groups, as well as humans. But albinism does not stop an animal with it from growing up and passing the gene for it into the gene pool. Mostly, though, serious defects are quickly weeded out in the wild. Often parents or others in a group will do the job swiftly and surely. So wild gene pools stay relatively clear. In contrast, humans have over 4,000 genetic disorders, and several of those will absolutely kill every victim before reproduction is possible. This begs the question of how such defects could possibly get into the human gene pool in the first place, much less how do they remain widespread?
Genetic Relatedness. A favorite Darwinist statistic is that the total genome (all the DNA) of humans differs from chimps by only 1% and from gorillas by 2%. This makes it seem as if evolution is indeed correct and that humans and primates are virtually kissing cousins. However, what they don&#8217;t stress is that 1% of the human genome&#8217;s 3 billion base pairs is 30 million base pairs, and to any You-Know-What that can adroitly manipulate genes, 30 million base pairs can easily add up to a tremendous amount of difference.
Everything Else. The above are the larger categories at issue in the discrepancies between primates and humans. There are dozens more listed as sub-categories below one or more of these. To delve deeper into these fascinating mysteries, check &#8220;The Scars Of Evolution&#8221; by Elaine Morgan (Oxford University Press, 1990). Her work is remarkable. And for a more in-depth discussion of the mysteries within our genes and in those of domesticated plants and animals, I cover it extensively in &#8220;Everything You Know Is Wrong&#8221; (available now).
When all of the above is taken together&#8212;the inexplicable puzzles presented by domesticated plants, domesticated animals, and humans&#8212;it is clear that Darwin cannot explain it, modern scientists cannot explain it, not Creationists nor Intelligent Designers. None of them can explain it because it is not explainable in only Earthbound terms. We will not answer these questions with any degree of satisfaction until our scientists open their minds and squelch their egos enough to acknowledge that they do not, in fact, know much about their own back yard. Until that happens, the truth will remain obscured.
My personal opinion, which is based on a great deal of independent research in a wide range of disciplines relating to human origins, is that ultimately Charles Darwin will be best known for his observation that humans are essentially like domesticated animals. I believe what Darwin observed with his own eyes and research is the truth, and modern scientists would see it as clearly as he did if only they had the motivation, or the courage, to seek it out. But for now they don&#8217;t, so until then we can only poke and prod at them in the hope of someday getting them to notice our complaints and address them.
In order to poke and prod successfully, more people have to be alerted to the fact that another scientific fraud is being perpetrated. Later editions of &#8220;Icons Of Evolution&#8221; will discuss the current era when scientists ridiculed, ignored, or simply refused to deal with a small mountain of direct, compelling evidence that outside intervention has clearly been at work in the genes of domesticated plants, animals, and humans. You-Know-What has left traces of their handiwork all over our bodies, all through our gene pools, and all that will be required is for a few &#8220;insiders&#8221; to break ranks with their brainwashed peers.
Look to the younger generation. Without mortgages to pay, families to raise, and retirements to prepare for, they can find the courage to act on strong convictions. Don&#8217;t expect it of anyone over forty, possibly even thirty. But somewhere in the world the men and women have been born who will take Darwinism down and replace it with the truth.
The fat lady is nowhere in sight, but that doesn&#8217;t mean she&#8217;s not suiting up.


http://www.lloydpye.com/flash/14-Domestication.swf -interesting quick slideshow article with pics about plant and animal domestication and it's apparent improbabilities.


----------



## PadawanBater (Mar 18, 2010)

Hey MMW, these articles are too long for most people, pick out the specifics and talk about that in your own words, that's the most effective way to get things across. Plus, I&#8217;ve heard EVERY ARGUMENT included in this article a thousand times before..
 But I&#8217;m an insomniac... so I&#8217;ll tear it apart.. 

THE LITERAL CREATION OF MANKIND AT THE HANDS OF YOU-KNOW-WHAT

by Lloyd Pye

In 1905, a 25-year-old patent clerk named Albert Einstein demolished the 200-year-old certainty that Isaac Newton knew all there was to know about basic physics. In a technical paper only a few pages long, Einstein sent a huge part of his current &#8220;reality&#8221; to history&#8217;s dustbin, where it found good company with thousands of other discards large and small. In 1905, though, Newton&#8217;s discard was about as large as the bin would hold.

...right, this is where the author starts off mentioning how science is progressive and that it changes over time when new discoveries are made. He does this so the reader says &#8220;oh well everyone thinks evolution is true just like they thought Newton&#8217;s theories were true and he was proved wrong... hmm...&#8221;... so that later he can bring it up again and say &#8220;see, just because everyone believes it doesn&#8217;t mean it&#8217;s true, it just means they&#8217;ve been brainwashed!&#8221;...

Now another grand old &#8220;certainty&#8221; hovers over history&#8217;s dustbin, and it seems only a matter of time before some new Einstein writes the few pages (or many pages) that will bring it down and relegate it to history. And, as was the case in 1905, every &#8220;expert&#8221; in the world laughs heartily at any suggestion that their certainty could be struck down. Yet if facts are any yardstick&#8212;which should always be the case but frequently isn&#8217;t&#8212;Charles Darwin&#8217;s theory of evolution by natural selection is moving toward extinction.

Gee...how did I guess that? 

Evolution is a fact, it is the backbone of biology, without it, nothing makes any sense. Every discovery *ever made* by human beings fits into the theory and adds another piece to the whole picture. 

Please note this: not everyone who challenges evolution is automatically a Creationist. 

99% of people who do not accept the theory of evolution are either clouded by religious dogma or simply ignorant of it. There&#8217;s nothing wrong with the latter, but the former is where the problems arise. I was once ignorant of it too. It&#8217;s reasonable to expect someone who does not know a goddamn thing about *anything* to question its validity, and the theory of evolution is extremely complicated when you get down to the specifics. It takes years of education to understand such concepts correctly. 

Actually, the &#8220;life somehow assembled itself out of organic molecules&#8221; dogma is every bit as absurd as the &#8220;everything was created in six days&#8221; dogma, which the ID&#8217;ers understand and exploit. But they also suggest that everything came into existence at the hands of a God or &#8220;by means of outside intervention,&#8221; which makes clear how they&#8217;re betting. &#8220;Outside intervention&#8221; is a transparent euphemism for (with apologies to J.K. Rowling) You-Know-What, which to Darwinists, Creationists, and ID&#8217;ers alike is the most absurd suggestion of all. Yet it can be shown that You-Know-What has the widest array of facts on its side and, in the end, has the best chance of being proved correct.

These statements are totally wrong and completely misleading. First, the theory of EVOLUTION says *nothing* about the origins of LIFE, just the diversity of life over time. And second, the scientists who _are studying _the origins of life are admitting they *do not know* how it got started, we have not discovered the answer to that question (as if it would matter and you guys wouldn&#8217;t deny that to the grave too..). What respected scientist would come out and make a statement about such a profound question with nothing to back it up? Lmfao... they wouldn&#8217;t. 

Virtually every scientist worth their doctorate will insist that somehow, someway, a form of evolution is at the heart of all life forms and processes on Earth. By &#8220;evolution&#8221; they mean the entire panoply of possible interpretations that might explain how, over vast stretches of time, simple organisms can and do transform themselves into more complex organisms. 

Right... so here we have a guy admitting micro-evolution happens, but denies macro-evolution. Again, very common, but here&#8217;s a statement to help the creationist mind put it in perspective; If you changed 1 million different things about yourself, do you think your own mother would be able to recognize you? 1 million *different* things. 

In Darwin&#8217;s case, those squabbles were initially muted. Rightly or wrongly, his theory served a much higher purpose than merely challenging the way science thought about life&#8217;s processes. It provided something every scientist desperately needed: a strong counter to the intellectual nonsense pouring from pulpits in every church, synagogue, and mosque in the world. Since well before Charles Darwin was born, men of science knew full well that God did not create the Earth or anything else in the universe in six literal days. But to assert that publicly invited the same kind of censure that erupts today onto anyone who dares to openly challenge evolution. Dogma is dogma in any generation.

The author attempts to make the scientists appear as if they have an alternate agenda instead of genuine inquiry. Can&#8217;t trust those mad scientists! What with their crazy facts about stuff that we use.. 

Even Darwin realized the data of his era did not provide clear-cut evidence his theory was correct. Especially troubling was the absence of &#8220;transitional species&#8221; in the fossil record. Those were needed to prove that over vast amounts of time species did in fact gradually transform into other, &#8220;higher&#8221; species. So right out of the chute the theory of evolution was on the defensive regarding one of its cornerstones, and more than 140 years later there are still no clear-cut transitional species apparent in the fossil record.

We don't need *ANY* fossils to prove the theory is correct. Without a single one the theory would stand on mountains of evidence.

Because this is the most vulnerable part of Darwin&#8217;s theory, Creationists attack it relentlessly, which has forced scientists to periodically put forth a series of candidates to try to take the heat off. Unfortunately for them, in every case those &#8220;missing links&#8221; have been shown to be outright fakes and frauds. An excellent account is found in &#8220;Icons Of Evolution&#8221; by Jonathan Wells (Regnery, 2000). But scientists are not deterred by such exposure of their shenanigans. They feel justified because, they insist, not enough time has passed for them to find what they need in a grossly incomplete fossil record.

This is bullshit. This retarded author simply does not understand that *every single fossil ever discovered is a TRANSITIONAL one.* Even you and me, our skeletons if preserved would be TRANSITIONAL from your parents generation to your kids generation, you are the TRANSITION in between. If you took measurements from the very first human beings out of Africa and compared them to modern humans, they would be EXTREMELY different in physical appearance but EXTREMELY similar in genetic information. 

The guy also puts fourth one of the worst arguments coming from the creationist batting box, this shit literally gets bunted back into the pitchers glove it&#8217;s so full of logical fail. If you have 10 scientists who spend 20 years figuring shit out, say between them they figured out a total of 40 things, then it comes to light that one of the guys is an ex-con rapist baby killer, his information cannot be trusted! ---... how the fuck does that discredit all the other discoveries made by the other scientists WHO DIDN&#8217;T LIE about anything? To deny the theory of evolution is to accept a global conspiracy.

The truth is that some lengthy fossil timelines are missing, but many more are well accounted for. Those have been thoroughly examined in the past 140-plus years, to no avail. In any other occupation, a 140-year-long trek up a blind alley would indicate a wrong approach has been taken. But not to scientists. They blithely continue forward, convinced of the absolute rightness of their mission and confident their fabled missing link could be found beneath the next overturned rock. Sooner or later, they believe, one of their members will uncover it, so they all work in harmonious concert toward that common goal. Individually, though, it&#8217;s every man or woman for themselves.

Fuck! How stupid could you be! I&#8217;m sitting here in awe hoping this guy didn&#8217;t get this shitty article published anywhere kids could possibly read it. It&#8217;s nothing but propaganda. I couldn&#8217;t emphasize this anymore &#8211; *every single fossil ever found, EVER, fits into the theory of evolution.* We&#8217;ve even made discoveries based on predictions made by the theory of evolution. Talk about fulfilled prophecy &#8211; there you go. 

 That&#8217;s a start... but you get the idea.

 Post better material.


----------



## one11 (Mar 18, 2010)

mindphuk said:


> We are biased from being able to manipulate the environment and live where vision rules versus underwater where sound becomes dominant. They appear to have a very complex language which is a definite sign of intelligence. http://www.physorg.com/news11980.html
> 
> And no, I don't think dogs think in the abstract, I never suggested that animals with smaller neo cortex than people but certain whales are the exception
> 
> I don't accept evolution because I want to, I do because that's what the evidence says. I don't understand why people can't accept that intelligence was evolutionary as well. Recent research says that it was probably a big role in sexual selection. To grow a big brain has a detriment to the individual, like peacock feathers, it is wasteful and it requires enormous amounts of glucose/energy to maintain. These types of traits are exclusively sexually selected. However, intelligence was extremely important during population bottlenecks like Toba. Here, only humans that could adapt, move south and begin to adapt to a new environment and learn to exploit the resources there and learn to fish off of the coast of S. Africa. Intelligence must have played a role, you don't see other apes able to migrate and adapt so easily.


 
Very intelligent, well-thought out answer. Props. 

I didn't mean to call whales dumb. They, alike dolphins, are extremely intelligent. Probably more so than we give them credit for. And I'm not so sure I believe that our brain development was due to sexual selection. I mean, look at George Bush. But I do accept that it may have been due to survival. 

And yes I'm sure a good part of our BASIC intelligence evolved throughout the years. But when did we ever decide to mold the concept of the soul? How does something like that evolve? Are you saying our spirituality evolved as well? 

I'm saying our ancestors had some help. Outer intervention not only affected human history, it has enlightened some, and even fast-forwarded the story of the human race. My first piece of evidence:

*PARIS * _Scientists examining the remains of Napoleon Bonaparte admit they are deeply puzzled by the discovery of a half-inch long microchip embedded in his skull. 

They say the mysterious object could be an alien implant  suggesting that the French emperor was once abducted by a UFO! 

The possible ramifications of this discovery are almost too enormous to comprehend, declared Dr. Andre Dubois, who made the astonishing revelation in a French medical journal. 

Until now, every indication has been that victims of alien abduction are ordinary people who play no role in world events. 

Now we have compelling evidence that extraterrestrials acted in the past to influence human history  and may continue to do so! 

Dr. Dubois made the amazing find while studying Napoleons exhumed skeleton on a $140,000 grant from the French government. 

I was hoping to learn whether he suffered from a pituitary disorder that contributed to his small stature, he explained. 

But instead the researcher found something far more extraordinary: As I examined the interior of the skull, my hand brushed across a tiny protrusion. 

I then looked at the area under a magnifying glass  and was stunned to find that the object was some kind of super-advanced microchip. 

From the extent of bone growth around the chip, the expert believes it was implanted when Bonaparte was young. 

Napoleon vanished from sight for a period of several days in July 1794, when he was 25. He later claimed hed been held prisoner during the Themidorian coup  but no record of that arrest exists. I believe that is when the abduction took place. 

From that time on, Napoleons rise was meteoric. By the next year, hed been put in charge of the French army in Italy. 

Miraculously, he was able to transform starving, rag-tag troops into a top-notch fighting force and to crush the Italians. 

In 1804, after a string of startling victories, the pint-size general crowned himself emperor of France  and his empire soon expanded to include what is now Germany and Austria, as well as Switzerland, Italy and Denmark. 

Napoleon used military strategies more than a hundred years ahead of his time, said Dr. Dubois. Perhaps the implant somehow enhanced his abilities. 

The implant could also explain Napoleons famous habit of holding his hand over his heart, he added. 

Its possible that the device affected the electrical signals from his brain to his heart. 

By the time of his defeat by the British at Waterloo in 1815, Napoleon had altered the face of Europe. 

What Western history would have been like had the aliens not intervened, we can only guess, observed Dr. Dubois. Thus we cannot know whether they acted to help mankind or harm us.
_


----------



## one11 (Mar 18, 2010)

Oh and this is pretty funny... 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idgQZs-jP-g - How did mankind get so smart?


----------



## mindphuk (Mar 18, 2010)

one11 said:


> *PARIS * _Scientists examining the remains of Napoleon Bonaparte admit they are deeply puzzled by the discovery of a half-inch long microchip embedded in his skull.
> _


Getting your information from the Weekly World News isn't helpful to your case.
http://weeklyworldnews.com/alien-alert/15207/alien-chip-in-napoleons-skull/

(BTW, that microchip in the picture is an RFID chip that is implanted into pets).


----------



## mindphuk (Mar 18, 2010)

*Waking Up to Sleep Paralysis*

*Doubt and About*

*Chris Mooney*

*April 13, 2005*

When it comes to &#8220;alien abduction&#8221; claims and any number of other sleep-related &#8220;paranormal&#8221; encounters&#8212;whether with ghosts, vampires, werewolves, or whatever else&#8212; skeptics have long suspected the existence of a simple, overarching explanation. And now a string of papers by scientists at Harvard University, the latest of which was published by Transcultural Psychiatry in March, bolster the notion that such stories can be traced back to the common experience known as sleep paralysis, and the hallucinations that sometimes accompany it.
The hypothesis that sleep paralysis could play this large explanatory role isn&#8217;t necessarily new. But the publication of high caliber scientific studies on alien abductees, strongly supportive of that hypothesis, marks a highly important departure. All in all, the newly accumulated evidence suggests that skeptics may even wish to consider launching a public education campaign to explain more broadly what sleep paralysis is and how it happens. Executed properly, such a campaign might counter the current tendency among many individuals to assume that their relatively harmless sleep-related hallucinations actually reflect paranormal encounters. The campaign would also promote critical thinking about which explanation for sleep-related claims of paranormal incursions&#8212;a mundane one or a supernatural one&#8212;better suits the evidence.
Sleep paralysis occurs in 30% of the general population. In it you wake up in bed, feel paralyzed, and tend to sense a terrifying presence in your room. Sometimes you see something; sometimes you hear noises or even feel electrical shocks throughout your body. I have personally seen a small humanoid during one occasion of sleep paralysis; during another, more recent one, I saw what looked like a dog in my room. Others see ghosts, vampires&#8212;whatever they have in their minds or are particularly afraid of. Deceased relatives and loved ones are particularly good candidates for showing up during bouts of sleep paralysis.
But what&#8217;s really happening here, according to Harvard psychologists Richard McNally and Susan Clancy, is nothing out of the ordinary. Rather, REM sleep&#8212;the phase of sleep in which most dreaming occurs&#8212;is simply malfunctioning. In a phone conversation McNally even likened the situation to getting a case of the hiccups.
Our bodies are paralyzed while we undergo REM sleep, and for good reason (lest we act out our dreams and injure ourselves). But in some small number of cases we can actually start to wake up before paralysis wears off, and yet still remain in a dreaming state. What results is hallucination, often of some extremely scary stuff. It appears that humans have always experienced sleep paralysis and sought to explain it, resulting in well known stories of incubi and succubi&#8212;demons thought to sexually attack people in their sleep&#8212;as well as related tales from other eras and cultures.
The emphasis on sleep paralysis emerged from a program of research that McNally and Clancy had originally undertaken to study women claiming to have recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse. The work got extended into alleged alien &#8220;abductees&#8221; to solve a scientific puzzle. Although the researchers had already found that women who recovered abuse memories were more likely to exhibit &#8220;memory distortion,&#8221; that in itself didn&#8217;t prove their alleged memories never happened. After all, real life traumatic abuse experiences might themselves trigger distorted memory. So for comparison, Clancy and McNally hit on the idea of studying memory distortion &#8220;in people who report recovered memories of traumatic events that seem unlikely to have occurred: abduction by space aliens.&#8221;
Since then they have reported that alien &#8220;abductees&#8221; are more prone to exhibit &#8220;false recall and recognition,&#8221; and scored higher than other individuals on scales designed to detect fantasy proneness and the tendency to believe in &#8220;unconventional phenomena.&#8221; Based upon such evidence&#8212;which strongly hints that alien abductees are more likely than other people to make up false experiences&#8212;in a phone interview McNally proposed a &#8220;recipe&#8221; for alien abduction claims, involving five separate &#8220;ingredients.&#8221;
First, McNally explained, abductees tend to hold a wide range of New Age beliefs, such as an interest in astral projection and crystals. &#8220;They're not a bunch of straitlaced Republican wall street bankers,&#8221; McNally says. The second ingredient, he continues, is fantasy proneness, the features of which include &#8220;having a rich fantasy life, showing high hypnotic susceptibility, claiming psychic abilities and healing powers, reporting out-of-body experiences and vivid or &#8216;waking&#8217; dreams, having apparitional experiences and religious visions, and exhibiting automatic writing.&#8221;
McNally&#8217;s third ingredient is awareness of the &#8220;cultural narrative of alien abduction"&#8212;which of course characterizes anyone who watches enough TV. Knowledge of this script inevitably plants it in the mind as something that can be drawn on later. The fourth ingredient, McNally continues, is the occurrence of sleep paralysis and its attendant hallucinations. And finally, the fifth ingredient in the making of an alien &#8220;abductee&#8221; is that most go to therapists who then hypnotize them and ask &#8220;inadvertently leading questions. And then they &#8216;remember,'&#8221; McNally says. This is often where the most salacious aspects of abduction accounts emerge, such as claims of sexual molestation and hybrid breeding programs conducted by the aliens.
All in all, according to McNally, these five factors working together can successfully explain why &#8220;individuals who are sincere and not psychotic could genuinely believe they were abducted by aliens.&#8221; That&#8217;s no small achievement. One successful mark of a scientific hypothesis or theory, after all, lies in its capacity to provide a plausible explanatory framework that can account for an observed phenomenon&#8212;the phenomenon in this case being the prevalence of alien abduction claims. And without a doubt, the explanation offered by McNally and Clancy enjoys much more plausibility and credibility than the notion that the alleged alien abductions actually happened.
That&#8217;s not to say that this powerful explanatory framework will convince abductees themselves to back away from their accounts. These individuals seem deeply wedded to their beliefs, according to McNally; it&#8217;s almost as though abduction claims fulfill a deep spiritual purpose in their lives. Perhaps those who cling to these views could never be convinced to relinquish them. Still, a very positive social benefit could be gained if more people generally understood what sleep paralysis is and how it contributes to widespread &#8220;paranormal&#8221; experiences. It&#8217;s even conceivable that a lot of grief and fear could be averted.
And there&#8217;s more at stake here than simply the esoteric group of alien &#8220;abductees.&#8221; In addition to abduction claims, sleep paralysis also seems likely to account for a wide range of alleged late-night ghost sightings. Moreover, as cultural notions shift over time, we can expect that the apparitions hallucinated during sleep paralysis will also shift their identities in relation to societal and media cues. When that happens&#8212;and reports begin to emerge on the next group of nighttime invaders&#8212;skeptics will have a powerful counter-explanation at the ready.


----------



## afrawfraw (Mar 18, 2010)

They say age is just a number...

But if your 4.54 BILLION years old, well.

Can we all at least agree on the age of the earth?

If so, Let's get some thoughts from non-evolution believers on what the hell God, or outside whatever, was waiting for?

Making sure the fuzz is gone before they threw their "Advance gene Molotov Cocktail at the Earth?


----------



## one11 (Mar 18, 2010)

mindphuk said:


> Getting your information from the Weekly World News isn't helpful to your case.
> http://weeklyworldnews.com/alien-alert/15207/alien-chip-in-napoleons-skull/
> 
> (BTW, that microchip in the picture is an RFID chip that is implanted into pets).


Unfortunately, these so called 'credible' news sources are the same ones limiting what we hear about...nbc, cbs, abc, fox. All are a joke. It's freelance journalism and backyard news organizations that hold the important info. And yeah it says in that article that the picture was not the same chip in his skull. So it probably is the RFID chip. 

Evidence that outer influence affected, and enhanced the human intellect and culture go way back. Maybe it will be revealed to ALL persons within our lifetimes. Maybe not. But your point is taken, and respected.


----------



## Handson (Mar 18, 2010)

one11 said:


> Unfortunately, these so called 'credible' news sources are the same ones limiting what we hear about...nbc, cbs, abc, fox. All are a joke. It's freelance journalism and backyard news organizations that hold the important info. And yeah it says in that article that the picture was not the same chip in his skull. So it probably is the RFID chip.
> 
> Evidence that outer influence affected, and enhanced the human intellect and culture go way back. Maybe it will be revealed to ALL persons within our lifetimes. Maybe not. But your point is taken, and respected.




The good ones get shut, like wiki leaks


----------



## Philly_Buddah (Mar 18, 2010)

To mindphuk I dont have time right now to read all that but I believe thats the same one that I read a while back about them saying "alien abductions" can be attributed to hallucinations and delusions during sleep paralysis episodes.

While I definitely agree there is some percentage of supposed "alien abductions" that can be attributed to that, or just hoaxes all together, but there are thousands of reported alien abductions that couldnt have been caused by that. Just for example look at one of the first reported and famous alien abduction cases "betty and barney hill". Look that up if you dont know about it, theres no way anything like that could be caused by sleep paralysis. There will be groups of people whether driving, flying a plane, walking on a hike etc who all of a sudden (the whole group) "blacks out" and before they know it there back doing exactly what they were doing (others not so lucky) with hours of lost time which they all have little to no recollection of. Many of these cases have been taken to hypnosis and when they dig up the memories they remember alien abductions and the whole group can describe the exact same thing without ever discussing it within the group (or even remembering the event consciously).

The sleep paralysis thing could probably be true in cases where that person was home alone sleeping then they remember an alien abduction and the fear, paralysis and they dont know what thats sleep paralysis is. The 1st times I had sleep paralysis and didnt know what it was it was definitely scary and you can have hallucinations, etc but they only seemed real to me while I was still in that paralyzed state.


----------



## mindphuk (Mar 18, 2010)

one11 said:


> Unfortunately, these so called 'credible' news sources are the same ones limiting what we hear about...nbc, cbs, abc, fox. All are a joke. It's freelance journalism and backyard news organizations that hold the important info. And yeah it says in that article that the picture was not the same chip in his skull. So it probably is the RFID chip.
> 
> Evidence that outer influence affected, and enhanced the human intellect and culture go way back. Maybe it will be revealed to ALL persons within our lifetimes. Maybe not. But your point is taken, and respected.


I could agree with you to a point, but the WWN isn't a news organization, it is made for entertainment. Why else would they use the disclaimer, "the reader should suspend disbelief for the sake of enjoyment"?

Sorry, but if a microchip was found in Napoleon's skull, I think more outlets would carry the story.


----------



## mindphuk (Mar 18, 2010)

Philly_Buddah said:


> While I definitely agree there is some percentage of supposed "alien abductions" that can be attributed to that, or just hoaxes all together, but there are thousands of reported alien abductions that couldnt have been caused by that. Just for example look at one of the first reported and famous alien abduction cases "betty and barney hill".


Lack of alternate explanations does not make the claim any more true. The Hill's didn't remember anything until under hypnosis. That alone adds problems. As Dr. Sagan says, "Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence."
[youtube]Z9VLAWxDut0[/youtube]


----------



## Miss MeanWeed (Mar 18, 2010)

http://www.expanding-earth.org/

http://eearthk.com/

Here we see theories on the physical evolution of planet Earth.


----------



## afrawfraw (Mar 19, 2010)

ALIEN ABDUCTIONS!!! Don't you have to be 13 to use this site?


----------



## Philly_Buddah (Mar 19, 2010)

afrawfraw said:


> ALIEN ABDUCTIONS!!! Don't you have to be 13 to use this site?


Theres people who reported they were abducted early in their life and when they got old swore on their deathbeds that it was true.


----------



## mindphuk (Mar 19, 2010)

Philly_Buddah said:


> Theres people who reported they were abducted early in their life and when they got old swore on their deathbeds that it was true.


So what? No one is saying that people don't believe in their experiences. That still doesn't make them true.


----------



## Philly_Buddah (Mar 19, 2010)

mindphuk said:


> So what? No one is saying that people don't believe in their experiences. That still doesn't make them true.


Elderly on their deathbeds=Over 13.

That was the point lol.


----------



## afrawfraw (Mar 19, 2010)

If "ALIENS" visited Earth, they would clone the cannabis (and other non-parasitic species) and NUKE THIS ROCK!


----------



## Handson (Mar 22, 2010)

afrawfraw said:


> If "ALIENS" visited Earth, they would clone the cannabis (and other non-parasitic species) and NUKE THIS ROCK!


Too right, when they do come AGAIN, we'll be sorry.


----------



## Miss MeanWeed (Mar 22, 2010)

http://www.disclosureproject.org/

"The Disclosure Project is a nonprofit research project working to fully disclose the facts about UFOs, extraterrestrial intelligence, and classified advanced energy and propulsion systems. We have over 400 government, military, and intelligence community witnesses testifying to their direct, personal, first hand experience with UFOs, ETs, ET technology, and the cover-up that keeps this information secret."


----------



## afrawfraw (Mar 22, 2010)

Handson said:


> Too right, when they do come AGAIN, we'll be sorry.


You think things visited before? OK.


----------



## afrawfraw (Mar 22, 2010)

I BELIEVE TOO! This is a transmission picked up on a radar machine in the desert. If you listen REALLY close, you can hear them ordering Carls, JR.

There is nothing out there but if it makes you feel better, I don't care!


----------



## Handson (Mar 24, 2010)

afrawfraw said:


> I BELIEVE TOO! This is a transmission picked up on a radar machine in the desert. If you listen REALLY close, you can hear them ordering Carls, JR.
> 
> There is nothing out there but if it makes you feel better, I don't care!


Research it


----------



## Cpl. CornB33F (Mar 24, 2010)

Evolution is a good movie!


----------



## afrawfraw (Mar 25, 2010)

Handson said:


> Research it


Researched it. Nothing there.


----------

