The evolution thread

  • 445 Replies
  • 99474 Views
*

dysfunction

  • The Elder Ones
  • 2261
The evolution thread
« on: August 28, 2006, 09:35:15 AM »
There seem to be a number of Creationists/IDists around here, so I thought maybe we could have a debate on evolution to distract from the much-less-relevant-in-the-modern-world debate on RE vs. FE.

As you all probably know, I am an atheist and thoroughly believe in common descent via evolution. The evidence supporting it is vast;

-Despite Creationist claims, there are thousands upon thousands of transitional fossils. In 1972, there were 4,000 hominid fossils alone, nevermind all the other transitions; and the number has certainly vastly increased in the last 34 years. Creationists attempt to explain away these fossils by claiming that they are not truly transitional- for example, Archaeopteryx is really either fully bird or fully dinosaur, not in-between; yet if Archaeopteyx is so clearly one or the other, why can Creationists not agree on which group it belongs to? The same goes for all other transitionals; Creationists completely disagree with each other about which group these supposedly 'clearly one or the other' fossils belong to.

-Most of the so-called bars to evolution are based on misunderstandings of how evolution actually works. Creationists will say, "A fish never gives birth to a dog, so evolution doesn't work" (no, that's not a strawman example; I have had people honestly say that to me). What such arguments fail to realize is that evolution is very, very gradual, and that there are not such distinct lines between taxa. If a fish gave birth to dog, it would be evidence of some very strange phenomenon that had nothing to do with evolution. Evolution does not require any more change per generation than the difference between you and your parents. Over three billion years, such small changes add up to a very large amount of change; much more change than the difference between a fish and a dog. Of course a fish will never give birth to a dog; but a fish will give birth to something slightly different, over many generations, until you have something that is distinctly not a fish. The lines between taxa are blurry. Though a fish will never give birth to a dog, there was a time when something just-barely not a dog gave birth to something that was a dog; but that just-barely not a dog would be the same species as its offspring- as I said, the lines between taxa are fluid.
-Another supposed block to evolution is Michael Behe's concept of "irreducible complexity", which states that some living systems need all of their parts to be present to work at all, meaning they could not have evolved gradually. However, while these systems could not have evolved piece-by-piece, as all the pieces are needed for the system to convey selectable benefit, there are other ways for such systems to evolve. The first is co-option, where already-working systems are incorporated into a new system, and then their function is changed. The second is 'scaffolding': imagine you are building an arch out of stone blocks. Stone arches hold themselves up, but if you remove any piece the whole structure falls down. So to build one, you would make a scaffold underneath the arch to hold it up until construction is complete. Similarly, evolution might create a system with lots of unnecessary, redundant parts- such a system would not be irreducibly complex- then once the system was 'built', natural selection would remove the redundant parts so that every part left was necessary for the system to work at all- rendering the system irreducibly complex.
-Another block is supposedly a result of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. A common misconception is that the 2nd Law states that order cannot arise from disorder, therefore evolution could not have happened. However, order arises from disorder all the time. Complex, ordered weather patterns such as hurricanes arise from chaotic winds; snowflakes arise from chaotic frozen water droplets. All that is required is the input of new energy- and the sun provides lots of new energy. I have heard Creationists (notably Duane Gish) state that the input of new energy is not enough, that there must be energy-converting-and-directing mechanisms; yet that is exactly what the chemical synthesis engines (photosynthesis, for example) inside living cells are: energy-converting-and-directing mechanisms! Apparently Duane Gish has never heard of photosynthesis.

Now, anyone want to argue this?
the cake is a lie

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
The evolution thread
« Reply #1 on: August 28, 2006, 11:13:22 AM »
To start with, I would recommend searching for any posts by Malrix or googleSearch and linking the threads into this thread.  If there are any creationists as ardent and as lucid as those two, I would be happy to get into the fray.

If there aren't any creationists left, I suppose I could side with them for the purposes of this thread.  I don't promise to put up a good fight, however.
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

The evolution thread
« Reply #2 on: August 28, 2006, 12:15:34 PM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
To start with, I would recommend searching for any posts by Malrix or googleSearch and linking the threads into this thread.  If there are any creationists as ardent and as lucid as those two, I would be happy to get into the fray.



Too bad *someone* deleted them.
quote="Dogplatter"]
Penguins were actually created in the 1960's by Russian scientists who combined the DNA of otters and birds.  [/quote]


LOL

The evolution thread
« Reply #3 on: August 28, 2006, 01:27:11 PM »
Here we go again

The evolution thread
« Reply #4 on: August 28, 2006, 02:19:21 PM »
Fossils are as much evidence for evolution as they are for creation. I can argue that all those animals were created by God individually and later died and fossilized, however I cannot prove such claim. Just the same as you cannot prove that those fossils had any offspring, or parents, or even were capable of reproduction.

Dogs always produce dogs that are different, but that difference has borders. Genes that code for those differences can be turned on or off they cannot be gained. If a dog has no gene for a third eye on it's ass, it will never develop it, no matter how many dogs before it got eaten by gators sneaking up behind them.

In “irreducible complexity” paragraph you propose that “already-working systems are incorporated into a new system, and then their function is changed” and it may work. You may combine 2 systems and get a brand new system with new function, BUT where did you get the initial two systems, how did the come about? On your second point in this paragraph you propose that there are some redundant structures, the ones we no longer need or use might have helped the process. What kind of structures are you referring to? And if there are none left, do you think evolution stopped and we are no longer evolving?

I think Duane Gish has heard of photosynthesis because it is, like you said, an example of energy-converting-and-directing mechanisms, what he has not heard of is the fact that such mechanism develops spontaneously, on it's own, and utilized the energy that is available and outputs the desired result. There is a lot of sunlight in our solar system, and there a lot of chemicals needed for photosynthesis floating around our planet or other planets in solar system, so why it doesn’t happen anymore? Why only Earth has cells that are capable of such mechanism? What is so special about third rock from the Sun?


P.S. it would be better to discuss one thing at a time, so it would be easier to follow.

*

dysfunction

  • The Elder Ones
  • 2261
The evolution thread
« Reply #5 on: August 28, 2006, 03:03:01 PM »
Quote from: "googleSearch"
Fossils are as much evidence for evolution as they are for creation. I can argue that all those animals were created by God individually and later died and fossilized, however I cannot prove such claim. Just the same as you cannot prove that those fossils had any offspring, or parents, or even were capable of reproduction.


No, they are not, unless you want to argue that God created millions upon millions of different species that are each only very slightly different from each other. There is a clear chain of descent linking most of the major taxa.

Quote
Dogs always produce dogs that are different, but that difference has borders. Genes that code for those differences can be turned on or off they cannot be gained. If a dog has no gene for a third eye on it's ass, it will never develop it, no matter how many dogs before it got eaten by gators sneaking up behind them.


Evolution certainly can create new genes; first an existing gene is duplicated (a relatively common mutation), then additional mutations may change the copy until it is a completely different gene. It's been observed, both in nature and in the lab.

Quote
In “irreducible complexity” paragraph you propose that “already-working systems are incorporated into a new system, and then their function is changed” and it may work. You may combine 2 systems and get a brand new system with new function, BUT where did you get the initial two systems, how did the come about? On your second point in this paragraph you propose that there are some redundant structures, the ones we no longer need or use might have helped the process. What kind of structures are you referring to? And if there are none left, do you think evolution stopped and we are no longer evolving?


First, I didn't mean entire redundant structures, but redundant []parts[/i] of structures that today contain little or no redundancy as a result of natural selection honing their efficiency; these act like 'scaffolds' for systems that later become irreducibly complex  However, TONS of redundant structures exist in living organisms even now. The vestigial hips of snakes are one of the more famous examples. Creationists will claim that vestigial structures are not truly vestigial, because many have been shown to still have functions, but that is besides the point; whether they have functions or not, they have dissimilar functions to the functions carried out by similar structures in related organisms, which is a key evidence for evolution.

Quote
I think Duane Gish has heard of photosynthesis because it is, like you said, an example of energy-converting-and-directing mechanisms, what he has not heard of is the fact that such mechanism develops spontaneously, on it's own, and utilized the energy that is available and outputs the desired result.


That's irrelevant. Evolution does not talk about anything that happened before the existence of the first cells, and the first cells would certainly have had such energy conversion/directing mechanisms, so the 2nd law provides no bar to these first cells slowly evolving towards greater complexity. Whether natural processes could have created the first cells, and with them the first energy converting/directing mechanisms, is irrelevant, because evolution only deals with what happened after that.

 
Quote
There is a lot of sunlight in our solar system, and there a lot of chemicals needed for photosynthesis floating around our planet or other planets in solar system, so why it doesn’t happen anymore? Why only Earth has cells that are capable of such mechanism? What is so special about third rock from the Sun?


If you think about that for a second you will realize what a stupid question that is. What's special about Earth that allows it to support life, but not other planets? Let's see, maybe having an atmosphere, or liquid water, or the right distance from the sun, etc?
the cake is a lie

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
The evolution thread
« Reply #6 on: August 28, 2006, 07:40:37 PM »
In an effort to focus a bit: the discussion of genes of eyes on butts reveals a misconception about evolution: that genes code for gross features.  They don't.

It might take hundreds of genes for an organism to develop, say, eyes.  An incomplete set might lead to an "incomplete eye", the sort of thing that creationists believe refute evolution, because, they so often ask, "How can something as complex as an eye develop in small iterations?  Anything less than a complete eye would prove useless."

The fact is, as I have mentioned, there are examples in nature of eyes inferior to those of humans, and they still serve a purpose to the organism that possesses them.

Furthermore, it is possible for the incomplete set of genes produce something else that is useful but is unlike an eye.

The Wikipedia article on evolution (or maybe the creation-evolution debate) gives details about quite a few such examples.
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

*

dysfunction

  • The Elder Ones
  • 2261
The evolution thread
« Reply #7 on: August 28, 2006, 08:00:22 PM »
You're quite right Erasmus, in fact a great deal of the body plan is determined not so much by genes but by the development process. Genes aren't exactly discrete little units of DNA. The amount of DNA that constitutes a single gene varies wildly, so the definition of a gene depends more on the function than the number of base pairs. Genes operate in groups, which I think is best expressed by Dawkins' crew analogy: imagine a crew team racing eight-man boats (I especially love this metaphor because I rowed crew in highschool). Since each boat has eight rowers, there is no direct way to determine which individual rowers are the best. However, if the coach races two boats against each other, the average rower in the boat that wins is better than the average rower in the boat that loses. This still doesn't tell us which individual rowers are better, but if the coach races boats with constantly shifting lineups, eventually he will be able to average out which rowers are better. However, rather than putting all the best rowers in one boat, he will use the boat that did the best in the races, because it isn't simply abou which rowers are best, but also about which boats are better as a whole. One rower might be better than another, but the worse rower might work better with a given boat. Natural selection operates on genes the same way. There aren't simply genes that are better than others; genes must work as teams to express functions. Natural selection, over exceedingly long periods of time, acts like the coach in the crew analogy; it can't directly select the best genes, but it can select the best combinations of genes.
the cake is a lie

?

Ubuntu

  • 2392
The evolution thread
« Reply #8 on: August 28, 2006, 09:56:26 PM »
Creationists: why do humans have tail bones? Why is our DNA only a few percent different from chimpanzees? How come there is no evidence to support Creationism?


The Origin of LIFE:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3112_origins.html

The evolution thread
« Reply #9 on: August 28, 2006, 10:04:57 PM »
You're dumb to ask a creationist a question like that, its all the same answer... because God made it so.
he man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed.

Advocatus Diaboli

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
The evolution thread
« Reply #10 on: August 28, 2006, 10:10:50 PM »
Quote from: "Ubuntu"
Why is our DNA only a few percent different from chimpanzees?


A creationist would say that when a given maker makes various products, of course the products will show similarities -- these are the fingerprints of the maker.  The analogy I was given is that all Hondas have similarities because they were all made by Honda.

Quote
How come there is no evidence to support Creationism?


Duh.  A creationist would say that there is, and probably point you to the polonium halos website.
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
The evolution thread
« Reply #11 on: August 28, 2006, 10:12:56 PM »
Quote from: "Ubuntu"
The Origin of LIFE:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3112_origins.html


You need to learn that posting statements impresses nobody.  We're interested in evidence and argument, not transcripts of PBS programs that give storybook histories of the Earth.
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

The evolution thread
« Reply #12 on: August 29, 2006, 01:21:48 AM »
"fossils are evidence for creation"
what about sequences of fossils that demonstrate change?

the whole land-mammal-to-whale thing,
the lobe-finned-fish-to-tetrapod thing,
the theropod-to-bird thing, (less of a single lineage, more like a huge twiggy bush)
the ape-to-human one? (actually wuite good)

of course, all these apply to vertebrate animals, which is all most people bother to talk about when it comes to evolution.

better example is the early cambrian arthropods (the first trilobites, lace crabs, sidneyia and fuck knows how many other critters) they all seem to share the same basic body plan, and only the trilobites really survived beyond the cambrian (and they diversified themselves). and just a couple of precambrian fossils - spriggina and parvancorina - look just like a simplified mix of all of them. it looks like an adaptive radiation which would  have occured at the ediacaran/cambrian boundary.
tf?

The evolution thread
« Reply #13 on: August 29, 2006, 01:25:10 AM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"

The fact is, as I have mentioned, there are examples in nature of eyes inferior to those of humans, and they still serve a purpose to the organism that possesses them.


yes. its not "half an eye" its progressively better eyes, starting from mere light-sensitive spots, as in flatworms (and buttrerfly gonads? wtf?)

look up the Nilsson and Pelger study - they found that you can get from a crap eyespot to a proper lensed eye with under 2000 individual mutations changing one of the eye's variables by 1%. making it plausible that a decent lensed eye could have formed from a photoreceptive patch in under a million years.
tf?

The evolution thread
« Reply #14 on: August 29, 2006, 01:51:00 AM »
Questions for creationists, and evidence for evolution via common descent:


[thanks to yellownumber5, IG forums, RRS member for below]

What do you have to say and how do you scientifically explain endogenous retrogene insertions without evolution?

Endogenous retroviruses are a great example of molecular sequence evidence for universal common descent. Endogenous retroviruses are molecular remnants of a past parasitic viral infection. Occasionally, copies of a retrovirus genome are found in its host's genome, and these retroviral gene copies are called endogenous retroviral sequences. Retroviruses, like HIV, make a DNA copy of their own viral genome and insert it into their host's genome. If this happens to a germ line cell (i.e. the sperm or egg cells) the retroviral DNA will be inherited by descendants of the host. Again, this process is rare and fairly random, so finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species indicates common ancestry.

There are at least seven different known instances of common retrogene insertions between chimps and humans, indicating common ancestry. I'll say it again, the same insertion occurs at the same DNA marker in two totally different species at a rate that is far far greater than chance.

Kent Hovind was asked this when he called into IG.com - he had no answer.

What do you have to say about the biochemical similarity of all life on earth, and how do you scientifically explain this without evolution?

The only organic polymers used in biological processes are polynucleotides, polysaccharides and polypeptides - chemists have mades hundreds, if not thousands of additional organic polymers, but only these three contribute to biological life as we know it.

In addition, all the proteins, DNA and RNA in every organism known to man use the same chirality (twist), so for example out 16 different possible isomers of RNA, all organisms use one and only one, and they all use the same one.

Also, there are something like 300 (forget the exact number) naturally occuring amino acids in nature. Only 22 acids are used in life as we know it, and all organisms use the same 22 acids to build proteins and carry out biological processes.

All of this points to a common ancestor to ALL life on earth. The fact that no known organisms differ from this fundamental scheme when countless other schemes could work equally well should smack anyone who examines it in the face. If evolution were NOT true the odds that ALL organisms would use the same biochemical schemes is utterly astronomical.

Oh, and another example, all organisms use the same 4 nucleotides to build DNA - out of something like 100 naturally occuring nucleotides.
Oh, and all life on earth derives metabolic processes from ATP, plenty of other natural compounds would have worked equally well.

The biochemical evidence for evolution is some of the strongest evidence for evolution we have.

What do you have to say about the hominid fossil record? Do you still think there are no fossilized “missing links” now?

http://img388.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hominids2big9eq.jpg



We should expect related species to look similar.

What do you have to say about these observed speciation events?

Salamanders and Songbirds: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/03/26/MN172778.DTL

More details on the salamanders, with additional links: http://www.santarosa.edu/lifesciences/ensatina.htm

London mosquitos: http://www.gene.ch/gentech/1998/Jul-Sep/msg00188.html

Another article on Himalayan song birds: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1123973.stm

Speciation by reinforcement: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041123114452.htm

Lots of examples here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

More examples: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Speciation models: http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/21.Models.HTML

Links on examples and models: http://cwx.prenhall.com/bookbind/pubbooks/freemanea2/chapter12/destinations1/deluxe-content.html

More on the London mosquitos: http://www.astmh.org/newsltr/news10-98/scinotes.html

Ringed-speciation model and examples, plus links: http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html#Primer

In Drosophila (fruit flies) : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3790531.stm


-------

How do creationists explain coccygeal retroposition (true human tails) and other atavisms and vestigual structures?

An atavism is the reemergence of a lost phenotypical trait from a past ancestor and not specific to the organisms parents or very recent ancestors. For example, perhaps you would care to explain well documented coccygeal projections (true tails) that are occasionally found on human newborns? Do you have a better explaination than the tails resulting from the incomplete regression of the most distal end of the normal embryonic tail found in the developing human fetus?

You can see about 100 medically recorded instances of this phenomena here:

PubMed links: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Display&dopt=pubmed_pubmed&from_uid=7430236

And just so there is no misunderstanding, these are true tails, with vertebrae extending from the human tail bone as shown in this x-ray: http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/4548/tail6yz.jpg



What about other vestigual structures like molecular vesitges in the form of human viatamin C definciency? Why does the gene for manufacturing viatamin C exist as a psuedogene in humans and also as a broken gene in chimps, orangutans and other primates - as predicted by evolutionary theory? Why can more distant relatives like dogs make their own viatamin C? This is only one of the molecular atavisms found in humans. What is your scientific explanation for this, if not evolution by common descent?
xplain horizons, pwned.

?

Ubuntu

  • 2392
The evolution thread
« Reply #15 on: August 29, 2006, 07:32:20 AM »
Place your hand above your rump and you'll feel a bone that doesn't really serve any purpose.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds."

In the paper Bible I was reading it said "And God made the creatures of the Earth after is kind, and the cattle after their kind."

Does this mean there is a cow God?

The evolution thread
« Reply #16 on: August 29, 2006, 07:48:31 AM »
Quote from: "Ubuntu"
Creationists: why do humans have tail bones?


So that you can take a shit when you want to and not as soon as it comes near your colon. Several important muscles connect to it that allow you to control your "output".

Quote from: "Ubuntu"
Does this mean there is a cow God?


Read the verse one more time, but this time slowly.

The evolution thread
« Reply #17 on: August 29, 2006, 07:48:51 AM »
The Hindus worship cows dont they?
quote="Dogplatter"]
Penguins were actually created in the 1960's by Russian scientists who combined the DNA of otters and birds.  [/quote]


LOL

?

Ubuntu

  • 2392
The evolution thread
« Reply #18 on: August 29, 2006, 08:02:31 AM »
Quote from: "googleSearch"
Quote from: "Ubuntu"
Creationists: why do humans have tail bones?


So that you can take a shit when you want to and not as soon as it comes near your colon. Several important muscles connect to it that allow you to control your "output".

Quote from: "Ubuntu"
Does this mean there is a cow God?


Read the verse one more time, but this time slowly.


Question: how would they have "kinds" if God hadn't created them yet?

Okay, okay, get back to the intelligent posts.

*

dysfunction

  • The Elder Ones
  • 2261
The evolution thread
« Reply #19 on: August 29, 2006, 08:42:37 AM »
Quote from: "googleSearch"
Quote from: "Ubuntu"
Creationists: why do humans have tail bones?


So that you can take a shit when you want to and not as soon as it comes near your colon. Several important muscles connect to it that allow you to control your "output".


Uh-huh, and God gave us a tailbone that looks an awful lot like the ones our ape relatives have just for the purpose of shitting.
the cake is a lie

The evolution thread
« Reply #20 on: August 29, 2006, 09:25:08 AM »
Quote from: "dysfunction"


Uh-huh, and God gave us a tailbone that looks an awful lot like the ones our ape relatives have just for the purpose of shitting.


Yeah, and you skin looks and feels an awful lot like pig's, so which one of your relatives is a pig?

*

dysfunction

  • The Elder Ones
  • 2261
The evolution thread
« Reply #21 on: August 29, 2006, 09:30:03 AM »
Quote from: "googleSearch"
Quote from: "dysfunction"


Uh-huh, and God gave us a tailbone that looks an awful lot like the ones our ape relatives have just for the purpose of shitting.


Yeah, and you skin looks and feels an awful lot like pig's, so which one of your relatives is a pig?


My great-great-great (however many greats you need to go back a few million years) grandpa. Our skin performs the same function as a pig's skin, so it makes sense that a deity would have given both similar skin. What doesn't make sense is that a deity would have given humans and apes a similar, but slightly different, bone that serves an entirely different purpose in each.
the cake is a lie

?

Ubuntu

  • 2392
The evolution thread
« Reply #22 on: August 29, 2006, 12:48:23 PM »
Let's get back to the posts on the last page.

The evolution thread
« Reply #23 on: August 29, 2006, 04:46:18 PM »
Quote from: "googleSearch"
Quote from: "Ubuntu"
Creationists: why do humans have tail bones?


So that you can take a shit when you want to and not as soon as it comes near your colon. Several important muscles connect to it that allow you to control your "output".

Quote from: "Ubuntu"
Does this mean there is a cow God?


Read the verse one more time, but this time slowly.

.........are you serious?
xplain horizons, pwned.

?

Ubuntu

  • 2392
The evolution thread
« Reply #24 on: August 29, 2006, 04:53:45 PM »
Quote from: "IamNOTaFLATearther"
Quote from: "googleSearch"
Quote from: "Ubuntu"
Creationists: why do humans have tail bones?


So that you can take a shit when you want to and not as soon as it comes near your colon. Several important muscles connect to it that allow you to control your "output".

Quote from: "Ubuntu"
Does this mean there is a cow God?


Read the verse one more time, but this time slowly.

.........are you serious?


Lol I was kidding.

?

Rick_James

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4311
  • Rick <3 Gayer
The evolution thread
« Reply #25 on: August 29, 2006, 07:08:42 PM »
Quote from: "dysfunction"
Quote from: "googleSearch"
Quote from: "dysfunction"


Uh-huh, and God gave us a tailbone that looks an awful lot like the ones our ape relatives have just for the purpose of shitting.


Yeah, and you skin looks and feels an awful lot like pig's, so which one of your relatives is a pig?


My great-great-great (however many greats you need to go back a few million years) grandpa. Our skin performs the same function as a pig's skin, so it makes sense that a deity would have given both similar skin. What doesn't make sense is that a deity would have given humans and apes a similar, but slightly different, bone that serves an entirely different purpose in each.


What's to say that the actions of God should make sense to you or any of us?

*

dysfunction

  • The Elder Ones
  • 2261
The evolution thread
« Reply #26 on: August 29, 2006, 07:23:30 PM »
Quote from: "Rick_James"
Quote from: "dysfunction"
Quote from: "googleSearch"
Quote from: "dysfunction"


Uh-huh, and God gave us a tailbone that looks an awful lot like the ones our ape relatives have just for the purpose of shitting.


Yeah, and you skin looks and feels an awful lot like pig's, so which one of your relatives is a pig?


My great-great-great (however many greats you need to go back a few million years) grandpa. Our skin performs the same function as a pig's skin, so it makes sense that a deity would have given both similar skin. What doesn't make sense is that a deity would have given humans and apes a similar, but slightly different, bone that serves an entirely different purpose in each.


What's to say that the actions of God should make sense to you or any of us?


The supernatural can, of course explain anything- but homologous and vestigial structures are better explained by common descent.
the cake is a lie

?

EnragedPenguin

  • The Elder Ones
  • 1004
The evolution thread
« Reply #27 on: August 29, 2006, 07:29:23 PM »
You guys might want to slow down a bit. If you post to much, googlesearch (or any other creationist here that wants to join in) is never going to be able to go through it all and reply.
It can be very hard to debate with more than one person at once. Especially when everyone wants to put in their two cents worth all at the same time.

Patience, grasshoppers. Patience.
A different world cannot be built by indifferent people.

?

quixotic

  • 1607
  • Im a mushroomcloudlayin motherfucker, motherfucker
The evolution thread
« Reply #28 on: August 29, 2006, 08:03:56 PM »
my bum itches????

Like...O M G ! ! ! He is, like, totally using the gun as like some kind of sexual weapon. O M G ! ! That is like, totally awesome! ! !

The evolution thread
« Reply #29 on: August 30, 2006, 01:46:21 AM »
The entire creation vs evolution debate is ridiculous and irrelavent. Seriously, how can the ideas of creationism, which stem from the bible, be relavent, if the very book itself is a false testament of 2 false religions. Prove to me the legitmacy the bible first.

Go ahead, google away creationists. Try me.