Are You A Descendant of The Apes?

so you keep agreeing pangenesis is a bad idea for evolution, which was the very point I corrected you on, but you don't flimsily justify evolution merely insisting what it is not and never could be.

but what is "modern" evolutionary theory? =D I don't think any of you "evolutionists" even know lol =D Bet there's be a bunch of you still stupidly thinking logical positivism is the way to go. (Ayer denounced it and many of you aren't even privy to your own "faith" heh and you pretend to know so much about how other faiths should be) Ironic it's a belief you do believe in by faith and know nothing about! Once again, for evolution's sake, how specifically is the quantity and quality of information in DNA improved by DNA to create completely new creatures? If it's a progressive condition where are the "modern" examples that prove unquestionably NEW CREATURES life has not seen before, and be intelligent enough not to confuse variation within kind with the myth of "evolution"

But you are so very hard-pressed AND you know it.

still waiting...for the light of "Reason" to dawn =P

I don't have a ton of time today to write responses, but I'll do a couple since it appears as though you did some research.

That is not what I am talking about at all. Pangenesis while you are right is a use/disuse theory, it is based largely upon passing down acquired charictaristics. For example, Your father was good at long jumping therefore you will be good at long jumping. We obviously know that this cannot be true because you cannot pass on a skill to your progeny. This does not come close to explaining modern evolutionary theory either. As you said, Darwin did not think selection alone explained the origin of species. Darwinian evolution relies on ***selection to influence the survival and differential reproductive success*** of a population.

If you go back to my original post about the giraffe there is a Lamarckian explanation that would go on to say something completely different than both those proposed by Theology and Darwin.

Example: "Why do Giraffes have long necks?"

Lamarckian response:
Because the giraffe stretched for leaves, elongated their neck and therefore their progeny had longer necks.

You do have the basic idea behind Pangenesis which implies that changes in organs get transferred into the gametes of the organism (i.e. reproductive cells). This is clearly not true as you cannot pass on those acquired charateristics. Understand that this is not a basis of modern evolution and this was not at all what I was talking about. Whether your talking in the words of Lamarck, Darwin, Weisman; modern theory is simply a different worlds.

well thank you for taking the time to read this. Yes, we can all certainly agree, that Darwin knew his idea of natural selection was never going to be enough, and in his determination (perhaps desperation? =P hehe) turned to Lamarck for help, even if it was already scientifically a lie. You'll find many many chronic LYING inconsistencies in the history of the 'theory as accepted fact' evolution".

I agree: I think that for evolution to even be considered a legitimate scientific theory it needs a "genetic scriptwriter" to improve the quantity AND quality of information. Not even "modern" evolutionary faith has an answer that wouldn't be closer conveniently to God =D --the very "thing" evolution never wanted to admit to in the first place! it's very reason for being DENIED! lol =D

'I AM the first and the last...the alpha and the omega.' and the Ancient of Days they call him. He is infinity in every way...a concept we know, but paradoxically, just like God Himself, we never really are able to wholly fathom =D it is very much like this idea we hear called "evolution" (which never has a REAL "scientific" explanation) only I believe my "god" is real and sees, and stands on His own, not having to be propped up every time evolution falls...and so much more honest. choose your own way. and think about what is your way among actually legitimate others, and leave the others behind. There has been more than one atheist to leave that misguided flock. There's no shame in it. None of you would be the first nor the last. =) Ironically, there's only One for that.

Honestly, evolution is rotten at any core, in "modern" guise or not. It's like a house infested with many many termites, and you could re-stucco the place and call it "modern" I guess, but the house is falling down around your ears and no one wants you to know it. They'd see you burn in it with them. It's interesting to me that the very bar science sets for itself in the quest for god-like knowledge, is the very bar that beheads it. Quantify unconditional love (while it now graciously lasts!) in your beakers my friends. Like evolution =) it's "just" a theory! And make Socrates proud, follow the evidence where it actually leads, and stop where it doesn't (unlike Darwin and Dawkins).

I knew likely to assume you wouldn't have the "time" (that bloody evolutionary killer) to explain the supposedly "modern" theory of evolution... ;) it's only those who love the lie so much for what it affords them that they'd keep you, and certainly me, under that yoke. considering the character, I'd say Jesus looks genuinely great to me. *shrug* choose your way.

I can't speak for all those that believe in evolution, but the convienance of God as a "genetic scriptwriter" is not reason to believe in him/her/it. Just because human origin poses a difficult question doesn't mean the easiet answer is the correct one. I see religion as a way to simply give up on trying to find out the truth. Evolution and science are meant to be challenged that is how it advances. It's trial and error. Quite simply, the selection of characteristics favorable to survival as it occurs in nature and the implications that it presents are remarkable. Giving credit to omnipotent beings is the way things were explained for years before an understanding of the physical world developed. Christianity is not the first or last of these religions.

You say that evolution never has any real scientific explanation and you want proof. There is bountiful evidence to support evolutionary theory, maybe not to your liking, but its there. Maybe one day we will have the evidence to call it evolutionary fact. You believe in God because the basis for his existance stands up on its own two feet. Prove that, though I doubt you can.

I am thankful you seem more to disposition evolution as a faith that has some seeming plausibility to it (that's as effective as it gets for me), but again you don't justify evolution by continually saying what it obviously is not (pangenesis) especially when that's already been given at least three times =P lol (I had fun "mocking" the "real" idea many people still fancy as fuzzy truth in their heads lol), nor do you justify it by ignoring what it obviously lacks to even be a scientific theory, a legitimate testable mechanism for adding and improving NEW information into the genome, which is exactly what evolution claims to do by some still unprovable "hope" =) Sad, there's no solid evidence to suggest it even exists...just blind conjectures from people with no tangible examples such as they say science is supposed to provide under a microscope =) well where is it. the mechanism??? =) it's not mutation...so??? stillll.....wwwwaiting ;)~

As regards proving God, all you evolutionists have yet to address the central grounds involved in the question of God's existence. (Dennet writes just seven pages on the arguments for God's existence, while Harris none to "justify" his position). You would all fail to address the issue of origins of the plain rationality embedded in the fabric of the universe, of life understood as an autonomous agency, and of consciousness, conceptual thought, and the self. Dawkins sends a healthy dump sliding down his leg when he says the origins of life and consciousness are "one-off" events triggered by an "initial stroke of luck." Even while Wolpert writes: "I have purposely [!] avoided any discussion of consciousness, which remains mostly poorly understood." Dennet wrote about the origin of consciousness "and then a miracle happens." =)~ lmao =D =D =D =D Atheism provides no plausible worldview for the existence of a law-abiding, life-supporting, and rationally accessible universe.

And all of them, like you, show no congnizance of the fallacy of long since REJECTED logical positivism (even by it's most ardent supporters). The original positivists were never so naive as to suggest that God could be a scientific hypothesis--they declared the concept of God to be meaningless precisely because it was not a scientific hypothesis!

Dawkins was asked, "What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it?" Dawkins "I believe that all life, all intelligence, all creativity, and all 'design' anywhere in the universe, is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection. It follows that design comes late in the universe, after a period of Darwinian evolution. Design cannot precede evolution and therefore cannot underlie the universe." Dawkins rejects Higher Intelligence on a matter of personal belief without proof--FAITH. And like many who's beliefs are based on blind faith, he cannot tolerate dissent or defection.

You all hypocriticaly deliberately ignore the well-known truly accepted actual fact that many GREAT men of science saw a direct connection between their scientific work and their affirmation of a "superior mind," the Mind of God. Evolutionist/atheist popularizers who downplay or deny this should just fuq off seriously. About positivism Einstein said, "I am not a positivist. Positivism states that what cannot be observed does not exist. This conception is scientifically indefensible, for it is impossible to make valid affirmations of what people 'can' or 'cannot' observe. One would have to say 'only what we observe exists,' which is obviously [a buncha BULLshit =P lol] false."

"The reason I use parables in talking to them is that they look, but do not see, and they listen, but do not hear or understand. So the prophecy of Isaiah applies to them:

'This people will listen and listen, but not understand;
they will look and look, but not see, because their minds are dull, and they have stopped up their ears and have closed their eyes. Otherwise, their eyes would see, their ears would hear, their minds would understand, and they would turn to me...and I would heal them.' As for you, how fortunate you are! Your eyes see and your ears hear. ..I assure you...many...wanted very much to see what you see, but they could not, and to hear what you hear, but they did not. Listen, then, and learn...

v34...and he would not say a thing to them without using a parable."

Matthew 13 [Interestingly, some just aren't supposed to "get it." Jesus did not come to bring "peace and 'acceptance' on earth" for everyone as so many like to suppose. With the offensive message that this life aint shit, he came to intentionally and deliberately separate and divide. Believe it or not.]

"And Jesus concluded, "Many are invited, but few are chosen." --Matthew 22

I had a previous response here...I beg everyone's apologies, even if at the time, I believed to be justified for all the equally instulting anti-Xstian aspersions. Thanks, Delia.

"Then the disciples came to him and said, "Do you know that the Pharisees had their feelings hurt by what you said?"...Jesus answered "Don't worry about them! They are blind leaders of the blind; and when one blind man leads another, both fall into a ditch." --Matthew 15...

"I believed to be justified for all the equally instulting anti-Xstian aspersions. "

not very christian-like, you know turning the other cheek and all that by insulting people calling them bitches and such, now is it?

Quote all the Biblical scripture you want, it won't change the fact that you obviously don't understand it.

"my parent's always taught me..."--timetide

"Jesus answered, "Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?"--Matthew 12

*sigh* sarcastic role-reversal aside, I guess typically high-minded elitist thinking has its unintended consequences, doesn't it...

even by a hopeful evolutionist perspective that's a strong 2% difference as we look almost nothing alike with such greater cognitive ability.

And if we're descended from apes why are these idiots always studying chimps and monkeys? lol =P

it's so STUPID!!!

that's why it's here Dave =) you're catching on...albeit slowly lol

no, I saw this coming before you posted this after your tirade on uni's latest post. I just wanted to wait till the inevitable responses came rolling in

you saw this coming? =) are you God? so what are still waiting for? Revelation? =) You don't want it. Like I said...but more slowly than even I would have given you credit for. I guess it's not my problem =)

dude, you're a weirdo. you don't make a lick of sense

one difference: evolution is true; creationism is a fabrication.

like I said, you two would make a cute (albeit disturbing) couple

Dave I'll grant you, I'm sure uni' is probably very enjoyable in personal company, and (of course the first consideration for me) if uni' was born a she and not bad looking, the sex might be absolutely great for a drunken night, but it seems both of you two have MUCH more in common =) hehe. make your move!

lmao =) what a wanker. Why not ask why they all happen to take a shit in the tall grass and piss on all your favorite bushes? lol

variation within kinds is acceptable. It's normal. Not evolution. but where does the new information come from to support this fantasy of macroevolution?

Oh wait. There is none. No new information exists within DNA even to this very day, for any creature to become a completely new being. In fact instead of macroevolution we find a LOSS of information via the same mechanism of mutations that you claim gives rise to new life. In fact, we actually witness them as diseases and never beneficial traits "so successful" it carries any endangered species to new heights, appendages, limbs or new species.

evolution is LIE. believe it. your antiquated regurgitated textbooks are cooked for humanism. Period. and I don't give a fark your too ignorant to know your worldview IS your faith, and just one among many others.

you'd think real evolutionists would be watching the endangered species with real hope, instead of rehashing the same old shit in new fabricated guises.

Screw all preening humanist pigs. They're like flies on the same piece of shit and when they're found out, they act like all they gotta do is reshape the very same piece of shit and call it a NEW shit...and can't you see the evidence! WE'RE here now! lmao =D

While I find your response highly offensive, I will make every attempt to be tactful in correcting your misguided points of psuedo-intellect. Remember that it was you that brought the topic of evolution to a message board for discussion. I will discuss but I will not throw shit.

Point 1:
Echoz says:
"variation within kinds is acceptable. It's normal. Not evolution. but where does the new information come from to support this fantasy of macroevolution?"

First of all variation is a product of natural selection. In nature the best possible traits within a species are are passed from one generation to another. This pattern of inheritance is the result of differential reproductive success within a species. Those with a trait that is favorable to survival do just that, they survive and pass it on. Other of the same species without the trait die out. It's really quite simple.

Point 2:
Echoz says:
"Oh wait. There is none. No new information exists within DNA even to this very day, for any creature to become a completely new being. In fact instead of macroevolution we find a LOSS of information via the same mechanism of mutations that you claim gives rise to new life. In fact, we actually witness them as diseases and never beneficial traits "so successful" it carries any endangered species to new heights, appendages, limbs or new species."

If you look at the current variation among related species and fossil records of those that have become extinct, it becomes clear that there is an ancient ancestoral relationship present. This is one of the very basic principle of Darwinian evolution. Among each of these species there are variations within the DNA.

For an answer to the LOSS of information please refer back to the explanation I gave refuting your first point. Those with the inheritated trait that favor survival do just that, others without the trait die. The link is not invisable. Go back to the example of the giraffe. The ones with the longer necks survived and produced more well adapted offspring.

To understand evolution you have to realize that this is not something that happens overnight. It takes billions of years. It is evolution through natural selection.

that's why this is here. you mistake reality for what YOU WANT TO BELIEVE. ATHEISM and evolution are beliefs. NOT proofs. Have you ever seen evolution happen in real life?

Where are your REAL LIFE examples? I can show you an endangered species list and not one of 'em is evolving toward new life. And don't give me your crap =P fossil record that's been changed so many times it's like using the same piece of shit paper just folded a different way.

"you mistake reality for what YOU WANT TO BELIEVE." Everyone does that, but that's the point of scientific exploration- to give us the clearest picture of reality possible using many different ways to look at the world. Have I ever seen evolution happen in real life? Yes, it's called microevolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution) and most of the time even creationists accept it in their weird way. Other than that, the fossil record is evidence of evolution. The fossil record is added to and modified when new information can be proven and verified. If a new animal or bone is discovered, or if a scientist is able to prove something was assembled incorrectly, they provide evidence for such.

I don't know what you believe in, but I can assure you that calling me a bitch and atheists inhuman is not helping your cause or making your point. It only diminishes your credibility by implying that you rely on brashness and not real information to attempt to prove yourself.

I have a real life example for you. Evolution exists and has been oberved in viral and bacterial genomes. That is the reason why new strains of AIDS viruses appear: new strains evolve that are resistant to a certain medicine. That is why people need different types of AIDS medication. This case is a classic example of evolution via natural selection.

Evolution is also a possibe explanation for Swine Flu. I say possible not because the other explanations include "god made it" (because none of them do), but some people are specutating that it may have been made in a lab.

The reason that microevolution evolution can be observed in viral genomes and bacteria is because the life spans of bacteria are so short, so the genetic makeup of the generations can be monitored very easily. I say viral genomes and not "the lives of viruses" because there is much speculation as to whether viruses are actually alive or not. It is much harder to actually monitor the genetic microevolution in species in the animal kingdom because of our relatively long lifespans.

But im not gonna give u a bio lesson. If you dont believe me then stop posting nonsense and go pick up a peer reviewed scientific journal.

Technically your explanations for evolution in viruses are misguided. A virus is actually a non-living particle that relies on a host cell to reproduce. HIV and Influenza are examples of retroviruses that carry with them a two single strands of RNA and two copies of an enzyme called reverse transcriptase. Without getting to technical reverse transcriptase lacks a proof reading mechanism commonly found in DNA and RNA polymearase and thereby cause point mutations that are responsible for variation. Do this thousands of times and a virus like HIV becomes extremely difficult to treat, especially since it attacks cells of the immune system.

Personally I am not entirely sure that you could call that evolution but the concept is similar.

Sorry Mambosauce I didn't read all the way through your post but now see that you kind of explained this already.

"peer-reviewed"? it's convenient to ignore the fact that the institutional bias for accepting evolutionary theory as unquestioned "fact" however still to this day technically unprovable, is so bad that one risks ostracism for doing so.

more interesting is how even today's best most modern "examples" insidiously posed as evolution's new life are typically, (ahem) actually, diseases--the very things that would be seen rather to prove evolution's inept and actual inability. though evolutionists keep floundering, the hope of so-called micro-"evolution" (maybe it should be called natural micro-variance or something else) is a constant dead end they seem to like running down for lack of anything else.

equally interesting, looking at the astounding variety of much more complicated life that we see all around us, despite a deteriorating gene pool, itself defying any "logical" evolution as well, you'd think there would be almost an infinite number of better examples for evolution--like new animals from the endangered species list "evolving" to "adapt" to "environmental pressures." any studies from "peer-reviewed" journals there, Mr. "If you don't believe me then stop posting nonsense..."? =) (I'm sorry, I don't easily see a name for you)

and...well, thank you for commenting becktionary.

agreed

Even if I weren't Xstian it would still be clear to me evolution is desperate fabrication to create what doesn't exist. NEW LIFE. =)

Where is it. That almight macroevolution BULLSHIT is dead. always has been...though your hope burns dimmer with every macroevolution you witness with the two eyes in your own head. You have seen it right? That's why you're so absolutely convinced beyond every possible doubt, right?

at your insistence. an atheist is the product of his own stupidity. well =) the christian bible does say that he who believes there is no god is a fool...so, same thing basically.

@echoz

Yep because living your life the way a BOOK tells you to isnt stupid or anything. Heres a question for you, why is your religion correct and not say buddhism or hinduism? There has been religion as long as there has been humans to worship... so why is yours the correct one? Because they tell you so?

i did say retarded, didn't I =) Apropos!

you two make a cute couple!

For the love of god, evolution is not a religon. it is a series of well tested theories that can be duplicated and observed. religon is not. religon is an unproveable belief.

well-tested? duplicated? well, at least "theory" you had right, thank you. but let's see you do it. if it's so empirically well tested, I want those results on my desk. I want the new creature. I want the DNA that shows new information where none previously existed. (hint: mutation is just another constantly promulgated evolutionist myth...most mutations manifest as actual DISEASES, hardly beneficial or consistent with the actual and real bona fide FAITH of evolution. You gotta have faith to believe this, even if it sparkles...there's still no real tangible undisputable proof. It remains a humanist theory, no matter how much you "accept" it as fact somehow.

I've been watching those endangered species for any hope they'll "adapt" so successfully into completely new creatures under some miracle of "macroevolution" and guess what...your "theory" fails in real life, every time. It's no wonder the only hope for evolution lies in this crap fossil record that's been tampered and re-fabricated so many times it's a pathetic embrassment.

but oh well...*shrug* it's the failed flawed fabricated and unfortunately "accepted" theory by most people who immediately discredit any other theory out of hand for mere "accepted" bias. One theory of origins among others you'd think would wrought more humility among every group, except that evolutionists demand to be the only voice to be actually heard.

And that's a fact. I'm not here to be right or popular or esteemed. Just real. And more honest about things actually provable and those we'll never be able to prove, like evolution. the law of thermodynamics is going to make very damn sure of that. too bad more "intellectuals" here do not attempt to reckon with it.

Just like Kurt Godel's Incompleteness none of you "rationalists" and "logicians" ever like to face up to, even a century later because the truth murders the hope intellectualism can reach god-like knowledge, when it's already proven it never will. =D Crazy shit... but true. Very true.