Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

Homosexual behaviour widespread in animals according to new study

dsade said:
the initial post in the thead was addressing ONLY the issue of natural wihout value judgement.
Click to expand...
this was the intent of the thread, which was based on the argument of many on this forum that homosexuality is not "natural".
 
EasyEJL said:
Show where in the same species in similar climates without other outside interventions that only affected 1 group that with the group having same sex intercourse had higher survival than the group that didn't. If you can't show that, you don't have a causal relationship.
Click to expand...

IMO, you are also misrepresenting what can be considered a causal link in terms of a species-survival benefit. To be considered a survival benefit, a characteristic does not need to be shown as advantageous over another characteristic within sub-populations of the same species - i.e., heterosexuality v., homosexuality. They are applicable as adaptive mechanisms in different circumstances, and are therefore both considered as survival mechanisms in-and-of themselves. The standard of measure is not comparative, but rather whether or not it assisted a particular species to survive in a specific situation - this is what adaptability entails.

And to that, they are called "adaptive mechanisms" because they are circumstantial. This is important, because the homosexuality arises when necessary, and therefore a comparison between two populations is a moot point. The fact that one population would be heterosexual and the other homosexual in-itself arrives us at the conclusion that each population was using the adaptive mechanism necessary at the time; and therefore, any conclusions drawn from your hypothetical would be null and void, based on the premise of adaptability alone.
 
bpmartyr said:
Seriously. Trying to comprehend your senseless babble hurts my head.


If you had ANY reading comprehension you would have noticed I stated "aside from your spelling and grammar". Your spelling and grammar do not require any outside influence for belittlement, it is intrinsic.

Telling you to stop now and quit making a fool out of your self is NOT disrespectful but rather the complete opposite. You would tell someone if their fly was unzipped wouldn't you?

Biblically based? There is a BIG difference between a movie that is a true story and one that is BASED on a true story, no? Rhetorical question Farley.

You calling me a bigot is again laughable and makes me really wish that you use your internet access for something quite useful and clearly much needed in your case; starting with a dictionary and spell check ffs.

Now take your drivel to a forum with other like minded Neanderthals where in you can bask in each others ineptitude and superciliousness.
Click to expand...

A tree is known by its fruits, I am not the best speller and realy dont care. Ill stay right were I am because I can. I will no longer respond to you either. That avatar fits you well. MR Evangelical, give me a break.
 
This is incredible. People representing virtually every different politcal and religious viewpoint on the forum have put aside their differences and come together just to criticise this one guy and his insanely inept reasoning.

I'm genuinely moved. My faith in mankind has just been given a serious shot in the arm.
 
NattyT said:
The disease enters the body and attacks the organ that it is designed to it dosent matter who the host is. If you belive in spiritual things then you can understand this.
Click to expand...

We inherited mortality because of Adams disobedience. There are consequences and it is death. There is salvation in Christ. Regardless you will get sick and die, and if you live long enough, maybe even cancer. That is our lot in life. Thank Adam.

I mean no disrespect regarding your race, so please don't misconstrue my point.

Based on your theory the African American race as a whole is in a grim spiritual condition:

Invalid Link Removed

Now think about your statement and think about the facts.

  • African American men are at least 50% more likely to develop lung cancer than white men.
  • African American men are twice as likely to be diagnosed with prostate cancer as white men.
  • African Americans have a rate of diabetes of 33.0 per 100,000 compared to a rate of 23.2 in whites.
 
B5150 said:
We inherited mortality because of Adams disobedience. There are consequences and it is death. There is salvation in Christ. Regardless you will get sick and die, and if you live long enough, maybe even cancer. That is our lot in life. Thank Adam.

I mean no disrespect regarding your race, so please don't misconstrue my point.

Based on your theory the African American race as a whole is in a grim spiritual condition:

Invalid Link Removed

Now think about your statement and think about the facts.

  • African American men are at least 50% more likely to develop lung cancer than white men.
  • African American men are twice as likely to be diagnosed with prostate cancer as white men.
  • African Americans have a rate of diabetes of 33.0 per 100,000 compared to a rate of 23.2 in whites.
Click to expand...

None taken, the thing is this. Even though adam invited sin in thrue the fall, the 2nd adam (Jesus Christ) was sent to conquer those things including death. We can live in health and haeling because of what Jesus did. Now dont get me wrong my race does not take care of them selfs the way we should, that contributes to a lot of our problems. We still have a natural Body that is able to get sick, but also the gospel teaches us that disease can be spiritual, and jesus can and did heal people.

I have met many that have been healed when doctors said it was not possible,glory to god. As belivers we have acess to this. African Americans need to take bettr care of them selfs at least a big percentage of them. Even though I am a black man I am a born agin Christan I ama new creation and that goes for anyone who has called on the name of the lord for repentance.

So when I speak I dont speak on the behalf of my race, but onthe behalf of those that are belivers no matter there race.
 
NattyT said:
None taken, the thing is this. Even though adam invited sin in thrue the fall, the 2nd adam (Jesus Christ) was sent to conquer those things including death. We can live in health and haeling because of what Jesus did. Now dont get me wrong my race does not take care of them selfs the way we should, that contributes to a lot of our problems. We still have a natural Body that is able to get sick, but also the gospel teaches us that disease can be spiritual, and jesus can and did heal people.

I have met many that have been healed when doctors said it was not possible,glory to god. As belivers we have acess to this. African Americans need to take bettr care of them selfs at least a big percentage of them. Even though I am a black man I am a born agin Christan I ama new creation and that goes for anyone who has called on the name of the lord for repentance.

So when I speak I dont speak on the behalf of my race, but onthe behalf of those that are belivers no matter there race.
Click to expand...
We are in agreement on who Christ is and certainly in agreement on the power and authority we possess as members of the Body of Christ.

You and I can get sick and die in righteousness and sinlessness just as well as in unrighteousness and sin. Good, God fearing people die daily.
 
Mulletsoldier said:
Incorrect. In fact, the study went on to specifically state that a survival benefit was conferred as a direct result of homoerotic behavior - i.e., the species, to a certain extent, was surviving because of, and not in spite of, homosexuality. I would suggest reading the study you are commenting on, honestly. To tell me my arguments are weak, and then continue to make judgments on a work you have never read is ridiculous. As I said, the **** is there for you to read, you are choosing not to read it.
Click to expand...

As you state in your piece above, the study "states" a survival benefit. Does it prove it? No, its the author of the study's OPINION. If there is no causal evidence then he is stating his opinion. If there aren't 2 groups of the same species in similar environmental conditions where 1 is dying out without same sex copulation, and the other with same sex copulation is surviving then there is no proof of survival benefit as there is no evidence of worse survival without that behavior. Again, show any actual proof, the study doesn't.


Mulletsoldier said:
I am not going to argue with you about your intent; it is fairly obvious. As for the pathology, explain to me in which ways homosexuality results in a pathological state.
Click to expand...

There is as more direct evidence that homosexuality is tied to a pathological state in the statistcs Brian showed than there is evidence of survival benefit with same sex copulation. Again, I don't at all argue at survival benefit of same sex cooperation whether to fend off outsiders or care for young, but the fact that a study author who is purposefully trying to show homosexuality's natural origin find that it carries survival benefit is no more "evidence" than the group that says is statistically significantly tied to higher suicide levels and other mental illnesses

IMO, you are also misrepresenting what can be considered a causal link in terms of a species-survival benefit. To be considered a survival benefit, a characteristic does not need to be shown as advantageous over another characteristic within sub-populations of the same species - i.e., heterosexuality v., homosexuality. They are applicable as adaptive mechanisms in different circumstances, and are therefore both considered as survival mechanisms in-and-of themselves. The standard of measure is not comparative, but rather whether or not it assisted a particular species to survive in a specific situation - this is what adaptability entails.

And to that, they are called "adaptive mechanisms" because they are circumstantial. This is important, because the homosexuality arises when necessary, and therefore a comparison between two populations is a moot point. The fact that one population would be heterosexual and the other homosexual in-itself arrives us at the conclusion that each population was using the adaptive mechanism necessary at the time; and therefore, any conclusions drawn from your hypothetical would be null and void, based on the premise of adaptability alone.
Click to expand...

Thats great logic if your intent is to try and convince weak minds, but again you are just attempting to change the definition of "proof" and "beneficial", and use non-logic worded nicely. According to your use of it, everything and anything that happens to any species right up until the second it goes extinct would be considered beneficial. Every action of man throughout history would have to be considered beneficial, as they were all based on the circumstances of the moment, and allowed the species to survive.

For a behavior to have species survival benefit it has to be beneficial to the survival of a species, not neutral or negative. the definition of beneficial is

receiving or entitling one to receive advantage, use, or benefit <a beneficial legacy>
Click to expand...

So to prove something is beneficial, you have to show the advantage. The fact that the species survives doesn't prove that there is an advantage - it only proves that action/event is survivable. To show an advantage or benefit would require showing that groups without that behavior don't perform as well. But stating that something is beneficial because it happens and the species hasn't died out and because it "arises when necessary" should sound silly to anyone.
 
EasyEJL said:
As you state in your piece above, the study "states" a survival benefit. Does it prove it? No, its the author of the study's OPINION. If there is no causal evidence then he is stating his opinion. If there aren't 2 groups of the same species in similar environmental conditions where 1 is dying out without same sex copulation, and the other with same sex copulation is surviving then there is no proof of survival benefit as there is no evidence of worse survival without that behavior. Again, show any actual proof, the study doesn't.




There is as more direct evidence that homosexuality is tied to a pathological state in the statistcs Brian showed than there is evidence of survival benefit with same sex copulation. Again, I don't at all argue at survival benefit of same sex cooperation whether to fend off outsiders or care for young, but the fact that a study author who is purposefully trying to show homosexuality's natural origin find that it carries survival benefit is no more "evidence" than the group that says is statistically significantly tied to higher suicide levels and other mental illnesses



Thats great logic if your intent is to try and convince weak minds, but again you are just attempting to change the definition of "proof" and "beneficial", and use non-logic worded nicely. According to your use of it, everything and anything that happens to any species right up until the second it goes extinct would be considered beneficial. Every action of man throughout history would have to be considered beneficial, as they were all based on the circumstances of the moment, and allowed the species to survive.

For a behavior to have species survival benefit it has to be beneficial to the survival of a species, not neutral or negative. the definition of beneficial is



So to prove something is beneficial, you have to show the advantage. The fact that the species survives doesn't prove that there is an advantage - it only proves that action/event is survivable. To show an advantage or benefit would require showing that groups without that behavior don't perform as well. But stating that something is beneficial because it happens and the species hasn't died out and because it "arises when necessary" should sound silly to anyone.
Click to expand...
Well said.:thanks:
 
EasyEJL said:
As you state in your piece above, the study "states" a survival benefit. Does it prove it? No, its the author of the study's OPINION. If there is no causal evidence then he is stating his opinion. If there aren't 2 groups of the same species in similar environmental conditions where 1 is dying out without same sex copulation, and the other with same sex copulation is surviving then there is no proof of survival benefit as there is no evidence of worse survival without that behavior. Again, show any actual proof, the study doesn't.
Click to expand...

You don't seem to understand the nature of an adaptive survival benefit. As I said in my second post to you, the fact it is a survival mechanism means that it is circumstantial to the environment and stimulus. And so, a control environment produces fundamentally different survival responses - i.e., it is a moot point, as is yours. A far more apt scenario would be to place a homosexual control group and a homosexual gene knock-out group in a situation where homosexuality is theorized to have a survival benefit, and discuss the survival rates. However, even in this case, the results are irrelevant because, again, survival adaptations are relative to a certain environment [something you don't care to understand]. The worth of a survival benefit is only proven in situations where it is deemed to be necessary. Your point is similar to trying to judge the power and prowess of a fish by throwing it on land and seeing how far it gets.

On the nonsense of "actual" proof, we could go on to state this about every study known to man, so I will stop you there. Personally, I consider a review of 1,000 case studies to be rather convincing. However, I fail to see how you are or are not convinced, considering you have actually not read what you are analyzing. Are you going to continue to blindly speak about something you have never read? This is getting a bit ridiculous. You say, "the study doesn't", but you have never read it. Honestly man.

There is as more direct evidence that homosexuality is tied to a pathological state in the statistcs Brian showed than there is evidence of survival benefit with same sex copulation. Again, I don't at all argue at survival benefit of same sex cooperation whether to fend off outsiders or care for young, but the fact that a study author who is purposefully trying to show homosexuality's natural origin find that it carries survival benefit is no more "evidence" than the group that says is statistically significantly tied to higher suicide levels and other mental illnesses
Click to expand...

Apparently you don't understand what a pathological state means, either. It refers to a diseased organism or tissue within an organism that affects its function, and/or a persistent psychological state - homosexuality is neither of these things. All Brian's study showed is things we already know: anti-gay sentiment puts a strain on openly educating homosexuals about safe-sex practices, plus their given method of intercourse is more predisposed for disease transfer; both things have absolutely nothing to do with pathology.

As Gross searches for explanations, he theorizes that the blame lies with several factors: the difficulty of condom use, changes in milieus where HIV is spread, slow development of biomedical interventions, the separation of prevention and treatment, and moralism--declaring that homophobia "exacerbates rather than alleviates the threat."

He notes an emerging visible subculture of "barebacking" (anal intercourse without condoms among homosexual men).
He blames homophobia, which "inhibits prevention at all levels, not least the broader culture, which delivers anti-gay messages, institutionalizes homophobia through structural mechanisms, such as laws that regulate intimate sexual behavior, and lags in support of sensitive and honest prevention for gay and bisexual youth, young adults and older men."
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

You are choosing an aspect of homosexual culture (higher proportion of AIDS) that can be fairly concretely linked to anti-gay sentiment, both random and institutionalized, and somehow correlating it your misunderstood definition of pathology. Fairly weak analogy at best.

Thats great logic if your intent is to try and convince weak minds, but again you are just attempting to change the definition of "proof" and "beneficial", and use non-logic worded nicely. According to your use of it, everything and anything that happens to any species right up until the second it goes extinct would be considered beneficial. Every action of man throughout history would have to be considered beneficial, as they were all based on the circumstances of the moment, and allowed the species to survive.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. The "circumstances of the moment" are not species-wide adaptations that consistently manifest themselves in particular circumstances. The only non-logic here is the way you are butchering biology to try and prove a failed point.

So to prove something is beneficial, you have to show the advantage. The fact that the species survives doesn't prove that there is an advantage - it only proves that action/event is survivable. To show an advantage or benefit would require showing that groups without that behavior don't perform as well. But stating that something is beneficial because it happens and the species hasn't died out and because it "arises when necessary" should sound silly to anyone.
Click to expand...

Where you are drawing these conclusions from is beyond me. First of all, you continue to yammer on about a study you have never cared to read, which is preposterous in itself. The fact is, through the systematic review, the author found myriad specific benefits of homoerotic behavior that conferred a survival advantage - i.e., as I said before, either the population or specific organism in question increased its rate of survival due directly to the homosexual behavior exhibited.

The study does not state, "In spite of the homoerotic behavior, the species survived", no. Considerably different than the picture you are trying to point. On the other hand, it did directly state that the way homosexuality stressed the population produced increased survival benefits in the majority of species studied. The difference was, primarily, the way in which the benefit was produced. In some species, the direct benefit was removing potential mates from the breeding population, thereby decreasing the stress on a scarce food supply. In others, homoerotic dominance prevented weaker males from procreating, ensuring the purity of the gene supply. In general, though, the study spoke exactly against your points.

Really a simple understanding of either biology or how to construct a study shows these results to be valid. Coming back to the example of the fish, what you are trying to say is this: "Hey, hey look at that fish! I threw it on land and it's dying! It's fins, gills, and powerfull trunk muscles are obviously of no survival benefit!". Of course, all of these things are amazing survival benefits, provided they are studied in the environment in which they are necessary. The word adaptation in-and-of-itself implies a specific evolution to a specific circumstance; and so, trying to prove the veracity of this benefit in any other situation, particularly a comparative one, is both silly and flies in the face of proper study construction.

Considering these mechanisms helped the species adapt to a specific situation, they will of course only arise in a specific situation. In no way could we derive valuable results from your hypothetical, because it completely ignores the very premise of adaptability we are speaking about in the first place. And there is no verbosity or careful construction here, just a small understanding of biology, a pinch of proper study construction, and a few heaping table spoons of common sense, which you normally have in spades, but have none of right now. As you love definitions, you should look up "adaptation" and then tell me if the definition fits with your hypothetical, or the way I have presented it here.
 
Mulletsoldier said:
On the other hand, it did directly state that the way homosexuality stressed the population produced increased survival benefits in the majority of species studied. The difference was, primarily, the way in which the benefit was produced. In some species, the direct benefit was removing potential mates from the breeding population, thereby decreasing the stress on a scarce food supply. In others, homoerotic dominance prevented weaker males from procreating, ensuring the purity of the gene supply. In general, though, the study spoke exactly against your points.
Click to expand...
Invalid Link Removed
 
B5150 said:
We are in agreement on who Christ is and certainly in agreement on the power and authority we possess as members of the Body of Christ.

You and I can get sick and die in righteousness and sinlessness just as well as in unrighteousness and sin. Good, God fearing people die daily.
Click to expand...

your right, a lot of belivers do die, but we have so many diffrent things being taught now a days that you never know where somr ones faith is. You have some christans that would sit back and say "this must be gods will" and they leave it at that. Then you have the other that belive in the five fold ministry and the gift of healing and speaking in toungs and etc. The house I am under belives in healing and the laying of hands and fasting and praying. We belive in casting out demons but this takes extreme faith and time.

My brother is a pastor at one of the biggest churches in Las angeles, he graduated from Oral Roberts and has a great deal of knowledge when it comes to these things. Demons and evil spirits all play a great deal when it comes to these things is all I am saying. The bible says we as belivers are to live a life of abundance and joy, if we claim it. We as belivers speak a lot of death when we should speak life, I belive we bring a lot of things on our selfs and are in desperate need of a revival.

There is power in the name of jesus and demons and spirits will flee when it is spoken by the right person. But I am glad that we atleast agree on somthings.
 
NattyT said:
your right, a lot of belivers do die, but we have so many diffrent things being taught now a days that you never know where somr ones faith is. You have some christans that would sit back and say "this must be gods will" and they leave it at that. Then you have the other that belive in the five fold ministry and the gift of healing and speaking in toungs and etc. The house I am under belives in healing and the laying of hands and fasting and praying. We belive in casting out demons but this takes extreme faith and time.

My brother is a pastor at one of the biggest churches in Las angeles, he graduated from Oral Roberts and has a great deal of knowledge when it comes to these things. Demons and evil spirits all play a great deal when it comes to these things is all I am saying. The bible says we as belivers are to live a life of abundance and joy, if we claim it. We as belivers speak a lot of death when we should speak life, I belive we bring a lot of things on our selfs and are in desperate need of a revival.

There is power in the name of jesus and demons and spirits will flee when it is spoken by the right person. But I am glad that we atleast agree on somthings.
Click to expand...
I have faith that all things work for good for those who love the Lord. Maturity has me beginning to understand that what I believe is good for me and His will for me may be different. True faith is the ability to accept the difference.

I have been delivered from substance abuse and sexual depravity. You have no need to convince me. Yes we are in agreement.
 
Invalid Link Removed

This site states some good things about homosexuality and spirits among other things, hope it works.
 
if the swine flu morphs back into mass population spread in August, after a period of dormancy, like the 1918 epidemic, where will you go for help?

The priest, or the doctor?
 
Ill do both, and im not catholic so I dont see a priest. I never said we didnt need doctors I have a natural body and doctors are very important but they dont always have the answers. At the end of the day its the grace of God that got me through.
 
Ill hola at you guys someother time, I gotta go to bed. Hay no hard feelings, all though its about two of you I cant realy deal with. But its all good, have a good night and God bless.
 
Since this thread is a question based on evolution. I figured I would post this up to see what would be said. Especially what dsade will say.

1. The complexity of living systems could never evolve by chance—they had to be designed and created.
A system that is irreducibly complex has precise components working together to perform the basic function of the system. (A mousetrap is a simple example.) If any part of that system were missing, the system would cease to function. Gradual additions could not account for the origin of such a system. It would have to come together fully formed and integrated. Many living systems exhibit this (vision, blood-clotting, etc.). When you look at a watch, you assume there was a watchmaker. A watch is too complex to "happen" by chance. Yet such living systems are almost infinitely more complex than a watch. They could not be random—they simply had to be designed and created.

2. The high information content of DNA could only have come from intelligence.
Information science teaches that in all known cases, complex information requires an intelligent message sender. This is at the core of the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI). DNA is by far the most compact information storage/retrieval system known. A pinhead of DNA has a billion times more information capacity than a 4-gigabit hard drive. Ironically, evolutionists scan the heavens using massive radio telescopes hoping for relatively simple signal patterns that might have originated in outer space, all the while ignoring the incredibly complex evidence of superior intelligence built into every human's DNA. While we're waiting to hear signs of intelligence behind interstellar communication, we're ignoring those built into us.

3. No mutation that increases genetic information has ever been discovered.
Mutations which increase genetic information would be the raw material necessary for evolution. To get from "amoeba" to "man" would require a massive net increase in information. There are many examples of supposed evolution given by proponents. Variation within a species (finch beak, for example), bacteria which acquire antibiotic resistance, people born with an extra chromosome, etc. However, none of the examples demonstrate the development of new information. Instead, they demonstrate either preprogrammed variation, multiple copies of existing information, or even loss of information (natural selection and adaptation involve loss of information). The total lack of any such evidence refutes evolutionary theory.

4. Evolution flies directly in the face of entropy, the second law of thermodynamics.
This law of physics states that all systems, whether open or closed, have a tendency to disorder (or "the least energetic state"). There are some special cases where local order can increase, but this is at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. Raw energy cannot generate the complex systems in living things, or the information required to build them. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Yet, evolution is a building-up process, suggesting that things tend to become more complex and advanced over time. This is directly opposed to the law of entropy.

5. There is a total lack of undisputed examples (fossilized or living) of the millions of transitional forms ("missing links") required for evolution to be true.
Evolution does not require a single missing link, but innumerable ones. We should be surrounded by a zoo of transitional forms that cannot be categorized as one particular life form. But we don't see this—there are different kinds of dogs, but all are clearly dogs. The fossils show different sizes of horses, but all are clearly horses. None is on the verge of being some other life form. The fossil record shows complex fossilized life suddenly appearing, and there are major gaps between the fossilized "kinds." Darwin acknowledged that if his theory were true, it would require millions of transitional forms. He believed they would be found in fossil records. They haven't been.

6. Pictures of ape-to-human "missing links" are extremely subjective and based on evolutionists' already-formed assumptions. Often they are simply contrived.
The series of pictures or models that show progressive development from a little monkey to modern man are an insult to scientific research. These are often based on fragmentary remains that can be "reconstructed" a hundred different ways. The fact is, many supposed "ape-men" are very clearly apes. Evolutionists now admit that other so-called "ape-men" would be able to have children by modern humans, which makes them the same species as humans. The main species said to bridge this gap, Homo habilis, is thought by many to be a mixture of ape and human fossils. In other words, the "missing link" (in reality there would have to be millions of them) is still missing. The body hair and the blank expressions of sub-humans in these models doesn't come from the bones, but the assumptions of the artist. Virtually nothing can be determined about hair and the look in someone's eyes based on a few old bones.

7. The dating methods that evolutionists rely upon to assign millions and billions of years to rocks are very inconsistent and based on unproven (and questionable) assumptions.
Dating methods that use radioactive decay to determine age assume that radioactive decay rates have always been constant. Yet, research has shown that decay rates can change according to the chemical environment of the material being tested. In fact, decay rates have been increased in the laboratory by a factor of a billion. All such dating methods also assume a closed system—that no isotopes were gained or lost by the rock since it formed. It's common knowledge that hydrothermal waters, at temperatures of only a few hundred degrees Centigrade, can create an open system where chemicals move easily from one rock system to another. In fact, this process is one of the excuses used by evolutionists to reject dates that don't fit their expectations. What's not commonly known is that the majority of dates are not even consistent for the same rock. Furthermore, 20th century lava flows often register dates in the millions to billions of years. There are many different ways of dating the earth, and many of them point to an earth much too young for evolution to have had a chance. All age-dating methods rely on unprovable assumptions.

8. Uses continue to be found for supposedly "leftover" body structures.
Evolutionists point to useless and vestigial (leftover) body structures as evidence of evolution. However, it's impossible to prove that an organ is useless, because there's always the possibility that a use may be discovered in the future. That's been the case for over 100 supposedly useless organs which are now known to be essential. Scientists continue to discover uses for such organs. It's worth noting that even if an organ were no longer needed (e.g., eyes of blind creatures in caves), it would prove devolution not evolution. The evolutionary hypothesis needs to find examples of developing organs—those that are increasing in complexity.

9. Evolution is said to have begun by spontaneous generation—a concept ridiculed by biology.
When I was a sophomore in high school, and a brand new Christian, my biology class spent the first semester discussing how ignorant people used to believe that garbage gave rise to rats, and raw meat produced maggots. This now disproven concept was called "spontaneous generation." Louis Pasteur proved that life only comes from life—this is the law of biogenesis. The next semester we studied evolution, where we learned that the first living cell came from a freak combination of nonliving material (where that nonliving material came from we were not told). "Chemical Evolution" is just another way of saying "spontaneous generation"—life comes from nonlife. Evolution is therefore built on a fallacy science long ago proved to be impossible.

Evolutionists admit that the chances of evolutionary progress are extremely low. Yet, they believe that given enough time, the apparently impossible becomes possible. If I flip a coin, I have a 50/50 chance of getting heads. To get five "heads" in a row is unlikely but possible. If I flipped the coin long enough, I would eventually get five in a row. If I flipped it for years nonstop, I might get 50 or even 100 in a row. But this is only because getting heads is an inherent possibility. What are the chances of me flipping a coin, and then seeing it sprout arms and legs, and go sit in a corner and read a magazine? No chance. Given billions of years, the chances would never increase. Great periods of time make the possible likely but never make the impossible possible. No matter how long it's given, non-life will not become alive.

10. The scientific method can only test existing data—it cannot draw conclusions about origins.
Micro-evolution, changes within a species on a small scale, is observable. But evidence for macro-evolution, changes transcending species, is conspicuous by its absence. To prove the possibility of anything, science must be able to reproduce exact original conditions. Even when it proves something is possible, it doesn't mean it therefore happened. Since no man was there to record or even witness the beginning, conclusions must be made only on the basis of interpreting presently available information. If I put on rose-colored glasses, I will always see red. I accept the Bible's teaching on creation, and see the evidence as being consistently supportive of that belief. When dealing with origins, everyone who believes anything does so by faith, whether faith in God, the Bible, himself, modern science, or the dependability of his own subjective interpretations of existing data. I would rather put my faith in God's revealed Word.


Recommended books on evolution:
Refuting Evolution I and II (Dr. Jonathan Sarfati)
The Answers Book (Revised and expanded by Ken Ham, Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, Dr. Carl Wieland)
Not By Chance! (Dr. Lee Spetner)
Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (Dr. Michael Behe)
In the Beginning was Information (Dr. Werner Gitt)
Darwin on Trial and Defeating Darwinism (Phillip Johnson)
A Case Against Accident and Self-Organization (Dean L. Overman)
The Creation Hypothesis (J. P. Moreland)
The Case for a Creator (Lee Strobel)
 
dsade said:
But you cannot say it is unnatural.
Click to expand...

What separates people from animals is a mastery of ourselves. Only idiot liberals think indulgence and appeasement (essentially hedonism) which is natural to an unaware creatures is the correct path.
 
These answers are all copied from the website in my sig. It provides very detailed information into why all creationist arguments are incorrect.

1. The complexity of living systems could never evolve by chance—they had to be designed and created.
A system that is irreducibly complex has precise components working together to perform the basic function of the system. (A mousetrap is a simple example.) If any part of that system were missing, the system would cease to function. Gradual additions could not account for the origin of such a system. It would have to come together fully formed and integrated. Many living systems exhibit this (vision, blood-clotting, etc.). When you look at a watch, you assume there was a watchmaker. A watch is too complex to "happen" by chance. Yet such living systems are almost infinitely more complex than a watch. They could not be random—they simply had to be designed and created.
Click to expand...

# Irreducible complexity can evolve. It is defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed, so it only indicates that the system did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function. That still leaves several evolutionary mechanisms:

* deletion of parts
* addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system (Pennisi 2001)
* change of function
* addition of a second function to a part (Aharoni et al. 2004)
* gradual modification of parts


All of these mechanisms have been observed in genetic mutations. In particular, deletions and gene duplications are fairly common (Dujon et al. 2004; Hooper and Berg 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000), and together they make irreducible complexity not only possible but expected. In fact, it was predicted by Nobel-prize-winning geneticist Hermann Muller almost a century ago (Muller 1918, 463-464). Muller referred to it as interlocking complexity (Muller 1939).

Evolutionary origins of some irreducibly complex systems have been described in some detail. For example, the evolution of the Krebs citric acid cycle has been well studied (Meléndez-Hevia et al. 1996), and the evolution of an "irreducible" system of a hormone-receptor system has been elucidated (Bridgham et al. 2006). Irreducibility is no obstacle to their formation.

# Even if irreducible complexity did prohibit Darwinian evolution, the conclusion of design does not follow. Other processes might have produced it. Irreducible complexity is an example of a failed argument from incredulity.

# Irreducible complexity is poorly defined. It is defined in terms of parts, but it is far from obvious what a "part" is. Logically, the parts should be individual atoms, because they are the level of organization that does not get subdivided further in biochemistry, and they are the smallest level that biochemists consider in their analysis. Behe, however, considered sets of molecules to be individual parts, and he gave no indication of how he made his determinations.

2. The high information content of DNA could only have come from intelligence.
Information science teaches that in all known cases, complex information requires an intelligent message sender. This is at the core of the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI). DNA is by far the most compact information storage/retrieval system known. A pinhead of DNA has a billion times more information capacity than a 4-gigabit hard drive. Ironically, evolutionists scan the heavens using massive radio telescopes hoping for relatively simple signal patterns that might have originated in outer space, all the while ignoring the incredibly complex evidence of superior intelligence built into every human's DNA. While we're waiting to hear signs of intelligence behind interstellar communication, we're ignoring those built into us.
Click to expand...
1. The genetic code is not a true code; it is more of a cypher. DNA is a sequence of four different bases (denoted A, C, G, and T) along a backbone. When DNA gets translated to protein, triplets of bases (codons) get converted sequentially to the amino acids that make up the protein, with some codons acting as a "stop" marker. The mapping from codon to amino acid is arbitrary (not completely arbitrary, but close enough for purposes of argument). However, that one mapping step -- from 64 possible codons to 20 amino acids and a stop signal -- is the only arbitrariness in the genetic code. The protein itself is a physical object whose function is determined by its physical properties.

Furthermore, DNA gets used for more than making proteins. Much DNA is transcribed directly to functional RNA. Other DNA acts to regulate genetic processes. The physical properties of the DNA and RNA, not any arbitrary meanings, determine how they act.

An essential property of language is that any word can refer to any object. That is not true in genetics. The genetic code which maps codons to proteins could be changed, but doing so would change the meaning of all sequences that code for proteins, and it could not create arbitrary new meanings for all DNA sequences. Genetics is not true language.

2. The word frequencies of all natural languages follow a power law (Zipf's Law). DNA does not follow this pattern (Tsonis et al. 1997).

3. Language, although symbolic, is still material. For a word to have meaning, the link between the word and its meaning has to be recorded somewhere, usually in people's brains, books, and/or computer memories. Without this material manifestation, language cannot work.

3. No mutation that increases genetic information has ever been discovered.
Mutations which increase genetic information would be the raw material necessary for evolution. To get from "amoeba" to "man" would require a massive net increase in information. There are many examples of supposed evolution given by proponents. Variation within a species (finch beak, for example), bacteria which acquire antibiotic resistance, people born with an extra chromosome, etc. However, none of the examples demonstrate the development of new information. Instead, they demonstrate either preprogrammed variation, multiple copies of existing information, or even loss of information (natural selection and adaptation involve loss of information). The total lack of any such evidence refutes evolutionary theory.
Click to expand...
1. It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of

* increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
* increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
* novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
* novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place.

2. A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example:
* Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000).
* RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)
* Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)
The biological literature is full of additional examples. A PubMed search (at Invalid Link Removed) on "gene duplication" gives more than 3000 references.

3. According to Shannon-Weaver information theory, random noise maximizes information. This is not just playing word games. The random variation that mutations add to populations is the variation on which selection acts. Mutation alone will not cause adaptive evolution, but by eliminating nonadaptive variation, natural selection communicates information about the environment to the organism so that the organism becomes better adapted to it. Natural selection is the process by which information about the environment is transferred to an organism's genome and thus to the organism (Adami et al. 2000).

4. The process of mutation and selection is observed to increase information and complexity in simulations (Adami et al. 2000; Schneider 2000).

4. Evolution flies directly in the face of entropy, the second law of thermodynamics.
This law of physics states that all systems, whether open or closed, have a tendency to disorder (or "the least energetic state"). There are some special cases where local order can increase, but this is at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. Raw energy cannot generate the complex systems in living things, or the information required to build them. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Yet, evolution is a building-up process, suggesting that things tend to become more complex and advanced over time. This is directly opposed to the law of entropy.
Click to expand...
1. The second law of thermodynamics says no such thing. It says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease. This does not prevent increasing order because

* the earth is not a closed system; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.
* entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. (Aranda-Espinoza et al. 1999; Kestenbaum 1998) Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size (Han and Craighead 2000).
* even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system.
In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time.

2. The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection. All of these are seen to happen all the time, so, obviously, no physical laws are preventing them. In fact, connections between evolution and entropy have been studied in depth, and never to the detriment of evolution (Demetrius 2000).

Several scientists have proposed that evolution and the origin of life is driven by entropy (McShea 1998). Some see the information content of organisms subject to diversification according to the second law (Brooks and Wiley 1988), so organisms diversify to fill empty niches much as a gas expands to fill an empty container. Others propose that highly ordered complex systems emerge and evolve to dissipate energy (and increase overall entropy) more efficiently (Schneider and Kay 1994).

3. Creationists themselves admit that increasing order is possible. They introduce fictional exceptions to the law to account for it.

4. Creationists themselves make claims that directly contradict their claims about the second law of thermodynamics, such as hydrological sorting of fossils during the Flood.

5. There is a total lack of undisputed examples (fossilized or living) of the millions of transitional forms ("missing links") required for evolution to be true.
Evolution does not require a single missing link, but innumerable ones. We should be surrounded by a zoo of transitional forms that cannot be categorized as one particular life form. But we don't see this—there are different kinds of dogs, but all are clearly dogs. The fossils show different sizes of horses, but all are clearly horses. None is on the verge of being some other life form. The fossil record shows complex fossilized life suddenly appearing, and there are major gaps between the fossilized "kinds." Darwin acknowledged that if his theory were true, it would require millions of transitional forms. He believed they would be found in fossil records. They haven't been.
Click to expand...
1. The idea that gradual change should appear throughout the fossil record is called phyletic gradualism. It is based on the following tenets:
1. New species arise by the transformation of an ancestral population into its modified descendants.
2. The transformation is even and slow.
3. The transformation involves most or all of the ancestral population.
4. The transformation occurs over most or all of the ancestral species' geographic range.

However, all but the first of these is false far more often that not. Studies of modern populations and incipient species show that new species arise mostly from the splitting of a small part of the original species into a new geographical area. The population genetics of small populations allow this new species to evolve relatively quickly. Its evolution may allow it to spread into new geographical areas. Since the actual transitions occur relatively quickly and in a relatively small area, the transitions do not often show up in the fossil record. Sudden appearance in the fossil record often simply reflects that an existing species moved into a new region.

Once species are well adapted to an environment, selective pressures tend to keep them that way. A change in the environment that alters the selective pressure would then end the "stasis" (or lead to extinction).

It should be noted that even Darwin did not expect the rate of evolutionary change to be constant.

[N]atural selection will generally act very slowly, only at long intervals of time, and only on a few of the inhabitants of the same region. I further believe that these slow, intermittent results accord well with what geology tells us of the rate and manner at which the inhabitants of the world have changed (Darwin 1872, 140-141, chap. 4).

"But I must here remark that I do not suppose that the process ever goes on so regularly as is represented in the diagram, though in itself made somewhat irregular, nor that it goes on continuously; it is far more probable that each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification (Darwin 1872, 152).

It is a more important consideration . . . that the period during which each species underwent modification, though long as measured by years, was probably short in comparison with that during which it remained without undergoing any change (Darwin 1872, 428, chap. 10).

"it might require a long succession of ages to adapt an organism to some new and peculiar line of life, for instance, to fly through the air; and consequently that the transitional forms would often long remain confined to some one region; but that, when this adaptation had once been effected, and a few species had thus acquired a great advantage over other organisms, a comparatively short time would be necessary to produce many divergent forms, which would spread rapidly and widely throughout the world (Darwin 1872, 433).

2. The imperfection of the fossil record (due to erosion and periods unfavorable to fossil preservation) also causes gaps, although it probably cannot account for all of them.

3. Some transitional sequences exist, which, despite an uneven rate of change, still show a gradual continuum of forms.

4. The fossil record still shows a great deal of change over time. The creationists who make note of the many gaps almost never admit the logical conclusion: If they are due to creation, then there have been hundreds, perhaps even millions, of separate creation events scattered through time.
 
6. Pictures of ape-to-human "missing links" are extremely subjective and based on evolutionists' already-formed assumptions. Often they are simply contrived.
The series of pictures or models that show progressive development from a little monkey to modern man are an insult to scientific research. These are often based on fragmentary remains that can be "reconstructed" a hundred different ways. The fact is, many supposed "ape-men" are very clearly apes. Evolutionists now admit that other so-called "ape-men" would be able to have children by modern humans, which makes them the same species as humans. The main species said to bridge this gap, Homo habilis, is thought by many to be a mixture of ape and human fossils. In other words, the "missing link" (in reality there would have to be millions of them) is still missing. The body hair and the blank expressions of sub-humans in these models doesn't come from the bones, but the assumptions of the artist. Virtually nothing can be determined about hair and the look in someone's eyes based on a few old bones.
Click to expand...

1. Evolution is not based on fragmentary fossils. The theory would still be extremely robust with no fossils at all, based on evidence from modern life. Furthermore, there are more than enough substantially complete skeletons to support evolution. The whale transitional sequence, for example, is based on several excellent skeletons.

2. A single bone, even in isolation, can give a surprising amount of information. A tooth, for example, can show generally what kind of food an animal ate and give an idea of its size. These conclusions, in turn, tell how the animal fits into the ecology.

3. Bones are never considered in isolation; rather, they are compared with other bones from more complete skeletons. If you have a bone that looks like an Iguanodon femur but smaller, to give a simple example, the reconstruction would look a lot like a smaller Iguanodon. A complete reconstruction, however, is possible only if you can match the single bone to an animal for which there is a complete skeleton already.

The ability to deduce much about a fossil from a single tooth or bone was made famous by anatomist and paleontologist Georges Cuvier. In 1804, for example, he confidently announced that a French fossil was an opossum (then unknown from France) on the basis of only its teeth (Zimmer 1998, 135-137). Cuvier was a creationist.

1. There is a fine transition between modern humans and australopithecines and other hominids. The transition is gradual enough that it is not clear where to draw the line between human and not.

Intermediate fossils include

* Australopithecus afarensis, from 3.9 to 3.0 million years ago (Mya). Its skull is similar to a chimpanzee's, but with more humanlike teeth. Most (possibly all) creationists would call this an ape, but it was bipedal.
* Australopithecus africanus (3 to 2 Mya); its brain size, 420-500 cc, was slightly larger than A. afarensis, and its teeth yet more humanlike.
* Homo habilis (2.4 to 1.5 Mya), which is similar to australopithecines, but which used tools and had a larger brain (650-cc average) and less projecting face.
* Homo erectus (1.8 to 0.3 Mya); brain size averaged about 900 cc in early H. erectus and 1,100 cc in later ones. (Modern human brains average 1,350 cc.)
* A Pleistocene Homo sapiens which was "morphologically and chronologically intermediate between archaic African fossils and later anatomically modern Late Pleistocene humans" (White et al. 2003, 742).
* A hominid combining features of, and possibly ancestral to, Neanderthals and modern humans (Bermudez de Castro et al. 1997).

And there are fossils intermediate between these (Foley 1996-2004).



7. The dating methods that evolutionists rely upon to assign millions and billions of years to rocks are very inconsistent and based on unproven (and questionable) assumptions.
Dating methods that use radioactive decay to determine age assume that radioactive decay rates have always been constant. Yet, research has shown that decay rates can change according to the chemical environment of the material being tested. In fact, decay rates have been increased in the laboratory by a factor of a billion. All such dating methods also assume a closed system—that no isotopes were gained or lost by the rock since it formed. It's common knowledge that hydrothermal waters, at temperatures of only a few hundred degrees Centigrade, can create an open system where chemicals move easily from one rock system to another. In fact, this process is one of the excuses used by evolutionists to reject dates that don't fit their expectations. What's not commonly known is that the majority of dates are not even consistent for the same rock. Furthermore, 20th century lava flows often register dates in the millions to billions of years. There are many different ways of dating the earth, and many of them point to an earth much too young for evolution to have had a chance. All age-dating methods rely on unprovable assumptions.
Click to expand...

1. Independent measurements, using different and independent radiometric techniques, give consistent results (Dalrymple 2000; Lindsay 1999; Meert 2000). Such results cannot be explained either by chance or by a systematic error in decay rate assumptions.

2. Radiometric dates are consistent with several nonradiometric dating methods. For example:

* The Hawaiian archipelago was formed by the Pacific ocean plate moving over a hot spot at a slow but observable rate. Radiometric dates of the islands are consistent with the order and rate of their being positioned over the hot spot (Rubin 2001).

* Radiometric dating is consistent with Milankovitch cycles, which depend only on astronomical factors such as precession of the earth's tilt and orbital eccentricity (Hilgen et al. 1997).

* Radiometric dating is consistent with the luminescence dating method (Thompson n.d.; Thorne et al. 1999).

* Radiometric dating gives results consistent with relative dating methods such as "deeper is older" (Lindsay 2000).

3. The creationist claim that radiometric dates are inconsistent rest on a relatively few examples. Creationists ignore the vast majority of radiometric dates showing consistent results (e.g., Harland et al. 1990).

8. Uses continue to be found for supposedly "leftover" body structures.
Evolutionists point to useless and vestigial (leftover) body structures as evidence of evolution. However, it's impossible to prove that an organ is useless, because there's always the possibility that a use may be discovered in the future. That's been the case for over 100 supposedly useless organs which are now known to be essential. Scientists continue to discover uses for such organs. It's worth noting that even if an organ were no longer needed (e.g., eyes of blind creatures in caves), it would prove devolution not evolution. The evolutionary hypothesis needs to find examples of developing organs—those that are increasing in complexity.
Click to expand...

1. "Vestigial" does not mean an organ is useless. A vestige is a "trace or visible sign left by something lost or vanished" (G. & C. Merriam 1974, 769). Examples from biology include leg bones in snakes, eye remnants in blind cave fish (Yamamoto and Jeffery 2000), extra toe bones in horses, wing stubs on flightless birds and insects, and molars in vampire bats. Whether these organs have functions is irrelevant. They obviously do not have the function that we expect from such parts in other animals, for which creationists say the parts are "designed."

Vestigial organs are evidence for evolution because we expect evolutionary changes to be imperfect as creatures evolve to adopt new niches. Creationism cannot explain vestigial organs. They are evidence against creationism if the creator follows a basic design principle that form follows function, as H. M. Morris himself expects (1974, 70). They are compatible with creation only if anything and everything is compatible with creation, making creationism useless and unscientific.

2. Some vestigial organs can be determined to be useless if experiments show that organisms with them survive no better than organisms without them.

9. Evolution is said to have begun by spontaneous generation—a concept ridiculed by biology.
When I was a sophomore in high school, and a brand new Christian, my biology class spent the first semester discussing how ignorant people used to believe that garbage gave rise to rats, and raw meat produced maggots. This now disproven concept was called "spontaneous generation." Louis Pasteur proved that life only comes from life—this is the law of biogenesis. The next semester we studied evolution, where we learned that the first living cell came from a freak combination of nonliving material (where that nonliving material came from we were not told). "Chemical Evolution" is just another way of saying "spontaneous generation"—life comes from nonlife. Evolution is therefore built on a fallacy science long ago proved to be impossible.

Evolutionists admit that the chances of evolutionary progress are extremely low. Yet, they believe that given enough time, the apparently impossible becomes possible. If I flip a coin, I have a 50/50 chance of getting heads. To get five "heads" in a row is unlikely but possible. If I flipped the coin long enough, I would eventually get five in a row. If I flipped it for years nonstop, I might get 50 or even 100 in a row. But this is only because getting heads is an inherent possibility. What are the chances of me flipping a coin, and then seeing it sprout arms and legs, and go sit in a corner and read a magazine? No chance. Given billions of years, the chances would never increase. Great periods of time make the possible likely but never make the impossible possible. No matter how long it's given, non-life will not become alive.
Click to expand...

1. The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways. For example, complex organic molecules are observed to form in the conditions that exist in space, and it is possible that they played a role in the formation of the first life (Spotts 2001).

2. The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule must take one certain form. However, there are innumerable possible proteins that promote biological activity. Any calculation of odds must take into account all possible molecules (not just proteins) that might function to promote life.

3. The calculation of odds assumes the creation of life in its present form. The first life would have been very much simpler.

4. The calculation of odds ignores the fact that innumerable trials would have been occurring simultaneously.

10. The scientific method can only test existing data—it cannot draw conclusions about origins.
Micro-evolution, changes within a species on a small scale, is observable. But evidence for macro-evolution, changes transcending species, is conspicuous by its absence. To prove the possibility of anything, science must be able to reproduce exact original conditions. Even when it proves something is possible, it doesn't mean it therefore happened. Since no man was there to record or even witness the beginning, conclusions must be made only on the basis of interpreting presently available information. If I put on rose-colored glasses, I will always see red. I accept the Bible's teaching on creation, and see the evidence as being consistently supportive of that belief. When dealing with origins, everyone who believes anything does so by faith, whether faith in God, the Bible, himself, modern science, or the dependability of his own subjective interpretations of existing data. I would rather put my faith in God's revealed Word.
Click to expand...

1. We would not expect to observe large changes directly. Evolution consists mainly of the accumulation of small changes over large periods of time. If we saw something like a fish turning into a frog in just a couple generations, we would have good evidence against evolution.

2. The evidence for evolution does not depend, even a little, on observing macroevolution directly. There is a very great deal of other evidence (Theobald 2004; see also evolution proof).

3. As biologists use the term, macroevolution means evolution at or above the species level. Speciation has been observed and documented.

4. Microevolution has been observed and is taken for granted even by creationists. And because there is no known barrier to large change and because we can expect small changes to accumulate into large changes, microevolution implies macroevolution. Small changes to developmental genes or their regulation can cause relatively large changes in the adult organism (Shapiro et al. 2004).

5. There are many transitional forms that show that macroevolution has occurred.


.
.
If you'd taken the time you could have found all of these things out for yourself. You recommended alot of books on why doesn't work, but none on why it does. This suggests a big gap in your knowledge. It could be time to start finding out about the other side of the argument.
 
For anyone who believes that evolution somehow contradicts christian belief, I urge you to watch this interview with Father George Coyne, a catholic preist and astronomer. The whole interview is pretty long, but a very good investment of time imo. George Coyne is an eloquent speaker and clearly a profoundly intelligent man. Frankly, if all religious people were like this guy then critics of religion wouldn't have a leg to stand on. There are moments where even Dawkins seems to be in awe of the guy.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po0ZMfkSNxc&feature=channel"]YouTube - Father George Coyne Interview (1/7) - Richard Dawkins[/ame]

Links to the other 6 parts:
www (dot) youtube (dot) com/watch?v=vjjDDhE8R5k&feature=channel
www (dot) youtube (dot) com/watch?v=zyyySnUqCug&feature=channel
www (dot) youtube (dot) com/watch?v=_eEmnhmAwPM&feature=channel
www (dot) youtube (dot) com/watch?v=Nl1xmkVOyRw&feature=channel
www (dot) youtube (dot) com/watch?v=xwDTBW8oxug&feature=channel
www (dot) youtube (dot) com/watch?v=-qPHIS3n7Lw&feature=channel
 
TexasTitan said:
What separates people from animals is a mastery of ourselves. Only idiot liberals think indulgence and appeasement (essentially hedonism) which is natural to an unaware creatures is the correct path.
Click to expand...

Wow, now this is a political issue? Too funny

So in essence, no conservatives are hedonists or indulge in sexual depravity? Wow, you must not listen to the news at all :lol:
 
I heard that all these gay animals go to a hedonist resort once a year and let it all "hang out", as referenced in the picture on this page. :)
 
AE14 said:
Wow, now this is a political issue? Too funny

So in essence, no conservatives are hedonists or indulge in sexual depravity? Wow, you must not listen to the news at all :lol:
Click to expand...

Can't we just have a (barney) frank discussion about homosexual behaviour without bringing politics into it?
 
HardTrainer said:
For anyone who believes that evolution somehow contradicts christian belief, I urge you to watch this interview with Father George Coyne, a catholic preist and astronomer. The whole interview is pretty long, but a very good investment of time imo. George Coyne is an eloquent speaker and clearly a profoundly intelligent man. Frankly, if all religious people were like this guy then critics of religion wouldn't have a leg to stand on. There are moments where even Dawkins seems to be in awe of the guy.

Invalid Link Removed

Links to the other 6 parts:
www (dot) youtube (dot) com/watch?v=vjjDDhE8R5k&feature=channel
www (dot) youtube (dot) com/watch?v=zyyySnUqCug&feature=channel
www (dot) youtube (dot) com/watch?v=_eEmnhmAwPM&feature=channel
www (dot) youtube (dot) com/watch?v=Nl1xmkVOyRw&feature=channel
www (dot) youtube (dot) com/watch?v=xwDTBW8oxug&feature=channel
www (dot) youtube (dot) com/watch?v=-qPHIS3n7Lw&feature=channel
Click to expand...

Great work, HardTrainer. I had another conversation about the ridiculous way religion interprets the Second Law, but there was nothing to add here. Very thorough and informative response, cudos.
 
B5150 said:
I believe nature produced the species know as man - hetrosexual. When I see scientific evidence of a penis ovulating and a uterus depositing its own sperm I'll be sold on the evolution of the species in order to prevent it's existinction.

Until then there is nothing natural reproductively about two men or two women engaging in sexual activity.

The premis of the social psychological aspects are barely reasonable. At some point we will justify everything we do because, well, we do it, so it must be OK - we must be OK - otherwise we're not, and that is socially-psycholgically proposterous :28:
Click to expand...

Well you might be waiting a long time, until, you know, we might actually become extinct because of enviromental factors.

I wasn't exactly saying nature was like "lets make homosexuality",.. I was saying in the shotgun approach nature uses, there WILL some men, that like other Men.
Just like there WILL be some very hot chick who likes short dumb fat old men lol.



Its a numbers game; nature will produce men who like men. biology has no need to facilitate this now, and do not know it will ever need to, but that doesn't mean that being homsexual isn't an act of nature
 
Well, hard trainer. Since you seem so knowledgeable. Which i respect, and am not argueing with you but just listening. I love hearing other opinions as long as its respect for each other.

The only thing that makes me question evolution, is from how contradictory it is.

For example: Haeckel's embryos. Something that is still taught today in public schools science books.....

Also read that what was thought was gills on humans turns out to be skin flaps....

But then i do understand that evolution can lead to a creator. But then this is also contradictory to darwin himself.

Invalid Link Removed
 
madds87 said:
Well, hard trainer. Since you seem so knowledgeable. Which i respect, and am not argueing with you but just listening. I love hearing other opinions as long as its respect for each other.

The only thing that makes me question evolution, is from how contradictory it is.

For example: Haeckel's embryos. Something that is still taught today in public schools science books.....

Also read that what was thought was gills on humans turns out to be skin flaps....

But then i do understand that evolution can lead to a creator. But then this is also contradictory to darwin himself.

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

Evolution and Religion do not necessarily have to be contradictory, but extreme opinions on both sides make it so. Evolution does not necessarily evince a lack of a creator, and the evidence of a creator would not disprove evolution. They can be synonymous with each other properly.

I feel what HardTrainer was trying to establish, more or less, is that it is quite illogical when one side (the zealots) attempt to use the system parameters they do not believe in (evolutionary science) to prove the other side wrong. And further, it does become tedious when they blatantly misrepresent established trends in science.
 
Im not a preson that just hates on something i disagree on. Im not a scientist, and have not had alot of education. I have tried to read books on evolution and consider all aspects. Im not "hating" on evolution. Just bringing up points that MAKE me not believe.

I would really be interested in hearing what MAKES an evolutionist believe and the points that come across most important to that person. I keep running into people that tell me there reason and find otherwise..
 
madds87 said:
Well, hard trainer. Since you seem so knowledgeable. Which i respect, and am not argueing with you but just listening. I love hearing other opinions as long as its respect for each other.

The only thing that makes me question evolution, is from how contradictory it is.

For example: Haeckel's embryos. Something that is still taught today in public schools science books.....

Also read that what was thought was gills on humans turns out to be skin flaps....
Click to expand...

I did put at the top of the post that it wasn't actually my knowledge. I was just copying it from another source. I don't really feel qualified to give a personal opinion on the subject, owing to the fact that I'm not a biology professor. A scientific theory isn't really about opinon anyway, it's about evidence.

With regard to Haeckel (also taken from the site in my sig):

" 1. Haeckel's pictures are irrelevant to the question of whether the embryos are similar. What matters are the embryos themselves. Within a group, early embryos do show many similarities. For example, all vertebrates develop a notochord, body segments, pharyngeal gill pouches, and a post-anal tail. These fundamental similarities indicate a common evolutionary history. Other embryological similarities are found in other lineages, such as mollusks, arthropods, and annelids. These similarities have been long known. Professor Agassiz in 1849, for example, said, "We find, too, that the young bat, or bird, or the young serpent, in certain periods of their growth, resemble one another so much that he would defy any one to tell one from the other--or distinguish between a bat and a snake." (Scientific American 1849)

2. The embryos also show some differences, which Haeckel glossed over. However, differences should also be expected, since the animals are not all equally related. It is the pattern of both similarities and differences that displays patterns of descent. Organisms that are less closely related are expected to look less similar.

3. When Haeckel's inaccuracies were exposed, authors started using corrected versions. Science tends to be self-correcting."

But then i do understand that evolution can lead to a creator. But then this is also contradictory to darwin himself.
Click to expand...
The theory of evolution is not just biologists reiterating what Darwin said. Like all scientific theories, it's constantly being updated as new evidence is discovered. Darwin may have set the ball rolling, but the theory has moved on enormously since then. Darwin's word is by no means absolute.

I would really be interested in hearing what MAKES an evolutionist believe
Click to expand...
No one 'believes' in evolution. They accept it (or not) on the basis of evidence.

If you were to ask me personally why I accept evolution then the answer is simple: Because the overwhelming majority of biologists accept it (something like 99.9%) and they are the experts. Unless I do a doctorate in biology, I'm not in much of a position to argue otherwise.

EDIT: Link to Gallup polls showing support for evolution Invalid Link Removed
 
HardTrainer said:
I did put at the top of the post that it wasn't actually my knowledge. I was just copying it from another source. I don't really feel qualified to give a personal opinion on the subject, owing to the fact that I'm not a biology professor. A scientific theory isn't really about opinon anyway, it's about evidence.

With regard to Haeckel (also taken from the site in my sig):

" 1. Haeckel's pictures are irrelevant to the question of whether the embryos are similar. What matters are the embryos themselves. Within a group, early embryos do show many similarities. For example, all vertebrates develop a notochord, body segments, pharyngeal gill pouches, and a post-anal tail. These fundamental similarities indicate a common evolutionary history. Other embryological similarities are found in other lineages, such as mollusks, arthropods, and annelids. These similarities have been long known. Professor Agassiz in 1849, for example, said, "We find, too, that the young bat, or bird, or the young serpent, in certain periods of their growth, resemble one another so much that he would defy any one to tell one from the other--or distinguish between a bat and a snake." (Scientific American 1849)

2. The embryos also show some differences, which Haeckel glossed over. However, differences should also be expected, since the animals are not all equally related. It is the pattern of both similarities and differences that displays patterns of descent. Organisms that are less closely related are expected to look less similar.

3. When Haeckel's inaccuracies were exposed, authors started using corrected versions. Science tends to be self-correcting."

The theory of evolution is not just biologists reiterating what Darwin said. Like all scientific theories, it's constantly being updated as new evidence is discovered. Darwin may have set the ball rolling, but the theory has moved on enormously since then. Darwin's word is by no means absolute.

No one 'believes' in evolution. They accept it (or not) on the basis of evidence.

If you were to ask me personally why I accept evolution then the answer is simple: Because the overwhelming majority of biologists accept it (something like 99.9%) and they are the experts. Unless I do a doctorate in biology, I'm not in much of a position to argue otherwise.

EDIT: Link to Gallup polls showing support for evolution Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

"You must spread more reputation before...."
 
HardTrainer said:
I did put at the top of the post that it wasn't actually my knowledge. I was just copying it from another source. I don't really feel qualified to give a personal opinion on the subject, owing to the fact that I'm not a biology professor. A scientific theory isn't really about opinon anyway, it's about evidence.

With regard to Haeckel (also taken from the site in my sig):

" 1. Haeckel's pictures are irrelevant to the question of whether the embryos are similar. What matters are the embryos themselves. Within a group, early embryos do show many similarities. For example, all vertebrates develop a notochord, body segments, pharyngeal gill pouches, and a post-anal tail. These fundamental similarities indicate a common evolutionary history. Other embryological similarities are found in other lineages, such as mollusks, arthropods, and annelids. These similarities have been long known. Professor Agassiz in 1849, for example, said, "We find, too, that the young bat, or bird, or the young serpent, in certain periods of their growth, resemble one another so much that he would defy any one to tell one from the other--or distinguish between a bat and a snake." (Scientific American 1849)

2. The embryos also show some differences, which Haeckel glossed over. However, differences should also be expected, since the animals are not all equally related. It is the pattern of both similarities and differences that displays patterns of descent. Organisms that are less closely related are expected to look less similar.

3. When Haeckel's inaccuracies were exposed, authors started using corrected versions. Science tends to be self-correcting."

The theory of evolution is not just biologists reiterating what Darwin said. Like all scientific theories, it's constantly being updated as new evidence is discovered. Darwin may have set the ball rolling, but the theory has moved on enormously since then. Darwin's word is by no means absolute.

No one 'believes' in evolution. They accept it (or not) on the basis of evidence.

If you were to ask me personally why I accept evolution then the answer is simple: Because the overwhelming majority of biologists accept it (something like 99.9%) and they are the experts. Unless I do a doctorate in biology, I'm not in much of a position to argue otherwise.
Click to expand...

Ok i hear yah boss. For the embryos to look similar. I look at it as that the creator had the same general idea on the growth process of birth. I cant seem to look at it in these terms. Plus yes it does seem that it would match since the "rules" are made to agree with these conditions. Since the theory on evolution is still "rolling". But you know its good to be going either one way or the other. What drives me crazy is people that except both....

Belief and acceptance i consider the same thing, or atleast very very similar terms. Even if there is evidence you still have to believe or accept if you want to consider. I think.

The reason you accept is logical.
 
madds87 said:
Ok i hear yah boss. For the embryos to look similar. I look at it as that the creator had the same general idea on the growth process of birth. I cant seem to look at it in these terms. Plus yes it does seem that it would match since the "rules" are made to agree with these conditions. Since the theory on evolution is still "rolling". But you know its good to be going either one way or the other. What drives me crazy is people that except both....

Belief and acceptance i consider the same thing, or atleast very very similar terms. Even if there is evidence you still have to believe or accept if you want to consider. I think.

The reason you accept is logical.
Click to expand...

No madds the reason he accepts is not logical. I don't believe in God because almost all preachers agree he exists that would be foolish, of course they do! I have no desire to join this debate it's been done to death on here and is pointless, do your research for yourself there are plenty of secular scientists who have a problem with evolutionary theory.
 
BUCKNUTS said:
No madds the reason he accepts is not logical. I don't believe in God because almost all preachers agree he exists that would be foolish, of course they do! I have no desire to join this debate it's been done to death on here and is pointless, do your research for yourself there are plenty of secular scientists who have a problem with evolutionary theory.
Click to expand...
Scientists maybe, biologists not really. The percentage of American scientists who disagree with evolution, whose expertise relates to evolution is about 0.14%. In the rest of the world the figure is much lower.

As I've already pointed out, no one 'believes' in evolution the way they believe in God. No one has any evidence for or against God, so everyone's opinion on the subject is equally valid. The same is not true of evolution. It takes several years at college to even understand the evidence for why evolution is true. Unless you have that education it's incredibly naive to think that your opinion carries any weight what-so-ever.

The people whose opinions matter on evolution are people who have the necessary knowledge to understand it, and their opinion on the subject is about as unanimous as it can be. Attemping to contradict the consensus of the experts just because you don't 'get it' is ridiculous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top