In the Absence of Bread… Circuses
I suck. I’ve been putting my needs ahead of yours, and that’s just terribly unchristian of me. Wait… I gues that’s alright after all.
Anyway, since I have approximately Planck time to generate my own content this month, it’s a good thing some content fell into my lap. Someone calling himself Jordan King left the same longwinded and incoherent comment on four different posts. He (she?) is clearly the single stupidest person ever to comment on this site and reading his ravings gave me a few chuckles. I hope it does the same for you. I have reproduced it for you below. It should technically be done as a blockquote, but that’s annoying on something this long. I’ve devised another solution…
<IDIOT>
Hello guys.. My name is Jordan King and I’m a Liberal Christian. I believen god but I don’t believe modern day faith healers. I don’t believe Benny Hinn, Leroy Jenkins, Don Stewarts, Peter Poppoff, Oral Roberts, Paul Crouch or Robert Tilton.
I don’t believe the Catholic religion and I think Pope John Paul is a false Prophet because he doesn’t accept Jesus Christ as his personal savior.
I don’t believen the so called prophet Muhammad.
Romans 14:12 – “So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.”
That says if we don’t accept Jesus as are Savior. Check this out… Jesus died for are sins. SEx Abortion, porn, profanity, masturbating, gay marriage, suicide, devil worship, witchcraft, degreating women, raping children, adultery, murder.
Like the bible says.. Thou shall love thy neighbor but hate thy enemy.
Bill Maher is athiest. Albert Einstein is agostic. Difference between both of them is is that Albert Einstein leaves religion on the table.
Romans 12:19 – “Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.”
I respect you guys. Just like the bible says you can only believe GOD by TRUTH. You guys throw that out of the picture.
Matthew 12:36 – “But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
That means when everyone dies, your guys opinion darkness forever. My opinion… IF you didn’t accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior…. YOURE GOING TO HELL.. NO EXPECTIONS
This is why Jesus is the son of GOD. I believe there are False religons. I think this New Age crap is non sense. I think Mormons is Man made by John Smith. Boyscouts is a mormon program. Jesus Christ of latter Day Saints????????
I don’t like mormons even knocking on my door.
“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” -1st Corinthians 2:14
I believe the bible speaks about life. Your bible is evolution and my bible is the Holy Bible King James version.
Evolution makes no sense at all. I just don’t see how any intelligent person could believe such nonsense. I mean, have you ever seen an ape that could be taught to do algebra? No! Other than the most basic skills (which a dog can also be taught), an ape does not have the capacity to learn anywhere near the human level. Apes are dumb! You can say a dog is smart (and it might be), but it can’t logic like a human being can.
How can pro homo sphiens. To today stardards, pre man will be mentally retarded. I don’t believen UFO’s, I don’t believen BIG FOOT. I don’t believe my Ancestors were stupid not so bright apes.
Evolutionists have their entire lives and reputations resting upon Darwin’s theory. They’re committed to their religion, just as any true Christian is committed to his. If an evolutionist changes his views, then he denies and forsakes his fellow scientists and former educators. He becomes a “black sheep,” loses his job, his reputation, and his social standing. Since he has studied and worked his entire life to get where he is, he isn’t about to throw it all away. So the committed evolutionist chooses to strive harder and harder in his effort to disprove the Genesis account. He will ignore all facts which support Special Creation. He is not open to anything other than “evidence” to prove his theory. All evidence which proves CONTRARY to his theory is discarded and ignored.
Guys… Do you watch the Discovery Channel??? Do you believen everything they say 100% on TV.
Do you guys believen Wade cook, Don Lapre, Kevin Trudeau, Russ Whitney???? No those guys are cons. FTC always knocking on their doors.
No offense, but that is what I think about evolution….. A SCAM!!!!!!!! A dumb retarded APE you ancestor..
Do you believen Santa Claus????? No!!!!!!! Believn Easter Bunny??? No!!!
Science is the study of and its real real hard in mordern days to believen GOD with mordern Technology like THE TV!!!!!!
This FAKE FAKE TV EVANGLISTS who live off tax free donations.
Modern Science and technology overshadows Jesus Christ.
Do you believe Barry Bonds took steriods when two San Francisco journalists investigated on 200 sourses of steriod use???? Sources are strong but Barry Bonds pass every test and admitted unknownly taking the CREAM and The Clear from Victor Conte..
Make some sense… Science IS MAN MADE!!!!!!! MAN MADE UP ALIENS… THEY WON’T TALKING ABOUT ALIENS IN THE 1930S……… If man didn’t go to space…. They wouldn’t make up that BS!!!!
“Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.” -1st Peter 1:23
I challenge you guys to test my faith into God. I debate you guys. I used to baseball, if it wasn’t for god, I will still be 5′9 throw 58mph. I’m 6′0 throw 92mph. I prayed for salvation and confessed my sins.
I’m a sinner just like you guys. I once challenged gods word. I once had agnostic views. I realize salvation made me a better humanbean.
1. You are a sinner (Romans 3:10,23).
2. You deserve to go to hell to pay for your sins (Romans 6:23; Revelation 21:8).
3. Jesus Christ, God in the flesh (God’s Son), died upon the cross to pay for your sins (John 3:16-18; Romans 5:8).
I follow that, if it wasn’t for god I’ll probably commit suicide because my agnostic thoughts about religion.
“But not as the offence, so also is the FREE GIFT. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the FREE GIFT is of many offences unto justification” (Romans 5:15,16).
Gods word is free. You don’t have to pay for it. You just have to ask for it. You don’t need the F…….ing King court like the Catholic religion. You just need to pray.
</IDIOT>
He’s clearly read the bible. I wonder what he’ll choose for his second book.
~I (still) AM~
April 19th, 2006 at at 4:27 pm
OMG… you know that saying about if you put a monkey in front of a typewriter and leave it there forever???
Well… I think this is what we get before we reach Shakespeare…
I mean, really. This can’t be an actual homo sphiens… can it?
No, wait. It’s a hybrid! It’s a HUMAN crossed with a GREEN BEAN! That’s why he’s tall. Not prayer… it’s the Jolly Green Giant’s magic fertilizer that did it.
I’m seriously sitting here with my mouth open. I was cracking up reading this, but at the same time wondering how it was written… it can’t be a person. It just can’t be.
April 19th, 2006 at at 4:33 pm
Wow, his reply to my comment (I guess?) is really neat too.
April 19th, 2006 at at 4:35 pm
I AM, welcome back!
I tried reading through the quoted idiot’s text, but at about the third paragraph, my eyes crossed and wouldn’t refocus on the gibberish
April 19th, 2006 at at 4:37 pm
I’ve just decided this must be some sort of new blog spam. It’s got to be generated. Put in a bunch of topical phrases and it creates this gibberish.
It’s just got to be. I thought HP was bad enough, but at least with her bizarre rantings one can assume they’re generated by many years of drug use.
April 19th, 2006 at at 4:40 pm
Hey, he’s right about something, I don’t like mormons knocking on my door, either.
You know, he seems to imply that the Easter Bunny isn’t real……well, I’m an atheist and all, but let’s not get all crazy!
April 19th, 2006 at at 4:55 pm
Well, Jordan King just ruined my day!
I guess I am going to burn in hell after all!
April 19th, 2006 at at 5:02 pm
I thought it would be simpler for all if this “debate” were reposted here.
Check this out. God gave us the ability to think. To make complex decisions. Knowledge is power but its also deceptive. Let me explain.. You say god doesn’t exist.. Science was mainstream for four hundred years. The mind is so deceptive you (I mean Humans) can can use science (the study of) to determine whats right and whats. Unlike Apes, God made the human mind so complex, we can make infinite possibles. We need science because science got us so far but its based on MAN STUDY Since the mind is so infinite you guys (humans) can draw a picture (evolution) based on findings in mankind. Humans can make things so deceptive like cars, buildings, parks, freeways. Technology made us forget about Gods word because we (humans) are basing everything on science. Science is mainstream but scientist are misleading because are minds are so infinite we can draw a picture that we predicted that happened and say that god didn’t exist. We can say that bacteria turned to ape, and ape turned to man. Think about it, Aliens????? Man made that up. Science is a way to debunk religion. (Emphasis LBBP’s)
I’m sorry but your misleading. Use you infinite mind to make sense. Can you paint of picture of scenery of Paris, France and make look deceptive? You can. I’m going to say it like this, Science is so misleading that only a human can make it up. I don’t believe bacteria formed a earth and I don’t believe a very dumb ape was are ancestor. Don’t make sense because god gave use a infinite mind that was can draw a complex picture to debunk the lord. You mind is infinite. You heard of those informorials scams on TV. Don Lapre, Wade Cook, Focus Factor, Miss Cleo, Kevin Trudeau. There misleading because they are using complex deception to believe them. (Emphasis LBBP’s)
Thats what I think about science………. Misleading and too many errors. Use common sense, infinite complex brain can make anything believable even science
Though it is true that Science has often “debunked” religion, that is not it’s intent. The intent of Science is to gain knowledge and understanding of our world. “Debunking” religion is just an added bonus.
You are very wrong (and thus display your ignorance) to lump the likes of Kevin Trudeau in with science. The reason they so easily deceive, is because like religion, they tell people what they want to hear, not what is true. Science, as you so eloquently (snicker, snicker) pointed out, is based on evidence from which it draws conclusions. Religion makes shit up, then tries to force feed it onto the willing cattle of society.
April 19th, 2006 at at 5:02 pm
I love the part about teaching apes to read. His grasp of evolution is profound.
April 19th, 2006 at at 5:32 pm
wow, like many others, I had a hard time trying to follow anything that guy (gal) was trying to say. It’s a convoluted nightmare. When the hell are you gonna post again I AM. We’re going to start getting irate, it’s a wonder we even come around here anymore.
Sheesh, allowing your LIFE to get in the way of your blog, come off it now.
April 19th, 2006 at at 6:02 pm
Uhh…
Okay, before I get on to the rest of this, let me just point out:
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Now, it’s not the contradiction or ignorance that bothers me. It’s the misuse of thy and thine. The contradiction would bother me more, but I don’t logic so well.
April 19th, 2006 at at 6:15 pm
I realize salvation made me a better humanbean.
A “humanbean”? Is that like the spiritual descendent of a Jellybean? Mmmm, tastes like Godidiot!
April 19th, 2006 at at 6:18 pm
No, wait. It’s a hybrid! It’s a HUMAN crossed with a GREEN BEAN! That’s why he’s tall. Not prayer… it’s the Jolly Green Giant’s magic fertilizer that did it.
So that’s what he meant by saying that he had become a better humanbean!
April 20th, 2006 at at 8:59 am
Now this is just silly. Everyone knows Kevin Trudeau is a myth.
April 20th, 2006 at at 9:18 am
Wow. This is simply amazing. I’ve never seen an example of how religion retards human thought so glaringly blatent before.
I find it almost impossible to believe that this King Jordan is actually this fucking moronic. But, people who are Jesus Junkies have been known to say some really innane shit.
This has GOT to be a joke. Jordan King, please tell me you are just joshing us.
April 21st, 2006 at at 5:18 pm
Wait. This person (if it is not some sort of computer-generated borg) sounds legitimately chemically imbalanced. No, seriously. I’m not a licensed psychopharmacologist, but this sounds an awful lot like clinical schizophrenia. Go google some examples of schizophrenic glossalia. Rather similar, to my layperson’s eyes.
It might honestly be best if we attempt to be culturally sensitive to people with neurological disabilities.
But, uh… it’s hard not to laugh.
April 21st, 2006 at at 5:20 pm
Oh, and it’s nice to see the evangelical atheist back in action.
April 21st, 2006 at at 5:26 pm
Terribly sorry to keep posting, but I misspelled glossolalia. It’s “schizophrenic glossolalia” not “glossalia”. Sorry!
April 21st, 2006 at at 6:18 pm
He sounds more like an Asso-holia
April 21st, 2006 at at 10:18 pm
Glad to see you back I AM.
WOW where do they come from? This sounds like someone who could work themselves into a tumultuous uproar.
Ahh to be human and to comprehend that some of our brethren are mentally ill. Maybe this is an original by Gerge W..
April 22nd, 2006 at at 12:10 am
“I’m a sinner just like you guys. I once challenged gods word. I once had agnostic views. I realize salvation made me a better humanbean.”
just tell him that if he ever questioned the validity of the holy spirit he can never be forgiven, not by jesus nor anyone so he may as well quit. (it’s in matthew I think)
April 22nd, 2006 at at 3:28 am
Anybody got a recipe for humanbean soup?
no ham required.
.
April 22nd, 2006 at at 7:37 am
an IDIOT quote “Evolution makes no sense at all. I just don’t see how any intelligent person could believe such nonsense.”
hello reality come on in.
April 22nd, 2006 at at 10:25 am
Filthy, Your problem is you’re “not open to anything other than “evidence” See any “intelligent person” would disregard such “nonsense”
You don’t logic so good do you?
April 22nd, 2006 at at 12:44 pm
Its as though his train of thought changed tracks and he just kept on typing. Those darn newfangled TV boxes are destroying our society!
This person is clearly unstable.
April 22nd, 2006 at at 9:20 pm
humanbean… believen…
Oh my imaginary deity.
April 22nd, 2006 at at 9:23 pm
You ever think so hard it hurts?
Yes, well, I could do that til I’m blue in the face and still not understand a word that individual said.
This, people, is what we are fighting for.
April 23rd, 2006 at at 8:36 am
The pope doesn’t accept jesus as his personal saviour? That’s a new one on me. lol
April 23rd, 2006 at at 5:32 pm
Bill Maher is athiest. Albert Einstein is agostic. Difference between both of them is is that Albert Einstein leaves religion on the table.
Imagine, misspelling TWO philosophical positions within the same thought. And, being wrong to boot. Maher is an agnostic; he openly says so. Despite his comical mocking of Christianity, he does seem to believe there is some greater intelligence out there. Baffles the hell of out me why he doesn’t just reach the natural conclusion of his various opinions: Atheism. Oh well, his anti-Christianity rants are priceless in any case!
April 23rd, 2006 at at 5:35 pm
I realize salvation made me a better humanbean.
Oh yeah, special attention must be paid to this baffling sentence. What the fuck is a humanbean???
April 23rd, 2006 at at 6:57 pm
Bill Maher is Agnostic.
April 24th, 2006 at at 5:56 am
“It’s a Sling Blade. Most folk call it a crayon sharpener, but I call it a Sling Blade.”
April 24th, 2006 at at 1:44 pm
Jesus fucking christ on a motorbike!
I thought frontal lobotomies were a thing of the past?
April 24th, 2006 at at 2:15 pm
Jesus fucking christ on a motorbike!
I thought frontal lobotomies were a thing of the past?
The classics never go out of style.
April 24th, 2006 at at 2:30 pm
I’m still waiting for this pinhead to come back here and reply to all we’ve said about him.
Ever see someones head actually internally combust?
April 25th, 2006 at at 2:29 am
Thank you everyone for this website, it makes me smile every time I read. I go to school in North Dakota. Soon we will get telephones installed, after that we will start to be taught about evolution. I’m hoping for electricity soon.
April 25th, 2006 at at 5:12 pm
Thank you everyone for this website, it makes me smile every time I read. I go to school in North Dakota. Soon we will get telephones installed, after that we will start to be taught about evolution. I’m hoping for electricity soon.
Doesn’t the generator make your laptop awfully heavy?
Sorry, I can’t pass on the North Dakota joke.
April 25th, 2006 at at 6:40 pm
“Thank you everyone for this website, it makes me smile every time I read. I go to school in North Dakota. Soon we will get telephones installed, after that we will start to be taught about evolution. I’m hoping for electricity soon.”
So that’s the deal with North Dakota, huh? That explains it. I was wondering why nobody from that state had visited my blog yet. Suddenly, it’s all so clear…
April 27th, 2006 at at 3:32 am
April 28th, 2006 at at 11:36 am
Social Scientist, this idiot represents perfectly the level of intelligence required to believe in the Bible.
April 30th, 2006 at at 1:18 am
humanbean… believen…
This person must ride the Twinkie bus to SPED school. Seems to be a lot of them left alone in front of computers to surf the web unsupervised lately.
May 2nd, 2006 at at 5:48 am
Social Scientist, this idiot represents perfectly the level of intelligence required to believe in the Bible.
Simon,
It would be interesting to guage what scale you use to measure intellegence, hopefully you don’t measure it by belief, that is not logical, the world, psychology/science and universities etc. measure it by academic achievement or IQ tests. So what academic achievement do you have to claim superior intelligence Simon? What’s your IQ score – you tell me yours and I’ll tell you mine.
May 2nd, 2006 at at 6:07 am
Spencer,
Having read your compilation of quotes in the preveious topic I have to comment on one I got up to before I stopped reading:
“Even more peculiar is God’s obsession with first-born sons. In Exodus 13:2 the Lord said “Consecrate to me every first-born that opens the womb among Israelites, both man and beast, for it belongs to me.” Later it says that you can redeem (replace) an ass with a sheep and that you must redeem a child for an unspecified price. It is clear from the context that “consecrate” means a burning sacrifice. ”
Consecration does not mean a burnt sacrifice. There is no evidence of people being sacrificed to God in the Bible anywhere, it was a consecration to service when it referred to humans. But just to prove to you that this is so the oldest sons that are mentioned as consecrated to God (in service) are Moses, the prophet Samuel etc. As you will note these were neither ransomed (from service not sacrifice) nor sacrificed but served which is what consecration means in relation to God.
May 2nd, 2006 at at 6:15 am
Spencer,
I felt to point this out because you will lose credibility in a debate/discussion with Christians if you take scriptures out of context to twist the meaning of words and scriptures and try to force a meaning out of them that is not immediately apparent by a reading of the relevant scripture in context or the rest of the Bible’s teaching.
May 2nd, 2006 at at 6:32 am
In one point I do believe this person has a point:
“Evolutionists have their entire lives and reputations resting upon Darwin’s theory. They’re committed to their religion, just as any true Christian is committed to his. If an evolutionist changes his views, then he denies and forsakes his fellow scientists and former educators. He becomes a “black sheep,” loses his job, his reputation, and his social standing. Since he has studied and worked his entire life to get where he is, he isn’t about to throw it all away. So the committed evolutionist chooses to strive harder and harder in his effort to disprove the Genesis account. He will ignore all facts which support Special Creation. He is not open to anything other than “evidence” to prove his theory. All evidence which proves CONTRARY to his theory is discarded and ignored.”
This is true of evolutionary theoretical scientists, they have no real proof for their theory that would hold up in a court of law or pass Sir Karl Poppers test of falsification that is an accepted demarcation between science and non-science. Every day evolutionary scientists find evidence that refutes the necessary tenets of the theory of evolution and is more support of ID (intelligent design) which the creation scientists point out. Yet despite the lack of credible scientific evidence to support the theory and the credible evidence that refutes the theory and points to creation they hang on to their blind faith in evolution like a theist would religion.
May 2nd, 2006 at at 8:58 am
SS: “It would be interesting to guage what scale you use to measure intellegence, hopefully you don’t measure it by belief, that is not logical, the world, psychology/science and universities etc. measure it by academic achievement or IQ tests.”
I really don’t believe a high IQ can say everything about one’s intelligence. My IQ (based on the tests I have taken) is above 140 and so did one of my classmates in high school who was a devout christian. The difference between me and her was that she had allowed emotions to take over her when the question was not a straight forward answer.
For maths and science, one does not use emotion when coming to a conclusion. You won’t hear, “oh I really believe 1+4=7. I can really feel it”, do you? So both me and her excelled at these subjects.
Secondly, the statement of Simon was, “this idiot represents perfectly the level of intelligence required to believe in the Bible”. And s/he is right. Believing does not need to involve intelligence. A four year old can say I believe in gods. That is, not a lot of intelligence is needed. Got it?
May 2nd, 2006 at at 7:35 pm
Yet despite the lack of credible scientific evidence to support the theory and the credible evidence that refutes the theory and points to creation they hang on to their blind faith in evolution like a theist would religion.
Uhm, you don’t have a clue what your talking about on this do you?
Evolution is not “just a theory” it is the unifying force in modern biology; it ties together fields as disparate as genetics, microbiology and palaeontology. It is an elegant and convincing explanation for the staggering diversity of Earth’s five million or more living species.
Do a
littlelot of reading on this then try that argument again.May 2nd, 2006 at at 8:13 pm
Roya,
As you pointed out your Christian friend and yourself (an atheist) had the same IQ, so therefore it stands to reason that there is no connection between belief, unbelief and a person’s intelligence level. That is the point I was trying to make all along. You say ‘not a lot of intelligence is needed’ to believe in God, what about evolution it must require even less intelligence to believe that when leading evolution scientists have admitted that there is more scientific evidence for creation than evolution.
May 2nd, 2006 at at 9:59 pm
Really? Like whom? I’d be very interested to hear of any ‘leading evolution scientist’ who would say there’s any scientific evidence for creation at all.
May 4th, 2006 at at 5:09 am
Wow, SS!
I’m looking for an informed comment, but I can’t due to the crunching sound.
Must be all those straws you’re grasping.
May 4th, 2006 at at 7:44 am
Where’s I AM? Is he still allowing real life to get in the way of blog-life? Darn him!
May 4th, 2006 at at 11:18 am
Hi SS!
Severalspeciesof here. Guess you’re on the evolution trip again (remember the Uncredible Hallq exchanges? Hope you read my last statement there). Listen, as I tried to explain before, (horribly I’ll admit) when you try to put down one theory and replace it with another (We are talking THEORY in the SCIENCE sense, not the popular sense), the replacement must better able explain the evidences (ALL the evidences, not just a convenient few) How does creationism do that? In what way(s) does change in the gene pool become evidence of special creation (species poping out of nothing)? In what way(s) does lack of evidence of a world wide flood at the same time, explain a world wide flood occuring all at once. Remember, lack of evidence doesn’t explain much, except when one would NOT EXPECT A LACK of evidence. For example: My best friend is dead, in front of me. I make the statement “He died because he was hit head on by a fast moving train”. No evidence of body trauma (one would expect body trauma in this scenario) would quickly disprove that very statement. No evidence of a worldwide flood at the same time quickly dismisses the idea of the literal interpretation of Noah’s flood. Evidence of such a cataclysmic event would be readily available if only 5,000 to 6,000 or so years have passed since that event. (Remember, water would have to rise at least 30 feet per hour in order to cover the earth completely in 40 days/nights, that event would HAVE TO leave an extraordinary amount of evidence,…. and where did the water come from/go to?) I await with baited breath for a response….
now where did I put my tic-tacs?
May 4th, 2006 at at 8:41 pm
Morgan an Severalspeciesof,
I want to answer both your questions and I can do it but I need two weeks grace as I am a university student and have a report, journal and essay all due withing the next two weeks and I have been procrastinating so much I am behind schedule on them. Be patient though and I will get back to you both, after the these assignments I will only be cramming for the final exam and will have much more free time.
May 4th, 2006 at at 8:45 pm
Where’s I AM? Is he still allowing real life to get in the way of blog-life? Darn him!
Perhaps I am has been eaten by a bear or a Christian in his new location?
May 4th, 2006 at at 9:00 pm
social scientist
Says:
“Perhaps I am has been eaten by a bear or a Christian in his new location?”
Lol SS, lets invade his blog and take over! You write the most so you be the boss, and I’ll be your assistant.
May 4th, 2006 at at 9:14 pm
No worries SS, I’m in the same boat myself.
May 4th, 2006 at at 10:06 pm
I’m not actively participating, but this talk of mutiny does not go unnoticed!
I’m busy starting a business from nothing and moving my entire life 1800 miles. It takes a few weeks. Sheesh.
It’s very time-consuming filling out government forms, packing boxes, picking a mover and being repeatedly anally raped by lawyers… figuratively, of course. I’ll try to make up for content with extra smilies.
May 4th, 2006 at at 11:37 pm
Lol, sorry I Am, it was just a joke.
May 5th, 2006 at at 8:15 am
Lol, sorry I Am, it was just a joke.
Smart move suggesting the Christian takes over the atheist site, that sure got I am’s attention, he will be worrying now and rushing back as quick as possible to prevent it
May 5th, 2006 at at 5:31 pm
I never understood how anyone could be so dim as to not see the obvious evidence of evolution everyday. For example, I look like my dad, and my son looks like me. We pass on our traits. If I have 3 kids, and 1 has a special talent (athletics, brains, dexterity, super-eyeball laser beams) and this talent gets him laid. Thats a good thing. He’ll get all the girls and he’ll have lots of kids. He will out compete his non athletic siblings and the next generation of my family will be more athletic than the last. You do this for 10,000 generations, and my family goes from couch potatoes to marathon runners.
Just replace athletics, brains, dexterity, super-eyeball laser beams with, pointy beaks, cryptic coloration, improved eye-sight, or ability to deal with a changing habitat. I you get the jist of evolution. See it’s simple. Not as simple as “an invisible guy did it” but still pretty simple.
May 6th, 2006 at at 1:03 am
Jordan king said “Albert Einstein is agostic.” Actually he’s dead, and the difference between him and Bill Maher? Bill’s alive.
May 7th, 2006 at at 6:10 pm
Dull Blade,
Your son looking like you is not evolution that is called heritability in psychology speak. And when you think about it carefully heritable traits are an argument against evolution in that like produces like – you did not have a child that was another species other than human did you? That is because our DNA prevents us from producing offspring with another species other than human. But …. if we truly have a link to other species as evolution claims it would be possible to produce offspring with another species. Even species that have similar DNA such as a donkey and a horse or a tiger and a lion can’t live up to evolution’s claims. Sure if you cross a donkey and horse you get a mule and if you cross a tiger and a lion you get a liger, but ….. neither the mule or liger is fertile so that it could start a new line of species by natural selection in mating. There are less mismatches in DNA between a tiger and a lion, a horse and a donkey and man and a chimp, there a 90 million mismatches per cell between man and chimp according to New Scientist magazine – that’s per cell and there are hundreds of millions of cells in your body. Honest I don’t know how someone could be so dim as to believe a scientific fairy tale like evolution, especially when there is not a shred of evidence to support the theory. What’s scientific about the theory when it does not follow the scientific method of being support by impirical observation, experiment or evidence? Star Trek science fiction has more hope of being proven true than evolution does, they are both science fiction not science fact.
May 7th, 2006 at at 7:58 pm
SS -
from that last post it sounds like you have a great many misconceptions about the theory of evolution, so much so that I’m honestly not sure where to start. Why don’t you try and describe what you understand the theory of evolution to actually consist of, and that might be a help? You seem to be taking an approach of ‘evolution is clearly wrong since !’, but has nothing to do with evolution at all.
From your post: heredity is not a part of psychology. It is one of the fundamental components of evolution, hardly an objection to it.
You pull a little bait-and-switch here:
You’re going from saying your child was the same species as you to you couldn’t have had a child with a mate of a different species. Not the same thing, neither points against evolution. Two organisms are classed as different species precisely because they can’t interbreed. They evolve too far apart.
…I have no idea what you’re trying to say here. “There are less mismatches”? Less than what? It sounds like you’re saying that various species have many points of difference in their DNA. That should be obvious. If their DNA didn’t differ, they’d be the same species (in fact, they’d be identical twins).
As to the rest of your post, you’re simply asserting that there’s no evidence for evolution. That assertion is both groundless and false. I’d suggest reading some references on talk-origins.
As I mentioned above, I think the best thing here would be if you were to explain what you actually think the theory of evolution actually says, rather than just scoffing at what nonsense it all is. You’ll likely find you’ve not been talking about evolution at all.
May 7th, 2006 at at 10:05 pm
SS, “And when you think about it carefully heritable traits are an argument against evolution in that like produces like – you did not have a child that was another species other than human did you?”
Lol, is this a joke? Evolution from one species to another happens over time (taking millions of years), not within a single generational change.
May 7th, 2006 at at 10:29 pm
SS:But …. if we truly have a link to other species as evolution claims it would be possible to produce offspring with another species. Even species that have similar DNA such as a donkey and a horse or a tiger and a lion can’t live up to evolution’s claims. Sure if you cross a donkey and horse you get a mule and if you cross a tiger and a lion you get a liger, but ….. neither the mule or liger is fertile so that it could start a new line of species by natural selection in mating.
SS, are you familiar with the phenomenon known as ring species?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
May 8th, 2006 at at 1:39 am
This is really interesting Rob.
There is a somewhat similar thing happens among humans or other species. Sometimes (extremely rear) two infertile indivituals can actually bread together, if they both have the same genetic mutation such as an extra chromosome.
Infact this can also explain our relation to our closest relative who has an extra chromosome. What scientists have found recently is that one of our chromosomes is comprised of two chromosomes found in our relatives, joined together. Our chromosome has a telomore in the middle of the chromosome which should not be there, as they are only found on the ends of chromosomes to protect them from mutation. However, the position of this telomore explains the extra chromosome that we dont have. sotty I ment extra pairs as chromosome come in pairs.
May 8th, 2006 at at 5:05 am
Rob said:
“SS, are you familiar with the phenomenon known as ring species?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species”
I was not familiar with ring species Rob, so I checked it out and it is talking about seagull with different coloured wings mating Rob. They were all seagulls and the picture showed them to be pretty much the same bird in shape size and features – the only difference seemed to be that some seagulls had black wings other had grey wings. Yet the point remains that they were all seagulls Rob. I don’t doubt that different coloured seagulls can mate after all they are not only the same type of species (e.g. birds) but the exact same type of species (e.g. all are seagulls of the same size and physical features) the only difference is the colour of the gulls wings! This is no different to a brown horse mating with a white horse (both are horses and the same species) or a white human mating with a asian human – both are the same human species Rob. Evolution teaches interspecies relatedness – that is to say that humans are related to monkeys (a completely different species). As I said even different species that are close like a lion and tiger or a horse and donkey cannot produce a fertile matable offspring that could take advantage of natural selection in breeding let alone produce a gene pool of another species like the one we see in human society today. Different species cannot even produce even an infertile offspring let alone be attracted to each other for natural selection as evolution claims. For example you do not see a horse trying to mate with a cat and if they did no pregancy would result. Gulls with gulls is not evolution according to Darwin and neo-Darwin evolutionists. I am starting to think I have read more about evolution than as an opponent of evolution than those who supposedly believe in it and defend it – I seem to have to explain the claims of evolution to those who supposedly support more than I should have to. Know what you believe and know why you believe it, that is my motto.
May 8th, 2006 at at 6:28 am
SS,
Did you actually read that article? Yes, it’s about seagulls, yes, they have various differences in their wings. No, they are not all the same species. That’s the point. Just because you’d look at two examples and say ‘these are both seagulls’ does not make them the same species; ’seagull’ is not a species at all. They are members of the same genus, which is a different thing.
I’m not going to try to explain ring species to you – the article itself does a good enough job of that, and they’re used as an example in many places, so you shouldn’t have any difficulty finding more information. I’m just going to point out that the article states that two neighbouring members of the ring are unable to interbreed. This is because they have been separated the longest and diverged the most. If you reject the standard evolutionary explanation for this, how then do you explain it?
Evolution claims nothing of the sort. Nothing in the theory of evolution suggests that two different species should try or be able to interbreed. You’re arguing against an idea that exists only in your mind.
That’s hilarious. SS, rest assured, when you think you’re “explaining the claims of evolution” – you’re not. What you think evolution claims – it does not. You’re arguing from false premises. The reason you have to “explain” this stuff is because it’s not actually a part of any theory with which I’m familiar.
I say again:
- Please describe what it is you think the theory of evolution actually consists of, becuase trying to piece together the false image you’re attacking from the misconceptions revealed in your responses is simply pointelss… and:
- Realise that if your rejection of evolution is due to your idea that it requires different species such as humans and chimpanzees to interbreed, then you are wrong, and your rejection is groundless.
May 9th, 2006 at at 6:01 am
They do still TEACH evolution in schools, don’t they? SS, were you out that week? I’ve never heard such a poor understanding of the theory before from someone who was actually trying to argue about it. I would suggest doing some reading (reading, not skimming) before you try to tackle this subject again. You don’t have any idea what natural selection is about. I’m not attacking you for this. I don’t think it’s your fault. I blame your biology teacher.
Actually, you should consider yourself lucky. You’re one up on most creationists. You’re not stupid, just ignorant. Ignorance can be fixed. If I called you stupid, it would be an insult. However, when I call you ignorant, it’s simply a suggestion that you get some more information.
May 9th, 2006 at at 9:22 am
Morgan,
Wonderful discussion, and well put. Keep up the great writing on evolution. Let’s also get SS to thinking more about her theory of creationism and how off-base that is. She obviously doesn’t understand evolution, and I really don’t think she truly understands the difficulties of creationism. (Maybe you do understand the difficulties SS, but are content with “God did it” answers)
May 9th, 2006 at at 10:39 pm
Roya,
As you pointed out your Christian friend and yourself (an atheist) had the same IQ, so therefore it stands to reason that there is no connection between belief, unbelief and a person’s intelligence level. That is the point I was trying to make all along. You say ‘not a lot of intelligence is needed’ to believe in God, what about evolution it must require even less intelligence to believe that when leading evolution scientists have admitted that there is more scientific evidence for creation than evolution.
SS, you haven’t seen Pandas Thumb and Scienceblogs then, have you?
Your argument based on the imagination that scientists are every day coming up with refutation of evolution is blatantly stupid based on the current state of publications in biology.
And, please, don’t try to qoute anyone related to the godDIdtiots institute. Let’s not forget Kitzmiller vs. Dover, you twit.
May 10th, 2006 at at 9:07 pm
SS:
Your laughable stance on evolution provided a fresh page in my book on “why I don’t believe.” The evidence of evolution is so vast that you, unbelievably, have encountered it in your day-to-day life. Ever hear of antibiotics? You probably have gotten sick enough to require them, and you seem smart enough to not have gone to a “Christian Scientist” for your medical care.
What’s my point? Quite simply, many antibiotics no longer work on certain diseases. The diseases themselves have evolved. For example, in 1947, just five years after Penicillin was discovered, the Staphylococcus aureus bacterium evolved to overcome it. The meaning of this in daily terms: Staph is immune to penicillin.
Why do you suppose that is, if evolution doesn’t exist? And how about providing us with the names of those leading researchers who refute evolution? I can’t wait to hear about them.
May 12th, 2006 at at 12:40 am
I’ keep it short. I think old Jordan King must have got some really bad blow! Man the guy’s really out there!
May 13th, 2006 at at 7:04 am
Ok then, let’s do a check list on what evolution teaches according to what we learned from school. See if you agree on this point:
Man evolved from chimps – Does evolution teach that? It did when I went to school.
If you’s agree with that statement people please explain how evolution claims man evolved from chimps (another species). I have not yet read one science book or heard one pro-evolutionist that can explain how this is possible and while you’s are at it can you provide evidence for this – should be easy seeing as you’s claim there’s heaps of evidence for it and evolution should to be based on the “scientific method” involving observational or test evidence, else why is it called science?
Let’s define evidence – I am not talking about birds of the same “genus” as you put it e.g. both seagulls mating – I am talking about evidence for man out of chimps (e.g. fosil remains of transitional forms, real scientific evidence that uses the scientific method of observations or tests).
May 13th, 2006 at at 8:16 am
Either you misremember, or were taught wrong. The theory of evolution doesn’t say that homo sapiens evolved from chimps, but that both evolved from a common ancestor. This ancestor was probably more chimplike than humanlike, but AFAIK wouldn’t be classed as the same species as modern chimps.
You’re not describing the theory of evolution – just a misapprehension of one consequence of it. Evolution does not say ‘man evolved from chimps’ – it says ‘certain things are true and, given these things, one reasonable conclusion is that man and chimp evolved from a common ancestor’. If you have no knowledge of the ‘certain things’, then understanding the conclusions will of course be difficult. However, there is honestly no excuse for pontificating about how unknowable and unsupported these points are – the reasoning behind them is freely available. I’ve already linked you to talkorigins, I suggest you actually check them out.
There’s an obvious conclusion there – that you’ve read no science books. But seriously – if you’re claiming that you’ve read works by, say, Dawkins, books like The Blind Watchmaker which are very clear and enlightening on the matter of evolution, that you have looked into the matter on the internet out of a sincere desire to inform yourself, but have found no good explanation of the theory of evolution or the mechanisms behind it… well, I honestly can’t see how that would be so. The fact that nothing you claim as ‘problems of evolution’ have much of anything to do with the actual theory would seem to indicate that any reading you’ve done has been entirely unhelpful.
Uh… so if I were to provide you with clear evidence that two species had evolved from a common ancestor – clear and incontrovertible evidence of whatever sort you’d demand – this wouldn’t prove the truth or validity of evolution to you, unless the two species were chimpanzees, and modern man?
(And let me point out, once again, that evolution does not claim that man evolved from chimps.)
SS, simply put – ‘man evolved from chimps’ is not the theory of evolution. If you think it is – you are wrong. There’s nothing more to it. As I’ve suggested, check out talkorigins, look up their introductions to evolution, and see for yourself.
May 13th, 2006 at at 8:36 pm
Ok Morgan,
Common ancestry, where chimp and man had a common ancester that ‘was more chimp-like than man-like’ as you put it. So we are disagreeing on terminology rather than what evolution teaches – I was taught that man evolved out of a chimp-like ancestor too and converted this to ‘man evolved out of chimps’. I understand that evolutionists teach that the chimp ancester of man was not like the chimps we have today. I have no problem with that statement due to the fact that many animals are extinct today and others are heading towards extinction.
Now we have cleared that up and I have the right terminology – what scientific evidence that conforms with the scientific method of observations or tests is there for this ‘COMMON ANCESTRY’?
Share one science fact or evidence from talkorigins that validates the theory of evolution Morgan according to the scientific method. I have been to the site and have sections of it saved on my computer from other discussions, but I have not found any impirical scientific evidence that proves the theory of evolution on that site. Perhaps you can enlighten me by selecting one fact from that site and sharing it on this forum for all of us to see and discuss. If there is impirical scientific evidence you can point out that I have missed that shows that the theory is a fact (the truth) then I want to see it. If you believe the theory represents the truth than it should be easy to produce the evidence for that truth – there is not normally scientific evidence for a lie is there? This means that the truth can’t be gainsayed in this forum and if you produce this evidence we can examine it together. I have already produced scientific evidence in another discussion section of this blog site to show that the essential tenets of evolution have been disproved – let’s see your evidence for evolution.
May 13th, 2006 at at 8:37 pm
Jordan King, the fossil record is completely clear. Our species has developed rapidly from a hominid that stood on two feet no more than 5 million years ago. This ancestral hominid was never a chimp or a gorilla. It was an entirely different animal, probably capable of learning a great deal of behavior that we would never be able to teach a dog or a chimp or an African gray parrot.
Rapid evolution is called “adaptive radiation.” Google it.
And guess what? We at “The Gods Are Bored” aren’t even atheists! We know without a shadow of a doubt that the universe was created by two goddesses: Chaos and her daughter Gaia. Out of chaos came the world. No record of how long it took.
Come visit us at “The Gods Are Bored” and learn about The Great WE ARE!
May 14th, 2006 at at 6:16 am
What fossils are we talking about Anne? I asked for evidence not more references to other sites that supposedly have evidence but don’t, been there done that. I am over down pat answers like “The fossil records are clear” what fossil records in particular supply empirical evidence for common ancestry between man and chimp by way of evolution? Will I find the fossil of a transitional species between man and chimp for instance if I go to this site? Every site I have been directed to is either segulls coming out of segulls (not evidence of evolution) or it is fraudulent missing links like the piltdown man.
I am not asking that you share every evidence of evolution on this site, you all claim there is countless clear evidence for evolution. If that is true then one of you share just one clear impirical scientific evidence for evolution, just one on this site, no more links to endless reading that does not supply scientific evidence for evolution that would be considered impirical in any other field of credible science except theoretical science (fiction).
Any takers? Can anyone here who claims there is countless evidence for evolution supply one impirical scientific fact that is evidence for evolution? Anyone? Please do share it with us.
May 14th, 2006 at at 7:17 am
SS,
I should point out that I’m not a biologist. There may well be better examples out there that I am unaware of. That said, here’s a few points that I would consider strong evidence for human evolution from apelike ancestors. (Apologies for the format – links were for some reason not working properly.)
Human babies born with vestigial tails[1].
Transitional fossils[2] showing a clear progression from chimplike to human.
Confirmed predictions of where to find hominid fossils[3].
Genetic evidence from the sequencing of human and chimp DNA[4].
This last is the most interesting, I think. Researchers found, firstly, that chimps and humans share 96% identical DNA. Why do you imagine that would be, if not that both share a common ancestor? Further, this study found that not just functional DNA, but errors differed between the two species just as predicted by evolution. This is a very clear and simple example of evolutionary theory making a prediction based on observation which is then confirmed by further observation – the very picture of the scientific method.
Oh, and I almost forgot this:
Evidence that humans’ second chromosome is in fact made up of two older chromosomes fused together, which remain separate in chimps[5].
So, do any of those evidences, to you, lend weight to evolution? I suppose you could argue I haven’t proven anything. If you feel none of these facts meet your standard for proof, I challenge you to prove to me that the universe did not pop into existence last Thursday with the appearance of great age. When you’re done, we can talk about real scientific standards.
I’m curious on a few points.
You objected to evolution above on the basis that different species couldn’t breed together. Do you still consider that a valid objection? If so, why? If not, how has your position altered now that you lack this objection?
You say you’ve read prominent scientists’ writings on evolution, and found no good explanations therein. Who were these scientists? What were you reading?
You say that “leading evolution scientists have admitted that there is more scientific evidence for creation than evolution”. I asked who these scientists are. You have yet to answer that.
Other than ‘man evolved from chimps/a chimplike ancestor’, which as I pointed out is but a conclusion of the theory of evolution and not the theory itself, how would you describe the basics of the theory?
If not evolution, what do you think explains the variety of and relationships between life on this planet?
Have you really? That sounds fascinating – let’s have a look at this proof!
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex2
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex3
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#past_biogeography_ex3
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/25/AR2005092501177.html
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/articles/chimp_chromosome.html
May 14th, 2006 at at 7:24 am
I feel I must point out, again, that “seagulls out of seagulls” is a nonsensical idea. “Seagull” does not describe any taxonomic category. Wikipedia lists 55 species of gull, not all of which are even of the same genus, let alone species. It is entirely possible for a new species of gull to evolve, yet remain a gull, and this would indeed be an example of evolution.
May 14th, 2006 at at 1:51 pm
S.S., here’s some evidence, tell me if you’ve heard anything like this before:
- All life shows a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication,
heritability, catalysis, and metabolism.
- Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups.
We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy,
the so-called tree of life.
- Different lines of evidence give the same arrangement of the tree of life. We
get essentially the same results whether we look at morphological, biochemical,
or genetic traits.
- Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of
transitional forms in the fossil record.
-The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with
common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden
creation.
- Many organisms show rudimentary, vestigial characters, such as sightless eyes
or wings useless for flight.
- Atavisms sometimes occur. An atavism is the reappearance of a character
present in a distant ancestor but lost in the organism’s immediate ancestors. We
only see atavisms consistent with organisms’ evolutionary histories.
- Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the
historical pathway of an organism’s evolution. For example, as embryos whales
and many snakes develop hind limbs that are reabsorbed before birth.
- The distribution of species is consistent with their evolutionary history. For
example, marsupials are mostly limited to Australia, and the exceptions are
explained by continental drift. Remote islands often have species groups that
are highly diverse in habits and general appearance but closely related
genetically. Squirrel diversity coincides with tectonic and sea level changes
(Mercer and Roth 2003). Such consistency still holds when the distribution of
fossil species is included.
- Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that
already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary
history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands,
bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone
structure despite their different functions.
- The same principle applies on a molecular level. Humans share a large
percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a
nematode worm.
- When two organisms evolve the same function independently, different
structures are often recruited. For example, wings of birds, bats, pterosaurs,
and insects all have different structures. Gliding has been implemented in many
additional ways. Again, this applies on a molecular level, too.
- The constraints of evolutionary history sometimes lead to suboptimal
structures and functions. For example, the human throat and respiratory system
make it impossible to breathe and swallow at the same time and make us
susceptible to choking.
- Suboptimality appears also on the molecular level. For example, much DNA is
nonfunctional.
- Some nonfunctional DNA, such as certain transposons, pseudogenes, and
endogenous viruses, show a pattern of inheritance indicating common ancestry.
- The day-to-day aspects of evolution — heritable genetic change, morphological
variation and change, functional change, and natural selection — are seen to
occur at rates consistent with common descent.
- Speciation has been observed (see below).
We have many studies which give ample evidence of speciation (the mechanism of
“macro-evolution”), evolution at or above the species level. New species have
arisen in historical times. For example:
-A new species of mosquito, the molestus form isolated in London’s Underground,
has speciated from Culex pipiens (Byrne and Nichols 1999; Nuttall 1998).
-Helacyton gartleri is the HeLa cell culture, which evolved from a human
cervical carcinoma in 1951. The culture grows indefinitely and has become
widespread (Van Valen and Maiorana 1991).
-Several new species of plants have arisen via polyploidy (when the chromosome
count multiplies by two or more) (de Wet 1971). One example is Primula kewensis
(Newton and Pellew 1929).
Incipient speciation, where two subspecies interbreed rarely or with only little
success, is common. Here are just a few examples:
- Rhagoletis pomonella, the apple maggot fly, is undergoing sympatric
speciation. Its native host in North America is Hawthorn (Crataegus spp.), but
in the mid-1800s, a new population formed on introduced domestic apples (Malus
pumila). The two races are kept partially isolated by natural selection (Filchak
et al. 2000).
- The mosquito Anopheles gambiae shows incipient speciation between its
populations in northwestern and southeastern Africa (Fanello et al. 2003;
Lehmann et al. 2003).
- Silverside fish show incipient speciation between marine and estuarine
populations (Beheregaray and Sunnucks 2001).
Ring species show the process of speciation in action. In ring species, the
species is distributed more or less in a line, such as around the base of a
mountain range. Each population is able to breed with its neighboring
population, but the populations at the two ends are not able to interbreed. (In
a true ring species, those two end populations are adjacent to each other,
completing the ring.) Examples of ring species are
- the salamander Ensatina, with seven different subspecies on the west coast of
the United States. They form a ring around California’s central valley. At the
south end, adjacent subspecies klauberi and eschscholtzi do not interbreed
(Brown n.d.; Wake 1997).
- greenish warblers (Phylloscopus trochiloides), around the Himalayas. Their
behavioral and genetic characteristics change gradually, starting from central
Siberia, extending around the Himalayas, and back again, so two forms of the
songbird coexist but do not interbreed in that part of their range (Irwin et al.
2001; Whitehouse 2001).
- the deer mouse (Peromyces maniculatus), with over fifty subspecies in North
America.
- many species of birds, including Parus major and P. minor, Halcyon chloris,
Zosterops, Lalage, Pernis, the Larus argentatus group, and Phylloscopus
trochiloides (Mayr 1942, 182-183).
- the American bee Hoplitis (Alcidamea) producta (Mayr 1963, 510).
- the subterranean mole rat, Spalax ehrenbergi (Nevo 1999).
Evidence of speciation occurs in the form of organisms that exist only in
environments that did not exist a few hundreds or thousands of years ago. For
example:
- In several Canadian lakes, which originated in the last 10,000 years following
the last ice age, stickleback fish have diversified into separate species for
shallow and deep water (Schilthuizen 2001, 146-151).
- Cichlids in Lake Malawi and Lake Victoria have diversified into hundreds of
species. Parts of Lake Malawi which originated in the nineteenth century have
species indigenous to those parts (Schilthuizen 2001, 166-176).
- A Mimulus species adapted for soils high in copper exists only on the tailings
of a copper mine that did not exist before 1859 (Macnair 1989).
There is further evidence that speciation can be caused by infection with a
symbiont. A Wolbachia bacterium infects and causes postmating reproductive
isolation between the wasps Nasonia vitripennis and N. giraulti (Bordenstein and
Werren 1997).
Furthermore, the different lines of evidence are consistent; they all point to
the same big picture. For example, evidence from gene duplications in the yeast
genome shows that its ability to ferment glucose evolved about eighty million
years ago. Fossil evidence shows that fermentable fruits became prominent about
the same time. Genetic evidence for major change around that time also is found
in fruiting plants and fruit flies (Benner et al. 2002).
The evidence is extensive and consistent, and it points unambiguously to
evolution, including common descent, change over time, and adaptation influenced
by natural selection. It would be preposterous to refer to these as anything
other than facts.
May 14th, 2006 at at 2:46 pm
Obviously you think evolution cannot be proven, so I’m curious, what do you think better explains the diversity of life we see on this planet? Intelligent Design? Can you supply one “impirical” scientific fact that is evidence for intelligent design? Can you produce any kind of testable or verifiable hypothesis? Negative arguments really can’t prove a positive assertion, so please, give us something other than (unsubstantiated) attacks on evolution.
May 14th, 2006 at at 7:33 pm
social scientist Says:
May 4th, 2006 at 8:41 pm
Morgan an Severalspeciesof,
I want to answer both your questions and I can do it but I need two weeks grace as I am a university student and have a report, journal and essay all due withing the next two weeks and I have been procrastinating so much I am behind schedule on them. Be patient though and I will get back to you both, after the these assignments I will only be cramming for the final exam and will have much more free time.
SS, do you have time now? Just wanted to remind you that’s all.
May 14th, 2006 at at 11:41 pm
Roya,
Sadly I am still struggling with an intense load of essays and reports and journals, but I have read what Morgan and Thom have said and feel confident I can address both these “evidences” from a science perspective, I am not a scientist, but I have to study some biological science, the scientific method and aspects of evolution and algebra in my psychology study (which is the science of the mind). Stay tuned for some molecular biology lessons from evolutionary scientists themselves showing serious scientific flaws in the theory (fable) of evolution.
May 15th, 2006 at at 4:35 am
Hey SS?
How about responding to my post instead of ignoring it like you’ve ignored all the others? You are ignorant, AND lazy? Either way, quit acting all Narcissistic. Just because you know more about the creationist take on evolution, doesn’t mean you know anything at all about evolution.
In fact, as I was discussing with my girlfriend easier, I think evolution is a form of intelligent design. There is a definite intelligence to it. Natural selection makes decisions. It easily, in a simple way, describes something that your God requires an extra variable to do. I think you are an intelligent person, but like all believers are delusional.
There is no reason to believe in Gods except to believe in something beyond death. It’s difficult to accept, but there quite probably isn’t anything that will happen after death. Before you say “are you saying my life is meaningless?” No, I am not. But ask yourself, how does having a God make your life any more meaningful? What purpose does God’s plan serve? Why should you care? Heaven?
I look forward to your response. Honestly.
May 15th, 2006 at at 8:16 am
How about responding to my post instead of ignoring it like you’ve ignored all the others? You are ignorant, AND lazy?
Ok I’m a student as well, so I understand she does not have time right now to give you the best answer she can. You need time to put your thoughts together, you know?
May 15th, 2006 at at 8:40 am
SS,
Look up “Tiktaalik” for an obvious transitional fossil. It’s a great example of what one transitional species would look like, between swimming and land dwelling species.
May 15th, 2006 at at 2:14 pm
Stay tuned for some molecular biology lessons from evolutionary scientists themselves showing serious scientific flaws in the theory (fable) of evolution.
Oh man, please don’t tell me that you’re going to bring up irreducible complexity. Its an old hat, and is not in any way a problem for evolution….in fact evolutionary theory explains it and has predicted it (gene duplication???) since the 30’s. Behe’s book is trash. But if you would like to see it torn apart, then go ahead, do your worst. I would really like to see you refute the examples we’ve shown here, it would be a watershed, you would be the first, ever. It would turn the entire scientific world upside-down, evolutionary theory is as central to our understanding of the world as is the “theory” of gravity (you might also want to examine your understanding of the term “theory” and what it really means in science). Do you doubt gravity exists also? It must, like evolution, also be some evil scientific conspiracy to make people deny God. Yeah medical science too, we better abandon that as well because its based on the farse of evolution. All the lives we’ve saved, the diseases we’ve treated with the incredible breakthroughs in medicine in the past century, all of that was just an illusion.
I also find it interesting that S.S. has been talking about all this work that she has had since May 4th, but has since been providing some lengthy responses to the questions she can tackle. Stop ignoring the tough questions with excuses like “I have too much work.” I’m a college student as well with finals this week and next, but I can still take 10 minutes out of my day to fend off ignorance like yours. When Severalspeciesof and Morgan presented you with serious challenges around May 4th you sidesteped them with your excuses, then 3 days later you were back to arguing without addressing those challenges, and now that Morgan and I have presented yet another serious challenge to your nonsense, you bring up school work again. You also convienently ignored Agnotheostic’s point about the evolution of disease and never gave us the names of the “leading researchers” who refute evolutionary theory. Sounds a little suspicious to me, dare I say cowardly. Unfortunately this kind of behavior is all too common with creationist nutjobs like yourself when presented with the hard facts. Prove me wrong. Please.
May 15th, 2006 at at 3:52 pm
ZOMG!!!! LEEEEEEEEROOOOOY JEEEEEEEENKIIIINS!!!!!!!!
May 16th, 2006 at at 6:25 am
Arg,
Sorry about the narcisism it is all part of the game to gets you’s to gang up on me and argue hard, I like a good hard debate lose or win, looks like it is working you’s are all ready to get me 
I hear ya all, it is unforgiveable of me to leave it in the air like this, I just need one more week and then I will only be craming for the exams, and I will give you my best replies rather than the ad hoc ones I am doing now. I promise to dig in my filing cabinet under evolution and find the references – I could quote the things now but without the references it makes them a bit flakey and I would not expect you’s to accept what I say. Tonight I am going to stay up till my eyes bleed and finish the report no matter what, then I will only have two journal entries and a psychology essay (and a few related readings) to do that are due next Tuesday. Just one week ok, it grieves me not to attack you atheists it is so much fun (everyone has to have a hobby right) lol
May 16th, 2006 at at 9:11 am
Thom et. al.
SS will come around, so hold off on the idea that she’s avoiding us. At least she’s not sticking her tongue out at us and saying “God did it so there!” (At least I hope not.) I traded ideas with her at the Uncredible Hallq blog. I’ll admit I didn’t do too good of a job, sometimes it just became me and her writing past each other. yet she stuck it out for around a month, ending with “agreeing to disagree”. I can understand her position with finals and all. Sometimes you can catch a break and write away, sometimes not. My situation is that I have extremely limited access to the internet. I strike when I can. And I’m learning a lot.
May 16th, 2006 at at 11:25 am
I AM, welcome back!
I tried reading through the quoted idiot’s text, but at about the third paragraph, my eyes crossed and wouldn’t refocus on the gibberish
May 16th, 2006 at at 11:28 am
wow i think that what u have to say is very interesting but weird have a chat with me about this more private im 5″3 blue eyes petite this is my advertisement if n e one gets this and im 19 so if n e one is interested e mail me at meganosferatu@yahoo good luck
May 16th, 2006 at at 9:13 pm
wow i think that what u have to say is very interesting but weird have a chat with me about this more private im 5″3 blue eyes petite this is my advertisement if n e one gets this and im 19 so if n e one is interested e mail me at meganosferatu@yahoo good luck
Step into my web said the spider to the fly