Evolution

[CaptKirk]

If your going to argue about their being a difference between an animal adapting a different color and it becoming a different species altogether then you obviously don't understand evolution.

Evolution says that, basically due to error in the reproduction of DNA, that random mutations will happen on occassion, and if that mutation is more beneficial than another form of the gene, then due to natural selection it will outlast the other form. If it is not, than an animal carrying the gene will die out or the numbers of its offsprings will stay at a low number and eventually disapear through interbreeding with a more beneficial gene. This would be an example of something small like an animal becoming a different color. Becoming a different species is nothing more than the previous happening over and over again continuously until such a point where their DNA is so different from the starting creature that they could no longer interbreed naturally.

Interesting take. So, you're saying that A changes to B. If B is somehow superior to A, then B survives and A dies off. To follow, since man evolved from apes, and survived, then apes all died off, as had all the inferior forms prior to apes. Right?

Don't give me just another version of "because micro-evolution is possible macro-evolution is possible", prove it.

A good start would be to answer a simple question. Right now millions of species exist. According to evolutionary theory, inter-species changes occur over millions of years and thousands or more generations. If this is true, than far more inter-species fossils should exist than fossils of a sole species. Despite this, not a single inter-species fossil has been found. Why? Given that man's existance is postulated to be in the tens of thousands of years, and the cross from apes would have taken millions, then we should be tripping over half man/half ape fossils, but we haven't found any. All of the supposed "missing links" have been proven to be men that developed under differing environments, none are part ape.

Don't give me more postulation, speculation or extrapolation, just give me substantiation.

[DarkLStrike]

Point 5.7 can be a good example.

Hardy shows much chance for the success of evolution: The Woods Hole worms could breed with other Woods Hole worms, and the "wild" populations could interbreed, but apparently the Woods Hole worms had, in those 27 years become different enough that they couldn't even breed with "wild" worms of their same species.

Note that there is no claim that a new species had been created, just evidence that micro-evolution alone can create enough difference within a species to prevent interbreeding among seperate populations. Seems to me that for successful evolution, "survival of the fittest" and all, having more reproductive options would make for better chances of success.

Now, had any one of the worm populations resulted in salamander babies, there would be a strong arguement for macro-evolution

Exactly. The most common and prevalent definition of species (for multicellular organisms) is "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups". Meaning that, if an organism cannot breed with another organism, they are not of the same species. Therefore, speciation is observed and as logically follows from your original criteria, macro-evolution is proven true.

Of course you can still sit around and argue "no no no, what I meant is this [obscure and rare] definition of species, not the mainstream one," or say "okay, but that's still micro-evolution, and until I see a new genus/family/order/class/phylum/kingdom/domain arises, I shall not accept macro-evolution" rather than conceding the point. I want to say that Rome is not built in a day and just because we haven't observed gigantic variations between the modern organisms in the past one or two centuries does not mean evolution is false. Evolution is a process that takes millions upon millions of years. Just because each step a man takes is one yard does not mean he cannot run a mile.

A good start would be to answer a simple question. Right now millions of species exist. According to evolutionary theory, inter-species changes occur over millions of years and thousands or more generations. If this is true, than far more inter-species fossils should exist than fossils of a sole species.

I lol'ed. What do you think "inter-species" organisms look like, CaptKirk?

Given that man's existance is postulated to be in the tens of thousands of years, and the cross from apes would have taken millions, then we should be tripping over half man/half ape fossils, but we haven't found any.

Humans are classified as apes. But tell me, CaptKirk, which ones of these below are "apes" and which ones are humans?


If you do not think that they are half man/half "ape" fossils, please let as know which kind of fossils you were expecting (an organism with the torso of a man and appendages of an "ape"? ).

All of the supposed "missing links" have been proven to be men that developed under differing environments, none are part ape.

Wrong. Since you are claiming that the missing links are proven to be actually humans, please cite credible sources to back that up.

[SnakeEyes]

Interesting take. So, you're saying that A changes to B. If B is somehow superior to A, then B survives and A dies off. To follow, since man evolved from apes, and survived, then apes all died off, as had all the inferior forms prior to apes. Right?

Man didn't evolve from apes! Ape and man have a common ancestor.

[CaptKirk]

Interesting take. So, you're saying that A changes to B. If B is somehow superior to A, then B survives and A dies off. To follow, since man evolved from apes, and survived, then apes all died off, as had all the inferior forms prior to apes. Right?

Man didn't evolve from apes! Ape and man have a common ancestor.

Ok, good, now we're getting somewhere. A solid assertation that, since you're so sure, must have documented proof!
What is the common ancestor?
Where are the documented transitional beings?

[DarkLStrike]

Interesting take. So, you're saying that A changes to B. If B is somehow superior to A, then B survives and A dies off. To follow, since man evolved from apes, and survived, then apes all died off, as had all the inferior forms prior to apes. Right?

Man didn't evolve from apes! Ape and man have a common ancestor.

Ok, good, now we're getting somewhere. A solid assertation that, since you're so sure, must have documented proof!
What is the common ancestor?
Where are the documented transitional beings?

Do you just skip my posts now?

Just shooting off random topics and diverting our attention from our original argument is not acceptable as nothing will get done this way. I'll provide proofs and evidence for that assertion once you acknowledge my point in the prior post.

(For the record, again, humans are apes. Modern non-human apes and humans have a common ancestor.)

[CaptKirk]

Note that there is no claim that a new species had been created, just evidence that micro-evolution alone can create enough difference within a species to prevent interbreeding among seperate populations. Seems to me that for successful evolution, "survival of the fittest" and all, having more reproductive options would make for better chances of success.

Now, had any one of the worm populations resulted in salamander babies, there would be a strong arguement for macro-evolution

Exactly. The most common and prevalent definition of species (for multicellular organisms) is "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups". Meaning that, if an organism cannot breed with another organism, they are not of the same species. Therefore, speciation is observed and as logically follows from your original criteria, macro-evolution is proven true.

You're misidentifying sub-species as species. Again, we have worm/worm, Stephanomeira/Stephanomeira, maize/maize and Yellow Monkey Flower/Yellow Monkey Flower. To show evidence of macro-evolution, you need to show a jump from worm, Stephanomeira, maize or Yellow Monkey Flower to something other than worm, Stephanomeira, maize or Yellow Monkey Flower. Is that too much to ask of something that is so beyond question?

Of course you can still sit around and argue "no no no, what I meant is this [obscure and rare] definition of species, not the mainstream one," or say "okay, but that's still micro-evolution, and until I see a new genus/family/order/class/phylum/kingdom/domain arises, I shall not accept macro-evolution" rather than conceding the point. I want to say that Rome is not built in a day and just because we haven't observed gigantic variations between the modern organisms in the past one or two centuries does not mean evolution is false. Evolution is a process that takes millions upon millions of years. Just because each step a man takes is one yard does not mean he cannot run a mile.

Neither does it prove that he can run a mile.

A good start would be to answer a simple question. Right now millions of species exist. According to evolutionary theory, inter-species changes occur over millions of years and thousands or more generations. If this is true, than far more inter-species fossils should exist than fossils of a sole species.

I lol'ed. What do you think "inter-species" organisms look like, CaptKirk?

Well, I'm no "scientist", but common sense seems to indicate that if it took a million years for one thing to evolve into another thing, then there ought to be a crapload of in-betweens that transition from more of one and less of the other to more of the other and less of the one.

Given that man's existance is postulated to be in the tens of thousands of years, and the cross from apes would have taken millions, then we should be tripping over half man/half ape fossils, but we haven't found any.

Humans are classified as apes. But tell me, CaptKirk, which ones of these below are "apes" and which ones are humans?

How about pointing out which ones are in the 650-800cc cranial capacity range, and exhibit a split of traits between ape and human.

If you do not think that they are half man/half "ape" fossils, please let as know which kind of fossils you were expecting (an organism with the torso of a man and appendages of an "ape"? ).

Some fossils that are in the 650-800cc cranial capacity range, and exhibit a split of traits between ape and human would be nice to see.

All of the supposed "missing links" have been proven to be men that developed under differing environments, none are part ape.

Wrong. Since you are claiming that the missing links are proven to be actually humans, please cite credible sources to back that up.

Wrong. Since you told me that proof of macro-evolution exists, and have yet to show me anything besides Yellow Monkey Flower hogwash, it's still your turn to do the digging.

[CaptKirk]

Ok, good, now we're getting somewhere. A solid assertation that, since you're so sure, must have documented proof!
What is the common ancestor?
Where are the documented transitional beings?

Do you just skip my posts now?

Just shooting off random topics and diverting our attention from our original argument is not acceptable as nothing will get done this way. I'll provide proofs and evidence for that assertion once you acknowledge my point in the prior post.

(For the record, again, humans are apes. Modern non-human apes and humans have a common ancestor.)

No, I don't skip your posts. The answer to his was quicker, thus I answered it first and was typing the answer to yours while you were whining. But, since you simplified things, and again omitted proving anything, I'll leave the same questions to you;
What is the common ancestor?
Where are the documented transitional beings?

[DarkLStrike]

Exactly. The most common and prevalent definition of species (for multicellular organisms) is "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups". Meaning that, if an organism cannot breed with another organism, they are not of the same species. Therefore, speciation is observed and as logically follows from your original criteria, macro-evolution is proven true.

You're misidentifying sub-species as species. Again, we have worm/worm, Stephanomeira/Stephanomeira, maize/maize and Yellow Monkey Flower/Yellow Monkey Flower. To show evidence of macro-evolution, you need to show a jump from worm, Stephanomeira, maize or Yellow Monkey Flower to something other than worm, Stephanomeira, maize or Yellow Monkey Flower. Is that too much to ask of something that is so beyond question?

No I am not misidentifying sub-species as species. Just asserting that I am does not make it true. I have provided the standard definition of species and in the example 5.7, a new species, as defined by the standard definition, arose. Worm is not a species, it actually can be found in multiple phyla, including; Annelida, Hemichordata, Nematoda, Nematomorpha, and Platyhelminthes. If you want to claim that I am mistaken, please provide the "true" definitions of sub-species and species...

I lol'ed. What do you think "inter-species" organisms look like, CaptKirk?

Well, I'm no "scientist", but common sense seems to indicate that if it took a million years for one thing to evolve into another thing, then there ought to be a crapload of in-betweens that transition from more of one and less of the other to more of the other and less of the one.

Well actually, we are all inter-species organisms. Every single organism is an inter-species organism. Evolution doesn't stop, it just keep on going.

Humans are classified as apes. But tell me, CaptKirk, which ones of these below are "apes" and which ones are humans?

How about pointing out which ones are in the 650-800cc cranial capacity range, and exhibit a split of traits between ape and human.

Homo ergaster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_ergaster) has a cranial capacity range of 700-850cc and exhibit both pre-historic ape and modern man characteristics. That's the skull labeled "H" in the picture above.

All of the supposed "missing links" have been proven to be men that developed under differing environments, none are part ape.

Wrong. Since you are claiming that the missing links are proven to be actually humans, please cite credible sources to back that up.

Wrong. Since you told me that proof of macro-evolution exists, and have yet to show me anything besides Yellow Monkey Flower hogwash, it's still your turn to do the digging.

That's incorrect. It is true that I have told you that the proof of macro-evolution exists, it is you who claimed that there is proof that the missing links are actually men developed under differing environments. Therefore, you have the burden of proof to demonstrate that there is actually proof. You can't just go around and say that there is proof for something without even attempting to demonstrate that it is true.

(As an analogy, if I claimed unicorns are real and people have found unicorn fossils in Peru then you rebut by saying that scientists have actually determined that the unicorn fossils are pre-historic horse fossils, you would have the burden of proof to demonstrate that the fossils are actually horse fossils.)

No, I don't skip your posts. The answer to his was quicker, thus I answered it first and was typing the answer to yours while you were whining. But, since you simplified things, and again omitted proving anything, I'll leave the same questions to you;
What is the common ancestor?
Where are the documented transitional beings?

Fine. I'll direct you to this website:
http://www.theistic-evolution.com/transitional.html
It contains bite-sized information regarding the evolution of man.

[Jwilson6]

If your going to argue about their being a difference between an animal adapting a different color and it becoming a different species altogether then you obviously don't understand evolution.

Evolution says that, basically due to error in the reproduction of DNA, that random mutations will happen on occassion, and if that mutation is more beneficial than another form of the gene, then due to natural selection it will outlast the other form. If it is not, than an animal carrying the gene will die out or the numbers of its offsprings will stay at a low number and eventually disapear through interbreeding with a more beneficial gene. This would be an example of something small like an animal becoming a different color. Becoming a different species is nothing more than the previous happening over and over again continuously until such a point where their DNA is so different from the starting creature that they could no longer interbreed naturally.

Interesting take. So, you're saying that A changes to B. If B is somehow superior to A, then B survives and A dies off. To follow, since man evolved from apes, and survived, then apes all died off, as had all the inferior forms prior to apes. Right?

Don't give me just another version of "because micro-evolution is possible macro-evolution is possible", prove it.

A good start would be to answer a simple question. Right now millions of species exist. According to evolutionary theory, inter-species changes occur over millions of years and thousands or more generations. If this is true, than far more inter-species fossils should exist than fossils of a sole species. Despite this, not a single inter-species fossil has been found. Why? Given that man's existance is postulated to be in the tens of thousands of years, and the cross from apes would have taken millions, then we should be tripping over half man/half ape fossils, but we haven't found any. All of the supposed "missing links" have been proven to be men that developed under differing environments, none are part ape.

Don't give me more postulation, speculation or extrapolation, just give me substantiation.

So many things are wrong with what you just said there. First let me say that no, the initial species doesn't always die off. For instance, Imagine you have a brown brown bunny rabbit that has spread itself out all over North America, but now somewhere in the north a rabbit evolves with white fur allowing it to better camouflage itself in the snow, this rabbit becomes superior and takes over the snowy regions of Canada while the brown rabbit remains superior in the wooded areas.

Now to counter your argument about micro not being macro evolution, lets take the previous example a step further, realize that the two subspecies are now divided by climate and will not interbreed (don't give me any problems here or ill just make it an ocean) now realize that they will both continue to evolve through random mutations now realize that since they are random and mutations, that both populations will not develop the same mutations and will thus evolve differently, now realize that this process will continue seperately for each species until such a point that they die out or are reunited. Now try to argue that anything I have told you is implausible, then try to argue that anything I have told you has not happened before, you can't. Now realize that after enough mutations the two subspecies will no longer be able to interbreed.

Also just so you know men didn't evolve from apes the two species evolved from a common ancestor millions of years ago. You are right however in one thing, that precise ancestor has not been identified yet but as for the trail of ape-like human fossils, they have been discovered and are being continually discovered, and we have correctly identified fossils found to be the ancestor of other differing species, so unless your going to argue the "god put them their to test our faith I love puppies" then you should really drop that whole argument now.

[CaptKirk]

You're misidentifying sub-species as species. Again, we have worm/worm, Stephanomeira/Stephanomeira, maize/maize and Yellow Monkey Flower/Yellow Monkey Flower. To show evidence of macro-evolution, you need to show a jump from worm, Stephanomeira, maize or Yellow Monkey Flower to something other than worm, Stephanomeira, maize or Yellow Monkey Flower. Is that too much to ask of something that is so beyond question?

No I am not misidentifying sub-species as species. Just asserting that I am does not make it true. I have provided the standard definition of species and in the example 5.7, a new species, as defined by the standard definition, arose. Worm is not a species, it actually can be found in multiple phyla, including; Annelida, Hemichordata, Nematoda, Nematomorpha, and Platyhelminthes. If you want to claim that I am mistaken, please provide the "true" definitions of sub-species and species...

I'm not here to play stupid word games. I want to know if you have found documented evidence of a worm becoming something other than a worm. If you have not, then have the integrity to admit it, don't keep trying to play the "but here's a worm becoming another worm" crap.

Well, I'm no "scientist", but common sense seems to indicate that if it took a million years for one thing to evolve into another thing, then there ought to be a crapload of in-betweens that transition from more of one and less of the other to more of the other and less of the one.

Well actually, we are all inter-species organisms. Every single organism is an inter-species organism. Evolution doesn't stop, it just keep on going.

More word games with no evidence placed on the table.

How about pointing out which ones are in the 650-800cc cranial capacity range, and exhibit a split of traits between ape and human.

Homo ergaster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_ergaster) has a cranial capacity range of 700-850cc and exhibit both pre-historic ape and modern man characteristics. That's the skull labeled "H" in the picture above.

I looked over a number of references on Homo ergaster, not "creationist" sites but pro-evolution ones. Some show the cranial capacity to be between 850 and 1100 cc and others give the 700-850cc size you note. It appears that a number of the sites using the smaller estimate base it on "Turkana Boy", a teen, but do so by omitting his estimated full growth cranial capacity of 880-910cc
They all seem to agree that homo ergaster is a geographically seperate population of homo erectus, not a distinctly seperate species. All the references note features as early in the development of man, none of the references note ape-like features.

Wrong. Since you told me that proof of macro-evolution exists, and have yet to show me anything besides Yellow Monkey Flower hogwash, it's still your turn to do the digging.

That's incorrect. It is true that I have told you that the proof of macro-evolution exists, it is you who claimed that there is proof that the missing links are actually men developed under differing environments. Therefore, you have the burden of proof to demonstrate that there is actually proof. You can't just go around and say that there is proof for something without even attempting to demonstrate that it is true.

(As an analogy, if I claimed unicorns are real and people have found unicorn fossils in Peru then you rebut by saying that scientists have actually determined that the unicorn fossils are pre-historic horse fossils, you would have the burden of proof to demonstrate that the fossils are actually horse fossils.)

Your analogy is incomplete. The rest of the analogy is that you don't offer any proof that the fossils are actually unicorns, play some word games on whether unicorns are horses with horns, horses with bent noses, or horses with swollen noses due to extensive flea bites, yet demand that I dig up the proof that they are horses.

[CaptKirk]

If your going to argue about their being a difference between an animal adapting a different color and it becoming a different species altogether then you obviously don't understand evolution.

Evolution says that, basically due to error in the reproduction of DNA, that random mutations will happen on occassion, and if that mutation is more beneficial than another form of the gene, then due to natural selection it will outlast the other form. If it is not, than an animal carrying the gene will die out or the numbers of its offsprings will stay at a low number and eventually disapear through interbreeding with a more beneficial gene. This would be an example of something small like an animal becoming a different color. Becoming a different species is nothing more than the previous happening over and over again continuously until such a point where their DNA is so different from the starting creature that they could no longer interbreed naturally.

Interesting take. So, you're saying that A changes to B. If B is somehow superior to A, then B survives and A dies off. To follow, since man evolved from apes, and survived, then apes all died off, as had all the inferior forms prior to apes. Right?

Don't give me just another version of "because micro-evolution is possible macro-evolution is possible", prove it.

A good start would be to answer a simple question. Right now millions of species exist. According to evolutionary theory, inter-species changes occur over millions of years and thousands or more generations. If this is true, than far more inter-species fossils should exist than fossils of a sole species. Despite this, not a single inter-species fossil has been found. Why? Given that man's existance is postulated to be in the tens of thousands of years, and the cross from apes would have taken millions, then we should be tripping over half man/half ape fossils, but we haven't found any. All of the supposed "missing links" have been proven to be men that developed under differing environments, none are part ape.

Don't give me more postulation, speculation or extrapolation, just give me substantiation.

So many things are wrong with what you just said there. First let me say that no, the initial species doesn't always die off. For instance, Imagine you have a brown brown bunny rabbit that has spread itself out all over North America, but now somewhere in the north a rabbit evolves with white fur allowing it to better camouflage itself in the snow, this rabbit becomes superior and takes over the snowy regions of Canada while the brown rabbit remains superior in the wooded areas.

Now to counter your argument about micro not being macro evolution, lets take the previous example a step further, realize that the two subspecies are now divided by climate and will not interbreed (don't give me any problems here or ill just make it an ocean) now realize that they will both continue to evolve through random mutations now realize that since they are random and mutations, that both populations will not develop the same mutations and will thus evolve differently, now realize that this process will continue seperately for each species until such a point that they die out or are reunited. Now try to argue that anything I have told you is implausible, then try to argue that anything I have told you has not happened before, you can't. Now realize that after enough mutations the two subspecies will no longer be able to interbreed.

This is all fine, undisputed, and irrelevant. When any of these climate/ocean/whatever seperated populations of bunnies become kangaroos or panda bears, let me know.

Also just so you know men didn't evolve from apes the two species evolved from a common ancestor millions of years ago. You are right however in one thing, that precise ancestor has not been identified yet but as for the trail of ape-like human fossils, they have been discovered and are being continually discovered, and we have correctly identified fossils found to be the ancestor of other differing species, so unless your going to argue the "god put them their to test our faith I love puppies" then you should really drop that whole argument now.

Well, at least we're making some progress. You've admitted that your belief in evolution is faith, not an observation of proven science.

[Jwilson6]

Interesting take. So, you're saying that A changes to B. If B is somehow superior to A, then B survives and A dies off. To follow, since man evolved from apes, and survived, then apes all died off, as had all the inferior forms prior to apes. Right?

Don't give me just another version of "because micro-evolution is possible macro-evolution is possible", prove it.

A good start would be to answer a simple question. Right now millions of species exist. According to evolutionary theory, inter-species changes occur over millions of years and thousands or more generations. If this is true, than far more inter-species fossils should exist than fossils of a sole species. Despite this, not a single inter-species fossil has been found. Why? Given that man's existance is postulated to be in the tens of thousands of years, and the cross from apes would have taken millions, then we should be tripping over half man/half ape fossils, but we haven't found any. All of the supposed "missing links" have been proven to be men that developed under differing environments, none are part ape.

Don't give me more postulation, speculation or extrapolation, just give me substantiation.

So many things are wrong with what you just said there. First let me say that no, the initial species doesn't always die off. For instance, Imagine you have a brown brown bunny rabbit that has spread itself out all over North America, but now somewhere in the north a rabbit evolves with white fur allowing it to better camouflage itself in the snow, this rabbit becomes superior and takes over the snowy regions of Canada while the brown rabbit remains superior in the wooded areas.

Now to counter your argument about micro not being macro evolution, lets take the previous example a step further, realize that the two subspecies are now divided by climate and will not interbreed (don't give me any problems here or ill just make it an ocean) now realize that they will both continue to evolve through random mutations now realize that since they are random and mutations, that both populations will not develop the same mutations and will thus evolve differently, now realize that this process will continue seperately for each species until such a point that they die out or are reunited. Now try to argue that anything I have told you is implausible, then try to argue that anything I have told you has not happened before, you can't. Now realize that after enough mutations the two subspecies will no longer be able to interbreed.

This is all fine, undisputed, and irrelevant. When any of these climate/ocean/whatever seperated populations of bunnies become kangaroos or panda bears, let me know.

The horse and the zebra both evolved from the same animal. When it began to evolve to better fit its habitat, the subspecies' became isolated and eventually led to the modern horse (before humans interfered with it) and the zebra as well as several other species. There are more but I used the horse because its evolution is one of the best and most proven examples.

Also just so you know men didn't evolve from apes the two species evolved from a common ancestor millions of years ago. You are right however in one thing, that precise ancestor has not been identified yet but as for the trail of ape-like human fossils, they have been discovered and are being continually discovered, and we have correctly identified fossils found to be the ancestor of other differing species, so unless your going to argue the "god put them their to test our faith I love puppies" then you should really drop that whole argument now.

Well, at least we're making some progress. You've admitted that your belief in evolution is faith, not an observation of proven science.

No I've not said that at all. I've said that the common ancestor between human and ape has not been discovered. But there are plenty of other ancestors in our family tree that have been discovered, the search for the link between human and ape is not a search for proof of evolution it is a search for the link between human and ape.

[DarkLStrike]

I'm not here to play stupid word games. I want to know if you have found documented evidence of a worm becoming something other than a worm. If you have not, then have the integrity to admit it, don't keep trying to play the "but here's a worm becoming another worm" crap.

No, it is not "word games". Species has an actual meaning in science. If you want to have a meaningful scientific debate, then you must utilize the scientific definition of species. Worm is not a species, any credible biologist will tell you that worm is not a species. Worm is a layman term that can be applied to organisms across most phyla of the animal kingdom. Again, just because you say "no it isn't" does not make it so, I have provided the definition for species and the changes observed in the worms in example 5.7 support my claim that the worms are of different species. Therefore, I have demonstrated that speciation occurred.

More word games with no evidence placed on the table.

There are no "inter-species" organisms. All organisms are within their own species. If we find a new type of organism, we will classify it under its own species, and not call it "inter-species". It's like saying that there are no "inter-numbers" when we have 0.1, 1, 5, 5.1, 5.4 and 6. I can show you 5.4 (intermediate of 5.1 and 6), then you can argue that 5.4 is actually a "number" and not an "inter-number". Even if we find 5.6 sometime afterwards, it will still be a number, not "inter-number".

I looked over a number of references on Homo ergaster, not "creationist" sites but pro-evolution ones. Some show the cranial capacity to be between 850 and 1100 cc and others give the 700-850cc size you note. It appears that a number of the sites using the smaller estimate base it on "Turkana Boy", a teen, but do so by omitting his estimated full growth cranial capacity of 880-910cc
They all seem to agree that homo ergaster is a geographically seperate population of homo erectus, not a distinctly seperate species. All the references note features as early in the development of man, none of the references note ape-like features.

Define what "ape-like" features are, please. And please give me some references where it notes 850-1000cc and some references where it notes that 700-850cc is just an omission of his estimated full growth.

Your analogy is incomplete. The rest of the analogy is that you don't offer any proof that the fossils are actually unicorns, play some word games on whether unicorns are horses with horns, horses with bent noses, or horses with swollen noses due to extensive flea bites, yet demand that I dig up the proof that they are horses.

Fine, I concede that my analogy was incomplete. Add this to it: I offer evidence that the fossils are unicorns. You rebut by saying that the evidence is hogwash and that you have evidence that they are horses. I then demand to see your evidence.

[akito]

any of you guys ever consider that an all knowing and all powerful god can use math and sciences like evolution to accomplish his purposes just as easily, if not more so, than mystical powers? take a cigarrette lighter back in time a few hundred years and its magic, so imho it doesn't violate any religion to explain what we used to think were miracles. srsly, any god of order (rather than chaos) would need to know and follow the rules of the universe he set up.

i think the problem with issues like this are people taking the bible (and other holy texts too i guess) like it is a science text book rather than a "how to go to heaven" text book. im willing to bet that the bible doesn't mention evolution and quantum mechanics because the guys god was talking with/to back then were a bunch of barely literate farmers and fishermen. did they even have the concept of 0 back then, much less micro organisms and molecular structures?

i mean really, whats harder... setting all your planets EXACTLY right for yourself or training some moron nubtrash the how's and why's of it all? try it some time and see how long it takes u to go from "explaination" guy to "because i freaking said so" guy. i took on ONE trainee and like half an hour later without a single system finished i wanted to kill myself in RL. no wonder old testament god was all fire and brimstone.

[DarkLStrike]

We are not talking about how evolution violates religion. We are discussing the validity of evolution. Thanks for your input, I'm glad that someone pointed out that religious people can fit evolution into their theology. There are a lot of theistic "evolutionists" out there, probably even greater than the atheistic ones. (But just for the record, I'm an atheist.)

[akito]

oh my bad, i thought the ONLY reason people had to deny evolution was clinging to out dated dogma. could the anti-evolution guys fill me in on any other reasons they might have?

[Moleman]

As I've already mentioned in this topic your position on this subject eventually boils down to faith and whether you are prepared to believe that evolution is a reasonable explanation for our existence on this planet.

No matter how many giant walls of text are posted neither side is likely to change their mind...

Personally, I cannot accept that we are nothing more than a gigantic cosmic fluke!

Once upon a no-time a super dense particle exploded and out popped the universe, stir in a couple of billion years and hey presto an insignificant blue speck in the universe, just the right size and just the right distance from the local sun, suddenly develops a nasty case of LIFE. Add another billion or so years and LIFE has moved on a bit, in fact the blue speck is now filled with it, flying in the sky, swimming in the seas, growing on the land and in some cases even typing on Internet forums!

An oversimplification but you get the point i'm trying to make.

moleman

[DarkLStrike]

As I've already mentioned in this topic your position on this subject eventually boils down to faith and whether you are prepared to believe that evolution is a reasonable explanation for our existence on this planet.

If this boils down to faith, then everything boils down to faith.

[Moleman]

As I've already mentioned in this topic your position on this subject eventually boils down to faith and whether you are prepared to believe that evolution is a reasonable explanation for our existence on this planet.

If this boils down to faith, then everything boils down to faith.

Wrong, if I can see tangible proof for something then it no longer requires faith. I don't need faith to believe in gravity!

moleman

[DarkLStrike]

As I've already mentioned in this topic your position on this subject eventually boils down to faith and whether you are prepared to believe that evolution is a reasonable explanation for our existence on this planet.

If this boils down to faith, then everything boils down to faith.

Wrong, if I can see tangible proof for something then it no longer requires faith. I don't need faith to believe in gravity!

moleman

Oh BBQ. So you are not a post-modernist, this will be harder than I thought .

Well, what will suffice as proof?

[Moleman]

Oh BBQ. So you are not a post-modernist, this will be harder than I thought .

Well, what will suffice as proof?

I suppose proof means establishing the facts beyond reasonable doubt, however I already know that in this instance what I will consider as 'reasonable doubt' and what you will consider as 'reasonable doubt' will be two very different things!

moleman

[DarkLStrike]

I suppose proof means establishing the facts beyond reasonable doubt, however I already know that in this instance what I will consider as 'reasonable doubt' and what you will consider as 'reasonable doubt' will be two very different things!

moleman

Actually, what I was getting at was what evidence do I need to show you for you to believe that evolution has occurred.

[MadAce]

Oh BBQ. So you are not a post-modernist, this will be harder than I thought .

Well, what will suffice as proof?

I suppose proof means establishing the facts beyond reasonable doubt, however I already know that in this instance what I will consider as 'reasonable doubt' and what you will consider as 'reasonable doubt' will be two very different things!

moleman

There's always "reasonable" doubt.

Our perception of the world is just a bunch of electric signals in our brains. That's hardly credible to say the least.

So basically we could start to doubt everything and anything really exists.

Which I do.

Once upon a no-time a super dense particle exploded and out popped the universe, stir in a couple of billion years and hey presto an insignificant blue speck in the universe, just the right size and just the right distance from the local sun, suddenly develops a nasty case of LIFE. Add another billion or so years and LIFE has moved on a bit, in fact the blue speck is now filled with it, flying in the sky, swimming in the seas, growing on the land and in some cases even typing on Internet forums!

The Earth isn't the right size and at the right distance from the sun for us to exist.

We are the right size and such for the Earth.

Major difference.

[SnakeEyes]

And then again, evolution has nothing to do with the ORIGIN of life or the origin of the universe or our earth. That's a whole different part of science.

[SnakeEyes]

Also every aspect of evolution can be observed every day. I wonder what kind of proof is needed to get beyond your 'reasonable doubt' moleman =).

[MadAce]

And then again, evolution has nothing to do with the ORIGIN of life or the origin of the universe or our earth. That's a whole different part of science.

Indeed. If I'd been God I wouldn't have bothered with them 6 days (call me lazy if you will, I call it efficient) and I'd just said "Let there be light" and boom. The universe and life and such.