Nocturne

[Hasbinbad]

Experiment:
Question: Do people who don't believe in evolution know what evolution is?

Background research: p99 forums, god threads, talking to charlatans, christians, and witch doctors.

Hypothesis: A persons belief in evolution is positively correlative to that persons understanding of evolution.

Tests:
a.) survey people who state they do not believe in evolution on their knowledge of evolution.
b.) summarize evolution to a similar degree of sophistication as the highest level found in a.

Analysis: compare the results from A and B. conclude and revise hypothesis if necessary.
So Nocturne, why don't you tell us what you know about the "theory" of evolution.

[Hasbinbad]

<object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KYdpsImnYug?version=3&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KYdpsImnYug?version=3&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

[Rhambuk]

Boo hbb, i thought all this was over with.

here come the bible thumpers defending their "god"

[Hasbinbad]

Where?

http://i.imgur.com/STf99sR.jpg

And besides, the callout isn't to defend their god, it's to see what nocturne actually knows about the mechanism of evolution.

[Rhambuk]

you know they don't answer anything they dodge evade and throw how everything is gods design in your face.

I'll be surprised if he posts here, ill be more surprised if he has taken the time to learn about evolution, and itll be a fucking miracle if anything he says makes a damn bit of sense

[Ahldagor]

you know they don't answer anything they dodge evade and throw how everything is gods design in your face.

I'll be surprised if he posts here, ill be more surprised if he has taken the time to learn about evolution, and itll be a fucking miracle if anything he says makes a damn bit of sense

a good christian turns the other cheek/walks away because god will deal with it

[Ahldagor]

what bug is that?

[Ahldagor]

what bug is that?

that hasbin posted....

[Black Jesus]

Evolution is as useless of a theory for explaining the most important questions of abiogenesis as the big bang is at explaining the origin of existence

The only science I believe in is classic mechanical physics because that's the only one with laws provable by experimentation and math and not bullshit conjecture from scientists circlejerking each other

[Black Jesus]

allow me to clarify my rant:

Evolution is as useless of a theory for explaining the most important questions of abiogenesis as the big bang is at explaining the origin of existence

The only science I believe in is classic mechanical physics because that's the only one with laws provable by experimentation and math and not bullshit conjecture from scientists circlejerking each other

big bang (in regards to origin of existence) - first there was nothing, then a singularity magically appeared and it took a big fat shit and created everything. Only in the process, it violated the 2nd law of thermodynamics by reversing entropy (something only possible with a SUPERNATURAL FORCE-- oh god, not "God" though). So let's just circlejerk about how the big bang only explains time as a side effect of matter, and strawman away from the real question people ask: how the fuck did everything come to be?

evolution (in regards to abiogenesis) - some fucking random carbon and hydrogen atoms decided to fuck and then evolved into complex fucking crazy DNA databases with organ systems like the brain we don't even fully fucking understand so let's sit around circlejerking about the missing link we'll never find instead

versus

classical physics - using the law of conservation of momentum I can tell you how big of a fucking exit wound I'll put in your skull by measuring the mass of the bullet and the speed of velocity that the potential energy in the gunpowder will produce. then I'll use newtons laws to derive the kinematic equations and do some actual fucking math to prove it

[Daldolma]

sometimes i think naez trolls so hard he trolls himself

[Hasbinbad]

what bug is that?
crickets..

implying the silence of nocturne

[Rhambuk]

Evolution is as useless of a theory for explaining the most important questions of abiogenesis as the big bang is at explaining the origin of existence

The only science I believe in is classic mechanical physics because that's the only one with laws provable by experimentation and math and not bullshit conjecture from scientists circlejerking each other

Ap-Plauded

[Hasbinbad]

evolution (in regards to abiogenesis) - some fucking random carbon and hydrogen atoms decided to fuck and then evolved into complex fucking crazy DNA databases with organ systems like the brain we don't even fully fucking understand so let's sit around circlejerking about the missing link we'll never find instead
You're welcome to actually explain what you know about evolution if you want as well.

[Black Jesus]

dont get me riled up about climate science too. big bang, evolution, global warming-- trifecta of moranic and useless scientific "theories"

[Hasbinbad]

By all means then, explain what you know about the mechanism of evolution to the rest of us so that we can continue the experiment.

[Black Jesus]

You're welcome to actually explain what you know about evolution if you want as well.

over infinite generations subtle changes lead to new organisms

yet I was reading scientists were freaking out about some fish int he arctic becuase the ph went down .02 in the psat 500 years because of acidity caused by co2. Sorry, not gonna stop driving my tin can so some stupid fish that isn't even in my food chain can live. Lemon = acid, and lemon makes fish taste better anyway. I'm the dominant species, adapt or die BITCH

[Hasbinbad]

People who have stated they don't believe in evolution so far:
Nocture
Black Jesus
Some other guy

Their summary of evolution:
Nocturne: None yet
over infinite generations subtle changes lead to new organisms
Other guy(s): nothing yet

[Black Jesus]

Pretty damn good summation, considering you can have evolution without natural selection (see: humans after the industrial revolution kept more morans alive)

[Ahldagor]

would knowledge of evolution change one's day to day functioning withing their society?

[Ahldagor]

Does knowledge of evolution change one's day to day functioning withing their society?

bah messed that up.

[Black Jesus]

literally just disproved every scientific "advancement" of the past 400 years since newton and no1 has anything to say?

[Black Jesus]

moon landing was faked the flag is fucking flapping in the wind on a body with no atmosphere

[kotton05]

http://i.qkme.me/3pt0hw.jpg

[zanderklocke]

I'm a Christian, and I believe in evolution. It's scientific fact. In addition, I believe the Old Testament should be interpreted symbolically, instead of factually, and the parts of it that raise bothersome issues up such as Leviticus with homosexuality are just a product of the civilization that created it. Yep, I believe all this and am Christian.

Interesting fact: Big Bang Theory was first conjectured by Roman Catholic priest, Georges Lemaitre.

[Black Jesus]

abiogenesis is basically a rehash of the thrown out theory of spontaneous generation

[zanderklocke]

I don't believe any of you are going to hell for your differing beliefs or lack of beliefs either. What's up.

[Ahldagor]

why is no one bringing up how bacteria adapt to antibiotics, or insects to some insecticides? that's happening in relatively short periods, decades or less for staph.

[Black Jesus]

why is no one bringing up how bacteria adapt to antibiotics, or insects to some insecticides? that's happening in relatively short periods, decades or less for staph.

The main conversation is about macroevolution, which is where science turns into gobbledy **** unproven conjecture becuase of an incomplete fossil record. It's no different than mating two gingers and knowing it's gonna come out ginger. Macroevolution says you mate gingers enough times you get a t-rex

[Black Jesus]

In essence, people who disagree with evolution are smart enough to understand that

http://newsliteimgs.s3.amazonaws.com/100715_ginger.jpg != http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-L8OLBZjw24k/Tpa1k3sOUDI/AAAAAAAADqA/nkpn-7XQC60/s1600/T-rex.jpg

[orsk]

I cant wait till the machines take over.

[Rellapse10]

I cant wait till the machines take over.

they already have

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRoJPST7eZcAbex2pxmk63FUdMw5Q8ex Q96ANXvmB6vh0TrFDXVng

[Ahldagor]

The main conversation is about macroevolution, which is where science turns into gobbledy **** unproven conjecture becuase of an incomplete fossil record. It's no different than mating two gingers and knowing it's gonna come out ginger. Macroevolution says you mate gingers enough times you get a t-rex

and newtonian physics breaks down at the quantum level, right? mendelian genetics man, that ginger couple's baby also has a chance to have whatever color hair, and a possible soul, that its grandparents have/had

[zanderklocke]

You can be a Christian and still believe in evolution. It just means you're a very dumb Christian is all. It also basically means you think God is a liar since God makes it pretty clear that he created all life and that it didn't just randomly form one day and mutate into various species as evolutionists would have you believe. Evolution does exist in some degree but no where near what is purported by science. All evolution accounts for is very minor adaptations within a species. It would NEVER in a billion years allow for something like a human to grow gils or fins, just because they swim in the water all the time. That is not how evolution works.

Not responding to this.

[Black Jesus]

and newtonian physics breaks down at the quantum level, right? mendelian genetics man, that ginger couple's baby also has a chance to have whatever color hair, and a possible soul, that its grandparents have/had

Yea I still don't get why E=1/2m*v^2 until v = c then you lose the 1/2 part

[Black Jesus]

also gingerdom might not even be mendelian. didnt he only talk about dominant and recessive genes? red hair is an incomplete trait

[Kagatob]

Sorry I'm not sitting at my computer eagerly awaiting to appease the requests of my presence. I know a great deal about evolution, how else do you think I know that its bullshit? Sorry but unlike you I actually do this thing called research before I take a side. Evolution is not science, period. It is the biggest fraud ever introduced into the scientific community. There isn't a plethora of transitional species like their should be.
You don't understand what a "science" is then.
Do you even know what a "transitional species" is? You want to talk about frauds introduced into the scientific community?
Every time a new species is discovered it's a new species in it's own right, it's not a "transitional species". Species J succeeded species A and preceded species Z that is all. Of course that's not enough because for you because any unexplained factor no matter how small makes you believe that what you are being presented with is wrong.
Species J is discovered, while science is happy to have discovered a new species, you shout "WHAT ABOUT SPECIES D AND R? WHERE ARE THEY?", the thing is, they've found them, they've found not only species A-Z they've found A.5 and B.5 and C.5 and so on, but it's still not enough, not for you. It will never be enough for you, and it has nothing to do with science. It has everything to do with the fact that it's a test of your faith, a faith you're afraid to let go of regardless to the amount of evidence that points towards logical answers.
The fact that even a tiger and a lion can't produce fertile offspring should be all of the evidence you need to realize that evolution is bullshit but there is oh so much more. These two animals are extremely similar and according to how evolution is supposed to work, there isn't a single logical reason as to why this and so many other exceptions exist.
You can apply the same argument to ask yourself why they can have offspring in the first place, fertile or not, they are different species and they are reproducing. Doesn't mean God did it.
Just because there's a mechanical problem on a plane and I can't figure out what caused it doesn't mean gremlins did it.
Then there's the problem of abiogenesis which in order for evolution to be possible, must be proven to be even remotely possible. To date there isn't a single shred of evidence for the possibility of abiogenesis(mostly due to being impossible). Evolution stands in direct defiance with the law of biogenesis which states that in fact no living thing can produce anything other than what it already is. It amazes me how many of you consider yourself scientists and can't even grasp the simple rudimentary concepts of science itself.
Don't bring up abiogenesis in a discussion about evolution. Abiogenesis discusses the origin of life. Evolution discusses what life does after it's already there.
Would you go to a discussion about Nuclear Physics and start arguing about Geology? I mean the Plutonium is found in the ground after all!
Actually I take it back, you probably would argue about Geology during a discussion about Nuclear Physics. :)
Why don't we see a single thing alive on this planet today that appears to be in transitional form when there should be an uncountable number of such things. Why is every animal in existence, virtually exactly how it was since recorded history itself began.
You fell into the same logical fallacy yet again, now you're going in circles.
Also define "recorded history", because it's a lot longer than you would think, the only problem is that the further you go back the more fragmented (unreliable) it becomes.

You can be a Christian and still believe in evolution. It just means you're a very dumb Christian is all. It also basically means you think God is a liar since God makes it pretty clear that he created all life and that it didn't just randomly form one day and mutate into various species as evolutionists would have you believe. Evolution does exist in some degree but no where near what is purported by science. All evolution accounts for is very minor adaptations within a species. It would NEVER in a billion years allow for something like a human to grow gils or fins, just because they swim in the water all the time. That is not how evolution works.
Again you are arguing "pretty clear" like you did with "obvious" before. If it's so obvious why don't you cite some examples please? Before you start I don't want to hear how a banana fits perfectly in your hand ergo God did it...
And yet you just did. Kind of a metaphor for what a walking talking contradiction you are. If you truly believe in evolution there is something wrong with your ability to reason and grasp common sense. The Bible makes it clear as possible that we were given dominion over nature.
How does it do this? Also how do you know that the bible is 'accurate'? Please explain this to me without faith or the Bible (Bible proves Bible is the biggest logical fallacy of them all, don't fall into it please). I don't give a shit why you believe it, I want to know why others should believe it if it's so "clear".

So you're telling this me this is just "metaphorical"? Sorry but you don't know what the word even means. It's pretty blatantly clear and not metaphorical in the slightest. The Bible is extremely obvious about when things are and aren't metaphors. It says we rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, not that we evolved from them. We were created separately from them and are different then they are.
Again you use the term "clear", the problem is that you were already convinced that the book was the rule of law before the discussion already began. You aren't performing science when you are researching to an end, you are making biased observations, nothing more and nothing less.

[Splorf22]

The fact that even a tiger and a lion can't produce fertile offspring should be all of the evidence you need to realize that evolution is bullshit but there is oh so much more. These two animals are extremely similar and according to how evolution is supposed to work, there isn't a single logical reason as to why this and so many other exceptions exist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HgW86TwF_o

[radditsu]

moon landing was faked the flag is fucking flapping in the wind on a body with no atmosphere

Motherfucker you can see it with a telescope.

[Hitchens]

Thread needs more Naez.

[Rellapse10]

dem *****s never went to the moon lulz you guys have been trolled by the gov

[Kagatob]

Actually not true. Male ligers cannot reproduce and most females can't either, and also hybrid animals are an extreme rarity in nature. Why is this? This is the exact opposite of what you'd expect if evolution were in fact true.
Evidence please. Someone provided you with evidence and you are refuting it, but based on what?
Ok so they've found so many types right? Ok so then explaining what animals lead up to an elephant should be easy. There are so many animals like an elephant, right? Oh wait there isn't. There isn't a single animal that exists that is even remotely close to an elephant. Where are all of the inbetween stages?
There are actually, around 60 different named species that would fit into that category. The fossil record is quite clear, you are simply blind.
What about monkeys turning into humans. If we evolved from monkeys, why do monkeys still exist?
We didn't evolve from monkeys we share a common ancestor with them...
You have proven that you lack any bit of relevant knowledge on the subject.

Also thank you for picking and choosing what to respond to. I'll take the lack of response to the rest of my points as you conceding them. :)

[Rhambuk]

Ding! Kagatob has leveled up in forumquest!

Congratulations and Thank You!

[Splorf22]

Actually not true. Male ligers cannot reproduce and most females can't either, and also hybrid animals are an extreme rarity in nature. Why is this? This is the exact opposite of what you'd expect if evolution were in fact true.

First wiki has a few fertile ligers mentioned. But regardless, this is a huge strawman. Evolution selects genes that survive. Correctly mating with lions is not a survival trait in tigers, nor vice versa.

Ok so they've found so many types right? Ok so then explaining what animals lead up to an elephant should be easy. There are so many animals like an elephant, right? Oh wait there isn't. There isn't a single animal that exists that is even remotely close to an elephant. Where are all of the inbetween stages?

Googling 'elephant evolution' returns some pretty cool youtube videos.

What about monkeys turning into humans. If we evolved from monkeys, why do monkeys still exist? Why do they not even show a single sign or anything of the sort that they are evolving. I see a massive gap which shouldn't exist if evolution is true. There is a million mile wide gap that is missing and some how you manage to have so few brain cells in your head that you can't even manage to see it. The gap of intelligence is so unbelievably massive and yet the effects of evolution are suppose to be subtle gradual changes. Yet we have a nowhere near subtle or gradual transition and rather a giant, seemingly impossible leap.

Chimps and gorillas can learn sign language, although not at a human level. Some of the things they learn to do, like eat ants with a stick, they learn from each other. And humans wiped out our closest relatives, the Neanderthals. There are even crazy japanese tests: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-499989/The-disturbing-question-posed-IQ-tests--chimps-cleverer-us.html

Anyway, while we are far from knowing everything there is to know, it's far more likely to me that we are relatives of chimpanzees than that we were placed onto this planet by an unknown force that no one else has ever heard of.

[Black Jesus]

waving flag, 2 sets of shadows at different angles, thin space suits that would constrict movement to an impossibility in a vacuum

[Hasbinbad]

Nocturne if you know so much about how evolution works, how about you sum it up for the rest of the class?

[Skope]

I demand to see Crocoduck's berf srrtifickate!!

http://api.ning.com/files/A*tkidRMIQmYpAXVpVhkDpkfPUbCWRu9cz0TF0Ub1yd-KBA1qipZ-fSYskkByVC1KGnN6OZ93*NNsTnAHMqVBxu9qeWVxxOY/Crocoduck.jpg

[Skope]

Fail!!

http://api.ning.com/files/A*tkidRMIQmYpAXVpVhkDpkfPUbCWRu9cz0TF0Ub1yd-KBA1qipZ-fSYskkByVC1KGnN6OZ93*NNsTnAHMqVBxu9qeWVxxOY/Crocoduck.jpg

[Skope]

Double Fail!!

is it the * that it's not picking up? My browser's not returning any errors.

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/000/914/Crocoduck.jpg

[Hitchens]

<object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wptn5RE2I-k?hl=en_US&amp;version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wptn5RE2I-k?hl=en_US&amp;version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

[Lojik]

I feel like there is some of this happening in this thread

<object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BheL-a5Aeis?hl=en_US&amp;version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BheL-a5Aeis?hl=en_US&amp;version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

[Glitch]

<object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RxrxnPG05SU?hl=en_US&amp;version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RxrxnPG05SU?hl=en_US&amp;version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

[Glitch]

idk why people upload stuff to YouTube filmed off of their TV

[Hasbinbad]

Nocturne if you know so much about how evolution works, how about you sum it up for the rest of the class?

[Samoht]

I'm blind? Lol? What animal alive today is anything like an elephant. You're telling me that all of the supposed transitional forms just "didn't make it"? What did an elephant start out as? At one point nothing was alive so how did we go from literally nothing, to an elephant? Where is the bagillion fossils that show the transition of a once non-existent creature to the creature we see today.

shit's so easy, even a monkey could google it

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=closest+living+elephant+relative

you probably overlooked it because the answer is so tiny

[Hasbinbad]

No, I'm looking for a basic summation of the mechanism of evolution.

[Kagatob]

I'm blind? Lol? What animal alive today is anything like an elephant. You're telling me that all of the supposed transitional forms just "didn't make it"? What did an elephant start out as? At one point nothing was alive so how did we go from literally nothing, to an elephant? Where is the bagillion fossils that show the transition of a once non-existent creature to the creature we see today.

Can you please rephrase the question? I don't understand what you are trying to ask due to the nature of your sentence structure, I'm not trolling you here, the above paragraph is gibberish.

Ok so who or what is this common ancestor? Who's the common ancestor of the common ancestor? At one point there was nothing alive on the entire planet. Where did this "common ancestor" come from? Then lets not forget the law of biogenesis which states that all life must come from life and even then, only after its own kind. So how did we go from no life, to life? According to cell theory, all cells MUST come from pre-existing cells. At one point no cells existed. How can this be possible? Do you not see the paradox? You calling me blind is the ultimate irony.
The law of Biogenesis is a counter-argument to 'Spontaneous Generation', it's something that Darwinian Evolutionists agree with.
I'll note a second and last time. Evolution is not about the origins of life, it's how life changes/adapts to it's environment via mutation and natural selection over long periods of time.
How can you believe in a so called theory who's foundation is literally non-existent. In order to believe in evolution you have to believe in abiogenesis, the two are inseparable no matter how much you wish for them not to be. All of evolution is based upon the sole assumption that some day, abiogenesis will be proven to be true. However, this day has yet to come and will be as such indefinitely because it is already known to be a complete fabrication.
Abiogenesis =/= evolution the person who brought up abiogenesis is you, the only person who has been pushing abiogenesis is you. Stop posting about abiogenesis, it's completely irrelevant to the conversation.
So you can go ahead and continue living your sad little lie of a life, jokes going to be on you when it ends.
This thinly veiled threat of eternal damnation that you poked out here only proves that you don't worship/believe out of experience/discovery/research/evidence or any of the like, it shows that you are scared little person who only believes in their own fear and need something external to hold things in order, which is why you, and none of the rest of us are so susceptible to such threats. :)

[Kagatob]

idk why people upload stuff to YouTube filmed off of their TV

Youtube is much less likely to remove it due to breach of copyright policy because it's a "home video".

[Hasbinbad]

Still haven't had a decent definition of what evolution is supposed to be by anyone who denies its accuracy. I wonder why that could be.

[Kagatob]

Still haven't had a decent definition of what evolution is supposed to be by anyone who denies its accuracy. I wonder why that could be.

He hasn't posted a single source of anything ever. The closest he's come in this entire thread was two mentions of the bible, and he's proven that he didn't even read that text correctly. :p

[Kagatob]

There isn't any. How can I summarize something that doesn't exist. It's a trick question and I have disproved the very question itself.

You haven't, you haven't even formulated your basis as to why you need a counter-argument. You've just stated several well known logical fallacies and have been proven wrong.

NAME A SOURCE WHEN YOU POST SOMETHING

[Rellapse10]

i am gonna pee on all of you one day from heaven... i will be yelling you mad bro at you for eternity.

[Nihilist_santa]

I understand what I was forced to learn about evolution in school but the teachers could never answer basic questions without doing some crazy dance. For instance what about the stomach? How did a stomach evolve to hold acid? or the eye needs all of its parts to function so how does anyone part form individually.

Evolution hinges or these mutations but there are very few beneficial mutations that I am aware of although I have heard some argue that sickle cell is a beneficial mutation (LOL) . Mutations would have to be passed to the offspring as well which usually does not happen and you have other things to consider like the pleiotropic effect which means one system affected by a mutation does not happen in isolation but usually effects other systems of the organism.

If someone could show me beneficial mutations (and no I dont mean moths during the industrial revolution that have already been shown to in fact too not be an example of this) then perhaps I would change my views.

[Kagatob]

What is a source going to do? Why do I need a source? The source is the entire scientific community and everything science has ever learned.
You can't be serious. The entire scientific community and everything that science has taught us supports evolution on one condition, that the evidence points to it. Guess what, all of the evidence points to it, there is no evidence pointing otherwise.
Everything we currently know thanks to science, says that evolution is not possible. It is a direct contradiction to various scientific laws and theories.
Which ones?
The law of biogenesis states that all life forms can only produce more of their own kind. Cell theory states that all cells come from pre-existing cells.
I've already debunked this, twice, why are you bringing it up again?
Evolution says that life forms can eventually produce life forms not consistent of its original form.
That is not what evolution says at all.
One of these things cannot be true but one is already known to be true ALWAYS which is why it was made into a law. You cannot have a theory that contradicts a law, less that law be disproved. The law has never been disproved therefor the theory by definition, is unscientific and baseless. Until abiogenesis can be proven, the theory of evolution will remain at best, a hypothesis. I'm sorry that I understand how science works better than you but this is the reality of the situation.
This is your last chance. I'm explaining you a very basic principle here. Abiogenesis and Evolution are two completely different forms of life science. Stop comparing the two, stop trying to assert that the two are related to one another.
You can theoretically have Evolution without Abiogenesis (God creates life that can adapt to it's envronment), you can theoretically have Abiogenesis without evolution (artificial life would be the simplest example). Don't mention it again.
P.s. there are no threats of eternal damnation, only promises.
Evidence please. A shred of evidence. I beg you.

[Nihilist_santa]

I want to add also why would a single celled organism even need to evolve? It is already perfectly adapted to its environment. Why the order from simple to complex. Complex creatures would require far more fine tuning for their environment. It seems ass backwards.

[Rellapse10]

WHO GIVES A FUCK

[Hitchens]

Nocturne's sources can be found here: http://conservapedia.com/Evolution

[Kagatob]

I understand what I was forced to learn about evolution in school but the teachers could never answer basic questions without doing some crazy dance. For instance what about the stomach? How did a stomach evolve to hold acid? or the eye needs all of its parts to function so how does anyone part form individually.
Both of these things are not exclusive to multi-celled organisms, only the level of sophistication.
Single celled organisms have Lysosomes which contains digestive enzymes that without the ability to localize and contain them would dissolve the cell from the inside out.
Not all animals have eyes, not all cells have ocular organelles, however evolutionary theory explains to us that when different types of cells began to form symbiotic colonies, different cells began to specialize performing different tasks, this is how all of the sensory receptors eventually came about. There's no song and dance about it. You've simply had shitty teachers who couldn't think outside the box (Shitty curriculum)
Evolution hinges or these mutations but there are very few beneficial mutations that I am aware of although I have heard some argue that sickle cell is a beneficial mutation (LOL) . Mutations would have to be passed to the offspring as well which usually does not happen and you have other things to consider like the pleiotropic effect which means one system affected by a mutation does not happen in isolation but usually effects other systems of the organism.
Natural selection. I can't simplify it more.
If someone could show me beneficial mutations (and no I dont mean moths during the industrial revolution that have already been shown to in fact too not be an example of this) then perhaps I would change my views.
Do you know how many times they've needed to re-design penicillin since it's invention because the bacteria continues to mutate and adapt?

[OMGWTF420]

evolution

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS-TVz0gcSkgXEUjidZ5n7nbB22U75Aeu7Y3LW_nfK2P2GZfDh3

[OMGWTF420]

WHO GIVES A FUCK

pity reply

[Black Jesus]

evolution is simply psuedoscience for lack of any hard evidence

[OMGWTF420]

new sig for in response to the anti-evolution crowd because their

[Strifer]

new sig for in response to the anti-evolution crowd because their

http://i.imgur.com/8skC2Ts.gif

[Rellapse10]

http://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/1267053759_rip_applegate_bouncers.gif?w=454&h=348

[Kagatob]

Ya but guess what, that bacteria is always bacteria. It will ALWAYS be bacteria. It will not eventually turn into a god damn fish or whatever the fuck retarded shit you think it can eventually turn into. I don't care if you give it a million years, nor a billion, time is irrelevant. Time cannot make impossible things occur.

And what evidence do you have to back up this claim?

Try responding to things that are actually directed to you, like the entire last page. :)

[Strifer]

And what evidence do you have to back up this claim?

Try responding to things that are actually directed to you, like the entire last page. :)

http://i.imgur.com/PAYr0q3.gif

[Rellapse10]

you all need to go watch ancient aliens then you will see where we come from............

[Kagatob]

Have you ever seen anything to the contrary? Has anyone alive today ever seen anything to the contrary? Has anyone that has ever existed in the entirety of recorded human history ever claimed to have seen anything to the contrary? No human alive today has ever seen one life form become another entirely. You would think with so many millions upon millions of life forms that exist today that somebody, somewhere, would have seen this happen.
Nowhere in the history of anything has anyone claimed that you can "see one life form become another entirely".

That's not even how it works, you don't suddenly go from fish to amphibian to reptile... Your ignorance of biology is simply astounding. I'm trying to explain these things to you in the hope that you might actually learn something. For one minute put down the bible and open your eyes/ears. Use that brain in your head minus those ideas that your parents indoctrinated in you.
Oh but right, this is where you plug-in the "time did it" excuse. Where I insert God into the equation, you insert time. One makes sense, the other does not. Time alone cannot cause the impossible to occur.

Logical fallacy detected!

The fossil record is huge evidence that over a period of time species have adapted to their environment via natural selection and changed over time. More recently there's the factor of the genetic relations between species of animals that further points towards evolution.

Evolution has evidence. Creation has nothing.

[Strifer]

http://i.imgur.com/EZ0nP.gif
^ me in this thread lol im out

[Splorf22]

Have you ever seen anything to the contrary? Has anyone alive today ever seen anything to the contrary? Has anyone that has ever existed in the entirety of recorded human history ever claimed to have seen anything to the contrary? No human alive today has ever seen one life form become another entirely. You would think with so many millions upon millions of life forms that exist today that somebody, somewhere, would have seen this happen. Oh but right, this is where you plug-in the "time did it" excuse. Where I insert God into the equation, you insert time. One makes sense, the other does not. Time alone cannot cause the impossible to occur.

Do you not see the giant strawman you are setting up here? Evolution is in fact happening all the time. This is why, for example, we have all these nasty bacteria that are immune to antibiotics now. They did not exist even one hundred years ago. Since you don't like that fact, you move the goal post and demand changes that the theory of evolution does predict, hence the strawman.

[Servellious]

Ya but guess what, that bacteria is always bacteria. It will ALWAYS be bacteria. It will not eventually turn into a god damn fish or whatever the fuck retarded shit you think it can eventually turn into. I don't care if you give it a million years, nor a billion, time is irrelevant. Time cannot make impossible things occur.

Can god turn the bacteria into something or does he only turn cells into cancers in young children

[Kagatob]

Can god turn the bacteria into something or does he only turn cells into cancers in young children

Ba-ZING!

[Rellapse10]

why did god give me Hemorrhoids?

[Strifer]

Can god turn the bacteria into something or does he only turn cells into cancers in young children

<object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/l7I_bSMnJko?hl=en_US&amp;version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/l7I_bSMnJko?hl=en_US&amp;version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

[Kagatob]

Do you not see the giant strawman you are setting up here? Evolution is in fact happening all the time. This is why, for example, we have all these nasty bacteria that are immune to antibiotics now. They did not exist even one hundred years ago. Since you don't like that fact, you move the goal post and demand changes that the theory of evolution does predict, hence the strawman.

Wait so bacteria didn't exist hundreds of years ago? Lol? Is the bacteria mutating into a different life form entirely or is it still just bacteria? Oh so going from "normal" bacteria to "nasty" bacteria is your evidence for evolution? Rofl. What a joke. Sorry you're right, bacteria is real "nasty" now, this totally explains how you can go from single celled organisms to super ultra complex things like us.

Don't try to respond to something that you can't even read in the proper context. That's not what Splorf meant at all.

[Servellious]

So is sickle cell anemia evolution and Darwinism or gods work?

[Rellapse10]

who cares WHAT ABOUT MY FUCKING Hemorrhoids!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Rellapse10]

White people are clearly the most superior being on the planet and the next closest isn't anywhere near us. So evolution works backwards sometimes? Doesn't this contradict the entire point of evolution?


ftfy

[Kagatob]

Well the reason is because the idea of evolution is fucking retarded and makes no sense. Why would a common ancestor involve into two completely different types of animals that are so drastically different. We are clearly the most superior being on the planet and the next closest isn't anywhere near us. So evolution works backwards sometimes? Doesn't this contradict the entire point of evolution?

We are so clearly different from every other life form on the planet that to think we in some way "evolved" from them is nothing short of insanity. The gap between us and the next most intelligent being is so massive that it that it's near impossible to even measure. If evolution is indeed a slow and gradual process, where is it? Does this look like a slow gradual process to you? We are very out of place within the bounds of evolution. So much so that it's as if we're a completely separate creation with a more special and important purpose.
You know nothing of genetics, you know nothing of the fact that we share over 98% of our genetic structure with our closest related primate, you know nothing of the hyperintelligence of animals such as dolphins and whales.

We get it, you have an opinion, however it is uninformed, please provide evidence not your angered observations. Your faith is being threatened and you are getting mad bro, chill out and maybe you'll learn something. :)

Address the points on the previous page please.

[Rellapse10]

fuck evolution giving black dudes bigger dicks

[Kagatob]

^
That's not evolution, that's an incorrect racial stereotype.

[Rellapse10]

^
That's not evolution, that's an incorrect racial stereotype.

prove it

[Kagatob]

On that subject I'll allow you to do your own research thank you.

[Kagatob]

Actually that 98% figure you pulled out of your ass completely is actually wrong. In fact that number goes down all the time. .
I didn't pull it out of my ass, I researched actual scientific studies.
You may be thinking about the discovery that Humans only share 96% of their genetic structure with Chimpanzees, but you ignore the fact that around the same time it was discovered that we're even more closely related to Bonobos than they originally thought we were to Chimpanzees.
Also, not to mention that when dealing with billions of lines of coded information, even 1% accounts for literally millions of differences. Also, we have about 25% of the same exact DNA as found in plants. GUESS WE EVOLVED FROM PLANTS BRO.
It's actually 50+% relation to plants, but that's another thing entirely.
Also this point counters your previous point doesn't it?

Btw I'm not here to debate if that's what you're thinking. I'm here to teach you. There is literally 0% chance of you ever convincing me with your lies since I already am 100% sure that what I know is the truth. I'm just here to open your eyes so that maybe some day you can get on my level.
Fell out of my chair laughing.

Teaching? You've done nothing but reinforce the fact that you know nothing, even the one person who shares your belief system in this thread disagrees with you and your methods.

You're so bad at this I'm starting to suspect you've been trolling this whole time.

[Rellapse10]

love how all day you pick 1 liners to pick apart this dudes opinion are you dumb?

[Rellapse10]

little slow in the head? it's ok

[Kagatob]

^
Who are you talking to? (if me) I'm at work with nothing better to do and just got back from my mealbreak.

[Rhambuk]

Nocturne thank you so much for being who you are you've made me thankful to be who I am. I'm thankful that I don't understand your way of thinking, because honestly if I truly believed half the shit your posting I would have killed myself for being a fucking retard by now.

Thanks again, you've proven my intelligence.

[Hasbinbad]

People who have stated they don't believe in evolution so far:
Nocture
Black Jesus
Some other guy

Their summary of evolution:
There isn't any.
over infinite generations subtle changes lead to new organisms
Other guy(s): nothing yet

[Hasbinbad]

Would either of you like to change your story before I conclude this experiment?

[Zadrian]

Cit+

[OMGWTF420]

you all need to go watch ancient aliens then you will see where we come from............

this

[radditsu]

you all need to go watch ancient aliens then you will see where we come from............

Ancient Alien Theorist's believe that every and any thing ever done ever was made by aliens. Humanity has done nothing since existing. Such bullshit. Worse than the ghost shows and the bigfoot shows.

[Hasbinbad]

If you cannot explain something simply, you don't understand it well enough. Baseline genetic variation coupled with environmental change cause fast adaptation via natural selection, followed by long periods of stability.

My summary of evolution:
1.) DNA is a hugely large and complex molecule. The mechanisms for copying DNA to create new cells are not perfect. Sometimes there are errors in one of the steps of duplication. When these errors result in a different strand of DNA (even if only the smallest part is affected), this is called a mutation. There are other ways that mutations can happen, such as chemical factors or radiation. When these DNA changes happen in the sex cells of an organism, they are passed to new generations. So step one of understanding how evolution actually works is to understand this constant state of change within the organism, and how it can be passed to the next generation.
2.) Genetic Variation within the species. Every individual is unique. Some crows have bigger feet than others, my penis is bigger than yours, and this is genetic. This is why we only share 99% of our DNA with each other. About that number, 99.9% of our DNA is generic human DNA, generic fish/mammal DNA, and/or vestigial DNA that simply isn't expressed anymore, or redundant DNA ensuring that even if one piece of the strand is corrupted, the cell line does not die.

You do have to understand that changes in DNA can sometimes (but not always) lead to changes in the physical traits of the individual. This is why I have blue eyes, and yours are the mud brown of the lesser human.

So there we have two examples of why there is a baseline rate of change within species. If you apply natural selection principles to this, what you would see is like Black Jesus said, a infinitely slow and gradual state of change. This would leave nice neat fossils which are all transitional between them and the species before and any species after. This is what Darwin thought, because his analogue was geological processes. Darwin was wrong here.

3.) Speciation. Speciation is the process of one species changing to another via a collection of mutations and genetic variation due to natural selection. This is the part most often ignored or least understood. I don't know why, for me this part just clicks right in. You see, this only happens when the environment changes in some way. The classic example is that you have a forest full of an extended family group of monkeys. These monkeys all share basically the same DNA except for the rare mutation here and the baseline genetic variation there. Now a volcano erupts from the ground, cutting one group of monkeys off from the other. The new group finds themself with northern exposure (africa or south america, norther exposure is the hot on), and their environment turns more arid and hot. Now, all of the variation actually has an effect. Those with long, thick, fur start to die of heat while those with short sparse hair thrive in this new environment. That idiot with the long neck (mutation) who everyone made fun of in the forest can now see further across the savannah to warn of impending lions. The NEEDS of the group change, and so natural selection CHANGES the species by selecting FOR those traits (already present within the forest group) which confer an advantage to survive.

This is also why there are not transitional species. Because Darwin was wrong. Evolution is NOT gradual. Evolution happens in a staggered way.

First the environment changes.
Second the individuals most fit to survive the new environment do, while those that aren't die.
Third, the living individuals pass on only their genes to the next generation, while those with unfavorable traits do not.
Fourth the species adapts to their new environment, reducing the need for change, since now all the monkeys have long necks and thin hair.
Fifth, now that there is not a change in the environment, the species change reduces back to baseline, until again the environment changes.

So you see, "evolution happens" in leaps and bounds followed by long periods of stability. This is why there are no "transitional species fossils" (there are, we just usually don't realize it), because the transition only lasts a couple hundred years while the stability lasts much much longer than that (millions of years, possibly).

Ok, I'm done. I know y'all prolly trolling, but honestly I like explaining things to people so I look at this as a mental exercise more than anything. I prolly left something out, someone make sure please. :)

[Rhambuk]

Good effort hbb but I'd be surprised if they took the time to read it....

im just waiting for the 1 liner response, evolution is a hoax god did it.

[Hasbinbad]

Experiment:
Question: Do people who don't believe in evolution know what evolution is?

Background research: p99 forums, god threads, talking to charlatans, christians, and witch doctors.

Hypothesis: A persons belief in evolution is positively correlative to that persons understanding of evolution.

Tests:
a.) survey people who state they do not believe in evolution on their knowledge of evolution.
There isn't any.
over infinite generations subtle changes lead to new organisms
b.) summarize evolution to a similar degree of sophistication as the highest level found in a.
Baseline genetic variation coupled with environmental change cause fast adaptation via natural selection, followed by long periods of stability.
Analysis: In comparing the results from A and B, I notice a marked difference is sophistication. Coupled with a complete lack of any sort of useful working definition in group A.
Conclusion: People who do not believe in evolution do not understand evolution.

[Hasbinbad]

Discussion: So it has been shown that positive correlation exists between members of the study who state they do not believe in evolution and their level of understanding of evolution, but the study should be revised to include more input from people who state they "do" believe in evolution, because group B was only represented by one person, and thus no correlation can be shown.

[Zadrian]

<object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="https://www.youtube.com/v/xTgKRCXybSM?version=3&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="https://www.youtube.com/v/xTgKRCXybSM?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

[Black Jesus]

Analysis: In comparing the results from A and B, I notice a marked difference is sophistication. Coupled with a complete lack of any sort of useful working definition in group A.
Conclusion: People who do not believe in evolution do not understand evolution.

You can have evolution with artificial selection/selective breeding. Therefore you are talking at a level of sophistication that was not posed in the original question, and thus your definition is vitiated in this context.

[Hasbinbad]

You can have evolution with artificial selection/selective breeding.
Granted, but I was talking about "what is and has been" specifically pointed at making clear the idea of why transitional species generally do not pop up in the fossil record as often as large masses of fossils of stable species. I should have made this more clear.
Therefore you are talking at a level of sophistication that was not posed in the original question, and thus your definition is vitiated in this context.
I see what you're saying here, but I think you're disingenuously reaching a bit to try and make my definition invalid because of the technicality that evolution "can possibly" be "slightly different in specific ways" than what I have stated only when humans get involved to change the existing mechanism.

[Black Jesus]

I see what you're saying here, but I think you're disingenuously reaching a bit to try and make my definition invalid because of the technicality that evolution "can possibly" be "slightly different in specific ways" than what I have stated only when humans get involved to change the existing mechanism.

or interdimensionals bro. don't forget the reptilian bloodlines are a hybrid species

[Daldolma]

if evolution is real, explain alarti

[Ahldagor]

curious thought here. along with hbb's analysis which is pretty damn good, is there something that is in the evolution-denier's brain that assumes that evolution is an immediate contradiction to any god-based teleological notion?

[Black Jesus]

I reject all theories of science. Laws don't make assumptions.

[Hasbinbad]

I reject all theories of science.
You cannot arbitrarily reject findings without exposing yourself as a charlatan.

[Black Jesus]

By choosing not to believe what I was programmed to believe and thinking for myself, I am actually being more scientific than someone who just agrees oh yea evolution so true with a fossil record smaller than the amount of gold left in fort knox

[Black Jesus]

Its the same shit with global warming that the liberals had to rename to climate change. All these theories are just bullshit conjecture.

[Hasbinbad]

bullshit conjecture seems like something that would be pretty easy to disprove

[Black Jesus]

bullshit conjecture seems like something that would be pretty easy to disprove

Indeed. That's why it went global warming -> climate change when temperatures started dropping.

[Hasbinbad]

Indeed. That's why it went global warming -> climate change when temperatures started dropping.
That's a red herring and you know it.

[Black Jesus]

It's an inconvenient truth though aint it

[Hasbinbad]

I'm not going to discuss my opinion of the validity of your opinion on a different topic than the one I specifically created this thread to discuss.

[Hasbinbad]

Also:

http://i.imgur.com/x3rWL1k.jpg

[Hollywood]

I'm more concerned with how RNF ends up having more non EQ related rants than EQ related rants despite having a forum for *gasp* non EQ related ranting.

P.S. Intelligent design or not, whatever you're into, macro evolution a.k.a. Darwinism is on it's last legs as a THEORY. Please stay up with the times on the relevance of Mitochondrial DNA.

[Splorf22]

I'm more concerned with how RNF ends up having more non EQ related rants than EQ related rants despite having a forum for *gasp* non EQ related ranting.

P.S. Intelligent design or not, whatever you're into, macro evolution a.k.a. Darwinism is on it's last legs as a THEORY. Please stay up with the times on the relevance of Mitochondrial DNA.

Please do elaborate! It will be either amusing or informative :D

[Hasbinbad]

Please do elaborate! It will be either amusing or informative :D

[Razdeline]

And here is the twist.

Technology bridges the gap between evolution and survival, in such; The evolutionary cesspool of what gets weeded out through changes in our environment does not go away.

There are more Timmies because food is so easily accessible, people run their ac/heaters all day and do not die, water is everywhere, Obamacare etc. Evolution is not key for survival anymore.

If anything, since we are such a large pack of rats (on the Earth) the only possible way we can utilize evolution for survival is to evolve in such a way that deseases do not affect us.

But I don't think that will happen being that Virus/Bacteria are mutating faster in a way that we can not find cures quicker than their evolutionary process.

[Splorf22]

So you claim that things evolve by some how randomly mutating and yet here we have evidence that mutations aren't a good thing and that they aren't even passed onto future generations. Show me an example of a beneficial mutation that gets passed along to future generations.

After reading this . . . I wonder if you are trolling us. No one is claiming that all mutations are beneficial. Most mutations are bad. The vast majority of mutations are not passed on because the organism with said mutation is unfit for survival (kind of like most of the posters in RnF). This is why evolution is a slow process, and why your treasured "macroevolution" does not occur on historical time scales.

[Zadrian]

So you claim that things evolve by some how randomly mutating and yet here we have evidence that mutations aren't a good thing and that they aren't even passed onto future generations. Show me an example of a beneficial mutation that gets passed along to future generations.

Hammerhead sharks.

[Hasbinbad]

The vast majority of mutations are neither harmful nor beneficial.

There is also a reason changes in mitochondrial DNA are not herited. You should probably understand that before you talk about it.

[Black Jesus]

DNA is just a theory

[Kagatob]

Thread is still somehow more amusing than it is headache inducing. It would be less headache inducing if the bible thumpers could put up at least one compelling stance though. :)

[Razdeline]

So based off my last post, do we technically "devolve" since technology is keeping the "Bad" mutations from dying out?

[Kagatob]

So based off my last post, do we technically "devolve" since technology is keeping the "Bad" mutations from dying out?

Yes and no, in the future once genetic engineering becomes an everyday thing human society will be a 2-cast system, those who can who afford genetic engineering, and the labor force which is everyone else, people with down syndrome, gypsies, hippies, hillbillies, and the many other types of genetically defective people.

[Razdeline]

I think this is the most contructive RNF thread evar

[Nihilist_santa]

Yes and no, in the future once genetic engineering becomes an everyday thing human society will be a 2-cast system, those who can who afford genetic engineering, and the labor force which is everyone else, people with down syndrome, gypsies, hippies, hillbillies, and the many other types of genetically defective people.

Nazi 2.0 bullshit. This is why people have objections to ideas that encourage this type of thinking. This is the same thinking Charles Galton Darwin wrote about in "The Next Million Years" and influenced ideas like Nazism. Read the words of James Watson and you get an idea of why geneticist are so keen on this garbage and why it is being funded and forced on people.

[Nihilist_santa]

bah cant edit, was trying to say that nazism is built on these types of ideas. The Next Million Years was written after the nazis but is the same bullshit.

[kenzar]

Nazi 2.0 bullshit. This is why people have objections to ideas that encourage this type of thinking. This is the same thinking Charles Galton Darwin wrote about in "The Next Million Years" and influenced ideas like Nazism. Read the words of James Watson and you get an idea of why geneticist are so keen on this garbage and why it is being funded and forced on people.

For a nihilist you seem to care a lot.

[radditsu]

For a nihilist you seem to care a lot.

<object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7AEMiz6rcxc?version=3&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7AEMiz6rcxc?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

[Hitchens]

Nazi 2.0 bullshit. This is why people have objections to ideas that encourage this type of thinking. This is the same thinking Charles Galton Darwin wrote about in "The Next Million Years" and influenced ideas like Nazism. Read the words of James Watson and you get an idea of why geneticist are so keen on this garbage and why it is being funded and forced on people.

James Watson's work on the Human Genome Project was a secret plot to force Naziism on you?

[Nihilist_santa]

James Watson's work on the Human Genome Project was a secret plot to force Naziism on you?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/fury-at-dna-pioneers-theory-africans-are-less-intelligent-than-westerners-394898.html

[Hitchens]

Yeah, he's also made disparaging remarks about the Irish. Maybe he's just a bigoted sperglord instead of an evil mastermind.

[Nihilist_santa]

No one claimed he was an evil mastermind. I claimed his ideas, CGDs, and the Nazis were the same. I then showed an article where he expressed some of his views which he bases on some "testing". He just happens to be a Nobel prize winning geneticist who co-discovered DNA.

People in positions of power within academia and politics help fund this research to prove their eugenicist views but like to dress it up in nice scientific jargon similar to Kagatob's post I quoted.

No Nazi plot just racist/atheist pushing their views on others.

[Hitchens]

<object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/OvmvxAcT_Yc?hl=en_US&amp;version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/OvmvxAcT_Yc?hl=en_US&amp;version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

[Nihilist_santa]

Hitchens, I see you have some pro gay rights thing in your avatar. Look again at the list Kagatob rattled off.

"Yes and no, in the future once genetic engineering becomes an everyday thing human society will be a 2-cast system, those who can who afford genetic engineering, and the labor force which is everyone else, people with down syndrome, gypsies, hippies, hillbillies, and the many other types of genetically defective people"

All he left off was Jews and homosexuals to be a full blown Nazi yet you want to support this thinking?

[Hitchens]

That guy's kind of a moonbat and I'm not sure he's the spokesman for geneticists.

[Kagatob]

Yeah nazi thinking is required to believe hillbillies are lesser folk.

Someone's jimmies got rustled. It's not racism, it's economics, all of the groups I've listed are poor or have something wrong with them that keeps them from being part of the educated elite.

Also to think that Jewish people won't be able to afford genetic enhancements (like you've implied) made me lol eloquently.

[gotrocks]

If god created man in his image, and god is perfect and infallable, and adam and eve were the first two human beings and evolution doesn't exist, then why is it we have 2 (or more) distinctly different species of human being dating back to 40k+ years ago?

At the very least we had neanderthals, and cro-magnons. Likely others as well. Why did god decide to create two separate types of human, instead of just one? Which species (or sub species if you prefer) did adam and eve belong to?

I've never met a creationist who could answer these questions intelligently. Nocturne, I challenge you to share your brilliance with the forum and answer the in-answerable question: Did god fuckup? Or was an evolution-like development of the human species all part of the plan? Which family did adam and eve belong to? Why can't anyone at my local church answer these questions?

[Kagatob]

If god created man in his image, and god is perfect and infallable, and adam and eve were the first two human beings and evolution doesn't exist, then why is it we have 2 (or more) distinctly different species of human being dating back to 40k+ years ago?

At the very least we had neanderthals, and cro-magnons. Likely others as well. Why did god decide to create two separate types of human, instead of just one? Which species (or sub species if you prefer) did adam and eve belong to?

I've never met a creationist who could answer these questions intelligently. Nocturne, I challenge you to share your brilliance with the forum and answer the in-answerable question: Did god fuckup? Or was an evolution-like development of the human species all part of the plan? Which family did adam and eve belong to? Why can't anyone at my local church answer these questions?

I'll answer for him.

It's obvious why, READ YOUR BIBLE!

[Kagatob]

^Derp meant to change

to

:o

[Kagatob]

Stupid forum script.

.
to
.

[gotrocks]

lol. i accept this answer

[Black Jesus]

homo sapiens can (and did) interbreed with neanderthal so ya'll motherfuckers lying and getting me pissed with that question, we're back to the liger thing

[Black Jesus]

in fact, here's another BULLSHIT part of science for all these non-missing links

scientists got everything all fucking wrong, so as usual they conjecture their way out of it. You see, we're homo sapien sapiens... theyre homo sapien neanderthalus

science so fulla shit and always wrong

[Lojik]

homo sapiens can (and did) interbreed with neanderthal so ya'll motherfuckers lying and getting me pissed with that question, we're back to the liger thing

I see proof of this interbreeding in RnF everyday.

[Black Jesus]

science so stupid

their excuse for always being wrong is o it helps us correct the theory

BUT BELEIVE IT AS FACT UNTIL WE DO

[Hitchens]

It could be worse, science could be like you and never change anything despite being proven wrong repeatedly.

[Lojik]

science so stupid

their excuse for always being wrong is o it helps us correct the theory

BUT BELEIVE IT AS FACT UNTIL WE DO

I think scientists "know" that nothing is proven and everything we know could turn out to be false, but human nature causes people to want to believe in something firm they know to be true. As a result, people who have been studying a theory for years won't want to throw away years of their hard work and the emotional attachment they have for said theory even though deep down they know it may have been disproven.

[OMGWTF420]

science so stupid

their excuse for always being wrong is o it helps us correct the theory

BUT BELEIVE IT AS FACT UNTIL WE DO

let it be known that this guy really hates science!!

[Black Jesus]

nah I love science like physics because it can actually be proven with math and experimentation (hence, composed of laws and not theories)

well classic mechanical physics shit like kinematics and thermodynamics anyways... the theoretical garbage is the same ballpark as evolution and global warming tho

[Hasbinbad]

"science" knows that only mathematics and logic can be "proven."

dats y they write theories and laws instead

[Black Jesus]

yup, if you cant prove it, its not a fact

[Black Jesus]

and we know its not a fact cuz they are continuously changing their damn minds

[Hasbinbad]

yup, if you cant prove it, its not a fact
lol k

[Hasbinbad]

naez you're confusing legal jargon with science jargon, and it's cute.

[Hitchens]

Naez has a problem with facts. For example, both Doors and I personally witnessed him vomiting on his shirt after consuming an excessive amount of alcohol. He denies it because neither Doors nor I recorded it.

[Hasbinbad]

now see that would be considered a fact in a court of law, but since there is no independent verification of this occurrence possible, science considers it very weak evidence.

[Kagatob]

I think scientists "know" that nothing is proven and everything we know could turn out to be false, but human nature causes people to want to believe in something firm they know to be true. As a result, people who have been studying a theory for years won't want to throw away years of their hard work and the emotional attachment they have for said theory even though deep down they know it may have been disproven.

Can you elaborate on this statement please?

Of which theory do you speak?

How may have it been "disproven"?

[Black Jesus]

now see that would be considered a fact in a court of law, but since there is no independent verification of this occurrence possible, science considers it very weak evidence.

science would consider it a fact even though it isnt true

[Black Jesus]

Naez has a problem with facts. For example, both Doors and I personally witnessed him vomiting on his shirt after consuming an excessive amount of alcohol. He denies it because neither Doors nor I recorded it.

i deny it cuz i got the wrinkled and bloodstained, beerstained, but not pukestained dry-clean only shirt in a wad on my floor.

[Hasbinbad]

Can you elaborate on this statement please?

Of which theory do you speak?

How may have it been "disproven"?
falsifiability is foundational in science

literally everything is looked at from the "how can I make this not true" standpoint

[Black Jesus]

how can i make it not true BUT ITS STILL A FACT AND IF U DONT BELIEVE IT UR A TOAST JESUS WORSHIPPING HICK

[gotrocks]

Good question and indeed not many know the real answer. The reason is because there are two
seperate creations of man. Each day of creation was not an actual day as we know it but each day was actually an era spanning god only knows how many years. My opinion is that Adam and Eve were the first humans with souls. The fact that dinosaurs are mentioned in the bible is strong evidence that each day of creation was in fact an era.

trololololol

[Lojik]

Can you elaborate on this statement please?

Of which theory do you speak?

How may have it been "disproven"?

I speak not of any specific theories, only of the opposing natures of the scientific method and peoples desires for knowledge.

My point was, that it is often hard for a scientist to reconcile a scientific nature "questioning every answer" with another human nature "looking for answers."

Wasn't Einstein notorious for trying to reconcile his theories of the universe with his pantheistic/determisitic beliefs?

[Black Jesus]

Evolution is basically a psuedoscience. Liberals try to say it's like the most provable thing in the history of science, but Im pretty sure things like Newtons theory of universal gravitation is a little bit stronger (no pun intended)

[Hasbinbad]

You are so dumb.

[Hasbinbad]

If you cannot explain something simply, you don't understand it well enough. Baseline genetic variation coupled with environmental change cause fast adaptation via natural selection, followed by long periods of stability.

My summary of evolution:
1.) DNA is a hugely large and complex molecule. The mechanisms for copying DNA to create new cells are not perfect. Sometimes there are errors in one of the steps of duplication. When these errors result in a different strand of DNA (even if only the smallest part is affected), this is called a mutation. There are other ways that mutations can happen, such as chemical factors or radiation. When these DNA changes happen in the sex cells of an organism, they are passed to new generations. So step one of understanding how evolution actually works is to understand this constant state of change within the organism, and how it can be passed to the next generation.
2.) Genetic Variation within the species. Every individual is unique. Some crows have bigger feet than others, my penis is bigger than yours, and this is genetic. This is why we only share 99% of our DNA with each other. About that number, 99.9% of our DNA is generic human DNA, generic fish/mammal DNA, and/or vestigial DNA that simply isn't expressed anymore, or redundant DNA ensuring that even if one piece of the strand is corrupted, the cell line does not die.

You do have to understand that changes in DNA can sometimes (but not always) lead to changes in the physical traits of the individual. This is why I have blue eyes, and yours are the mud brown of the lesser human.

So there we have two examples of why there is a baseline rate of change within species. If you apply natural selection principles to this, what you would see is like Black Jesus said, a infinitely slow and gradual state of change. This would leave nice neat fossils which are all transitional between them and the species before and any species after. This is what Darwin thought, because his analogue was geological processes. Darwin was wrong here.

3.) Speciation. Speciation is the process of one species changing to another via a collection of mutations and genetic variation due to natural selection. This is the part most often ignored or least understood. I don't know why, for me this part just clicks right in. You see, this only happens when the environment changes in some way. The classic example is that you have a forest full of an extended family group of monkeys. These monkeys all share basically the same DNA except for the rare mutation here and the baseline genetic variation there. Now a volcano erupts from the ground, cutting one group of monkeys off from the other. The new group finds themself with northern exposure (africa or south america, norther exposure is the hot on), and their environment turns more arid and hot. Now, all of the variation actually has an effect. Those with long, thick, fur start to die of heat while those with short sparse hair thrive in this new environment. That idiot with the long neck (mutation) who everyone made fun of in the forest can now see further across the savannah to warn of impending lions. The NEEDS of the group change, and so natural selection CHANGES the species by selecting FOR those traits (already present within the forest group) which confer an advantage to survive.

This is also why there are not transitional species. Because Darwin was wrong. Evolution is NOT gradual. Evolution happens in a staggered way.

First the environment changes.
Second the individuals most fit to survive the new environment do, while those that aren't die.
Third, the living individuals pass on only their genes to the next generation, while those with unfavorable traits do not.
Fourth the species adapts to their new environment, reducing the need for change, since now all the monkeys have long necks and thin hair.
Fifth, now that there is not a change in the environment, the species change reduces back to baseline, until again the environment changes.

So you see, "evolution happens" in leaps and bounds followed by long periods of stability. This is why there are no "transitional species fossils" (there are, we just usually don't realize it), because the transition only lasts a couple hundred years while the stability lasts much much longer than that (millions of years, possibly).

Ok, I'm done. I know y'all prolly trolling, but honestly I like explaining things to people so I look at this as a mental exercise more than anything. I prolly left something out, someone make sure please. :)

[Kagatob]

It's just not even worth bothering now. I'm bored. They've repeated the same exact jargon one too many times. Their ignorance is boring me.

[Hitchens]

No one had addressed why their belief system has to be mutually exclusive with science in general.

Deism is usually compatible with science.

[Ahldagor]

curious thought here. along with hbb's analysis which is pretty damn good, is there something that is in the evolution-denier's brain that assumes that evolution is an immediate contradiction to any god-based teleological notion?

Deism is usually compatible with science.

what harrison was leaning to too i think. never was no god tho

[Nihilist_santa]

Nocturne are you talking about Gap theory or are you talking about 6 day creation and time dilation/big bang? Gerald Schroeder has some interesting ideas regarding this.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u58vxm0BsC8

[Hitchens]

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/schroeder.cfm

[Nihilist_santa]

Strange that video is 40+ min long. You must have watched it very quickly. That or you did not watch it but immediately looked online for some debunker to do your thinking for you.

You guys spout about evolution but all you do is post other peoples words to detract from your own lack of understanding.

[Hailto]

Strange that video is 40+ min long. You must have watched it very quickly. That or you did not watch it but immediately looked online for some debunker to do your thinking for you.

You guys spout about evolution but all you do is post other peoples words to detract from your own lack of understanding.

Because its impossible that he could have viewed the video before this thread was even made? What kind of logic is that lol.

[Nihilist_santa]

Yeah.....

[Ahldagor]

what's with this "god's time" thing in regards to usage of "day"?
"day" is an english word derived from what? used in terms of a word used to measure a span of time. if god is on "god's" time then how is god on human time. if you start to quote some Augustine then you've opened the whole trap that the platonization of christianity set up. am curious on to what god's "day" is defined as. though i will applaud Augustine quoting god cause that shit's an ultimate troll.

[Hitchens]

I didn't need to watch 40 minutes worth of video to understand the ideas of a man I'm already familiar with.

If you didn't want feedback perhaps you should have sent a private message.

[Autotune]

what's with this "god's time" thing in regards to usage of "day"?
"day" is an english word derived from what? used in terms of a word used to measure a span of time. if god is on "god's" time then how is god on human time. if you start to quote some Augustine then you've opened the whole trap that the platonization of christianity set up. am curious on to what god's "day" is defined as. though i will applaud Augustine quoting god cause that shit's an ultimate troll.

Hmm, does it say it was created in god days or does it just say days?

I'd say, if they didn't specify that it was in god time, then why the fuck would any rational person say that it was in god time? Obviously it is supposed to mean exactly what the fuck it says, regular fucking days.

[Autotune]

Sorry I'm not sitting at my computer eagerly awaiting to appease the requests of my presence. I know a great deal about evolution, how else do you think I know that its bullshit? Sorry but unlike you I actually do this thing called research before I take a side. Evolution is not science, period. It is the biggest fraud ever introduced into the scientific community. There isn't a plethora of transitional species like their should be.

The fact that even a tiger and a lion can't produce fertile offspring should be all of the evidence you need to realize that evolution is bullshit but there is oh so much more. These two animals are extremely similar and according to how evolution is supposed to work, there isn't a single logical reason as to why this and so many other exceptions exist.

Then there's the problem of abiogenesis which in order for evolution to be possible, must be proven to be even remotely possible. To date there isn't a single shred of evidence for the possibility of abiogenesis(mostly due to being impossible). Evolution stands in direct defiance with the law of biogenesis which states that in fact no living thing can produce anything other than what it already is. It amazes me how many of you consider yourself scientists and can't even grasp the simple rudimentary concepts of science itself.

Why don't we see a single thing alive on this planet today that appears to be in transitional form when there should be an uncountable number of such things. Why is every animal in existence, virtually exactly how it was since recorded history itself began.

Platypus looks pretty transitional to me.

[Nihilist_santa]

Platypus looks pretty transitional to me.

How do you explain "living fossils" like the coelacanth? Here is an example of something existing supposedly for millions of years virtually unchanged.

[Autotune]

How do you explain "living fossils" like the coelacanth? Here is an example of something existing supposedly for millions of years virtually unchanged.

Perhaps the mother fucker is comfortable with its self and doesn't feel the need to change what it is.

Guess maybe all the older cavemen were just more of god's creations and he just got drunk towards the end while making them.

Who says that there isn't a stopping point with evolution? Perhaps some shit are better at it than others? Who is to say Aliens didn't collect a bunch of shit and just drop it off as their on little scientific experiment?

You faggots can go back and forth with extremes of science, but none of you nor most of the "experts" of the world really know what the fuck they are talking about when it comes to this part of "science" because, well, no one can base it off anything but "faith" and Faith has no business in my fucking Science.

Evolution when compared to Religion is a much more solid foundation in my opinion, at least you can look at something and go... yeah, there are signs that evolution is/has happened with this.

[Frieza_Prexus]

How do you explain "living fossils" like the coelacanth? Here is an example of something existing supposedly for millions of years virtually unchanged.

The explanation generally boils down to a number of factors, one of which is statistics. It stands to reason that if most species changes at an average rate that you'd also have some outliers that "leaped" ahead in the evolutionary scheme. The reverse is also true, that some species will be far-less differentiated for any number of factors, and will be outliers on the other side of the scale.

The outliers can be produced by a number of factors from sheer randomness to environmental reasons. For example, a very stable and sustained environment is one factor that can lead to living fossils. The creatures in such a habitat are not "rewarded" for mutations, and some environments might also "punish" what could otherwise be a beneficial mutation in another environment. Consider also the vast number of independent species. If their evolution in anyway resembles something like a bell-curve in terms of average rate of "progress" there's bound to be a few stragglers at the back many standard deviations behind in terms of how many changes they've experienced as a species over the ages.

[Hitchens]

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/thoughtomics/2012/02/06/coelacanths-are-not-living-fossils-like-the-rest-of-us-they-evolve/

[Autotune]

Evolution when compared to Religion is a much more solid foundation in my opinion, at least you can look at something and go... yeah, there are signs that evolution is/has happened with this.

This is to say, based off the faith that evolution is correct (which I think it is, but not to the extremes that most people think of when they hear evolution).

Last I looked in the bible, most of that shit was already proven incorrect... by actual non-faith based science.

[Autotune]

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/thoughtomics/2012/02/06/coelacanths-are-not-living-fossils-like-the-rest-of-us-they-evolve/

Well there you go, someone google machined your fossil fish brah.

[Hitchens]

That one I will admit to Googling.

[Hasbinbad]

Strange that video is 40+ min long. You must have watched it very quickly. That or you did not watch it but immediately looked online for some debunker to do your thinking for you.

You guys spout about evolution but all you do is post other peoples words to detract from your own lack of understanding.
Everything I wrote was authored by me.

[Hasbinbad]

"faith" and Faith has no business in my fucking Science.Science is 100% faith-based.

[Autotune]

Science is 100% faith-based.

And now you're stupid.

There are things in Science that you can take and do yourself and it will work the same as someone on the other side of the planet.

You don't need faith for that, only an experiment followed by the proof.

[Hailto]

The fact that even a tiger and a lion can't produce fertile offspring should be all of the evidence you need to realize that evolution is bullshit but there is oh so much more. These two animals are extremely similar and according to how evolution is supposed to work, there isn't a single logical reason as to why this and so many other exceptions exist.

Is this a troll or serious? Im going to assume you're not a young earth creationist and accept the fact that the earth is billions of years old. Evolution is an extremely slow process relative to what humans comprehend. The fact that two different species cannot product fertile offspring does nothing to refute evolution. Evolution is driven by natural selection, its not just something that happens randomly.

[Kagatob]

Science is 100% faith-based.

Only in the same way that the fact you exist is 100% faith based.

[Nihilist_santa]

Everything I wrote was authored by me.

Your entire premise was lifted (maybe not intentionally) from a study that has already been published. It was in the news last year.

[Nihilist_santa]

Perhaps the mother fucker is comfortable with its self and doesn't feel the need to change what it is.

Guess maybe all the older cavemen were just more of god's creations and he just got drunk towards the end while making them.

Who says that there isn't a stopping point with evolution? Perhaps some shit are better at it than others? Who is to say Aliens didn't collect a bunch of shit and just drop it off as their on little scientific experiment?

You faggots can go back and forth with extremes of science, but none of you nor most of the "experts" of the world really know what the fuck they are talking about when it comes to this part of "science" because, well, no one can base it off anything but "faith" and Faith has no business in my fucking Science.

Evolution when compared to Religion is a much more solid foundation in my opinion, at least you can look at something and go... yeah, there are signs that evolution is/has happened with this.

That last paragraph made me laugh. One you are presuming that they are exclusive and second even if evolution is the process by which diversity exist it still would not be a satisfactory enough answer for the origins of life. All it would do is address the mechanics of life but not the why.

How is that primordial soup coming? Amazing we only hear about the Miller-Urey experiment they teach in school as if it had some type of debate ending result.

[Autotune]

That last paragraph made me laugh. One you are presuming that they are exclusive and second even if evolution is the process by which diversity exist it still would not be a satisfactory enough answer for the origins of life. All it would do is address the mechanics of life but not the why.

How is that primordial soup coming? Amazing we only hear about the Miller-Urey experiment they teach in school as if it had some type of debate ending result.

Religion is more inaccurate than it is accurate.

You have something written, by man with the assumption there is a god. No evidence of God exists outside of what you want to say was his "will". You only act on faith that men hundreds of years ago weren't trying to enslave men to their will and get them to act accordingly.

Religion is nothing more than the first viral meme. Someone created one and then everyone had to try their hand at it, making dozens more and some stuck while others faded away. The fact that most religious people automatically reject every other religion solely based on the fact their parents didn't teach it to them is cause enough to see how much bullshit they are.

While there may be a god, he is nothing like what is written in any religious text/story I've ever seen and is definitely not the one portrayed in the holy bible.

[Nihilist_santa]

you faggots should just go watch ancient aliens all your answers is in that show

Ancient aliens :rolleyes: What made the "aliens" ? The History channel is only good for learning about the history of terrible jobs ,pickin, and pawning these days. Preparing the next generation to accept the conditions being forged for them now.

[Nihilist_santa]

Well said Harrison.

[Nihilist_santa]

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/thoughtomics/2012/02/06/coelacanths-are-not-living-fossils-like-the-rest-of-us-they-evolve/

Did you even read the blog you posted? It says there are 2 distinct breeding populations and that "someday" "given enough time" "they may evolve into different species". Hardly conclusive evidence.

[Llodd]

You're not some elevated philosopher because you're spewing on the internet, "LOL RELIGION IS DUM ITS JUST TO CONTROL PPL"

Probably not it's initial intention, but hey who knows! It is certain however, that that is how it has been exploited over the centuries. It's like a cult writ large.

[Autotune]

Religion is older than "hundreds of years ago"

Your argument is predicated on the errors or downright possible lying of men. The bible could be wrong in 750/1000 places, but if it's right about something you can't ignore it because you don't like it.

You're also attempting to claim that a religion is bullshit because of the behaviors of men, again.(bolded part) You're part of the crowd that automatically rejects any faith-based reasoning under the assumption it makes you look intelligent. You only come off as a close-minded ignorant moron, however.

The sooner you realize there are more opportunities for many religions to have many things right, even while having a lot of it downright wrong, the better.

Religion doesn't automatically become entirely false because of some things some men wrote about it in the dark ages.

Religion is older than hundreds of years ago? I'm pretty sure you can use hundreds up to several thousands. Excuse me for using hundreds to allow for the many different religions that have been created over the span of human history. You know, because you seem to only be thinking of a few.

The second part depends on what they are right about and what they are wrong about. The fact you lump all the information of what they are or could be wrong about is hilarious. If they tell you 1 + 1 is equal to 2, it doesn't lend credibility to the fact that they tell you snakes talk, a woman had a virgin birth and some old guy split a sea in half.

You have no clue, as usual, what part of any crowd any person is from. This is mainly because you are blinded by your ignorance and hatred towards others that you jump on any stubborn opportunity to try and insult them. You fail to see that many religions are corrupted by men and have been proven to be so, you then try to suggest that one can only take it on faith that the rest isn't corrupted. When a part of a whole is proven to be inaccurate, you must criticize the rest of the work and not take it on faith that it is accurate because it says to. If the bible were a man and it's inaccuracies where the evidence against him for committing murder and the accurate information was his salvation, the bible would be convicted of murder. Christianity is not the only religion that would have their text convicted either.

The bolded part is about people being taught they are right and everyone else is incorrect. You can't have a religion without a man behind it pushing it. I can tell you that every religion is incorrect and by every religion's own admittance I would be correct about all of them (save for one possibility that one is correct). You can tell me that all of them can be correct based on the possibility that some of what they say may actually be true, however you would be incorrect about everyone of them (save for one possibility that one is correct). So yes, you being taught that your religion is correct and the others are incorrect is bullshit.

Like I said previously, if there is a God or Gods, it is nothing like what has been written in any of the religious texts I have read or skimmed.

[Autotune]

That is a lot of words to say almost nothing. Man, you really are just bad at everything. Fortunately, you can't cheat your way through a debate.

Aww, here I was hoping you'd keep elaborating on how a religion can have 75% wrong and still have a passing grade.

[Autotune]

hopefully you are googling and that is why you had such a short and pissy post.

[Black Jesus]

And now you're stupid.

There are things in Science that you can take and do yourself and it will work the same as someone on the other side of the planet.

You don't need faith for that, only an experiment followed by the proof.

ONLY LAWS

[gotrocks]

Nocturne, I responded with trololol because at this point I am convinced you are a troll.

I back this up with the fact that you just pull shit out of your ass like most other trolls on this board do.

When did god create dinosaurs? and did they live in the same time frame with humans? if they did, why are there no 20 million year old human fossils. Also, since the bible is pretty damn specific on when god created what on which day, why were the dinosaurs not mentioned in the beginning of the bible, and also, again, did they live together with humans?

Creationist are so ridiculous to me, because they claim theres no evidence to back up evolution or anything like it, but instead are inclined to say that god created the earth, its only several thousand years old, dinosaurs lived with humans blah blah. And then occasionally we'll find one like you, who rewrites the bible to fit his own purpose, and is so unbelievably thick headed that they can't see they're digging themselves into a hole with every argument.

You really are sculpting shit over there, huh? I love how your response claims you gave the "correct" answer. Please do share with me where the bible says there were two 'species' of human. Give us the exact passage so we can go read what you interpret is the answer. See, if I went by your 'logic' I can almost guarantee i could spin the bible to support whatever the fuck I wanted. That's the funny thing about interpretation, it's subjective.

What YOU say is happening in the bible is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than what the next guy is going to say happened in the bible (and, by the way, among your faith your opinion on the things your claiming to be true is extremely unpopular. Basically, you're on the outside of your own beliefs). Essentially what you are telling us is fact is just your own thoughts on how a 2000 year old text describes how the world was created 2billion years ago. How you can't see the fallacy in this is beyond me.

But like rhambuk keeps telling me, creationists and bible thumpers don't have 'reason' or 'logic'. They have religion (not faith, mind you, if you had faith you might actually come across as intelligent or wise), and that religion completely blinds them to anything that doesn't follow their line of thinking. They even take their own religious text and bend it to fit how they think it should read. You're a complete joke, and have no ground left to stand on based on your posts. Its devolved from a semi-intelligent discussion of evolution vs creationism (or should i say religion vs science), into you claiming you have all the answers because of a book that you claim is a giant metaphor, and that nothing should be taken as literal regarding the bible (or excuse me, perhaps just the sections YOU feel are metaphors are not literal).

This is just stupid. Come back with another 'correct' answer so I can laugh some more and continue to tear apart the garbage wall you consider a defense.

[Hitchens]

http://i.imgur.com/N3WIneX.jpg

[Black Jesus]

sagan confirmed deist gave his life to Christ

[Alawen]

Evolution hinges or these mutations but there are very few beneficial mutations that I am aware of although I have heard some argue that sickle cell is a beneficial mutation (LOL) .

I can't add much to the rest of this pissing match, but I took a biological anthropology class at one point and current thinking is that sickle cell gives an advantage in resisting malaria. Here's a Science Daily article about it: Mystery Solved: How Sickle Hemoglobin Protects Against Malaria (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110428123931.htm).

[Hitchens]

confirmed deist

gave his life to Christ

http://i.imgur.com/SvFb6XR.jpg

[Hasbinbad]

Your entire premise was lifted (maybe not intentionally) from a study that has already been published. It was in the news last year.
Really? Coz this is stuff I learned over ~8 years of bio related classes, and I haven't been to regular school for 4 years.

[Hasbinbad]

And now you're stupid.

There are things in Science that you can take and do yourself and it will work the same as someone on the other side of the planet.

You don't need faith for that, only an experiment followed by the proof.
You can do it again, but after you've seen it, you go on faith that it would work like that again. Granted this is a well-founded faith, but, like anything beyond the sensation / perception wall, you can't "prove" it. Actual scientists don't use words like "proof" so loosely as lay people because they understand this concept.
Only in the same way that the fact you exist is 100% faith based.
This is pretty much what I'm saying honestly. I'm not saying the real world isn't out there, but I am saying for sure that we've never experienced it.

[Hasbinbad]

I can't add much to the rest of this pissing match, but I took a biological anthropology class at one point and current thinking is that sickle cell gives an advantage in resisting malaria. Here's a Science Daily article about it: Mystery Solved: How Sickle Hemoglobin Protects Against Malaria (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110428123931.htm).
It is known.

[Black Jesus]

http://i.imgur.com/SvFb6XR.jpg

An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence.

[Hasbinbad]

Creationist are so ridiculous to me, because they claim theres no evidence to back up evolution or anything like it, but instead are inclined to say that god created the earth, its only several thousand years old, dinosaurs lived with humans blah blah.
Do they really? Let's just have a look at the citations for the Wiki on evidence for common descent:


^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-mount_1-0) Mount DM. (2004). Bioinformatics: Sequence and Genome Analysis (2nd ed.). Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press: Cold Spring Harbor, NY. ISBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 0-87969-608-7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0-87969-608-7).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-2) Douglas J. Futuyma (1998). Evolutionary Biology (3rd ed.). Sinauer Associates Inc. pp. 108–110. ISBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 0-87893-189-9 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0-87893-189-9).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-3) Haszprunar (1995). "The mollusca: Coelomate turbellarians or mesenchymate annelids?". In Taylor. Origin and evolutionary radiation of the Mollusca : centenary symposium of the Malacological Society of London. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. ISBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 0-19-854980-6 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0-19-854980-6).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-4) Kozmik, Z; Daube, M; Frei, E; Norman, B; Kos, L; Dishaw, LJ; Noll, M; Piatigorsky, J (2003). "Role of Pax genes in eye evolution: A cnidarian PaxB gene uniting Pax2 and Pax6 functions" (http://www.imls.uzh.ch/research/noll/publ/Dev_Cell_2003_5_773_785.pdf). Developmental cell 5 (5): 773–85. doi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier):10.1016/S1534-5807(03)00325-3 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2FS1534-5807%2803%2900325-3). PMID (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Identifier) 14602077 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14602077).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-5) Land, M.F. and Nilsson, D.-E., Animal Eyes, Oxford University Press, Oxford (2002) ISBN 0-19-850968-5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0198509685).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-6) Chen FC, Li WH (2001). "Genomic Divergences between Humans and Other Hominoids and the Effective Population Size of the Common Ancestor of Humans and Chimpanzees" (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1235277). Am J Hum Genet. 68 (2): 444–56. doi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier):10.1086/318206 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1086%2F318206). PMC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Central) 1235277 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1235277). PMID (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Identifier) 11170892 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11170892).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-7) Cooper GM, Brudno M, Green ED, Batzoglou S, Sidow A (2003). "Quantitative Estimates of Sequence Divergence for Comparative Analyses of Mammalian Genomes" (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC430923). Genome Res. 13 (5): 813–20. doi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier):10.1101/gr.1064503 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1101%2Fgr.1064503). PMC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Central) 430923 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC430923). PMID (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Identifier) 12727901 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12727901).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-8) The picture labeled "Human Chromosome 2 and its analogs in the apes" in the article Comparison of the Human and Great Ape Chromosomes as Evidence for Common Ancestry (http://www.gate.net/%7Erwms/hum_ape_chrom.html) is literally a picture of a link in humans that links two separate chromosomes in the nonhuman apes creating a single chromosome in humans. Also, while the term originally referred to fossil evidence, this too is a trace from the past corresponding to some living beings that, when alive, physically embodied this link.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-9) The New York Times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times) report Still Evolving, Human Genes Tell New Story (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/07/science/07evolve.html), based on A Map of Recent Positive Selection in the Human Genome (http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0040072), states the International HapMap Project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_HapMap_Project) is "providing the strongest evidence yet that humans are still evolving" and details some of that evidence.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-10) "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent" (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/). Theobald, Douglas. Retrieved 2011-03-10.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-11) "Converging Evidence for Evolution." (http://phylointelligence.org/combined.html) Phylointelligence: Evolution for Everyone. Web. 26 Nov. 2010.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-12) Petrov DA, Hartl DL (2000). "Pseudogene evolution and natural selection for a compact genome". J Hered. 91 (3): 221–7. doi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier):10.1093/jhered/91.3.221 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1093%2Fjhered%2F91.3.221). PMID (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Identifier) 10833048 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10833048).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-13) Junk DNA: Science Videos – Science News (http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3?type=article&article_id=218392305/). ScienCentral (2004-05-06). Retrieved on 2011-12-06.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-14) Okamoto N, Inouye I (2005). "A secondary symbiosis in progress". Science 310 (5746): 287. doi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier):10.1126/science.1116125 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.1116125). PMID (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Identifier) 16224014 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16224014).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-15) Okamoto N, Inouye I (2006). "Hatena arenicola gen. et sp. nov., a katablepharid undergoing probable plastid acquisition". Protist 157 (4): 401–19. doi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier):10.1016/j.protis.2006.05.011 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.protis.2006.05.011). PMID (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Identifier) 16891155 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16891155).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-16) Van Der Kuyl, AC; Dekker, JT; Goudsmit, J (1999). "Discovery of a New Endogenous Type C Retrovirus (FcEV) in Cats: Evidence for RD-114 Being an FcEVGag-Pol/Baboon Endogenous Virus BaEVEnv Recombinant" (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC112814). Journal of Virology 73 (10): 7994–8002. PMC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Central) 112814 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC112814). PMID (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Identifier) 10482547 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10482547).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-fusion_17-0) Human Chromosome 2 is a fusion of two ancestral chromosomes (http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm) by Alec MacAndrew; accessed 18 May 2006.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-18) Evidence of Common Ancestry: Human Chromosome 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0) (video) 2007
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-compare_19-0) Yunis and Prakash; Prakash, O (1982). "The origin of man: a chromosomal pictorial legacy". Science 215 (4539): 1525–1530. Bibcode (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibcode):1982Sci...215.1525Y (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982Sci...215.1525Y). doi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier):10.1126/science.7063861 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.7063861). PMID (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Identifier) 7063861 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7063861).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-similarities_20-0) Human and Ape Chromosomes (http://www.gate.net/%7Erwms/hum_ape_chrom.html); accessed 8 September 2007.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-centromeres_21-0) Avarello, Rosamaria; Pedicini, A; Caiulo, A; Zuffardi, O; Fraccaro, M (1992). "Evidence for an ancestral alphoid domain on the long arm of human chromosome 2". Human Genetics 89 (2): 247–9. doi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier):10.1007/BF00217134 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1007%2FBF00217134). PMID (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Identifier) 1587535 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1587535).
^ ^a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-telomeres_22-0) ^b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-telomeres_22-1) Ijdo, J. W.; Baldini, A; Ward, DC; Reeders, ST; Wells, RA (1991). "Origin of human chromosome 2: an ancestral telomere-telomere fusion" (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC52649). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 88 (20): 9051–5. Bibcode (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibcode):1991PNAS...88.9051I (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991PNAS...88.9051I). doi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier):10.1073/pnas.88.20.9051 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1073%2Fpnas.88.20.9051). PMC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Central) 52649 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC52649). PMID (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Identifier) 1924367 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1924367).
^ ^a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-indiana_23-0) ^b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-indiana_23-1) Amino acid sequences in cytochrome c proteins from different species (http://www.indiana.edu/%7Eensiweb/lessons/molb.ws.pdf), adapted from Strahler, Arthur; Science and Earth History, 1997. page 348.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-24) Lurquin PF, Stone L (2006). Genes, Culture, and Human Evolution: A Synthesis (http://books.google.com/?id=zdeWdF_NQhEC&pg=PA79&lpg=PA79&dq=chimpanzee+rhesus+cytochrome+c). Blackwell Publishing, Incorporated. p. 79. ISBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 1-4051-5089-0 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/1-4051-5089-0).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-29.2B_evidences_25-0) 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution; Protein functional redundancy (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#protein_redundancy), Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-26) Belshaw, R ; Pereira V; Katzourakis A; Talbot G; Paces J; Burt A; Tristem M. (2004). "Long-term reinfection of the human genome by endogenous retroviruses" (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC387345). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101 (14): 4894–99. Bibcode (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibcode):2004PNAS..101.4894B (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004PNAS..101.4894B). doi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier):10.1073/pnas.0307800101 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1073%2Fpnas.0307800101). PMC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Central) 387345 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC387345). PMID (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Identifier) 15044706 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15044706).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-27) Bonner TI et al. (1982). "Cloned endogenous retroviral sequences from human DNA" (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC346746). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 79 (15): 4709–13. Bibcode (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibcode):1982PNAS...79.4709B (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982PNAS...79.4709B). doi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier):10.1073/pnas.79.15.4709 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1073%2Fpnas.79.15.4709). PMC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Central) 346746 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC346746). PMID (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Identifier) 6181510 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6181510).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-28) Pallen, Mark (2009). Rough Guide to Evolution. Rough Guides. pp. 200–206. ISBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 978-1-85828-946-5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-1-85828-946-5).
^ ^a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-talkorigins_29-0) ^b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-talkorigins_29-1) TalkOrigins Archive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TalkOrigins_Archive). "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2" (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms). Retrieved 2006-11-08.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-30) Lambert, Katie. (2007-10-29) HowStuffWorks "How Atavisms Work" (http://animals.howstuffworks.com/animal-facts/atavism.htm). Animals.howstuffworks.com. Retrieved on 2011-12-06.
^ ^a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-universe-review.ca_31-0) ^b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-universe-review.ca_31-1) ^c (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-universe-review.ca_31-2) JPG image (http://universe-review.ca/I10-10-snake.jpg)
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-32) Evolutionary Atavisms (http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/whales/atavisms.html). Edwardtbabinski.us. Retrieved on 2011-12-06.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-33) Andrews, Roy Chapman (June 3 1921). "A REMARKABLE CASE OF EXTERNAL HIND LIMBS IN A HUMPBACK WHALE" (http://digitallibrary.amnh.org/dspace/bitstream/2246/4849/1/N0009.pdf). American Museum Novitates.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-34) Tyson, Reid; Graham, John P.; Colahan, Patrick T.; Berry, Clifford R. (July 2004). "Skeletal Atavism in a Miniature Horse". Veterinary Radiology & Ultrasound 45 (4): 315–317
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-35) Biello, David (2006-02-22). "Mutant Chicken Grows Alligatorlike Teeth" (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=mutant-chicken-grows-alli). Scientific American (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_American). Retrieved 2009-03-08
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-36) Domes, Katja; Norton, Roy A.; Maraun, Mark; Scheu, Stefan (2007-04-24). "Reevolution of sexuality breaks Dollo's law" (http://www.pnas.org/content/104/17/7139). PNAS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNAS) 104 (17): 7139–7144. Bibcode (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibcode):2007PNAS..104.7139D (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007PNAS..104.7139D). doi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier):10.1073/pnas.0700034104 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1073%2Fpnas.0700034104). PMC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Central) 1855408 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1855408). PMID (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Identifier) 17438282 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17438282). Retrieved 2009-04-08
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-37) Held, Lewis I. (2010). "The Evo-Devo Puzzle of Human Hair Patterning". Evolutionary Biology 37 (2–3): 113. doi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier):10.1007/s11692-010-9085-4 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1007%2Fs11692-010-9085-4).
^ ^a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-Douglas_J._Futuyma_1998_122_38-0) ^b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-Douglas_J._Futuyma_1998_122_38-1) Douglas J. Futuyma (1998). Evolutionary Biology (3rd ed.). Sinauer Associates Inc. p. 122. ISBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 0-87893-189-9 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0-87893-189-9).
^ ^a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-talkorigins.org_39-0) ^b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-talkorigins.org_39-1) 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy). Talkorigins.org. Retrieved on 2011-12-06.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-40) Coyne, Jerry A. (2009). Why Evolution is True. Viking. pp. 8–11. ISBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 978-0-670-02053-9 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-0-670-02053-9).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-41) Charles Darwin (1859). On the Origin of Species. John Murray. p. 420.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-Tuomi81_42-0) Tuomi, J. "Structure and dynamics of Darwinian evolutionary theory" (http://www.vordenker.de/downloads/tuomi_structure-dynamics-Darwinian-evolutionary-theory.pdf). Syst. Zool. 30 (1): 22=31.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-Aravind03_43-0) Aravind, L.; Iyer, L. M.; Anantharaman, V. (2003). "The two faces of Alba: the evolutionary connection between proteins participating in chromatin structure and RNA metabolism" (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC328453/pdf/gb-2003-4-10-r64.pdf). Genome Biol. 4 (10): R64. doi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier):10.1186/gb-2003-4-10-r64 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1186%2Fgb-2003-4-10-r64). PMC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Central) 328453 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC328453). PMID (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Identifier) 14519199 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14519199).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-Brochu09_44-0) Brochu, C. A.; Wagner, J. R.; Jouve, S.; Sumrall, C. D.; Densmore, L. D. (2009). "A correction corrected:Consensus over the meaning of Crocodylia and why it matters" (http://www.cnah.org/pdf_files/1364.pdf). Syst. Biol. 58 (5): 537–543. doi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier):10.1093/sysbio/syp053 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1093%2Fsysbio%2Fsyp053).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-45) Bock, W. J. (2007). "Explanations in evolutionary theory" (http://www.aseanbiodiversity.info/Abstract/51012382.pdf). J Zool Syst Evol Res 45 (2): 89–103. doi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier):10.1111/j.1439-0469.2007.00412.x (http://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1439-0469.2007.00412.x).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-46) Kluge 2000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#CITEREFKluge2000)
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-47) Laurin 2000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#CITEREFLaurin2000)
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-48) Fitzhugh 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#CITEREFFitzhugh2006), p. 31
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-49) Kluge 2000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#CITEREFKluge2000), p. 432
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-Slifkin258_9_50-0) Natan Slifkin (2006). The Challenge of Creation... Zoo Torah. pp. 258–9. ISBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 1-933143-15-0 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/1-933143-15-0).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-51) Coyne, Jerry A. (2009). Why Evolution Is True. Viking. pp. 69–70. ISBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 978-0-670-02053-9 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-0-670-02053-9).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-52) Mary Jane West-Eberhard (2003). Developmental plasticity and evolution. Oxford University Press. p. 232. ISBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 0-19-512234-8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0-19-512234-8).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-53) "Example 1: Living whales and dolphins found with hindlimbs" (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex1). Douglas Theobald. Retrieved 2011-03-20.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-54) Mark Ridley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Ridley_%28zoologist%29) (2004). Evolution (http://books.google.com/?id=b-HGB9PqXCUC&lpg=RA1-PA281) (3rd ed.). Blackwell Publishing. p. 282. ISBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 1-4051-0345-0 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/1-4051-0345-0).
^ ^a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-Dawkins.2C_Richard_2009_364.E2.80.93365_55-0) ^b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-Dawkins.2C_Richard_2009_364.E2.80.93365_55-1) Dawkins, Richard (2009). The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. Bantam Press. pp. 364–365. ISBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 978-1-4165-9478-9 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-1-4165-9478-9).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-56) Williams, G.C. (1992). Natural selection: domains, levels, and challenges. Oxford Press. ISBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 0-19-506932-3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0-19-506932-3).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-57) Coyne, Jerry A. (2009). Why Evolution is True. Viking. pp. 26–28. ISBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 978-0-670-02053-9 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-0-670-02053-9).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-58) "Confessions of a Darwinist" (http://www.vqronline.org/articles/2006/spring/eldredge-confessions-darwinist/). Niles Eldredge. Retrieved 2010-06-22.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-59) Laboratory 11 – Fossil Preservation (http://facstaff.gpc.edu/%7Epgore/geology/historical_lab/2010Preservation.pdf), by Pamela J. W. Gore, Georgia Perimeter College
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-60) "Frequently Asked Questions" (http://www.tarpits.org/info/faq/faqfossil.html). The Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Foundation. Retrieved 2011-02-21.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-61) William Richard John Dean and Suzanne Jane Milton (1999). The Karoo: Ecological Patterns and Processes. Cambridge University Press. p. 31. ISBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 0-521-55450-0 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0-521-55450-0).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-62) Robert J. Schadewald (1982). "Six "Flood" Arguments Creationists Can't Answer" (http://ncseprojects.org/cej/3/3/six-flood-arguments-creationists-cant-answer). Creation Evolution Journal 3: 12–17.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-63) "Obviously vertebrates must have had ancestors living in the Cambrian, but they were assumed to be invertebrate forerunners of the true vertebrates — protochordates. Pikaia has been heavily promoted as the oldest fossil protochordate." Richard Dawkins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins) 2004 The Ancestor's Tale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ancestor%27s_Tale) Page 289, ISBN 0-618-00583-8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0618005838)
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-64) Chen, J. Y.; Huang, D. Y.; Li, C. W. (1999). Nature 402 (6761): 518. Bibcode (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibcode):1999Natur.402..518C (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999Natur.402..518C). doi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier):10.1038/990080 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1038%2F990080). edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Cite_doi/10.1038.2F990080&action=edit&editintro=Template:Cite_doi/editintro2)
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-65) Shu, D. G.; Morris, S. C.; Han, J.; Zhang, Z. F.; Yasui, K.; Janvier, P.; Chen, L.; Zhang, X. L. et al. (Jan 2003), "Head and backbone of the Early Cambrian vertebrate Haikouichthys", Nature 421 (6922): 526–529, Bibcode (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibcode):2003Natur.421..526S (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003Natur.421..526S), doi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier):10.1038/nature01264 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1038%2Fnature01264), ISSN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Serial_Number) 0028-0836 (http://www.worldcat.org/issn/0028-0836), PMID (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Identifier) 12556891 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12556891) edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Cite_doi/10.1038.2Fnature01264&action=edit&editintro=Template:Cite_doi/editintro2)
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-66) Legendre, Serge (1989). Les communautés de mammifères du Paléogène (Eocène supérieur et Oligocène) d'Europe occidentale : structures, milieux et évolution. München: F. Pfeil. p. 110. ISBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 978-3-923871-35-3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-3-923871-35-3).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-Leidy_67-0) Academy of Natural Sciences - Joseph Leidy - American Horses (http://www.ansp.org/museum/leidy/paleo/equus.php)
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-Shubin_68-0) "Shubin, Neil. (2008). Your Inner Fish. Pantheon. ISBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 978-0-375-42447-2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-0-375-42447-2).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-69) Niedzwiedzki, G.; Szrek, P.; Narkiewicz, K.; Narkiewicz, M.; Ahlberg, P. (2010). "Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland". Nature 463 (7227): 43–48.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-CotaBomf10_70-0) Cota-Sánchez, J. Hugo & Bomfim-Patrício, Márcia C. (2010), "Seed morphology, polyploidy and the evolutionary history of the epiphytic cactus Rhipsalis baccifera (Cactaceae)" (http://www.herbarium.usask.ca/research/articles/Cota-Sanchez_Bomfim-Patricio_Polibotanica_2010.pdf), Polibotanica 29: 107–129, retrieved 2013-02-28
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-71) Menkhorst, Peter; Knight, Frank (2001). A Field Guide to the Mammals of Australia. Oxford University Press. p. 14. ISBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 0-19-550870-X (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0-19-550870-X).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-72) Michael Augee, Brett Gooden, and Anne Musser (2006). Echidna: Extraordinary egg-laying mammal. CSIRO Publishing.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-73) "Polar Bears/Habitat & Distribution" (http://www.seaworld.org/animal-info/info-books/polar-bear/habitat-&-distribution.htm). SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment. Retrieved 2011-02-21.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-74) "Sirenians of the World" (http://www.savethemanatee.org/sirenian.htm). Save the Manatee Club. Retrieved 2011-02-21.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-75) Continental Drift and Evolution (http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio303/contdrift.htm). Biology.clc.uc.edu (2001-03-25). Retrieved on 2011-12-06.
^ ^a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-Coyne99-110_76-0) ^b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-Coyne99-110_76-1) ^c (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-Coyne99-110_76-2) ^d (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-Coyne99-110_76-3) ^e (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-Coyne99-110_76-4) Coyne, Jerry A. (2009). Why Evolution is True. Viking. pp. 99–110. ISBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 978-0-670-02053-9 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-0-670-02053-9).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-komo_77-0) Trooper Walsh; Murphy, James Jerome; Claudio Ciofi; Colomba De LA Panouse (2002). Komodo Dragons: Biology and Conservation (Zoo and Aquarium Biology and Conservation Series). Washington, D.C. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C.): Smithsonian Books. ISBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 1-58834-073-2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/1-58834-073-2).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-78) Burdick, Alan (2007-03-25). "The Wonder Land of Socotra, Yemen" (http://travel.nytimes.com/2007/03/25/travel/tmagazine/03well.socotra.t.html). ALAN BURDICK. Retrieved 2010-07-08.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-TerraNature_79-0) "Tuatara" (http://www.terranature.org/tuatara.htm). New Zealand Ecology: Living Fossils. TerraNature Trust. 2004. Retrieved 2006-11-10.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-DoC_80-0) "Facts about tuatara" (http://www.doc.govt.nz/templates/page.aspx?id=33163). Conservation: Native Species. Threatened Species Unit, Department of Conservation, Government of New Zealand. Retrieved 2007-02-10.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-81) "New Caledonia's most wanted" (http://www.birdlife.org/news/features/2006/05/new_caledonia.html). Retrieved 2010-07-08.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-82) "Giant bushy-tailed cloud rat (Crateromys schadenbergi)" (http://www.arkive.org/giant-bushy-tailed-cloud-rat/crateromys-schadenbergi/info.html). Retrieved 2010-07-08.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-83) Rabor, D.S. (1986). Guide to Philippine Flora and Fauna. Natural Resources Management Centre, Ministry of Natural Resources and University of the Philippines.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-84) Robert R. Humphrey. The Boojum and its Home
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-Schofield2001_85-0) Schofield, James (27 July 2001). "Lake Baikal’s Vanishing Nerpa Seal" (http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2001/07/27/106.html). The Moscow Times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moscow_Times). Retrieved 2007-09-27.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-86) Baldwin, B. G. and R. H. Robichaux. 1995. Historical biogeography and ecology of the Hawaiian silversword alliance (Asteraceae). New molecular phylogenetic perspectives. pp. 259–287 >in > W. L. Wagner and V. A. Funk, eds. Hawaiian biogeography: evolution on a hotspot archipelago. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-87) "Adaptive Radiation and Hybridization in the Hawaiian Silversword Alliance" (http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/carr/radiation.htm). University of Hawaii Botany Department.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-88) Pallen, Mark (2009). Rough Guide to Evolution. Rough Guides. p. 87. ISBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 978-1-85828-946-5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-1-85828-946-5).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-89) Evolution – A-Z – Ring species (http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/a-z/Ring_species.asp). Blackwellpublishing.com. Retrieved on 2011-12-06.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-90) Discovering a ring species (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/devitt_02). Evolution.berkeley.edu. Retrieved on 2011-12-06.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-91) Davis, Paul and Kenrick, Paul. 2004. Fossil Plants. Smithsonian Books (in association with the Natural History Museum of London), Washington, D.C. ISBN 1-58834-156-9 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/1588341569)
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-92) Pioneer Productions (2010-01-19). "Episode Guide". How The Earth Was Made. Season 2. Episode 8. History channel.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-Luoetal2003_93-0) Luo, Zhe-Xi; Ji, Qiang; Wible, John R.; Yuan, Chong-Xi (2003-12-12). "An early Cretaceous tribosphenic mammal and metatherian evolution" (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/302/5652/1934.abstract). Science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_%28journal%29) 302 (5652): 1934–1940. doi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier):10.1126/science.1090718 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.1090718). PMID (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Identifier) 14671295 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14671295). Retrieved 2010-12-27.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-Nilsson_94-0) Nilsson, M. A.; Churakov, G.;, Sommer, M.; Van Tran, N.; Zemann, A.; Brosius, J.; Schmitz, J. (2010-07-27). "Tracking Marsupial Evolution Using Archaic Genomic Retroposon Insertions" (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2910653). In Penny, David. PLoS Biology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLoS_Biology) (Public Library of Science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Library_of_Science)) 8 (7): e1000436. doi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier):10.1371/journal.pbio.1000436 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1000436). PMC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Central) 2910653 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2910653). PMID (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Identifier) 20668664 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20668664).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-95) Woodburne, Michael O.; Zinsmeister, William J. (Oct 1982). "Fossil Land Mammal from Antarctica" (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/218/4569/284). Science 218 (4569): 284–286. doi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier):10.1126/science.218.4569.284 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.218.4569.284). PMID (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Identifier) 17838631 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17838631). Retrieved 2009-01-17.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-96) Goin, Francisco J.; et al. (Dec 1999). "New Discoveries of "Opposum-Like" Marsupials from Antarctica (Seymour Island, Medial Eocene)" (http://www.springerlink.com/content/h5r16469kqr06560/). Journal of Mammalian Evolution 6 (4): 335–365. doi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier):10.1023/A:1027357927460 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1023%2FA%3A1027357927460). Retrieved 2009-01-17.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-97) Reguero, Marcelo A.; Sergio A. Marenssi and Sergio N. Santillana (May 2002). "Antarctic Peninsula and South America (Patagonia) Paleogene terrestrial faunas and environments: biogeographic relationships". Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 179 (3–4): 189–210. doi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier):10.1016/S0031-0182(01)00417-5 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2FS0031-0182%2801%2900417-5).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-Polar_98-0) Mills, William James. Exploring Polar Frontiers: A Historical Encyclopedia, ABC-CLIO, 2003. ISBN 1-57607-422-6 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/1576074226), ISBN 978-1-57607-422-0 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9781576074220)
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-99) Goin, F.J.; Reguero, M.A.; Pascual, R.; von Koenigswald, W.; Woodburne, M.O.; Case, J.A.; Marenssi, S.A.; Vieytes, C. et al. (2006). "First gondwanatherian mammal from Antarctica". Geological Society, London, Special Publications 258: 135–144. doi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier):10.1144/GSL.SP.2006.258.01.10 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1144%2FGSL.SP.2006.258.01.10). edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Cite_doi/10.1144.2FGSL.SP.2006.258.01.10&action=edit&editintro=Template:Cite_doi/editintro2)
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-100) Prothero, Donald R.; Schoch, Robert M. (2002). Horns, tusks, and flippers: the evolution of hoofed mammals. JHU press. p. 45. ISBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 0-8018-7135-2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0-8018-7135-2).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-101) Tanaka T, Hashimoto H. (1989). "Drug-resistance and its transferability of Shigella strains isolated in 1986 in Japan". Kansenshogaku Zasshi 63 (1): 15–26. PMID (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Identifier) 2501419 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2501419).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-102) Bruce Alberts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Alberts); Alexander Johnson; Julian Lewis; Martin Raff; Keith Roberts; Peter Walter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Walter) (March, 2002). Molecular Biology of the Cell (4th ed.). Routledge. ISBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 0-8153-3218-1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0-8153-3218-1). Unknown parameter <code>|weight=</code> ignored (help (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:CS1_errors#parameter_ignored)); Unknown parameter <code>|totalpages=</code> ignored (help (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:CS1_errors#parameter_ignored)); Unknown parameter <code>|binding=</code> ignored (help (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:CS1_errors#parameter_ignored))
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-urlThe_Rev_103-0) J. W. Haas, Jr. (June 2000). "The Rev. Dr. William H. Dallinger F.R.S.: Early Advocate of Theistic Evolution and Foe of Spontaneous Generation" (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2000/PSCF6-00Haas.html). Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 52: 107–117. Retrieved 2010-06-15.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-104) Le Page, Michael (16 April 2008). "NS:bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab" (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.htm). New Scientist. Retrieved 9 July 2012.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-Lenski_105-0) Blount, Z. D.; Borland, C. Z.; Lenski, R. E. (4). "Inaugural Article: Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli" (http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105 (23): 7899–7906. doi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier):10.1073/pnas.0803151105 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1073%2Fpnas.0803151105). PMC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Central) 2430337 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2430337). PMID (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Identifier) 18524956 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18524956). Retrieved 9 July 2012.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-106) Le Page, Michael (16 April 2008). "NS:bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab" (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.htm). New Scientist. Retrieved 9 July 2012.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-107) Batton D, "Bacteria ‘evolving in the lab’? ‘A poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists’?" (http://creation.com/bacteria-evolving-in-the-lab-lenski-citrate-digesting-e-coli), www.creation.com, 14-6-2008.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-108) Medical Research Council (UK) ((November 21, 2009)). "Brain Disease 'Resistance Gene' Evolves in Papua New Guinea Community; Could Offer Insights Into CJD" (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091120091959.htm). Science Daily (online) (Science News). Retrieved 2009-11-22.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-109) Mead, S.; Whitfield, J.; Poulter, M.; Shah, P.; Uphill, J.; Campbell, T.; Al-Dujaily, H.; Hummerich, H. et al. (2009). "A Novel Protective Prion Protein Variant that Colocalizes with Kuru Exposure.". The New England Journal of Medicine 361 (21): 2056–2065. doi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier):10.1056/NEJMoa0809716 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1056%2FNEJMoa0809716). PMID (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Identifier) 19923577 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19923577). edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Cite_doi/10.1056.2FNEJMoa0809716&action=edit&editintro=Template:Cite_doi/editintro2)
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-110) Byars, S. G.; Ewbank, D.; Govindaraju, D. R.; Stearns, S. C. (2009). "Natural selection in a contemporary human population" (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2868295). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107 (suppl_1): 1787–1792. Bibcode (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibcode):2010PNAS..107.1787B (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010PNAS..107.1787B). doi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier):10.1073/pnas.0906199106 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1073%2Fpnas.0906199106). PMC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Central) 2868295 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2868295). PMID (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Identifier) 19858476 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19858476). edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Cite_doi/10.1073.2Fpnas.0906199106&action=edit&editintro=Template:Cite_doi/editintro2)
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-soy_111-0) Soy and Lactose Intolerance (http://web.archive.org/web/20071215230655/http://www.soynutrition.com/SoyHealth/SoyLactoseIntolerance.aspx) Wayback: Soy Nutrition
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-autogenerated1_112-0) Coles Harriet (2007-01-20). "The lactase gene in Africa: Do you take milk?" (http://genome.wellcome.ac.uk/doc_WTX038968.html). The Human Genome, Wellcome Trust. Retrieved 2008-07-18.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-113) Thwaites WM (Summer 1985). "New Proteins Without God's Help" (http://ncse.com/cej/5/2/new-proteins-without-gods-help). Creation Evolution Journal (National Center for Science Education (NCSE)) 5 (2): 1–3.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-114) Evolution and Information: The Nylon Bug (http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm). Nmsr.org. Retrieved on 2011-12-06.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-115) Why scientists dismiss 'intelligent design' (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9452500/page/2/), Ker Than, MSNBC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC), Sept. 23, 2005
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-116) Miller, Kenneth R. Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Only_a_Theory) (2008) pp. 80–82
^ ^a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-Welsh_117-0) ^b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-Welsh_117-1) Welsh, Jennifer (February 17, 2011). "Fish Evolved to Survive GE Toxins in Hudson River" (http://www.livescience.com/12897-fish-evolved-survive-ge-toxins-hudson-110218.html). LiveScience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LiveScience). Retrieved 2011-02-19.
^ ^a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-sciencenews.org_118-0) ^b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-sciencenews.org_118-1) Science News, Dark Power: Pigment seems to put radiation to good use (http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20070526/fob5.asp), Week of May 26, 2007; Vol. 171, No. 21, p. 325 by Davide Castelvecchi
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-119) Dadachova E, Bryan RA, Huang X, Moadel T, Schweitzer AD, Aisen P, Nosanchuk JD, Casadevall A. (2007). "Ionizing Radiation Changes the Electronic Properties of Melanin and Enhances the Growth of Melanized Fungi" (http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.137 1%2Fjournal.pone.0000457). In Rutherford, Julian. PLoS ONE 2 (5): e457. Bibcode (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibcode):2007PLoSO...2..457D (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007PLoSO...2..457D). doi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier):10.1371/journal.pone.0000457 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0000457). PMC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Central) 1866175 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1866175). PMID (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Identifier) 17520016 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17520016).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-120) Cheptou, P., Carrue, O., Rouifed, S., Cantarel, A. (2008). "Rapid evolution of seed dispersal in an urban environment in the weed Crepis sancta" (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2268839). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105 (10): 3796–9. Bibcode (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibcode):2008PNAS..105.3796C (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008PNAS..105.3796C). doi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier):10.1073/pnas.0708446105 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1073%2Fpnas.0708446105). PMC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Central) 2268839 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2268839). PMID (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Identifier) 18316722 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18316722).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-121) "Evolution in the urban jungle" (http://theoystersgarter.com/2008/03/12/evolution-in-the-urban-jungle/). Retrieved 2010-07-08.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-122) James K. Liebherr and Joseph V. McHugh in Resh, V. H. & R. T. Cardé (Editors) 2003. Encyclopedia of Insects. Academic Press.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-123) Bearhop, S.; Fiedler, W; Furness, RW; Votier, SC; Waldron, S; Newton, J; Bowen, GJ; Berthold, P et al. (2005). "Assortative mating as a mechanism for rapid evolution of a migratory divide". Science 310 (5747): 502–504. Bibcode (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibcode):2005Sci...310..502B (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005Sci...310..502B). doi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier):10.1126/science.1115661 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.1115661). PMID (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Identifier) 16239479 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16239479). Supporting Online Material (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;310/5747/502/DC1)
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-124) Ed Yong (December 3, 2009). "British birdfeeders split blackcaps into two genetically distinct groups : Not Exactly Rocket Science" (http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2009/12/british_birdfeeders_split_blackcaps_into_two_genet ically_dis.php). ScienceBlogs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ScienceBlogs). Retrieved 2010-05-21.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-125) William R. Rice, George W. Salt (1990). "The Evolution of Reproductive Isolation as a Correlated Character Under Sympatric Conditions: Experimental Evidence". Evolution, Society for the Study of Evolution 44.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-126) "he Evolution of Reproductive Isolation as a Correlated Character Under Sympatric Conditions: Experimental Evidence" (http://www.lifesci.ucsb.edu/eemb/faculty/rice/publications/pdf/25.pdf). William R. Rice, George W. Salt. Retrieved 2010-05-23.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-127) "Observed Instances of Speciation, 5.3.5 Sympatric Speciation in Drosophila melanogaster" (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html). Joseph Boxhorn. Retrieved 2010-05-23.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-128) Feder JL, Roethele JB, Filchak K, Niedbalski J, Romero-Severson J (1 March 2003). "Evidence for inversion polymorphism related to sympatric host race formation in the apple maggot fly, Rhagoletis pomonella" (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1462491). Genetics 163 (3): 939–53. PMC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Central) 1462491 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1462491). PMID (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Identifier) 12663534 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12663534).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-129) Berlocher SH, Bush GL (1982). "An electrophoretic analysis of Rhagoletis (Diptera: Tephritidae) phylogeny". Systematic Zoology 31 (2): 136–55. doi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier):10.2307/2413033 (http://dx.doi.org/10.2307%2F2413033). JSTOR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSTOR) 2413033 (http://www.jstor.org/stable/2413033).
Berlocher SH, Feder JL (2002). "Sympatric speciation in phytophagous insects: moving beyond controversy?". Annu Rev Entomol. 47: 773–815. doi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier):10.1146/annurev.ento.47.091201.145312 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1146%2Fannurev.ento.47.091201.145312). PMID (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Identifier) 11729091 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11729091).
Bush GL (1969). "Sympatric host race formation and speciation in frugivorous flies of the genus Rhagoletis (Diptera: Tephritidae)". Evolution 23 (2): 237–51. doi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier):10.2307/2406788 (http://dx.doi.org/10.2307%2F2406788). JSTOR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSTOR) 2406788 (http://www.jstor.org/stable/2406788).
Prokopy RJ, Diehl SR, Cooley SS (1988). "Behavioral evidence for host races in Rhagoletis pomonella flies" (http://www.springerlink.com/content/p1716r36n2164855/?p=d8018d5a59294c2984f253b7152445b7&pi=20). Oecologia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oecologia) 76 (1): 138–47. JSTOR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSTOR) 4218647 (http://www.jstor.org/stable/4218647).
Feder JL, Roethele JB, Wlazlo B, Berlocher SH (1997). "Selective maintenance of allozyme differences among sympatric host races of the apple maggot fly" (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC23485). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 94 (21): 11417–21. Bibcode (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibcode):1997PNAS...9411417F (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997PNAS...9411417F). doi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier):10.1073/pnas.94.21.11417 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1073%2Fpnas.94.21.11417). PMC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Central) 23485 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC23485). PMID (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Identifier) 11038585 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11038585).
^ ^a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-Times_130-0) ^b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-Times_130-1) ^c (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-Times_130-2) "London underground source of new insect forms" (http://www.gene.ch/gentech/1998/Jul-Sep/msg00188.html). The Times. 1998-08-26.
^ ^a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-Fonseca_131-0) ^b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-Fonseca_131-1) Fonseca, D. M.; Keyghobadi, N; Malcolm, CA; Mehmet, C; Schaffner, F; Mogi, M; Fleischer, RC; Wilkerson, RC (2004). "Emerging vectors in the Culex pipiens complex" (http://www.mosquitocatalog.org/files/pdfs/wr380.pdf). Science 303 (5663): 1535–8. Bibcode (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibcode):2004Sci...303.1535F (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004Sci...303.1535F). doi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier):10.1126/science.1094247 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.1094247). PMID (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Identifier) 15001783 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15001783).
^ ^a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-Burdick_132-0) ^b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-Burdick_132-1) Alan Burdick (2001). "Insect From the Underground — London, England Underground home to different species of mosquitos" (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_1_110/ai_70770157). Natural History (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_History_%28magazine%29).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-133) Byrne K, Nichols RA (1999). "Culex pipiens in London Underground tunnels: differentiation between surface and subterranean populations". Heredity 82 (1): 7–15. doi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier):10.1038/sj.hdy.6884120 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1038%2Fsj.hdy.6884120). PMID (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Identifier) 10200079 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10200079).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-134) Vinogradova EB and Shaikevich EV (2007). "Morphometric, physiological and molecular characteristics of underground populations of the urban mosquito Culex pipiens Linnaeus f. molestus Forskål (Diptera: Culicidae) from several areas of Russia" (http://e-m-b.org/sites/e-m-b.org/files/European_Mosquito_Bulletin_Publications811/EMB22/EMB22_04.pdf). European Mosquito Bulletin 22: 17–24.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-135) Britton-Davidian, Janice; Catalan, Josette; Da Graça Ramalhinho, Maria; Ganem, Guila; Auffray, Jean-Christophe; Capela, Ruben; Biscoito, Manuel; Searle, Jeremy B. et al. (2000). "Rapid chromosomal evolution in island mice". Nature 403 (6766): 158. Bibcode (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibcode):2000Natur.403..158B (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000Natur.403..158B). doi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier):10.1038/35003116 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1038%2F35003116). PMID (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Identifier) 10646592 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10646592).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-136) Tobler, Micheal (2009). Does a predatory insect contribute to the divergence between cave- and surface-adapted fish populations? Biology Letters doi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier):10.1098/rsbl.2009.0272 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1098%2Frsbl.2009.0272)
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-137) "Giant insect splits cavefish into distinct populations" (http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2009/05/giant_insect_splits_cavefish_into_distinct_populat ions.php). Ed Yong. Retrieved 2010-05-22.
^ ^a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-Bomblies.2C_Lempe_2007_138-0) ^b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-Bomblies.2C_Lempe_2007_138-1) Bomblies, Kirsten; Lempe, Janne; Epple, Petra; Warthmann, Norman; Lanz, Christa; Dangl, Jeffery L.; Weigel, Detlef (2007). "Autoimmune Response as a Mechanism for a Dobzhansky-Muller-Type Incompatibility Syndrome in Plants" (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1964774). PLoS Biol 5 (9): e236. doi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier):10.1371/journal.pbio.0050236 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0050236). PMC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Central) 1964774 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1964774). PMID (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Identifier) 17803357 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17803357).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-139) "New plant species arise from conflicts between immune system genes" (http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2009/08/new_plant_species_arise_from_conflicts_between_imm une_system.php). Ed Yong. Retrieved 2010-05-22.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-140) Adaptive Traits of the Polar Bear (Ursus Maritimus) (http://www.scienceray.com/Biology/Zoology/Adaptive-Traits-of-the-Polar-Bear-Ursus-Maritimus.207777). Scienceray.com (2008-08-13). Retrieved on 2011-12-06.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-141) Polar Bear Evolution (http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/bear-facts/polar-bear-evolution/). Polarbearsinternational.org (2011-12-01). Retrieved on 2011-12-06.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-142) Ron Rayborne Accepts Hovind's Challenge (http://www.kent-hovind.com/250K/ron.htm)
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-143) Karpechenko, G.D. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgii_Karpechenko), Polyploid hybrids of Raphanus sativus X Brassica oleracea L., Bull. Appl. Bot. 17:305–408 (1927).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-144) Terasawa, Y. Crossing between Brassico-raphanus and B. chinensis and Raphanus sativus. Japanese Journal of Genetics. 8(4): 229–230 (1933).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-145) William Kirkwood Purves, David E. Sadava, Gordon H. Orians, and H. Craig Heller (2006). Life, the science of biology (7 ed.). Sinaur Associates, Inc. p. 487. ISBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 0-7167-9856-5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0-7167-9856-5).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-146) Pam Soltis (2011-03-17). "UF researcher: Flowering plant study 'catches evolution in the act'" (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-03/uof-urf031611.php). EurekAlert, American Association for the Advancement of Science. Retrieved 2011-03-28.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-147) Buggs, Richard J.A.; Zhang, Linjing; Miles, Nicholas; Tate, Jennifer A.; Gao, Lu; Wei, Wu; Schnable, Patrick S.; Barbazuk, W. Brad et al. (2011). "Transcriptomic Shock Generates Evolutionary Novelty in a Newly Formed, Natural Allopolyploid Plant". Current Biology 21 (7): 551–6. doi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier):10.1016/j.cub.2011.02.016 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.cub.2011.02.016). PMID (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Identifier) 21419627 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21419627).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-148) Andrew J. Lowe, Richard J. Abbott (1996). "Origins of the New Allopolyploid Species Senecio camrensis (asteracea) and its Relationship to the Canary Islands Endemic Senecio tenerifae". American Journal of Botany 83 (10): 1365–1372. doi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier):10.2307/2446125 (http://dx.doi.org/10.2307%2F2446125). JSTOR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSTOR) 2446125 (http://www.jstor.org/stable/2446125).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-149) Jerry A. Coyne (2009). Why Evolution is True. Penguin Group. pp. 187 – 189. ISBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 978-0-670-02053-9 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-0-670-02053-9).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-w3T_150-0) Missouri Botanical Garden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Botanical_Garden). "TROPICOS Web display Senecio vulgaris L." (http://mobot.mobot.org/cgi-bin/search_pick?name=Senecio+vulgaris). Nomenclatural and Specimen Data Base. Missouri State Library. Retrieved 2008-02-01.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-151) Raven, Peter H. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_H._Raven) (2005). Biology of Plants (7th rev. ed.). New York: W.H. Freeman. ISBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 0-7167-6284-6 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0-7167-6284-6). OCLC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OCLC) 183148564 (http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/183148564).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-152) Simulated Evolution Gets Complex (http://www.trnmag.com/Stories/2003/052103/Simulated_evolution_gets_complex_052103.html). Trnmag.com (2003-05-08). Retrieved on 2011-12-06.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-153) Adami C, Ofria C, Collier TC (2000). "Evolution of biological complexity" (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC18257). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 97 (9): 4463–8. arXiv (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArXiv):physics/0005074 (http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0005074). Bibcode (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibcode):2000PNAS...97.4463A (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000PNAS...97.4463A). doi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier):10.1073/pnas.97.9.4463 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1073%2Fpnas.97.9.4463). PMC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Central) 18257 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC18257). PMID (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Identifier) 10781045 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10781045).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-154) Earl DJ, Deem MW (2004). "Evolvability is a selectable trait" (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC511006). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 101 (32): 11531–6. arXiv (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArXiv):q-bio/0407012 (http://arxiv.org/abs/q-bio/0407012). Bibcode (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibcode):2004PNAS..10111531E (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004PNAS..10111531E). doi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier):10.1073/pnas.0404656101 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1073%2Fpnas.0404656101). PMC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Central) 511006 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC511006). PMID (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Identifier) 15289608 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15289608).
^ ^a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-Stemmer94_155-0) ^b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-Stemmer94_155-1) Stemmer WP (1994). "DNA shuffling by random fragmentation and reassembly: in vitro recombination for molecular evolution" (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC45099). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 91 (22): 10747–51. Bibcode (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibcode):1994PNAS...9110747S (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994PNAS...9110747S). doi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier):10.1073/pnas.91.22.10747 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1073%2Fpnas.91.22.10747). PMC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Central) 45099 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC45099). PMID (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Identifier) 7938023 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7938023).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-156) Sauter E (March 27, 2006). ""Accelerated Evolution" Converts RNA Enzyme to DNA Enzyme In Vitro" (http://www.scripps.edu/newsandviews/e_20060327/evo.html). TSRI – News & Views 6 (11).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-157) Molecular evolution (http://web.archive.org/web/20080430031245/http://bio.kaist.ac.kr/%7Ejsrhee/research03.html). kaist.ac.kr
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-158) In Vitro Molecular Evolution (http://www.isgec.org/gecco-2005/free-tutorials.html#ivme). Isgec.org (1975-08-04). Retrieved on 2011-12-06.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-159) "Digital organisms used to confirm evolutionary process" (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2001-07/msu-dou071801.php). American Association for the Advancement of Science. Retrieved 2011-03-21.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-160) "Artificial life experiments show how complex functions can evolve" (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-05/nsf-ale050603.php). American Association for the Advancement of Science. Retrieved 2011-03-21.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution#cite_ref-161) Richard E. Lenski, Charles Ofria, Claus O. Wilke, Jia Lan Wang, & Christoph Adami (2001-07-19). "Evolution of digital organisms at high mutation rates leads to survival of the flattest". Nature 412 (6844): 331–3. Bibcode (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibcode):2001Natur.412..331W (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001Natur.412..331W). doi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier):10.1038/35085569 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1038%2F35085569). PMID (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Identifier) 11460163 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11460163).


Further reading



Biological science, Oxford, 2002.
Clegg CJ (1998). Genetics & evolution. London: J. Murray. ISBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 0-7195-7552-4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0-7195-7552-4).
Coyne, Jerry A. (2009). Why Evolution is True. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 978-0-19-923084-6 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-0-19-923084-6).
Darwin, Charles November 24, 1859. On the Origin of Species (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_Species) by means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. London: John Murray (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Murray_%28publisher%29), Albemarle Street (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albemarle_Street). 502 pages. Reprinted: Gramercy (May 22, 1995). ISBN 0-517-12320-7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0517123207)
Dawkins, Richard (2009). The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. Bantam Press. ISBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 978-1-4165-9478-9 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-1-4165-9478-9).
Endler, John A. (1986). Natural selection in the wild. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. ISBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 0-691-08387-8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0-691-08387-8).
Futuyma, D.J. 1998. Evolutionary Biology. 3rd ed. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts. (dated 1998, published 1997) ISBN 0-87893-189-9 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0878931899)
Gigerenzer, Gerd (1989). The Empire of chance: how probability changed science and everyday life. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ISBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 0-521-33115-3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0-521-33115-3).
Hill A, Behrensmeyer AK (1980). Fossils in the making: vertebrate taphonomy and paleoecology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 0-226-04169-7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0-226-04169-7).
Ho, YK (2004). Advanced-level Biology for Hong Kong, Manhattan Press. ISBN 962-990-635-X (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/962990635X)
Martin RE (1999). Taphonomy: a process approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ISBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 0-521-59833-8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0-521-59833-8).
Mayr, Ernst (2001). What evolution is. New York: Basic Books. ISBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 0-465-04426-3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0-465-04426-3).
Paul CRC, Donovan SK (1998). The adequacy of the fossil record. New York: John Wiley. ISBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 0-471-96988-5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0-471-96988-5).
Neil Shubin (2008). Your Inner Fish:A Journey Into the 3.5 Billion-Year History of the Human Body. Random House, Inc. ISBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 978-0-375-42447-2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-0-375-42447-2).
Sober, Elliott (2008). Evidence and Evolution: The logic behind the science. Cambridge University Press. ISBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 978-0-521-87188-4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-0-521-87188-4).

[Black Jesus]

Objections to evolution

^ a b Johnston, Ian C. (1999). "Section Three: The Origins of Evolutionary Theory". ... And Still We Evolve. Liberal Studies Department, Malaspina University College. Retrieved 2007-07-25.
^ a b van Wyhe, John (2002-7). "Charles Darwin: gentleman naturalist: A biographical sketch". The Complete Work of Charles Darwin Online. University of Cambridge. Retrieved 2007-07-25.
^ IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution, Interacademy Panel
^ Numbers, Ronald (November 30, 2006). The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, Expanded Edition. Harvard University Press. p. 624 pages. ISBN 0-674-02339-0.
^ Godfrey, Laurie R. Scientists Confront Creationism. Pg 8. W. W. Norton & Company (1984). ISBN 0-393-30154-0.
^ "Statement on the Teaching of Evolution" (PDF). American Association for the Advancement of Science. 2006. Retrieved 2007-03-20.
^ a b c Moran, Laurence (1993). "What is Evolution?". The TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 2007-03-24.
^ a b "Ask the experts:Biology-Is the human race evolving or devolving?". Scientific American. 1998. Retrieved 2007-03-24.
^ Carroll SB (2001). "Chance and necessity: the evolution of morphological complexity and diversity". Nature 409 (6823): 1102–9. doi:10.1038/35059227. PMID 11234024.
^ "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" (pdf). September 2001. Retrieved 2007-10-30.; original "100 Scientists" advertisement.
^ Edwards, Mark (2001-09-24). "100 Scientists, National Poll Challenge Darwinism" (php). Discovery Institute. Retrieved 2007-10-30.
^ Dembski, William (2001). "Is Intelligent Design Testable?". Retrieved 2010-05-23.
^ Moran, Laurence (1993). "Evolution is a Fact and a Theory". The TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 2007-03-24.
^ Dr. David N. Menton. "Is Evolution a Theory, a Fact, or a Law?". Missouri Association for Creation. Retrieved 2010-06-16.
^ a b Isaak, Mark (2003). "Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution". The TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 2007-03-24.
^ Gould, SJ (1994). Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes. W. W. Norton & Company. pp. 253–262. ISBN 0-393-01716-8. Retrieved 2007-03-24.
^ Lenski, RE (2000). "Evolution: Fact and Theory". ActionBioscience.org. Retrieved 2007-03-24.
^ a b c d Morris, HM (1985). Scientific Creationism. Master Books. ISBN 978-0-89051-002-5.
^ a b c Theobald, Douglas (2004). "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Scientific "Proof", scientific evidence, and the scientific method". The TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 2007-03-24.
^ The Crusade Against Evolution, Evan Ratliff, October 2004, Wired magazine
^ Meyer, SC (2002). "Teach the controversy". Cincinnati Enquirer. Retrieved 2007-03-24.
^ a b "National Science Teachers Association Disappointed About Intelligent Design Comments Made by President Bush". National Science Teachers Association Press. 2005. Retrieved 2007-03-24.
^ a b Isaak, M (2004). "Index to Creationist Claims, Claim CA040: Equal time". The TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 2007-03-24.
^ a b A copy of the Discovery Institutes Wedge Strategy document can be found here: "Wedge Strategy" (PDF). Discovery Institute. 1999. Retrieved 2007-03-24.
^ a b c d Scott, EC (2004). Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction. University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-24650-0.
^ Morton, GR (2002). "The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism". Retrieved 2007-03-24.
^ "World's Greatest Creation Scientists from Y1K to Y2K". Retrieved 2010-05-04.
^ "Was Darwin a Christian? Did he believe in God? Did he recant evolutionism when he died? - ChristianAnswers.Net". Retrieved 2010-05-04.
^ a b Ham, K (1987). The Lie: Evolution. Master Books. ISBN 0-89051-158-6. Archived from the original on 2007-02-05. Retrieved 2007-03-24. See Evolution is Religion, Chapter 2.
^ Dembski, WA (2006). The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction and Decision Theory). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-67867-4.
^ a b Morris, HM (2001). "Evolution Is Religion—Not Science" (PDF). Impact: Vital Articles on Science/Creation 332.
^ Wiker, BD (2003). "Does Science Point to God? Part II: The Christian Critics". Crisis Magazine. Archived from the original on 2007-02-03. Retrieved 2007-03-25.
^ Isaak, Mark (2004). "Index to Creationist Claims, Claim CA611: Evolution Sacrosanct?". TalkOrigins Archive.
^ Kutschera U, Niklas KJ (June 2004). "The modern theory of biological evolution: an expanded synthesis". Naturwissenschaften 91 (6): 255–76. Bibcode:2004NW.....91..255K. doi:10.1007/s00114-004-0515-y. PMID 15241603.
^ McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F.Supp. 1255 (US District Court 1982).
^ Cline, A (2006). "Myth: Science is a Religion for Atheists that Requires Faith". about.com. Retrieved 2007-03-25.
^ a b c TalkOrigins Claim CA211, Mark Isaak, editor, Index to Creationist Claims, TalkOrigins, 2006. Retrieved on 2008-04-20.
^ Scientific Creationism, Henry M. Morris, 1974 Master Books, Arkansas, p. 6-7
^ Wilkins, JS (1997). "Evolution and Philosophy: Is Evolution Science, and What Does 'Science' Mean?". The TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 2007-03-25.
^ "Towards The Third Evolutionary Synthesis: Was Darwin Wrong?". Retrieved 2011-11-26.
^ "Expelled Exposed: Why Expelled Flunks » Science & Religion". National Center for Science Education. Retrieved 2010-03-07.
^ Popper, K (1985). Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography. Open Court. ISBN 978-0-08-758343-6.
^ a b Popper, K (1978). "Natural selection and the emergence of mind". Dialectica 32 (32): 339. doi:10.1111/j.1746-8361.1978.tb01321.x. Unknown parameter |pages339= ignored (help)
^ Misquoted Scientists Respond National Center for Science Education 1981 by John R. Cole quoting Popper: "I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection, and I am glad to have the opportunity to make a recantation."
^ Darwin, Charles (1859). On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. p. 189. ISBN 1-4353-9386-4.
^ Ridley, M (2003). Evolution, Third Edition. Blackwell Publishing Limited. ISBN 978-1-4051-0345-9.
^ Wallis, C (2005-08-07). "The Evolution Wars". Time Magazine. p. 32. Retrieved 2007-03-24.
^ "Human Chromosome 2". 2002–2008 WGBH Educational Foundation. Retrieved 2008-12-05.
^ Jeff Hecht (2003-05-19). "Chimps are human, gene study implies". NewScientist. Retrieved 2008-05-10.
^ Jim Foley. "Fossil Hominids: The Evidence for Human Evolution". Retrieved 2008-05-10.
^ Wilkins, JS (1997). "Evolution and Philosophy: A Good Tautology is Hard to Find". The TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 2007-03-24.
^ See Survival of the fittest for a more thorough discussion.
^ MacRae, A (1998). "Radiometric dating and the geological time scale: Circular reasoning or reliable tools". The TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 2007-03-24.
^ Hempel. C.G. 1951 "Problems and Changes in the Empiricist Criterion of Meaning" in Aspects of Scientific Explanation. Glencoe: the Free Press. Quine, W.V.O 1952 "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" reprinted in From a Logical Point of View. Cambridge: Harvard University Press
^ Kitcher, Philip (1982). Abusing science: the case against creationism. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. p. 45. ISBN 0-262-61037-X.
^ Kitcher 1982 p. 50
^ Kitcher 1982 p. 52
^ Kitcher 1982 p. 52-53
^ a b Kent Hovind (2006). The Dangers of Evolution (DVD). USA: Creation Science Evangelism.
^ a b Buckling A, Craig Maclean R, Brockhurst MA, Colegrave N (February 2009). "The Beagle in a bottle". Nature 457 (7231): 824–9. Bibcode:2009Natur.457..824B. doi:10.1038/nature07892. PMID 19212400.
^ Elena SF, Lenski RE (June 2003). "Evolution experiments with microorganisms: the dynamics and genetic bases of adaptation". Nat. Rev. Genet. 4 (6): 457–69. doi:10.1038/nrg1088. PMID 12776215.
^ Questions frequently asked about the TBSEF, Texans for Better Science Education Foundation
^ Kansas Evolution Hearings Part 10, Kansas evolution hearings
^ "As biologists use the term, macroevolution means evolution at or above the species level. Speciation has been observed and documented. " Claim CB901: No case of macroevolution has ever been documented. Published as Isaak, Mark (2007). The counter-creationism handbook. Berkeley, Calif: University of California Press. pp. 87–88. ISBN 0-520-24926-7.
^ Dawkins, Richard (2009). The Greatest Show on Earth. New York, NY: Free Press. pp. 110–120. ISBN 978-1-4165-9778-0.
^ Boxhorn, Joseph (1995). "Observed Instances of Speciation". The TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 2007-03-24.
^ Wilkins, J (2006). "Macroevolution: Its Definition, Philosophy and History". The TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 2007-03-24.
^ Mayr G, Pohl B, Peters DS (December 2005). "A well-preserved Archaeopteryx specimen with theropod features". Science 310 (5753): 1483–6. Bibcode:2005Sci...310.1483M. doi:10.1126/science.1120331. PMID 16322455.
^ Shubin NH, Daeschler EB, Jenkins FA (April 2006). "The pectoral fin of Tiktaalik roseae and the origin of the tetrapod limb". Nature 440 (7085): 764–71. Bibcode:2006Natur.440..764S. doi:10.1038/nature04637. PMID 16598250.
^ Hunt, K (1997). "Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ". The TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 2007-03-24.
^ a b Darwin, C (1859). On the Origin of Species. John Murray. ISBN 0-8014-1319-2. p. 280–313, 4th edition of 1866, p. 359–360
^ Elsberry, WR (1998). "Missing links still missing!". The TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 2007-03-24.
^ Wieland, C (1991). "Variation, information and the created kind" (– Scholar search). Journal of Creation 5 (1): 42–47. Retrieved 2007-03-24.
^ Ham, Ken (1989). "Were You There?". Institute for Creation Research. Retrieved 2007-03-24.
^ Isaak, M (2005). "Index to Creationist Claims, Claim CA221: Were you there?". The TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 2007-03-24.
^ Huelsenbeck JP, Rannala B (April 1997). "Phylogenetic methods come of age: testing hypotheses in an evolutionary context". Science 276 (5310): 227–32. doi:10.1126/science.276.5310.227. PMID 9092465.
^ Delsuc F, Brinkmann H, Philippe H (May 2005). "Phylogenomics and the reconstruction of the tree of life". Nat. Rev. Genet. 6 (5): 361–75. doi:10.1038/nrg1603. PMID 15861208.
^ Einstein, Albert (1916). "The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity" (PDF). Annalen der Physik 49 (7): 769–822. Bibcode:1916AnP...354..769E. doi:10.1002/andp.19163540702. Archived from the original on 2006-08-29. Retrieved 2006-09-03.
^ Isaak, M (2004). "Index to Creationist Claims, Claim CA110: Evolution will soon be widely rejected.". The TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 2007-03-24.
^ Richardson and Keuck, "Haeckel's ABC of evolution and development," p. 516
^ Nedin, C (1997). "On Archaeopteryx, Astronomers, and Forgery". The TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 2007-03-24.
^ a b Wells, J (2002). Icons of Evolution. Regnery Publishing, Inc. ISBN 978-0-89526-200-4.
^ "Icons of Evolution FAQs". The TalkOrigins Archive. 2006. Retrieved 2007-03-24.
^ "CB701: Haeckel's embryo pictures.". talkorigins.org. Retrieved 2010-06-07.
^ "Icon 4 — Haeckel's Embryos". National Center for Science Education. November 23, 2006. Retrieved 2008-12-17.
^ Richardson MK, Hanken J, Selwood L, Wright GM, Richards RJ, Pieau C, Raynaud A (1998). "Letters". Science 280 (5366): 983, 985–6. doi:10.1126/science.280.5366.983c. PMID 9616084.
^ Isaak, M (2004). "Index to Creationist Claims, Claim CD010: Radiometric Dating". The TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 2007-03-24.
^ Isaak, M (2004). "Index to Creationist Claims, CC200: Transitional fossils". The TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 2008-07-13.
^ Isaak, M (2004). "Index to Creationist Claims, CC200.1: Transitional fossil abundance". The TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 2008-07-13.
^ Isaak, M (2004). "Index to Creationist Claims, CC340: Out-of-place fossils". The TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 2008-07-13.
^ Isaak, M (2004). "Index to Creationist Claims, Claim CC363: Requirements for fossilization". The TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 2007-03-24.
^ Isaak, M (2004). "Index to Creationist Claims, CC201: Phyletic gradualism". The TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 2008-07-13.
^ a b Wilkins, J (1997). "Evolution and Chance". The TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 2007-03-24.
^ Battern, D (1995). "Cheating with chance". Answers in Genesis. Retrieved 2009-12-06.
^ Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations
^ a b c Scott EC, Matzke NJ (May 2007). "Biological design in science classrooms". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104 (suppl. 1): 8669–76. Bibcode:2007PNAS..104.8669S. doi:10.1073/pnas.0701505104. PMC 1876445. PMID 17494747.
^ "CI100: Intelligent Design".
^ Plantinga, A (1993). Warrant and Proper Function. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0195078640.001.0001. ISBN 0-19-507864-0.
^ Fitelson, B; Sober, E (1997). "Plantinga's Probability Arguments Against Evolutionary Naturalism" (PDF). Retrieved 2007-03-24.
^ Isaak, M (2005). "Index to Creationist Claims, Claim CA120: Mind's fallibility". The TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 2007-03-24.
^ Behe, MJ (1996-10-29). "Darwin under the microscope". New York Times. p. 25. Retrieved 2007-03-24.
^ Johnson, P (1990). "Evolution as dogma: The establishment of naturalism". Retrieved 2007-03-24.
^ "CB401: Inconceivable instinct". Retrieved 2009-12-05.
^ "CB400: Evolution of consciousness". Retrieved 2009-12-05.
^ Isaak, M (2004). "Index to Creationist Claims, Claim CE440: The origin of it all". theTalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 2007-03-24.
^ Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D; 2003 Refuting Evolution 2. Master Books ISBN 0-89051-387-2
^ "CB921.2: Half a wing". talkorigins.org. Retrieved 2010-06-07.
^ Gehring, W.J. (2005). "New Perspectives on Eye Development and the Evolution of Eyes and Photoreceptors". Journal of Heredity 96 (3): 171–184. doi:10.1093/jhered/esi027. PMID 15653558.
^ "Eyes, Part One: Opening Up the Russian Doll. The Loom: A blog about life, past and future". Retrieved 2007-09-22.
^ Behe, MJ (1996). Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. Free Press. ISBN 978-0-7432-9031-9.
^ Behe, Michael (2000-07-31). "Philosophical Objections to Intelligent Design: Response to Critics". Retrieved 2010-01-02.
^ Liu, R.Y.; Ochman, H. (2007). "Stepwise formation of the bacterial flagellar system". PNAS 104 (17): 7116–7121. Bibcode:2007PNAS..104.7116L. doi:10.1073/pnas.0700266104. PMC 1852327. PMID 17438286.
^ a b Isaak, M (2005). "Index to Creationist Claims, Claim CB200: Irreducible complexity". The TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 2007-03-24.; and references therein
^ Ussery, D. (1999). "A biochemist's response to "The biochemical challenge to evolution"". Bios 70: 40–45.
^ Aharoni, A.; Gaidukov, L.; Khersonsky, O.; Gould, S.M.; Roodveldt, C; Tawfik, D.S. (2005). "The 'evolvability' of promiscuous protein functions". Nature Genetics 37 (1): 73–76. doi:10.1038/ng1482. PMID 15568024.
^ Robison, K (1996). "Darwin's Black Box: Irreducible Complexity or Irreproducible Irreducibility?". The TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 2007-03-24.
^ Claramonte, V. (2009). "Darwin's golden flame. Responses of biochemistry to intelligent design". Teorema. XXVIII/2: 173–188.
^ Gitt, Werner (1996). "Information, science and biology" Technical Journal 10:2.
^ Musgrave, I; Baldwin, R, et al. (2005). "Information Theory and Creationism". The TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 2007-03-24.
^ Thomas, D. "Evolution and Information: The Nylon Bug". New Mexicans for Science and Reason. Retrieved 2007-03-24.
^ Bergstrom, CT; Lachmann, M (2006). "The fitness value of information". arXiv:q-bio.PE/0510007 [q-bio.PE].
^ "CB101: Most mutations harmful?". talkorigins.org. Retrieved 2010-05-30.
^ Harter, R (1999). "Are Mutations Harmful?". The TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 2007-03-24.
^ Morris, Henry M. (1974). Scientific creationism. San Diego, Calif: Creation-Life Publishers. p. 45. ISBN 0-89051-003-2. "Until evolutionists can not only speculate, but demonstrate, that there does exist in nature some vast program to direct the growth toward higher complexity of the marvelous organic space-time unity known as the terrestrial biosphere (not to mention that of the cosmos), as well as some remarkable global power converter to energize the growth through converted solar energy, the whole evolutionary idea is negated by the Second Law."
^ Lambert, F (2002). "Disorder — A Cracked Crutch For Supporting Entropy Discussions". Journal of Chemical Education 79 (2): 187–192. Bibcode:2002JChEd..79..187L. doi:10.1021/ed079p187. Retrieved 2007-03-24.
^ Oerter, RN (2006). "Does Life On Earth Violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics?". Retrieved 2007-03-24.
^ a b Daniel F. Styer, "Entropy and evolution," American Journal of Physics, Vol. 76, No. 11, November 2008, p. 1031
^ Emory F. Bunn, "Evolution and the Second Lqw of Thermodynamics," American Journal of Physics, Vol. 77, No. 10, October 2009, p. 922
^ Rosenhouse, J (2001). "How Anti-Evolutionists Abuse Mathematics" (PDF). The Mathematical Intelligencer 23 (4): 3–8. Retrieved 2007-03-26.
^ A venerable Orang-utang "I have to apologize once more for the wild flights of my incorrigible artist. I told him most clearly and positively to draw me a life-like portrait of that profound philosopher, Mr. Darwin..." – The Hornet, 1871, from the collection of Darwin Online
^ Isaak, M (2004). "Claim CA009: Evolution teaches that people are animals. We should not be surprised when people who are taught evolution start behaving like animals". The TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 2007-03-24.
^ Churches urged to challenge Intelligent Design
^ Pope John Paul II, "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth", New Advent, ed. Kevin Knight, 2009-Feb-15 <http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm>
^ Morris, H (1982). The Troubled Waters of Evolution. Master Books. ISBN 978-0-89051-087-2.
^ Mohler, RA (2005). "The Origins of Life: An Evangelical Baptist View". NPR. Retrieved 2007-03-24.
^ "The Result of Believing Evolution". Living Word Bible Church. Retrieved 2007-03-24.
^ Raymo, C (1999-09-06). "Darwin's Dangerous De-evolution". Boston Globe. Retrieved 2007-03-24.
^ Morris, HM (1989). The Long War Against God: The History and Impact of the Creation/Evolution Conflict. Baker Book House. ISBN 0-89051-291-4.
^ "Kennedy: Evolution to Blame for Death, Hopelessness in World". Right Wing Watch. Retrieved 2007-03-24.
^ Martin, A; Parker, J (2006). "TV Producer Defends Documentary Exposing Darwin-Hitler Link". Agape Press. Retrieved 2007-03-24.
^ a b "ADL Blasts Christian Supremacist TV Special & Book Blaming Darwin For Hitler". Anti-Defamation League. August 22, 2006. Retrieved 2009-12-07.
^ Weikart, R (2004). From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-1-4039-7201-9.
^ From Darwin to Hitler: A Pathway to Horror (Updated), Jonathan Witt, Evolution News and Views, Discovery Institute, December 15, 2006.
^ This creationist claim that is part of a Discovery Institute campaign (New book by Discovery Institute Fellow shows influence of Darwinian principles on Hitler's Nazi regime, Discovery Institute) and is amply repeated in creationist literature. For example:
"Darwinism and the Nazi race Holocaust", Jerry Bergman, CEN Technical Journal, 13(2):101–111, 1999.
The Holocaust and evolution, Jonathan Sarfati, Creation 22(1):4, December 1999.
From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany, Richard Weikart, Palgrave MacMillan, 2004.
^ "Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust". Anti-Defamation League. April 29, 2008. Retrieved 2009-12-07.
"Intelligent Design: It's Not Science – Religious Freedom Resources". Anti-Defamation League. 2009. Retrieved 2009-12-07.
^ Creationist Links Origins to Faith, Everyday Life: Says outlook on Genesis account affects every aspect of life , Bob Ellis, Dakota Voice, 5/7/2006
^ Paul, GS (2005). "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look". Journal of Religion & Society 7. Archived from the original on 2007-03-10. Retrieved 2007-03-24.
The paper was criticized by Moreno-Riaño, Smith, and Mach in a published article in the same journal because "[Paul's] methodological problems do not allow for any conclusive statement to be advanced regarding the various hypotheses Paul seeks to demonstrate or falsify." Of course, correlation does not imply causality, and Paul does not produce any speculations about the cause of these correlations.
^ "Born Again Christians Just As Likely to Divorce As Are Non-Christians". The Barna Group. 2004. Retrieved 2004-03-24.
^ Shermer, M (2006). "Darwin on the Right: Why Christians and conservatives should accept evolution". Scientific American. Retrieved 2007-04-26.
^ Darwin and Hitler: a not-very-intelligent link, Michael Ruse, My View, Tallahassee Democrat, February 6, 2008
^ Talkorigins Claim CA006.1: Adolf Hitler exploited the racist ideas of Darwinism to justify genocide, Mark Isaak, Index to Creationist Claims, Talkorigins, created 2001-4-29, modified 2005-7-1, © 2006
^ Creationists for Genocide, Hector Avalos, Talkreason
^ a b c Western Civilization: Ideas, Politics, and Society. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. 2008-10. ISBN 978-0-547-14701-7. Retrieved 2007–03–25. "The most extreme ideological expression of nationalism and imperialism was Social Darwinism. In the popular mind, the concepts of evolution justified the exploitation of "lesser breeds without the law" by superior races. This language of race and conflict, of superior and inferior people, had wide currency in the Western states. Social Darwinists vigorously advocated the acquisition of empires, saying that strong nations-by definition, those that were successful at expanding industry and empire-would survive and that others would not. To these elitists, all white men were more fit than non-whites to prevail in the struggle for dominance. Even among Europeans, some nations were deemed more fit than others for the competition. Usually, Social Darwinists thought their own nation the best, an attitude that sparked their competitive enthusiasm. In the nineteenth century, in contrast to the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Europeans, except for missionaries, rarely adopted the customs or learned the languages of local people. They had little sense that other cultures and other people had merit or deserved respect. Many westerners believed that it was their duty as Christians to set an example and to educate others. Missionaries were the first to meet and learn about many peoples and were the first to develop writing for those without a written language. Christian missionaries were ardently opposed to slavery."
^ Strobel, Lee (2004). The Case for a Creator. Zondervan. p. 32. ISBN 0-310-24144-8. "In my quest to determine if contemporary science points toward or away from God, I knew I had to first examine the claims of evolution in order to conclude once and for all whether Darwinism creates a reasonable foundation for atheism. That's because if the materialism of Darwinian evolution is a fact, then the atheist conclusions I reached as a student might still be valid."
^ Johnson, Phillip (1999). "The Church of Darwin". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2010-05-23.
^ Young, D (1988). Christianity and the Age of the Earth. Artisan Publishers. ISBN 0-934666-27-X.
^ Pennock, RT (2000). Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism. MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-66165-2. Retrieved 2007-03-24.
^ Devolution: Why intelligent design isn’t, H. Allen Orr, Annals of Science, The New Yorker, May 30, 2005.
^ "Statements from Religious Organizations". National Center for Science Education. 2002. Retrieved 2007-03-24.
^ Schrock, JR (2005-05-17). "Christianity, Evolution Not in Conflict" (PDF). Wichita Eagle. pp. 17A. Retrieved 2007-03-24.
^ "Evolution and Creationism In Public Education: An In-depth Reading Of Public Opinion" (PDF). People for the American Way. 2002. Retrieved 2007-03-24.
^ Larson, EJ; Witham, L (1997). "Scientists are still keeping the faith". Nature 386 (6624): 435–436. Bibcode:1997Natur.386..435L. doi:10.1038/386435a0.
^ Witham, L (1997). "Many scientists see God's hand in evolution". Reports of the National Center for Science Education 17 (6): 33. Retrieved 2007-03-24.
^ a b c Robinson, BA (1995). "Public beliefs about evolution and creation". Retrieved 2007-03-24.
^ AboutDarwin.com
^ England, P.; Molnar, P.; Righter, F. (January 2007). "John Perry's neglected critique of Kelvin's age for the Earth: A missed opportunity in geodynamics". GSA Today 17 (1): 4–9. doi:10.1130/GSAT01701A.1.
^ Boltwood, B. B. (1907). "On the ultimate disintegration products of the radio-active elements. Part II. The disintegration products of uranium". American Journal of Science 23: 77–88.
^ Bowler, Peter J. (1983). The eclipse of Darwinism: anti-Darwinian evolution theories in the decades around 1900 (paperback ed.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 23–24. ISBN 0-8018-4391-X.
^ Bowler, PJ (2003). Evolution: The History of an Idea, Third Edition, Completely Revised and Expanded. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-23693-6.
^ a b c Moore, James R. (1981). The Post-Darwinian Controversies: A Study of the Protestant Struggle to Come to Terms with Darwin in Great Britain and America. Cambridge University Press. p. 10. ISBN 978-0-521-28517-9.
^ The Relations Between Religion and Science by Frederick Temple Lecture IV of Eight Lectures Preached Before the University of Oxford in 1884
^ Pius XII, encyclical Humani Generis
^ John Paul II, Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution
^ a b Abdul Majid (2002). "The Muslim Responses To Evolution". Islamic Research Foundation International, Inc. Retrieved 2010-05-24.
^ Adnan Oktar (1999). "The Evolution Deceit". Retrieved 2010-05-24.
^ "Darwin Correspondence Project – Darwin and design: historical essay". Archived from the original on 2008-06-19. Retrieved 2008-09-02.
^ "Evolution is Religion". Retrieved 2010-05-01.
^ "Polls Apart on Human Origins". Harris Interactive. Retrieved 2008-10-27.
Further reading [edit]

Philip Kitcher 1982 Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism. Cambridge: The MIT Press
Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D; 2003 Refuting Evolution 2. Master Books ISBN 0-89051-387-2
Look up evolution in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Coleman, Simon; Leslie Carlin (2004). The Cultures of Creationism: Antievolution in English-speaking Countries. Burlington, Vermont: Ashgate. p. 195. ISBN 0-7546-0912-X.
Isaak, Mark (2005). The Counter-Creationism Handbook. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. p. 330. ISBN 0-313-33305-X.
Rennie J (July 2002). "15 answers to creationist nonsense" (PDF). Sci. Am. 287 (1): 78–85. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0702-78. PMID 12085506.

[Hasbinbad]

Oh I wasn't arguing that there aren't stupid people Naez, I was just pointing out that the single assertion that there is not evidence is obviously spurious.

[Black Jesus]

You're all the minority

Group American public
Belief in Young Earth Creationism 44%
Belief in God-guided evolution 39%
Belief in evolution without God guiding the process10%

[Hitchens]

http://i.imgur.com/4lay9Zz.jpg

[Black Jesus]

First of all, it must be noted that the fossil record is for the most part incomplete. While it is true that there are some fossils that seem to indicate a gradual increase in sophistication and complexity of species over a long period of time, there are so many major gaps, it is impossible to use the fossil record as evidence.

Mutations do occur. There is no dispute about that. But how do mutations account for the changes that take place from one species to another? In fact, genetic mutations and natural selection cannot begin to explain how even one, single protein or biological process could have "evolved".

The "Theory of Evolution" states that small, gradual changes in the genetic code sometimes resulted in a beneficial adaptation for an organism of a particular species, and
since it now lived a little longer or a little better, it naturally would have more offspring, and its new and improved genes get passed along. So evidence for evolution MUST show how genes evolved, and how various anatomical structures came to be. But again, there has never been even one experiment showing that a gene has evolved, or any anatomical structure or any physiological process, and instead of true, scientific evidence, the evolutionary scientists offer assumptions as to how they think that DNA or bones might have evolved.

[Alawen]

You're all the minority

Group American public
Belief in Young Earth Creationism 44%
Belief in God-guided evolution 39%
Belief in evolution without God guiding the process10%

I am developing a post-modernist understanding of Naez's posts. If you stop fighting the breakdown in symbolic language, he's kind of profound. If you consider his last post, for example, through a post-modernist lens, he could be stating many mutually exclusive things simultaneously: a plurality of ignorance is still ignorance, an ad populum argument to support theism, the inadequacy of language to express anything of true import like living and dying. Attempting to categorize Naez's writing through a conventional perspective is pointless, and succeeding at it would destroy what makes them interesting.

[Hasbinbad]

You're all the minority

Group American public
Belief in Young Earth Creationism 44%
Belief in God-guided evolution 39%
Belief in evolution without God guiding the process10%
Call it 99.99% vs. 0.01%

The number of people subscribing to a delusion is not a good criteria for putting faith in that delusion.

[Hitchens]

Methamphetamines are a hell of a drug.

[Black Jesus]

theory of evolution

the·o·ry
/ˈTHēərē/
Noun
a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation : abstract thought : speculation : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory : "Darwin's theory of evolution"

[Hasbinbad]

First of all, it must be noted that the fossil record is for the most part incomplete. While it is true that there are some fossils that seem to indicate a gradual increase in sophistication and complexity of species over a long period of time, there are so many major gaps, it is impossible to use the fossil record as evidence.
I addressed this clearly.

Mutations do occur. There is no dispute about that. But how do mutations account for the changes that take place from one species to another? In fact, genetic mutations and natural selection cannot begin to explain how even one, single protein or biological process could have "evolved".
Mutations occur within an individual, thus do not occur "between species."
The "Theory of Evolution" states that small, gradual changes in the genetic code sometimes resulted in a beneficial adaptation for an organism of a particular species, and
since it now lived a little longer or a little better, it naturally would have more offspring, and its new and improved genes get passed along.
Mutations most often confer no benefit or harm, but rather become sections that simply aren't expressed or are expressed in a way that does not cause harm to the organism. Only in very rare cases are mutations either catastrophic or beneficial.
So evidence for evolution MUST show how genes evolved, and how various anatomical structures came to be.
I don't understand this sentence at all. Why "must" "evolution" "show" anything? What are you even talking about?
But again, there has never been even one experiment showing that a gene has evolved,
Oh, nevermind, you're just fucking dumb.
or any anatomical structure or any physiological process, and instead of true, scientific evidence, the evolutionary scientists offer assumptions as to how they think that DNA or bones might have evolved.
^fat

[Hasbinbad]

theory of evolution

the·o·ry
/ˈTHēərē/
Noun
a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation : abstract thought : speculation : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory : "Darwin's theory of evolution"
id·i·ot

/ˈidēət/
<table class="vk_txt ts" style="margin-top:20px"><tbody><tr><td>Noun
<table class="ts"><tbody><tr><td style="padding:0">

A stupid person.
A mentally handicapped person.

</td></tr></tbody></table>
</td></tr><tr><td style="height:10px">
</td></tr><tr><td style="vertical-align:top;padding-right:5px">Synonyms
<table class="ts"><tbody><tr><td>fool - imbecile - blockhead - dunce - nitwit - dolt</td></tr></tbody></table>
</td></tr></tbody></table>

[Black Jesus]

<object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/j-HNoISNJK4?version=3&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/j-HNoISNJK4?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

[Black Jesus]

I don't understand this sentence at all. Why "must" "evolution" "show" anything? What are you even talking about?

Proof is what make me believe things. Like laws of motion and thermodynamics.

[Hasbinbad]

You do know that laws are not even "proven," right? They just describe phenomena that happens the same way evey time so we call it a law. There is no proof tho.

[Hasbinbad]

If you examine the evidence between a scientific law and a scientific theory, the evidence is going to be of similar caliber and scope.

You, like most people, are mistaking the laypersons term "theory" with "scientific theory." the two terms couldn't be more different. A "theory" is really more of a hypothesis. If it was the "hypothesis of common descent," you'd be right the fuck on. But it's not. The "hypothesis of common descent" now has a "body of evidence," and it has been "repeatedly confirmed" to be the likely mechanism for speciation in known species.

Do you know what scientists do? How they get famous in the community? I'm not talking about the one dude who came up with string theory, that's a given. I'm talking about scientist royalty. They get royal by disproving so many other scientists that their name becomes a by-word for the fear of failure. Scientists go around trying to find ways to make other scientists wrong.

And yet, despite all of the opposition you listed (I wasn't surprised when you posted that), and all the opposition that doesn't make it to the publishing table, common descent is still accepted by the MASSIVE majority of biological scientists - staunch contrarians all - and only grudgingly, because they have to. THAT is what makes it a theory.

[Hitchens]

http://i.imgur.com/MRjimgx.jpg

[Hasbinbad]

I like how her armor doesn't have boobs.

[Zadrian]

I've tried to get them to understand the difference between theory and scientific theory.. They won't get it.

[Nihilist_santa]

I addressed this clearly.



Mutations most often confer no benefit or harm, but rather become sections that simply aren't expressed or are expressed in a way that does not cause harm to the organism. Only in very rare cases are mutations either catastrophic or beneficial.





^fat

You can look at the studies on fruit flies and see that these mutations are almost always harmful. Previously I mentioned the pleiotropic effect. This means that mutations usually involve more than one system. A better way of viewing it would be saying a gene may control more than one trait ,so a mutation at that level will possibly affect both traits.

Look at the sickle cell example I mentioned earlier and another person has also brought up. The mutation is the sickle cell and the person has increased resistance to malaria but at the cost of decreased life expectancy. :confused: These are your beneficial mutations?

The whole premise is illogical. You have DNA which is code that tells your body what to be. Evolution says that for the sake of argument we will call DNA a type writer, they say that the type writer manages to write a new code that gives a benefit/mutation to the organism increasing fitness (ability to pass on offspring). A more accurate statement would be that a mutation is what would occur when the type writer is writing its code and some of the keys are missing. You are not going to end up with something as coherent as the typewriter with all of its keys. When you see a pig with a leg growing out of its back from a mutation that pig can have children and not pass that on because DNA is somewhat self correcting. The pig with the leg growing from its back will mate with another pig that is normal and voila you get another normal pig not some Frankenstein pig species with a 5th spinal leg.

Look at dog breeding. We have been messing with dog genes through selective breeding and while we get more expression of certain traits in the end they still remain dogs. Queue the evolutionist timescale rebuttal. It is really convenient that your ideas rely on unknowable timescales and avoids any kind of critique by coming up with astronomical time figures to avoid facing the gaps in your theory.

To top all of this off you guys cant just live in an evolution bubble in science. There are other fields with contradicting findings. There is a lot of stuff going on right now that is indicating that consciousness affects matter. Then you have ideas like simulation theory which Ishka kind of hinted at previously. How can you falsify something like that? If simulation theory is true then all of the laws and theories would be arbitrary or at the very least do not indicate that that is the way things really work.

Then you can look at mathematics and and physics and see how many interactions would have to take place between particles in the universe to even remotely come close to creating anything approaching life. Its in the order of magnitude of not just unlikely but improbable that this just randomly happened.

[Nihilist_santa]

I've tried to get them to understand the difference between theory and scientific theory.. They won't get it.

I understand the difference. The problem is that science is interrelated disciplines. Once a false premise is introduced then confirmation bias takes over. Paleontology is so closely related with evolutionary studies now that they both have to prop each other up or the idea comes crashing down.

[Nihilist_santa]

Another way to illustrate this as being forced on people is you are given two options, A. Evolution or B. God. The person who does not agree with religion is forced to go option A even if that isnt exactly the best idea. Now we have a bunch of religion hating people who choose to believe in option A because its the only alternative left to them and they have to confirm this or they feel that they would have to realign with option B. Confirmation bias is introduced.

[Zadrian]

Who thinks its either evolution or god?

[Raavak]

Look at the sickle cell example I mentioned earlier and another person has also brought up. The mutation is the sickle cell and the person has increased resistance to malaria but at the cost of decreased life expectancy. :confused: These are your beneficial mutations?It possibly is, if it occurs in a system where malaria is prevalent and there is a higher level of procreation from the organisms having the mutation than the ones without.

[gotrocks]

Hbb, Tl;dr, im really tired, was your point that creationist's fuck themselves over even more than i already stated, or did i miss the point of your wiki citations post entirely?

[Hitchens]

I like how her armor doesn't have boobs.

Hottest woman in GoT.

The bathtub scene with Jamie? Oh man.

[Kagatob]

I understand the difference. The problem is that science is interrelated disciplines. Once a false premise is introduced then confirmation bias takes over. Paleontology is so closely related with evolutionary studies now that they both have to prop each other up or the idea comes crashing down.

Please elaborate on this tidbit.
*Gets popcorn*

[Black Jesus]

If you examine the evidence between a scientific law and a scientific theory, the evidence is going to be of similar caliber and scope.

You, like most people, are mistaking the laypersons term "theory" with "scientific theory." the two terms couldn't be more different. A "theory" is really more of a hypothesis. If it was the "hypothesis of common descent," you'd be right the fuck on. But it's not. The "hypothesis of common descent" now has a "body of evidence," and it has been "repeatedly confirmed" to be the likely mechanism for speciation in known species.

Do you know what scientists do? How they get famous in the community? I'm not talking about the one dude who came up with string theory, that's a given. I'm talking about scientist royalty. They get royal by disproving so many other scientists that their name becomes a by-word for the fear of failure. Scientists go around trying to find ways to make other scientists wrong.

And yet, despite all of the opposition you listed (I wasn't surprised when you posted that), and all the opposition that doesn't make it to the publishing table, common descent is still accepted by the MASSIVE majority of biological scientists - staunch contrarians all - and only grudgingly, because they have to. THAT is what makes it a theory.

theory's a theory a theory. science always changing things, now they want to redefine a word

[Hitchens]

I can't believe people seriously argue with Naez. Why not go start a dialogue with some crazy homeless person.