Logic dictates that there is a God!

[MeDeFe]

What's a Tridactyle? I didn't find it on Wikipedia.


And jay, are you aware of the fact that evolution in quickly reproducing organisms like bacteria have been observed. I recall a recent thread linking to an article about a team of scientists that had started out with e. coli bacteria, let them multiply, split the original ones into 12 groups, and observed and took samples from each strain over more than 30000 generations. One of those strains evolved to be able to digest citrate (I think it was), something that the original bacteria they started with could not and something no other of the groups evolved to be able to either.
For a bacterium that's a damn big change.

Yet, it was still a bacteria, not a fish.

And a fish evolving into a bird would still be a vertebrate.

[joecoolfrog]

If memory serves me well, one of the "rules" of science is: it must be OBSERVABLE. Evolution is not, it is pure speculation.

Also to address HC, why is it that I saw on some science channel that the Tridactyle descended from a fish? Apparently even science thinks that evolution can change one species of animal into another. (How and animal gains or loses chromosomes, changing its physical make up, is beyond me...no matter how much time it takes) This requires an amount of Faith I do not possess. This is believing the impossible is possible. This would be a miracle that could only be achieved through divine intervention.


Neutrino, changes within a species is adaptation not evolution. It still has X number of chromosomes.

You are plain wrong, evidence of evolution is observable.

[jay_a2j]

And a fish evolving into a bird would still be a vertebrate.

But that doesn't happen, now does it?

Changing from a blue whale into a cat, still a mammal..... but not a blue whale any more. Doesn't happen.

[MeDeFe]

And a fish evolving into a bird would still be a vertebrate.

But that doesn't happen, now does it?

Changing from a blue whale into a cat, still a mammal..... but not a blue whale any more. Doesn't happen.

ok, so a species of bacteria evolving to display features the species did not previously have is not evolution, or have I misunderstood you?

What would it be if some humans started growing scales over their bodies instead of hair? I think that's a comparably big change to what happened with the bacteria.

[Snorri1234]

And a fish evolving into a bird would still be a vertebrate.

But that doesn't happen, now does it?

Changing from a blue whale into a cat, still a mammal..... but not a blue whale any more. Doesn't happen.

ok, so a species of bacteria evolving to display features the species did not previously have is not evolution,

I think you summed it up perfectly and while doing so also showed why we should just ignore jay.

[Gregrios]

What would it be if some humans started growing scales over their bodies instead of hair?

You would be referring to the myth of subterranean people who live within the earth's core.

[joecoolfrog]

What would it be if some humans started growing scales over their bodies instead of hair?

You would be referring to the myth of subterranean people who live within the earth's core.

Any reason why you shouldn't believe in this myth

[Gregrios]

What would it be if some humans started growing scales over their bodies instead of hair?

You would be referring to the myth of subterranean people who live within the earth's core.

Any reason why you shouldn't believe in this myth

Thers's more reason to beleive it than not to.

[packrat31306]

Religion and God... have very little in common.

Religion was created by men... to explain the unknown and to hold power over others.

The only true spirituality that exists... is between an individual and God.

All else is false and blasphemy.

I think I have to agree. I think that sometimes the most meaningful things can be said in very few words. This thread is very interesting. I'll wait a bit before I start to jump in.

[packrat31306]

oh there you are snorrie1234. you kind of remind me of those little fly who doesn't know how to go away even though people keep swatting at you and trying to kill you!......buzzzzzzz!

[Backglass]

So much for "waiting a bit".

[Backglass]

you have to be a complete MORON to believe that something that is ALIVE can come from something that is not.

Yet is is perfectly logical in your primitive mind to believe that there are magical, invisible gods floating about, wreaking havoc where they see fit and impregnating earth women to bear "half god" water walking children.

Yeah...we are the crazy ones.

Hows that Nicotine addiction coming? Has your god magically cured you yet? Or does he still hate you?

Just when I thought you were banned.....

. Your getting jittery. Better go smoke two to "calm your nerves".

..and pray a little harder for a cure next time, would ya? And an extra $20 in the collection plate. That might do it.

[Snorri1234]

So much for "waiting a bit".

[Gregrios]

So much for "waiting a bit".

Geeze, if you find that funny then there must not be any limit to what you consider humor.

[daddy1gringo]

ok, so a species of bacteria evolving to display features the species did not previously have is not evolution, or have I misunderstood you? (emphasis mine:d1g)

MeDeFe, you're begging the question. Anything EVOLVING to do anything is EVOLUTION By definition. But no, a species adapting to do something it couldn't do before is NOT necessarily evolution, nor evidence for it, unless a new species is thereby created.

What would it be if some humans started growing scales over their bodies instead of hair? I think that's a comparably big change to what happened with the bacteria.

First, no, it's not comparable. A human with scales would arguably be a whole different animal; that's evolution. More comparable would be if a certain population of people developed the ability to digest different things in response to their environment. I'm not at all sure that hasn't already happened, and frequently. They're still human and could reproduce with non-adapted people. The only impediment is that the dating process would be difficult because, being in very different parts of the world, they might never meet, and if they did they probably wouldn't want to go to the same restaurants.

Second, that's an awful big "what if." It hasn't happened, nor is it likely to, so it's irrelevant. If it ever did happen, perhaps we could find out if these adapted people could reproduce with regular people. If they couldn't, that might be evidence for evolution.

[daddy1gringo]

You are plain wrong, evidence of evolution is observable.

Dogmatic statement of blind faith. Cough up some.

[Backglass]

You are plain wrong, evidence of evolution is observable.

Dogmatic statement of blind faith. Cough up some.

The fossil record for one...unless you are one of those who believes the earth is only a few thousand years old.

You do realize that since the theory of evolution was first proposed decades ago, it has been argued over and discussed hundreds of thousands of times in scientific circles...yet it has stood the test. Religious folk seem to think that scientist's are like they are...following the herd and parroting the party line. Nothing could be further from the truth. Scientists delight in proving other scientists wrong. Yet Evolution persists. Why is that?

[jonesthecurl]

So much for "waiting a bit".

Geeze, if you find that funny then there must not be any limit to what you consider humor.

Sez the world's champion overuser of smilies

[Snorri1234]

ok, so a species of bacteria evolving to display features the species did not previously have is not evolution, or have I misunderstood you? (emphasis mine:d1g)

MeDeFe, you're begging the question. Anything EVOLVING to do anything is EVOLUTION By definition. But no, a species adapting to do something it couldn't do before is NOT necessarily evolution, nor evidence for it, unless a new species is thereby created.

Actually, yes it is.

It is like us getting the ability to breathe underwater. Or managing to eat bricks or something. Adaptation is evolution here, because the bacteria actually changed genetically to do it. It is not evolution on the grand scale like going from amphibian to mammal or something, but it is undeniably evolution.

What would it be if some humans started growing scales over their bodies instead of hair? I think that's a comparably big change to what happened with the bacteria.

First, no, it's not comparable. A human with scales would arguably be a whole different animal;

Why?

More comparable would be if a certain population of people developed the ability to digest different things in response to their environment. I'm not at all sure that hasn't already happened, and frequently. They're still human and could reproduce with non-adapted people.

It has already happened, try cow-milk.

The only impediment is that the dating process would be difficult because, being in very different parts of the world, they might never meet, and if they did they probably wouldn't want to go to the same restaurants.

Indeed, this is exactly the way new species develop. Being unable to reproduce due to environmental factors and therefore becoming isolated and gradually becoming more and more different from the others. You musn't forget that bacteria reproduce at a astonishing rate, 40,000 of their generations is not a very long time for us.


The problem is that people, like jay, think that evolution is entirely different from what it actually is. Fish can't become birds, any evolutionist knows this. These arguments muddy the field by being so ridiculous it's hard to refute them with evidence as noone in their right mind would think of refuting it.

[jonesthecurl]

First, no, it's not comparable. A human with scales would arguably be a whole different animal; that's evolution. More comparable would be if a certain population of people developed the ability to digest different things in response to their environment. I'm not at all sure that hasn't already happened, and frequently. They're still human and could reproduce with non-adapted people. The only impediment is that the dating process would be difficult because, being in very different parts of the world, they might never meet, and if they did they probably wouldn't want to go to the same restaurants.

Ability to digest lactose is often considered the most recent human adaptation - much of the world's population can't do it yet.

[Snorri1234]

Scientists delight in proving other scientists wrong.

Indeed, even when Darwin introduced his theory people were debating it thoroughly. Lord Kelvin had one of the best refutations of his time and still the idea persisted. If anything makes a scientist happy it's attacking a new theory or making one themselves.

Hell, if scientists are just blind followers of the herd, why did Darwin ever come up with his theory? Why didn't he just believe the previous scientists and think the earth was about 10,000 years old?

[Snorri1234]

First, no, it's not comparable. A human with scales would arguably be a whole different animal; that's evolution. More comparable would be if a certain population of people developed the ability to digest different things in response to their environment. I'm not at all sure that hasn't already happened, and frequently. They're still human and could reproduce with non-adapted people. The only impediment is that the dating process would be difficult because, being in very different parts of the world, they might never meet, and if they did they probably wouldn't want to go to the same restaurants.

Ability to digest lactose is often considered the most recent human adaptation - much of the world's population can't do it yet.

I guess I should've specified lactose. Still, drinking milk is something a lot of people can't do without suffering some pain without getting any substenance.

[jonesthecurl]

First, no, it's not comparable. A human with scales would arguably be a whole different animal; that's evolution. More comparable would be if a certain population of people developed the ability to digest different things in response to their environment. I'm not at all sure that hasn't already happened, and frequently. They're still human and could reproduce with non-adapted people. The only impediment is that the dating process would be difficult because, being in very different parts of the world, they might never meet, and if they did they probably wouldn't want to go to the same restaurants.

Ability to digest lactose is often considered the most recent human adaptation - much of the world's population can't do it yet.

I guess I should've specified lactose. Still, drinking milk is something a lot of people can't do without suffering some pain without getting any substenance.

That's what i said. I believe that people from the Far East, and Native Americans, are amongst those that can't digest the stuff.

[Juan_Bottom]

That's what i said. I believe that people from the Far East, and Native Americans, are amongst those that can't digest the stuff.

And I can't digest Polish food.

[jonesthecurl]

That's what i said. I believe that people from the Far East, and Native Americans, are amongst those that can't digest the stuff.

And I can't digest Polish food.

Is it very stodgy and full of lard like Czech/Austrian/Hungarian?

I can't digest beetroot - not because of an inability or an allergy, but because you're never gonna get that crap in my mouth, let alone my stomach.