what proof is there that darwins theory is correct?

how do you explain the cambrian explosion in which many species appear in a short geologic time that appear to turn dawrins tree of life upside down? In Darwins tree there is a single creature at the bottom that all life evolves from, but there are no fossils before the cambrian that show the things all of the animals in the cambrian explosion evolved from, they pretty much just appear (geologically speaking).

what proof is there that darwins theory is correct?
Viruses are one good example of huge amounts of mutation happening. We don't consider those alive, but they are an evolving thing. In fruit flies (http://www.exploratorium.edu/exhibits/mutant_flies/mutant_flies.html)we have experienced huge variances. Just to give a few examples. Are you looking for a species that has changed so much that it can no longer mate with the species it originated from as proof that evolution exists?

how do you explain the cambrian explosion in which many species appear in a short geologic time that appear to turn dawrins tree of life upside down?
I don't know. Let me research that and get back to you.

In Darwins tree there is a single creature at the bottom that all life evolves from, but there are no fossils before the cambrian that show the things all of the animals in the cambrian explosion evolved from, they pretty much just appear (geologically speaking). Thanks for bringing that period up, it'll be interesting to read up on.

Ok, heres a question I want answered.

Why do creationist always refer to ToE as "Darwinism"???
I mean, do professional scientists call it Darwisnism? Do athiests? I'm pretty sure nobody who accepts evolution ever calls it Darwinism.

why do you call them creationists? should we call you a darwinist?

Darwinism is a philosophy. Evolution is a mix of scientific theory and fact.

Ok, heres a question I want answered.

Why do creationist always refer to ToE as "Darwinism"???

It's just because of common usage. They are different, but the two have been interchanged so frequently that they pretty much both mean the ToE now.

what proof is there that darwins theory is correct?

how do you explain the cambrian explosion in which many species appear in a short geologic time that appear to turn dawrins tree of life upside down? In Darwins tree there is a single creature at the bottom that all life evolves from, but there are no fossils before the cambrian that show the things all of the animals in the cambrian explosion evolved from, they pretty much just appear (geologically speaking).

STOP BASHING ON CHRISTIANS YOU *%*#$*!!!

I'm adding this thread to the list. We have 14 now.

so I guess the thread died an early death, again

so I guess the thread died an early death, again

I'm still reading up on it. I'll be posting a full reply shortly.

so I guess the thread died an early death, again
Sorry, you just caught me at a bad moment, I'm usually all over these kinds of discussions. Is there anything more specific you'd like answered? I tend to do poorly with such braod questions.
how do you explain the cambrian explosion in which many species appear in a short geologic time that appear to turn dawrins tree of life upside down? In Darwins tree there is a single creature at the bottom that all life evolves from, but there are no fossils before the cambrian that show the things all of the animals in the cambrian explosion evolved from, they pretty much just appear (geologically speaking).
Like WindWhip, I'm gonna have to do some homework.
However, I'd like to throw something out there. First, is that things tend to fossilize poorly, or more likely not at all, if they lack bones or a hard exoskeleton. Second, is that certian environments are not condusive to fossilization. Rainforests for example, simply do not produce fossils. The environment immediatly absorbs organic material. Third, is that life tends to evolve fastest just after a mass extinction, because a huge number of resources suddenly become avialable.
I'm not sure if any of these apply to this situation, though. I'll have to get back to you.

but one can not evolve a skeleton in one or even a hundred generations. where are the fossils of early creatures with primitive or partial skeletons? Overall, the fossil record as proof of dawinian evolution is poor, yet thats the proof the y point to, as the rest is guesswork.

but one can not evolve a skeleton in one or even a hundred generations. where are the fossils of early creatures with primitive or partial skeletons?
Hmm? We have fossils of earlier creatures with partial skeletons. I'm not sure if they appear in a number or variety that explains the Cambrian explosion, though.
As I said, some environments simply do not produce fossils. I'm not saying this is the case, just throwing it out there.
Overall, the fossil record as proof of dawinian evolution is poor, yet thats the proof the y point to, as the rest is guesswork.
There are places where its much more complete. The evolution of the whale is pretty neat. We have a very clear progression of hippo/seal-like mammals evolving into whale-like mammals with vestigal legs, and then into what we recognize as modern whales.

In case anybodys interested:
Talkorigins on Whale evolution (http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/)
Wikipedia on Whale evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale_evolution)

so of all animals on earth you think you have the complete line of the whale? can you trace it all the way back to the beginning or do you decide where you want to start? it seems very amazing that we today could single out 9 different groups of bones, put them in order physically and chronologically and say this is how the whale came to be. why just the whale?

that doesnt explain the other 99.9999% of animals over the history of earth and why there is no intermidiate fossils for any of them. there should be fossils in every inch o' land of the billions of intermidiate species for all of the species on earth over the past billion years. I mean, if we all evolved form a single organism as is claimed, there should be more fossil links. I am just sceptical about using fossils as evidence, DNA would be better

so of all animals on earth you think you have the complete line of the whale? can you trace it all the way back to the beginning or do you decide where you want to start? it seems very amazing that we today could single out 9 different groups of bones, put them in order physically and chronologically and say this is how the whale came to be. why just the whale?

that doesnt explain the other 99.9999% of animals over the history of earth and why there is no intermidiate fossils for any of them. there should be fossils in every inch o' land of the billions of intermidiate species for all of the species on earth over the past billion years. I mean, if we all evolved form a single organism as is claimed, there should be more fossil links. I am just sceptical about using fossils as evidence, DNA would be better
The problem is that fossils are very rare. A very specific set of circumstances has to occur for any organic material (or bones) to survive a thousand years, much less a million or a billion. 99.99999% of all organisms ever living (or maybe more) don't end up as fossils. Why? They rot. Unless they're lucky enough to die in amber or tar or something, we'll never see their ancient corpses at all.

so of all animals on earth you think you have the complete line of the whale? can you trace it all the way back to the beginning or do you decide where you want to start? it seems very amazing that we today could single out 9 different groups of bones, put them in order physically and chronologically and say this is how the whale came to be. why just the whale?

that doesnt explain the other 99.9999% of animals over the history of earth and why there is no intermidiate fossils for any of them. there should be fossils in every inch o' land of the billions of intermidiate species for all of the species on earth over the past billion years. I mean, if we all evolved form a single organism as is claimed, there should be more fossil links. I am just sceptical about using fossils as evidence, DNA would be better

My question is why are you so focused on the fossils? The short answer to your questions is that paleontology is not very profitable and there is a whole lot of land.

In the meantime, evolution is readily observable in species with a short timelapse between generations...in bacteria, for instance. If you know it's happening today in other animals, it's not a far stretch to believe that evolution occurs in all other animals.

I mean, if Isaac Newton observes that everytime he drops an apple in England, it falls to the ground, then he can confidently conjecture that, if he drops an orange into the grand canyon, it will fall to the bottom. He can also conjecture that if he dropped a rock 500 million years ago, that it would fall to the ground; He doesn't need a 500 million year old videotape to prove this.

In other words, having a fossil record is surplus evidence.

My question is why are you so focused on the fossils? The short answer to your questions is that paleontology is not very profitable and there is a whole lot of land.

In the meantime, evolution is readily observable in species with a short timelapse between generations...in bacteria, for instance. If you know it's happening today in other animals, it's not a far stretch to believe that evolution occurs in all other animals.

I mean, if Isaac Newton observes that everytime he drops an apple in England, it falls to the ground, then he can confidently conjecture that, if he drops an orange into the grand canyon, it will fall to the bottom. He can also conjecture that if he dropped a rock 500 million years ago, that it would fall to the ground; He doesn't need a 500 million year old videotape to prove this.

In other words, having a fossil record is surplus evidence.


I dont get it, sure its easy to see gravity was around 500 million years ago.
But how can you be sure bacteria happened 500 million years ago, isnt the very meaning of evolution to point out where something that didnt exist before came into existence now?

surplus evidence? how about the only evidence. you can watcha thousand generations of bacteria and they will always be bacteria. you are saying the bacteria became a whale based on what evidence?

surplus evidence? how about the only evidence. you can watcha thousand generations of bacteria and they will always be bacteria. you are saying the bacteria became a whale based on what evidence?
Based on microevolution that does occur both among bacteria and the multicellular organisms. It's not a big stretch to say that longer times produce more evolution, and big events in a habitat produce rapid evolution. That's common sense, and observable. Have we ever observed a bacterial colony turn into a whale? Of course not, that takes many millions of years. Can we assume that because small changes occur (and are observable and testable), big changes do too? I'd say so. It's not like anyone is saying "We know EXACTLY HOW EVERYTHING EVOLVED", but we have enough information to show a rough, general picture.

Evidence of evolution is clearly seen in the agricultural records of prehistory humanity.

Before humans got to corn, wheat, cows, horses, pigs, and all of the domesticated species we take for granted today, the species were markedly different from the kind you find today. Millennia of selective breeding caused the edible parts of the plants to become larger and more useful to humans. One would not recognize corn found a hundred thousand years ago as corn. There is no way corn could have evolved that way separately, it was forced by natural selection to change dramatically.

One plant humans never managed to domesticate was oak trees, for their acorns, even though acorns are eaten the world over. Why? Squirrels got there first, and humans just cannot compete with them.

That is how Darwinism works, animals and plants compete with each other for the use of other organisms, not necessarily in the physical sense, but the biological sense, over millions of years.

That most people cannot grasp evolution is a function of the utter incomprehensibility of the time scale involved from amino acids, right up until the modern nation-state.

I dont get it, sure its easy to see gravity was around 500 million years ago.

Really? How do you know?

surplus evidence? how about the only evidence. you can watcha thousand generations of bacteria and they will always be bacteria. you are saying the bacteria became a whale based on what evidence?

It's a form of extrapolation. If you can watch bacteria mutate into a new species of bacteria in a short time fram, you can deduce what would occur over millions of years.

It's like the fact that we can measure continental drift as a few millimeters per year, and then figure out that there was a time when continents are far removed from where they were millions of years ago.

Methods like that are necessary when you're dealing with geologic time periods, because a human obviously can't conduct a million year long study.

so basically we are just supposed to believe bacteria becoame whales with no actual evidence, that is what we call faith. See, there is no actual proof, there are no links, no intermediate species, no fossils, nothing. Its as leper said, an extrapolation.

A bacteria will will adapt, but it is still a bacteria. There is nothing that even come close to making us believe that bacteria will ever be anything but a bacteria based on physical evidence in the real world. Face it, there is no solid proof of darwinian evolution from a common ancestor, its just "commomn sense" and "extrapolation".

It is not that I do not want ot believe it or have somehting against it, but the more I read about it the more I am not so 100% that that is what happened, and no one else can be either

so basically we are just supposed to believe bacteria became whales with no actual evidence, that is what we call faith.
Lets pretend that in 100 generations (40 hours a generation for most bacteria) of a bacteria, this particular bacteria species grew 10% in weight. If they weighed .0005 grams each (pulling this out of thin air) then after 57,000 generations (260 years) it would weigh as much as the Earth.

Obviously there are limitations, and it would be impossible to maintain a size increase after a certain point. My point with this is simply that given enough time, huge changes can take place. If a bacteria grew consistently at the same rate that our captive bred animals have grown, or even at a tenth that rate, they could easily become much larger than a whale in the time that they have had.

so basically we are just supposed to believe bacteria becoame whales with no actual evidence, that is what we call faith.
Well, how else would you explain the existence of whales?

I'm just waiting for FT to jump on this and shout out, "God pointed at the oceans and *POOF* a thousand gigantic hunks of meat with a tails splashed into the ocean! Voila, whales!"

Well, how else would you explain the existence of whales?

Don't you KNOW????

An unseen, supernatural, omnipotent entity waved his magic fucking wand, and *POOF* ten thousand gigantic aquatic creatures with tails were instantly "created"!

Voila, whales!

<cough cough....a pit of paraphrasing there.......no offense to the original screenwriter intended>

Ooops!!!!!

Almost forgot to mention it;

At the same time he "created" the ten thousand whales (well, actually a couple of days prior to their creation, to be more precise) that same unseen, supernatural, omnipotent entity ALSO took the time (we are told by those wonderful and intelligent 'believers' who reject those silly smarty-pants scientists, with all their wild theories) to "create" about 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 [seven followed by twenty-two zeros] stars and scatter them about the universe.

Geepers!!!...............whatta guy!!!!!!!

so basically we are just supposed to believe bacteria became whales with no actual evidence, that is what we call faith. See, there is no actual proof, there are no links, no intermediate species, no fossils, nothing. Its as leper said, an extrapolation.


I think your point, although polemic, still deserves a more reasoned answer than the cynical mockery that has been posted, so let me make a stab at it.

First, bacteria did not become whales. Bacteria and whales are both present-day-points of their own evolutionary histories, much of which is irreversible.

The route by which multi-cellular animals evolved is fairly well understood, with massive fossil evidence pointing the way. The assertion that there are no links, no "evidence" is just simply not true. I cannot imagine the ignorance that would lead to such an assertion.

The actual evolution of the cetaceans (the group that includes whales) was for awhile a bit of a mystery, since they plainly are ocean-living mammals, and one has to ask how mammals got there. However, a look at seals, manatees, walruses, and numerous other semi-sea mammals gives clues as to what the intermediate steps might have been.

Within the last couple of decades, however, quite a few fossils (intermediate steps) between land-dwelling mammals and modern whales have been found, so now even the details are known with quite a bit of refinement.

I think maybe the lesson you should draw is not to depend on creationist literature for your information. It is biased and generally false. Intermediate steps are known.

Evolutionary science: the new mystic theology!

so basically we are just supposed to believe bacteria becoame whales with no actual evidence, that is what we call faith. See, there is no actual proof, there are no links, no intermediate species, no fossils, nothing. Its as leper said, an extrapolation.
Why do we have to prove that bacteria evolved into a whale? To prove that evolution functions, we just have to prove that one species can change into another. I think the whale example is very good, as it shows a clear progression from land mammal to aquatic mammal. I don't need to know where any of those organisms ultimitly came from to see that natural selection works.
A bacteria will will adapt, but it is still a bacteria. There is nothing that even come close to making us believe that bacteria will ever be anything but a bacteria based on physical evidence in the real world. Face it, there is no solid proof of darwinian evolution from a common ancestor, its just "commomn sense" and "extrapolation".
This is true, thus far. I'm assuming you are a Biblical fundamentalist? Literal Genesis and all that? Let me remind that even if common decent turns out false, heck, if the entire theory of ebolution turns out false, it still does not prove Genesis to be literal. You would have to prove that independently.
It is not that I do not want ot believe it or have somehting against it, but the more I read about it the more I am not so 100% that that is what happened, and no one else can be either
No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater, though. I don't see how your uncertianty about common decent makes the whole theory unstable.

first of all I am not a biblical fundamentalist.

the reason I bring up the cambrian explosion is that it turns Darwins tree of life upside down. In Darwins tree there is a common ancestor from which the tree starts and branches up from there. Looking at the fossil record, it shows something different. In the Cambrian many, many species appear fully formed, and then creatures evolve and adapt from there.

say the first animal was a primtive sponge. In Darwins tree, almost every branch above it would still be sponges, just a little different from the one below it. the different life we see now, mammals, insects, fish ext. would appear ony at the very top of Darwins tree. The cambrian explosion basically turns that tree upside down because many of these different forms appear fully formed with no fosil evidence of intermidate species. I am aware of the proccess fosills go through and how difficult it is, but with so many intermidiate species there should be something. there are fossils of sponges and such in existence.

Ooops!!!!!

Almost forgot to mention it;

At the same time he "created" the ten thousand whales (well, actually a couple of days prior to their creation, to be more precise) that same unseen, supernatural, omnipotent entity ALSO took the time (we are told by those wonderful and intelligent 'believers' who reject those silly smarty-pants scientists, with all their wild theories) to "create" about 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 [seven followed by twenty-two zeros] stars and scatter them about the universe.

Geepers!!!...............whatta guy!!!!!!!

this just shows what an informed stooge you are. if you are not going to participate with anything other then your regurgitated bullshit STFU, I am sick of your crap.

so basically we are just supposed to believe bacteria becoame whales with no actual evidence, that is what we call faith. See, there is no actual proof, there are no links, no intermediate species, no fossils, nothing. Its as leper said, an extrapolation.

A bacteria will will adapt, but it is still a bacteria. There is nothing that even come close to making us believe that bacteria will ever be anything but a bacteria based on physical evidence in the real world. Face it, there is no solid proof of darwinian evolution from a common ancestor, its just "commomn sense" and "extrapolation".

It is not that I do not want ot believe it or have somehting against it, but the more I read about it the more I am not so 100% that that is what happened, and no one else can be either

Using the most literal usage of the term "solid proof," you're technically correct that you can't find "solid proof" that evolution is correct. I also can't say that I have "solid proof" that you exist or that the keyboard I'm typing on isn't really the product of a dreamlike state. You're whole point leads to the "I think therefore I am" line of logic.

Technically, all beliefs are based on observations. The belief in the existance of gravity, for example, is based on a verifiable observation.

However, you are not correct when you say there is "no evidence." There is lots of "evidence" if you can call observations "evidence." In fact, you can't even have an extrapolation without some evidentiary basis.

I mean, if a serial killer committed 10 murders with a shotgun in Seattle, that very fact would be evidence that he committed an 11th murder with a shotgun in Seattle. Granted, you would like more evidence than that fact alone, but at the very least, you would tend to believe that the serial killer was the one who shotgunned the 11th victim. That belief would be based on extrapolation logic.

And that's what extrapolation is, a belief about a variable based on an observable pattern of behavior/results.

If there was "proof" then darwinism wouldn't be a theory.

There is evidence, but nothing so conclusive as to be called proof.

Using the most literal usage of the term "solid proof," you're technically correct that you can't find "solid proof" that evolution is correct. I also can't say that I have "solid proof" that you exist or that the keyboard I'm typing on isn't really the product of a dreamlike state. You're whole point leads to the "I think therefore I am" line of logic.

Technically, all beliefs are based on observations. The belief in the existance of gravity, for example, is based on a verifiable observation.

However, you are not correct when you say there is "no evidence." There is lots of "evidence" if you can call observations "evidence." In fact, you can't even have an extrapolation without some evidentiary basis.

I mean, if a serial killer committed 10 murders with a shotgun in Seattle, that very fact would be evidence that he committed an 11th murder with a shotgun in Seattle. Granted, you would like more evidence than that fact alone, but at the very least, you would tend to believe that the serial killer was the one who shotgunned the 11th victim. That belief would be based on extrapolation logic.

And that's what extrapolation is, a belief about a variable based on an observable pattern of behavior/results.

thats all fine and good, and I appreciate all the colorful analogys I am getting, but there are several obvious problems that even darwin himself noted in his book. the one I am still waiting for an explanation on is the cambrian explosion and how Darwins tree of life relate

first of all I am not a biblical fundamentalist.
Good man. If I may ask, what are you're views on the subject? I myself am a Theistic Evolutionist.
the reason I bring up the cambrian explosion is that it turns Darwins tree of life upside down. In Darwins tree there is a common ancestor from which the tree starts and branches up from there. Looking at the fossil record, it shows something different. In the Cambrian many, many species appear fully formed, and then creatures evolve and adapt from there.
The operative word here is appear. They appear to have appeared fully formed. What this really means is that we currently don't have enough information to make the call. If common decent is wrong, it will be proven wrong, given enough time and information. Science has been proving itself wrong for hundreds of years. Its cool like that.
Still, I ask you, even if common decent where proven wrong, why does this cast the rest of the theory in doubt? Do you see any problems with natural selection, for example? Do you think that things do not evolve?
say the first animal was a primtive sponge.
The first animal was almost certianly a single-celled beastie.
In Darwins tree, almost every branch above it would still be sponges, just a little different from the one below it. the different life we see now, mammals, insects, fish ext. would appear ony at the very top of Darwins tree. The cambrian explosion basically turns that tree upside down because many of these different forms appear fully formed with no fosil evidence of intermidate species. I am aware of the proccess fosills go through and how difficult it is, but with so many intermidiate species there should be something. there are fossils of sponges and such in existence.
As I said, we have a lack of information. And, as everyone has pointed out, there is almost always an explosion of diversity just after some catostrophic event. Things got pretty crazy right after the dinos died off, for example.

Good man. If I may ask, what are you're views on the subject? I myself am a Theistic Evolutionist.

The operative word here is appear. They appear to have appeared fully formed. What this really means is that we currently don't have enough information to make the call. If common decent is wrong, it will be proven wrong, given enough time and information. Science has been proving itself wrong for hundreds of years. Its cool like that.
Still, I ask you, even if common decent where proven wrong, why does this cast the rest of the theory in doubt? Do you see any problems with natural selection, for example? Do you think that things do not evolve?

The first animal was almost certianly a single-celled beastie.

As I said, we have a lack of information. And, as everyone has pointed out, there is almost always an explosion of diversity just after some catostrophic event. Things got pretty crazy right after the dinos died off, for example.

Good man. If I may ask, what are you're views on the subject? I myself am a Theistic Evolutionist.
I dont know yet. I like the intelligent design idea, but the big question that is ignored is who designed it?

The operative word here is appear. They appear to have appeared fully formed. What this really means is that we currently don't have enough information to make the call. If common decent is wrong, it will be proven wrong, given enough time and information. Science has been proving itself wrong for hundreds of years. Its cool like that.
thats good to hear, because most of the people hear think darwinism is the gospel of life. though they may try to call thier unending faith in it science, ego plas a big part in it.
Still, I ask you, even if common decent where proven wrong, why does this cast the rest of the theory in doubt? Do you see any problems with natural selection, for example? Do you think that things do not evolve?

I do not have a problem with natural selection, nor do I have a problem with evolution, I guess the thing that disturbs me is the common ancestor thing. It is just such a far reach to say everything evolved from one cingle cell organism. To gety to the diversity of life we have now it would take ten times as long then earth has been around to accumulate enough minor differences to get from a single cell to a triceratops. I mean, how the hell did that single cell orginism appear? its just to much to think about. Just because we dont buy into dawrins theory 100% doesnt mean we are gawd gutz and gunzz cosevofascists like that stupid fuck freethinker thinks. (excuse my rant)

As I said, we have a lack of information. And, as everyone has pointed out, there is almost always an explosion of diversity just after some catostrophic event. Things got pretty crazy right after the dinos died off, for example.

thats all fine and good, and I appreciate all the colorful analogys I am getting, but there are several obvious problems that even darwin himself noted in his book. the one I am still waiting for an explanation on is the cambrian explosion and how Darwins tree of life relate

A) The analogies are so that your understand the logic involved, b/c you don't seem to acknowledge that it is indeed logic.

B) Which problems are you referring to that Darwin acknowledged? (Bear in mind, Darwin lived 100+ years ago, so a lot of evolution work has been done since)

Well, why does there have to be only one common ancestor? Back when the earth was just a big raging stormy ocean, there probably came to be many many different kinds of bacteria. Some were self sufficient by utilizing the methane (i think it's methane) in the atmosphere to produce food. I believe they were called cyanobacteria. But there could have also been other bacteria, perhaps bacteria that ate other bacteria, and already we have the start of an ecological web. We could have millions of common ancestors with other organisms.


On the note of common ancestors, a great living example is the fox. It exhibits traits of both canines and felines, yet doesn't belong to either. The foxes survived well enough, so they're still around, but so did the canine and feline offshoots, hence why we see all 3.

Finally, technically, nothing is ever in its final state, and there is no perfect evolution, just whatever is perfect for the moment. Which is a better tool, a hammer or a monkey wrench? Neither, each one is simply suited for a different job.

Just my 3 cents.

thats true homer, its a big planet, how do we know single cell organisms on opposite sides of the world didnt evolve at the same time and join together later? saying all life evolved from a single organism sounds almost as far fetched as saying a single omnipitant being created it all with the wave of a hand. it is impossible to say

I hope this helps you understand my take on evolution.


In order to believe that natural selection and evolution exists, there needs to be sufficient evidence or proof. Natural selection is something that we see quite often, most notibly in the flu which evolves constantly to survive the antibiotics created to get rid of it. We see these changes in all animals, though it takes much longer for some species than others (mostly those with longer lifespans).

If we can agree that changes do take place, then if given enough time anything could evolve just as long as each of the gradual changes were either an advantage or so little of a hinderance that they didn't make the species with that change go extinct.

Now that brings about the question of time. Was there sufficient time involved for these changes to occur?

Hopefully we can discuss it without going into debate over how or when life began. We do know with a fair degree of certainty that there were advanced forms of life (bacteria) 3.55 billion (http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/21438?fulltext=true)years ago. Now it gets very complicated, since the variables include the number of species, the population of each species, the time for each generation to reach sexual maturity, the probability of a positive mutation and other factors such as asteroids and plankton-type organisms emitting O2 (poisonous to most other animals at the time). We can approximate based on the information that we do have though. I'm willing to do the calculations if people would actually care about them, just let me know.

Well, why does there have to be only one common ancestor? Back when the earth was just a big raging stormy ocean, there probably came to be many many different kinds of bacteria. Some were self sufficient by utilizing the methane (i think it's methane) in the atmosphere to produce food. I believe they were called cyanobacteria. But there could have also been other bacteria, perhaps bacteria that ate other bacteria, and already we have the start of an ecological web. We could have millions of common ancestors with other organisms.


thats true homer, its a big planet, how do we know single cell organisms on opposite sides of the world didnt evolve at the same time and join together later? saying all life evolved from a single organism sounds almost as far fetched as saying a single omnipitant being created it all with the wave of a hand. it is impossible to say


It took about 300,000,000 years for life to occur once the planet became hospitible to life. My guess would be that one form of life originally occured. It is very, very rare for a thing that can reproduce to form by chance. Even if there are probably billions upon billions of cubic feet for that life to begin in. That also explains why it did take 300 million years.

thats true homer, its a big planet, how do we know single cell organisms on opposite sides of the world didnt evolve at the same time and join together later? saying all life evolved from a single organism sounds almost as far fetched as saying a single omnipitant being created it all with the wave of a hand. it is impossible to say


There is no observable information to support your hypothesis....that is, humanity has never witnessed distinct organisms bind together to form an entirely new organism. That of course doesn't mean it isn't true, but personally, I wouldn't believe that hypothesis, since it is inconsistent with everything I've observed and/or learned about.

wouldnt it be funny if 300,000,000 years passes and through harsh climate and cosmic radiation life finally struggled into existence and then a bird came along and ate it :D

There is no observable information to support your hypothesis....that is, humanity has never witnessed distinct organisms bind together to form an entirely new organism. That of course doesn't mean it isn't true, but personally, I wouldn't believe that hypothesis, since it is inconsistent with everything I've observed and/or learned about.

I dont mean physically bind together, I meant just evolve seperatly from one another and eventually the populations grw to intermix in the same area so that no one could tell they were ever once seperate

If one thing is for sure.. science had almost become it's own "religion" on this subject

If one thing is for sure.. science had almost become it's own "religion" on this subject

Don't try to compare the two. Religion and science are completely different. One is based on rationality, the other on irrationality.

Don't try to compare the two. Religion and science are completely different. One is based on rationality, the other on irrationality.


Hes right, most people will take the word of one man over what they can learn on their own. Sounds a lot like religion to me.

Well, aren't mitochondria believed to have been once two seperate organisms, one living inside the other? Two seperate organisms become symbiotic, then fuse together and become part of a larger organism. Pretty cool.

mitocondria is part of a cell, not its own organism

mitocondria is part of a cell, not its own organism
Yes, and the general thought is that they were once separate organisms. Look it up, it's pretty neat.

The point is, it wasn't always.

The fact remains.. and i've always said... darwins theory has holes in it like swiss cheese...

and yet it is taught in our schools as fact! I'm going to sue the school!!!!

LOL

that doesnt explain the other 99.9999% of animals over the history of earth and why there is no intermidiate fossils for any of them. there should be fossils in every inch o' land of the billions of intermidiate species for all of the species on earth over the past billion years. I mean, if we all evolved form a single organism as is claimed, there should be more fossil links. I am just sceptical about using fossils as evidence, DNA would be better

There has been a lot of work done to determine DNA links. Among other things it shows that humans and earthworms (among other lowly life forms) have a lot in common.

Almost forgot to mention it;

At the same time he "created" the ten thousand whales (well, actually a couple of days prior to their creation, to be more precise) that same unseen, supernatural, omnipotent entity ALSO took the time (we are told by those wonderful and intelligent 'believers' who reject those silly smarty-pants scientists, with all their wild theories) to "create" about 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 [seven followed by twenty-two zeros] stars and scatter them about the universe.

this just shows what an informed stooge you are.

gasp!!!!!!!

Are you telling me that your unseen supernatural friend did NOT create all those stars....??!?!?!?!?

if you are not going to participate with anything other then your regurgitated bullshit STFU, I am sick of your crap.

LOL. A brilliant riposte, of your usual caliber. (:rolleyes:)

(note: i will continue to *participate* at my own discretion, independant of your learned admonition to ""STFU!!"")

gasp!!!!!!!

Are you telling me that your unseen supernatural friend did NOT create all those stars....??!?!?!?!?



LOL. A brilliant riposte, of your usual caliber. (:rolleyes:)

(note: i will continue to *participate* at my own discretion, independant of your learned admonition to ""STFU!!"")


Yo dumbass, he said he wasnt a Christian. so "he" doesnt actualy have an "unseen supernatural friend" So if you were making an attempt at showing how much of an "informed stooge" Trav is... It backfired.

Well, aren't mitochondria believed to have been once two seperate organisms, one living inside the other? Two seperate organisms become symbiotic, then fuse together and become part of a larger organism. Pretty cool.

one species becoming two through random birth defects is wild, but one living iside the other and then becoming one?

The fact remains.. and i've always said... darwins theory has holes in it like swiss cheese...

and yet it is taught in our schools as fact! I'm going to sue the school!!!!

LOL
What would you suggest we teach?

Yo dumbass, he said he wasnt a Christian. so "he" doesnt actualy have an "unseen supernatural friend" So if you were making an attempt at showing how much of an "informed stooge" Trav is... It backfired.
Trav isn't a Christian? That's news to me. Even if he isn't, I'm pretty sure he believes in god, so he does indeed have an "unseen supernatural friend"...

Trav isn't a Christian? That's news to me. Even if he isn't, I'm pretty sure he believes in god, so he does indeed have an "unseen supernatural friend"...

My bad, he said he wasnt a "biblical fundamentalist."

Still makes FT look like an ass and even though pointing it out makes me look like an ass. I still like doing it.

What would you suggest we teach?

How about we don't teach how we got here until we know how it happened.

How about we don't teach how we got here until we know how it happened.

Why should we not teach the predominant logical theories? If we limited our teachings to what we know for an absolute fact, we wouldn't have a history class at all.

one species becoming two through random birth defects is wild, but one living iside the other and then becoming one?


It's pretty cool stuff. The main evidence comes from a dual set of membranes, which would suggest 2 cells.

This brings me back to remembering my bio class.
A cell is the basic form of life.
Tissues are formed by groups of cells cooperating towards a common purpose.
Organs are formed by groups of tissues cooperating with each other.
Organ systems are groups of organs which work together.
An organism is a set of organ systems wrapped up together in a nice package.

How about we don't teach how we got here until we know how it happened.

We do know how it happened--about as well as we know what causes earthquakes--and in both cases we also know there is no need to invoke the supernatural.

Don't expect science to do the impossible--fill in absolutely every detail and provide rigorous proofs. It does that with nothing.

Evolutionary theory can be compared to atomic theory. In neither case is there enough direct evidence to persuade the determined rejectionist, but there is more than enough evidence to convince anyone willing to become informed.

Why should we not teach the predominant logical theories? If we limited our teachings to what we know for an absolute fact, we wouldn't have a history class at all.
Completely true. Almost nothing in history is actual fact.

I would like to restate my question to Travh more seriously.

How would you explain the existence of whales if the evolution of them out of smaller, simpler creatures fails to convince you? Would you just prefer to remain agnostic and wait for further proof? What other scenarios seem more likely to you?

I would like to restate my question to Travh more seriously.

How would you explain the existence of whales if the evolution of them out of smaller, simpler creatures fails to convince you? Would you just prefer to remain agnostic and wait for further proof? What other scenarios seem more likely to you?
Although your question is rhetorical (we can make an almost certain guess as to the nature of any answer he might provide), the point is a good one--what they want is to teach religion in the schools--creationism is a religious teaching. They try to obfuscate this simple fact, and should not be allowed to get away with it.

(we can make an almost certain guess as to the nature of any answer he might provide)
You might be able to guess, I most certainly cannot. My question is not rhetorical, it deserves an answer. Travh isn't a Bible literalist, or a fundamentalist. Evolution is humankind's best scientific answer to the question. It's so successful that Bible literalism is the only other alternative. It would seem that Travh has found a third way to explain away the whales. Unless it's agnosticism, I would be really interested to know what that is.

Have it your way--as is so often the case, I tire of your rude and unnecessarily argumentative behavior.

Give it a rest Thislin. That's how things go down here on the old AFN.

Have it your way--as is so often the case, I tire of your rude and unnecessarily argumentative behavior.

Welcome to the club.

Nappy seems to be laboring under the delusion that this is his board and he likes to try and tell people "how things are around here."

Well, when newcomers just roll in here and start telling the people that have put years into this community how to post, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Wait... THIS post is "rude and argumentative"?

You might be able to guess, I most certainly cannot. My question is not rhetorical, it deserves an answer. Travh isn't a Bible literalist, or a fundamentalist. Evolution is humankind's best scientific answer to the question. It's so successful that Bible literalism is the only other alternative. It would seem that Travh has found a third way to explain away the whales. Unless it's agnosticism, I would be really interested to know what that is.

:confused: Can someone please explain to me how that is in any way rude?

Don't start questioning these people, DF, or you'll find yourself on the receiving end of their fussiness.

Wait... THIS post is "rude and argumentative"?


Can you show me where anyone specified that post was the only place he was rude and argumentative?

Can you show me where anyone specified that post was the only place he was rude and argumentative?
Of course, no one did, but Thislin said he was tired of Napster's behavior after that post. I think all of his posts in the past few pages of the thread have been quite civil and not rude at all.

Of course, no one did, but Thislin said he was tired of Napster's behavior after that post. I think all of his posts in the past few pages of the thread have been quite civil and not rude at all.

There is a pattern of behavior from Napster and if you don't see it yet then maybe you never will.

Perhaps you just don't recognize it because he doesn't target you with it.

Such is the audacity of these persnickety snobs that they would complain about my behavior even when I'm not exhibiting the things they're fussing about!

There is a pattern of behavior from Napster and if you don't see it yet then maybe you never will.

Perhaps you just don't recognize it because he doesn't target you with it.
I do recognize it, and I've chastised him for rudeness many times. However, I think it just encourages him if you complain about how rude he is when he's not even doing it.

Thy must handle the Napsterbater very gently if thou dost want the reprobate adder not to sting thee.

I do recognize it, and I've chastised him for rudeness many times. However, I think it just encourages him if you complain about how rude he is when he's not even doing it.
You can tell the true quality of a man or woman by the way they behave when they are anonymous. People like Napster, who go out of their way to be argumentative and rude on message boards would never be that way to family and friends.

Wait... THIS post is "rude and argumentative"?



:confused: Can someone please explain to me how that is in any way rude?
His question was rhetorical and we all know it (so what is so wrong about rhetorical questions?): that he now invents an excuse for his rhetoric and tries to deny it is nothing if naot argumentative. Besides, my original post (that he was responding to) was supportive--and in my book it is rude to not even recognize that.

You can tell the true quality of a man or woman by the way they behave when they are anonymous.
You're making that shit up. These guys are worse than Frogger!

Think about it. Do you know people who are polite in private and rude in public? How about the way some people drive a car?

It is fundamentally hypocritical to treat strangers differently than one treats acquaintances.

The source of the difference is in the anonymity. You get away with things on a message board that you would never dream of doing to others you actually know. This is part of why life in a small town is generally so much more pleasant than life in the anonymous big city.

This is something I constantly remind myself of--to not post messages I would be embarrassed to have my wife or children read.

I suppose some people thrive on the ability to push and shove in the city, but that only testifies to their degradation.

Think about it. Do you know people who are polite in private and rude in public? How about the way some people drive a car?

It is fundamentally hypocritical to treat strangers differently than one treats acquaintances.

The source of the difference is in the anonymity. You get away with things on a message board that you would never dream of doing to others you actually know. This is part of why life in a small town is generally so much more pleasant than life in the anonymous big city.

This is something I constantly remind myself of--to not post messages I would be embarrassed to have my wife or children read.

I suppose some people thrive on the ability to push and shove in the city, but that only testifies to their degradation.


I know what youre saying. I sometimes think youre so complex I wont understand anything you say, the way you mean to say it. I understand this post exactly the way you meant to say it.

Thats one of the reasons people come to forums though, to escape all that.
A person can get pushed and shoved around so much in the world that we all need some place to blow off the steam, even if we are petty when we do it.

Nap is ok in my book, hes just trying to have some fun and he isnt necessarily doing it at your expense, at no time did he try to deceive you.
Thats a pretty good personal trait if you ask me.

Another thing I like about these forums, is the forgive and forget attitude, all except FT that is. Hes just insane.

It is fundamentally hypocritical to treat strangers differently than one treats acquaintances.
Bullshit. We spent hundreds of thousands of years doing just that. We still do it, consciously and willfully. That you don't observe yourself doing it doesn't make it any less universal, or that you don't in actuality do it.

I direct people I meet in my life to come check out my AllForums life all the time. I tell them of my exploits and the particularly funny things that come out here. I am the same rakish rogue in real life that I am here. I still challenge people, when I think I can get away with it. I call them on their petty bullshits, relying on my rhetorical skill and social norms to keep them from hating me. I, like Diogenes, live my cynicism as best I can given my circumstances. This place allows me to entertain myself and others who understand where I'm coming from without doing any real damage.

I'm sorry if you feel the need to dehumanize me and call me degraded all because you don't like the way I post. Sorry, bud, I was here first, I know the community better than you do, and I don't need to explain myself to you. Tough beans, kid.

There is a danger and a problem in using message boards to let of steam.

The danger is that it will become a habit--what we do in one place changes our very nature in subtle ways and therefore can lead to our becoming such a person overall.

The problem is that it is much like bad spelling or the inappropriate use of obscenities--it detracts from any point you may be trying to make. The reader sees the hostility and is distracted by that so that one's message gets lost.

I am sorry if I seem obscure to you; I would very much appreciate it if when this is the case you would ask questions and force me to clarify myself.

As for Napster, not to be condescending (although there is no way I can make this point without being a little), he reminds me so much of Communist Party hacks--responding to anything not in the party line with arrogant sarcasm and ridicule--that it is embarrassing. I think this is why I react as I do.

The danger is that it will become a habit--what we do in one place changes our very nature in subtle ways and therefore can lead to our becoming such a person overall.
I'm hoping for that very outcome. I'm sick and tired of being a boring introvert who chokes up at the prospect of engaging more than two people in a real life discussion. Being a big and entertaining persona is something I'm working on here, so that I can profess all kinds of things in real life and be able to get away with it.

See, all you can see are the negative aspects to my personality, and overblow them to the point of ridiculousness. That leads to the kind of namby-pamby whining that started this whole thing. What kind of garbage leads you to think that just because I haven't addressed the supporting part of your post, I'm being rude and argumentative?

At some point, this stopped being objective and started being personal. I don't know what kind of personal problem you have with me, whether it's influenced by your time with pinko Commies or not, and I don't care. I do know that I'm not going to change my behavior or apologize for it.

Mr. Mindfulness, why do you insist on the objective nature of your subjective interpretation of my character?

Another thing I like about these forums, is the forgive and forget attitude, all except FT that is. Hes just insane.

And apparently except for you judging by the above comment.

At least FT can backup most of what he says, instead of the incessant personal sniping that people like Napster, Trav, mikezilla and Decka partake in daily.

There is a danger and a problem in using message boards to let of steam.

The danger is that it will become a habit--what we do in one place changes our very nature in subtle ways and therefore can lead to our becoming such a person overall.

The problem is that it is much like bad spelling or the inappropriate use of obscenities--it detracts from any point you may be trying to make. The reader sees the hostility and is distracted by that so that one's message gets lost.

I am sorry if I seem obscure to you; I would very much appreciate it if when this is the case you would ask questions and force me to clarify myself.

As for Napster, not to be condescending (although there is no way I can make this point without being a little), he reminds me so much of Communist Party hacks--responding to anything not in the party line with arrogant sarcasm and ridicule--that it is embarrassing. I think this is why I react as I do.

I see your point, I hope you didnt take what I said the wrong way. I was referring more to my ability to understand someone then your ability to make yourself clear.
But I will ask more questions in the future.

And apparently except for you judging by the above comment.

That's what makes it funny, that and its true.


At least FT can backup most of what he says, instead of the incessant personal sniping that people like Napster, Trav, mikezilla and Decka partake in daily.


I have to admit, he can back up most of what he says. Doesn't seem to a lot of the time. Honestly, I havent seen anything that wasnt personal come from FT.
At least Nap, Trav and Decka lighten the mood from time to time.

I'm hoping for that very outcome. I'm sick and tired of being a boring introvert who chokes up at the prospect of engaging more than two people in a real life discussion. Being a big and entertaining persona is something I'm working on here, so that I can profess all kinds of things in real life and be able to get away with it.

See, all you can see are the negative aspects to my personality, and overblow them to the point of ridiculousness. That leads to the kind of namby-pamby whining that started this whole thing. What kind of garbage leads you to think that just because I haven't addressed the supporting part of your post, I'm being rude and argumentative?

At some point, this stopped being objective and started being personal. I don't know what kind of personal problem you have with me, whether it's influenced by your time with pinko Commies or not, and I don't care. I do know that I'm not going to change my behavior or apologize for it.

Mr. Mindfulness, why do you insist on the objective nature of your subjective interpretation of my character?
While I would like to see you change your behavior, I would hope I would never demand apologies. The apology demander is engaging in cheap theatrics.

What is wrong with a middle course; be aggressive and definite, but not dogmatic and rude?

There is something many board participants do that we need to watch ouselves on--they sour the milk before they get started. Starting a message with "BS" is an example, but it doesn't need to be so strong--merely starting with, "Your wrong," or "No," are as bad.

Not only is this sort of thing impolite, but it ruins any chance that your response will be really heard.

And apparently except for you judging by the above comment.

At least FT can backup most of what he says, instead of the incessant personal sniping that people like Napster, Trav, mikezilla and Decka partake in daily.
What does FT say that needs backing up? All I have seen are attacks on literalist interpretations of the Bible and a general effort to degrade the Bible.

I find this distasteful and rather pointless, but I don't think he is all that wrong. In many ways parts of the Bible are indeed barbaric, and most of it is incredibly boring. Frankly, though, I don't see where that is relevant to modern Christianity, except for a fringe.

Ancient writings are inherently difficult because of a complex of translation, interpretation and cultural barriers. For this reason I can only see lists of things a modern person would object to as being puerile.

I see your point, I hope you didnt take what I said the wrong way. I was referring more to my ability to understand someone then your ability to make yourself clear.
But I will ask more questions in the future.
Well, I think maybe I did correctly interpret you the first time--often I have difficult points I have to make and assume things about the reader that I should not.

The thing is, one cannot cover every possible misinterpretation with the limited space of a message, so one naturally assumes that if something is obscure to a reader, and they are interested, they will pursue clarification.

Don't ever blame yourself for not understanding what someone else says. Reread it a couple of times and if it is still obscure, pursue clarification (provided you deem it worth the trouble).

While I would like to see you change your behavior, I would hope I would never demand apologies. The apology demander is engaging in cheap theatrics.

Sure.

What is wrong with a middle course; be aggressive and definite, but not dogmatic and rude?

We will forever disagree about the difference between the two. I do not think I'm terribly rude, much less dogmatic. I know you are not accustomed to dealing with my debate style, but I assure you it's the least dogmatic thing you will find.

There is something many board participants do that we need to watch ouselves on--they sour the milk before they get started. Starting a message with "BS" is an example, but it doesn't need to be so strong--merely starting with, "Your wrong," or "No," are as bad.

I think the problem lies with the people whose petty sensitivities cannot withstand being told their opinions are bullshit.

Not only is this sort of thing impolite, but it ruins any chance that your response will be really heard.
Ahh, the closest thing to an answer to my question of what you consider to be your goal here. Yet you turn it around and say you want me to be heard, when really it's you who wants to be heard. I'm sure you will dismiss this analysis as argumentative and rude again, but that's how it has to be said. I don't have time to put on kid gloves this morning because I have to go to work.

Thislin, I do not have a problem being heard here. I have a long history here on AFN of my demagoguery and rhetoric. I would wager that I know quite a bit more about the art of being heard than you do. I do this sort of thing, not just to entertain and provoke, but to make pointed statements, that are seen by the people that watch my antics, even if they aren't seen by the people I'm arguing with.

I think you may not understand that what I mean by "being heard" is not that you are able to make noise, but that what you say is given consideration by the person it is addressed to.

"Yet you turn it around and say you want me to be heard, when really it's you who wants to be heard."

--Napsterbater

Yea, sure--I'm here to preach--things like courtesy and moderation and respect and tolerance--above all, I think, to preach compassion.

In the meantime I am also by nature a pedagogue, so when the topic goes to things I know about, I am delighted to be able to put in an oar.

(You know something--my spell checker keeps wanting to change your identity (Napsterbater) to "masturbate." If one day I miss and allow it to pass, I assure you it will be inadvertent).

so much for the discussion on darwinism

Like all the other threads in which he posts seem to do, it's become a discussion about Nappy. :)