Creation vs. Evolution

[Famine]

Like this one for example:

My point is that evolutionists are implying the use of logic by evolutionary processes, but denying it. See previous comment.

I said very directly that the bird knows nothing, but evolutionists suggest that it does, not myself.

Do you realize how many beneficial 'mutations' you are giving the passage of time credit for? That is one of the most absurd things that I can imagine. Wings contain so many types of cells, DNA requirements, RNA requirements. They don't just happen through mutations. It is utterly false.

I would suggest that you research the concept of irreducible complexity.

You don't realize that the things you are suggesting require a strategy. I am sorry that you cannot see it. I believe that you should read up on the subject more.

The underlined particularly.

 

[Sach]

Short answer: They don't. There is no ulterior motive to how life evolves. If there was, it would be a pretty strange world, don't you think?

It is indeed a strange thing that evolutionists suggest, yes.

Plants evolved on this planet just as naturally as rivers flow. Rivers don't have a ulterior motive that tells them to carve out paths in the rock, that's just the end result of the erosion from water. Of course you knew that already. But I'd thought I'd mention it to help you understand just how mindless the process of life actually is.

No, they do not develop as rivers flow. Rivers only abide by the laws of mass, gravity, and their source material. Plants require such complex processes for their existence that you are shaming them by comparing them to rivers in this manner.

Additionally, please explain the derivation of mountaneous regions, river sources, and various other complex geological/earthly structures from an apparent 'bang'.

DNA replicates because that is how it was formed. If DNA didn't replicate it wouldn't exist. That doesn't mean it has an ulterior motive to exist. It's like a river, it flows because that is what natural forces allow to happen.

Tell me, what is DNA? Ok, I'll tell you... "DNA - A self-replicating material present in nearly all living organisms as the main constituent of chromosomes. It is the carrier of genetic information."

Information - "Facts provided or learned about something or someone... see also knowledge."


And how do mutations, which have no intellect, and a primordial ooze, which has no intellect, or even single-celled organisms, which have no intellect, construct DNA by random chance? It is simply NOT possible. DNA is so complex that even a fully functional and highly intelligent human being must first develop mechanical inventions by which to study it. Mutations themselves are not that complex, and the passage of time used to explain these complexities as they are apparently developed by said mutations is a cop out.


A rock or pond will never pass on information, I don't care how many times you strike it with lightning.

 

[Famine]

It is indeed a strange thing that evolutionists suggest, yes.

Evolutionary science doesn't suggest any such thing.

Don't confuse people who are ignorant and believe in evolution with evolution - any more than you should confuse people who are ignorant and believe that gays should be killed because of their religion with their religion.

 

[Sach]

Evolutionary science doesn't suggest any such thing.

Don't confuse people who are ignorant and believe in evolution with evolution - any more than you should confuse people who are ignorant and believe that gays should be killed because of their religion with their religion.

Well please enlighten me, because I would like to know, how evolutionary science explains the seemingly out of place order of events that are required to have even the simplest of complex organisms.


Even a single-celled organism requires DNA.


Ok, well I have already quoted the definition of DNA as something that carries information. Now, if a single-celled organism is the most complex thing in existence at a particular moment within the evolutionary time table, yet it cannot possess intelligence, where did that intelligence (more specifically: instructions) come from? The information in the DNA is more complex than the creature itself at that point.


Can you explain this rationally?

 

[Famine]

Well please enlighten me, because I would like to know, how evolutionary science explains the seemingly out of place order of events that are required to have even the simplest of complex organisms.

Key word bolded.

Evolutionary science doesn't explain things that are not part of evolutionary science - you wouldn't expect plate tectonics to explain quark/anti-quark interactions, so neither should you expect evolutionary theory to explain something imaginary.

Even a single-celled organism requires DNA.

Yes and no - not every organism is DNA-based.

Ok, well I have already quoted the definition of DNA as something that carries information. Now, if a single-celled organism is the most complex thing in existence at a particular moment in time within the evolutionary time table, yet it cannot possess intelligence, where did that intelligence (more specifically: instructions) come from? The information in the DNA is more complex than the creature itself at that point.

Can you explain this rationally?

Yes.

Firstly, you're confusing information with directed thought (or intelligence). Secondly, by your terms the "information" within DNA is always more complex than the organism it inhabits, as it contains all of the information required to be expressed to form the organism and all of the information that isn't expressed and a lot of structural information and a lot of non-coding sequences and then all of that all over again.

The largest gene known contains a sufficient number of base pairs that it'd take you a month to read all of them out at the rate of one a second, without a break. Some types of DNA polymerase can replicate it in 30 minutes.

 

[Sach]

Evolutionary science doesn't explain things that are not part of evolutionary science - you wouldn't expect plate tectonics to explain quark/anti-quark interactions, so neither should you expect evolutionary theory to explain something imaginary.

What are you referring to when you say, "imaginary"? I don't even understand where this comment is being directed.

Yes and no - not every organism is DNA-based.

Yes but that is beside the point. Logically, single-celled organisms with DNA came before complex organisms with DNA. The information still existed prior to their inception. The order of events is incompatible. Information and instructions are information and instructions, despite their nature. And whatever their nature, they are extremely complex, too complex to be around at that stage of evolutionary development.

Firstly, you're confusing information with directed thought (or intelligence).

No, I am saying that DNA does not exist randomly, especially within the process of evolution. Evolution gets rid of all unusable traits, and DNA only exists to provide a very specific useful function. In the case of the first single-celled organisms, the information that was allowing the organisms to live was on a higher order than anything else living at that time.

Secondly, by your terms the "information" within DNA is always more complex than the organism it inhabits, as it contains all of the information required to be expressed to form the organism and all of the information that isn't expressed and a lot of structural information and a lot of non-coding sequences and then all of that all over again.

That is not my definition of DNA.

The largest gene known contains a sufficient number of base pairs that it'd take you a month to read all of them out at the rate of one a second, without a break. Some types of DNA polymerase can replicate it in 30 minutes.

Even the smallest number of base pairs does not elude the fact that you are proposing, which is: From 'nothing', you have information that something else requires in order to exist as a biological organism. If the only things available are that information and the other thing, the other thing is the useless part.

 

[Famine]

What are you referring to when you say, "imaginary"?

Something thought up which is not real.

Yes but that is beside the point.

Not really, no.

Logically, single-celled organisms with DNA came before complex organisms with DNA. The information still existed prior to their inception. The order of events is incompatible.

There is no incongruity here. What you're saying literally makes no sense...

Information and instructions are information and instructions, despite their nature.

... possibly due to the vagueness of your language.

And whatever their nature, they are extremely complex, too complex to be around at that stage of evolutionary development.

[Citation needed]

No, I am saying that DNA does not exist randomly, especially within the process of evolution.

Like this. What does that sentence even mean? "DNA does not exist randomly"?

Without wishing to cause offence, are we working through a language barrier here? If you're operating in a second language we can moderate our language to better help your understanding.

Evolution gets rid of all unusable traits, and DNA only exists to provide a very specific useful function.

Does it? Perhaps you can tell us the specific usefulness of, say, cystic fibrosis?

In the case of the first single-celled organisms, the information that was allowing the organisms to live was on a higher order than anything else living at that time.

Which is why it succeeded.

That is not my definition of DNA.

Then we have a problem, because DNA is simply a series of nucleotides bound by a phosphate spine. Not all DNA is directly responsible for coding for the proteins that make your cells (and, better yet, a different set of it codes for each different cell type).

If you seek to redefine specific terms to suit your own ends, there is absolutely no hope of you playing any kind of role in a sensible discussion.

Even the smallest number of base pairs does not elude the fact that you are proposing that from nothing you have information that something else requires to have to operate. If the only things available are that information and the other thing, the other thing is the useless part.

And this is gibberish.

 

[Sach]

Something thought up which is not real.

You did not answer my question regarding what you were originally directing that toward.

There is no incongruity here. What you're saying literally makes no sense...

"DNA contains the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms (with the exception of RNA viruses)."


Instructions:

1. "a direction or order"
2. "detailed information telling how something should be done, operated, or assembled"
3. "teaching; education"



Rather than replying with simple "it's jibberish" statements, would you please do me the service of explaining which of those definitions of "instructions" does not require some level of complexity that a simple-celled organism is not capable of producing for itself? If the first simple-celled organisms contained this kind of information, yet they could not produce it on their own, where did it come from?

Like this. What does that sentence even mean? "DNA does not exist randomly"?

DNA does not exist randomly because it exists with a purpose. It exists because it has a use. If we truly came from a primordial ooze, which was a non-living thing, found in an environment devoid intellect or reason, then things which are organic and constructed with complexity, direction, and purpose would not exist or be derived from such an environment.

Without wishing to cause offence, are we working through a language barrier here? If you're operating in a second language we can moderate our language to better help your understanding.

Are we operating with respect to each other? "Without wishing to cause offence... I will now say something that is in a trite and offensive tone."

 

[Famine]

You did not answer my question regarding what you were originally directing that toward.

For reasons of fabrication and relevance. What you have imagined up is not real and "evolutionary science" is not required to find a solution for things that do not exist. If all it took to debunk solid theory was someone to imagine up something irrelevant and say "Explain that!", we'd have no science of any variety.

The key word, that I bolded, was "seemingly". You've chosen to assign some trait you've thought up and are holding it as a failing of evolution to disprove it.

"DNA contains the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms (with the exception of RNA viruses)."

Instructions:
1. "a direction or order"
2. "detailed information telling how something should be done, operated, or assembled"
3. "teaching; education"

Rather than replying with simple "it's jibberish" statements, would you please do me the service of explaining which of those definitions of "instructions" does not require some level of complexity that a simple-celled organism is not capable of producing for itself?

I've only responded that gibberish statements are gibberish. Due to the fact they are. The comments you've made that actually scan and make sense have been responded to accordingly.

Also, all of them. The organism is not required to make DNA, so it's not required to make the instructions to make itself to make DNA either. After all, you said it yourself some posts back when you sought to define your own terms:

A self-replicating material

If the first simple-celled organisms contained this kind of information, yet they could not produce it on their own, where did it come from?

As above.

DNA does not exist randomly because it exists with a purpose.

Ignoring the fact that this is patently wrong - things can have a purpose and exist randomly - you're once again using a fallacy that homeforsummer has pointed out to you. Randomness has nothing to do with it.

It exists because it has a use.

Another fallacy. Explain the (biological) use of lesbianism.

If we truly came from a primordial ooze, which was a non-living thing, found in an environment devoid intellect or reason, then things which are organic and constructed with complexity, direction, and purpose would not exist or be derived from such an environment.

[Citation needed]

Incidentally, this isn't part of evolutionary science either. This falls under the remit of biochemistry. Some biochemistry - particularly molecular biology - is used to further explore the underlying mechanisms of evolutionary theory, but discussion of the gloop predating life also predates evolution.

Are we operating with respect to each other? "Without wishing to cause offence... I will now say something that is in a trite and offensive tone."

That rather depends. If we're running through a language barrier it may explain some of your misuse of and vagueness of expression and we can rather easily change how we're communicating to best help you. If we're not, you're simply seeking to redefine precise terms to suit your own ends - and that shows absolutely no respect at all to either the specific fields of evolutionary theory and molecular biology or the entirety of science itself.

Incidentally, how you read tone from text is your problem, not mine. I said I had no wish to cause you offence, yet you have chosen to take offence all by yourself. It was a polite enquiry.

 

[Sach]

The organism is not required to make DNA, so it's not required to make the instructions to make itself to make DNA either.

Yes, this is my own interpretation if you will: For the organisms that do make their own DNA, and speaking of the first ones to do so in the evolutionary time table, I do not believe that the conditions existed to allow them to perform such a directed task. DNA is very comparable to language, and you cannot have language without an intelligence first. That is my view on the matter. Where you might discover the English language on another planet, you would expect to find English-speaking humans (as far as we know now), because humans come first, language comes second. Yet in my opinion DNA occurs out of order in the evolutionary model. Can you explain this?

you're once again using a fallacy that homeforsummer has pointed out to you. Randomness has nothing to do with it

I have never been to homeforsummer, or heard of it before, and I have not used this kind of language in addressing anything you have said. I interpret this as a derogatory term for 'church camp'. I would ask again that you would be respectful. I did not study science in a church setting, but in a university setting, from a self-professed atheist biologist no less.

Another fallacy. Explain the (biological) use of lesbianism.

One can say that in today's society, sex and relationships relieve stress and allows for a longer lifespan, but that was not what I was referring to. Through the evolutionary process the weak die off, and the useless is discarded. Is that not vastly true?

Incidentally, this isn't part of evolutionary science either. This falls under the remit of biochemistry. Some biochemistry - particularly molecular biology - is used to further explore the underlying mechanisms of evolutionary theory, but discussion of the gloop predating life also predates evolution.

Ultimately it does fall under evolutionary science, just not the observable part. If not, where do evolutionists draw the line? I do not pretend that they don't directly tie these biochemical studies to their hypotheses.

 

[Famine]

Yes, this is my own interpretation if you will.

Evolutionary theory is not required to explain other people's interpretation of it.

For the organisms that do make their own DNA

DNA is self-replicating. The organisms merely provide the energy for it to occur.

I do not believe that the conditions existed to allow them to perform such a directed task.

Belief is irrelevant.

DNA is very comparable to language, and you cannot have language without an intelligence first. That is my view on the matter.

Again, your view on it is irrelevant.

Yet in my opinion DNA occurs out of order in the evolutionary model. Can you explain this?

Yes. It's your opinion.

I have never been to homeforsummer, or heard of it before, and I have not used this kind of language in addressing anything you have said. I interpret this as a derogatory term for 'church camp'. I would ask again that you would be respectful. I did not study science in a church setting, but in a university setting, from a self-professed atheist biologist no less.

homeforsummer is a person. A person to whom you've responded several times in this thread alone, most recently just four hours ago. I've met him. Couple of inches shorter than me, strange face hair, nice chap.

Your interpretation seems to be flawed...

One can say that in today's society, sex and relationships relieve stress and allows for a longer lifespan, but that was not what I was referring to. Through the evolutionary process the weak die off, and the useless is discarded. Is that not vastly true?

Nope.

Ultimately it does fall under evolutionary science

No, it doesn't. Any more than the accretion disk of cosmology does - it predates it.

If not, where do evolutionists draw the line?

Evolutionists - those that believe in evolution - can draw a line wherever they want. Evolutionary scientists - those that investigate evolution - draw the line at "life". Evolutionary science is the field of studying evolutionary processes that give rise to the diversity of life through heritable characteristics. Ooze predates heritability, life and evolutionary processes so it is not part of that field.

I do not pretend that they don't directly tie these biochemical studies to their hypotheses.

Why would they? Biopoesis is simply not part of evolutionary theory. Once life has arisen, evolutionary theory can be applied, but no sooner.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

Yes, this is my own interpretation if you will: For the organisms that do make their own DNA, and speaking of the first ones to do so in the evolutionary time table, I do not believe that the conditions existed to allow them to perform such a directed task. DNA is very comparable to language, and you cannot have language without an intelligence first. That is my view on the matter. Where you might discover the English language on another planet, you would expect to find English-speaking humans (as far as we know now), because humans come first, language comes second. Yet in my opinion DNA occurs out of order in the evolutionary model. Can you explain this?






I have never been to homeforsummer, or heard of it before, and I have not used this kind of language in addressing anything you have said.

DNA is like language as both are codes. Codes themselves has no meaning without something interpreting them. There is a big difference between English language vs DNA code though. With language, a combination of letters can mean anything we desire like "homeforsummer" is reference to someone posting here.
But this is not the case with DNA. DNA is code for proteins. The combination of amino acids determines how the protein folds which deals with the laws of physics. It's like trying to find a very complex combination to a safe through trial and error. While proteins have some tolerance the odds of finding a useful combination is so huge that billions of years isn't long enough. There is no getting around the basic laws of physics when it comes how protein folds and the incredible odds needed to find a useful fold. Natural selection is totally powerless in searching for these combination.

 

[Sach]

Evolutionary theory is not required to explain other people's interpretation of it.

No.

DNA is self-replicating. The organisms merely provide the energy for it to occur.

The only reason I used the words "That make it themselves" is because you use the exact words.

Belief is irrelevant.

As is your belief that this statement is true.

Again, your view on it is irrelevant.

Yep, likewise.

Yes. It's your opinion.

Rather than a three-word answer, I was hoping that you would have instead offered more of an explanation of how the very first organisms with DNA acquired it, specifically in a chronological manner.

homeforsummer is a person.

Apologies, now that you mention it, I do recall his name. I was up quite late at that point (7am).

Nope.

Can I respectfully ask, that rather than trite and condescending answers like this that you would also include an explanation along the lines of "nope, because...".

No, it doesn't. Any more than the accretion disk of cosmology does - it predates it.

I understand the sloppy use of the definition the various fields of evolution here. This is a thread titled "Creation vs. Evolution", and I am referring to how people will borrow what is known from the various incomplete fields of evolution to formulate their own theories of evolution.


Yes, they can draw the line wherever they want. Likewise, their opinion is irrelevant.

 

[Famine]

No.

So why are you repeatedly asking it to explain your interpretation.

The only reason I used the words "That make it themselves" is because you use the exact words.

No I haven't.

As is your belief that this statement is true.

Now you're butting up against two problems. The first is that belief is irrelevant to science, so you're flat wrong there. The second is that you believe that my statements are in some way rooted in beliefs. This particular issue has been visited at length in this thread and you owe it to yourself to read back through the thread before you revisit old and discarded paths.

Yep, likewise.

Indeed - what I think bears no relation to what is.

Rather than a three-word answer, I was hoping that you would have instead offered more of an explanation of how the very first organisms with DNA acquired it, specifically in a chronological manner.

The problem is that the question you asked was one that does not bear relation to reality. You said "in my opinion... question" and asked me to explain. The explanation is that it's your opinion.

However, your new question at least has an answer. The first organisms with DNA probably acquired it through its more energy efficient manner of encoding and replication than the RNA that the earliest life probably used - one of the unusual keys to evolution is that a function that can be carried out for less expended energy is a survival advantage.

Can I respectfully ask, that rather than trite and condescending answers like this that you would also include an explanation along the lines of "nope, because...".

You asked if something was true and the answer was no!

One of the problems with public perception of evolution is the phrase "Survival of the fittest", which generates the notion that the physically more able succeed while the weak die. The phrase is apt, it's the interpretation that is flawed - it means "Survival of the best suited". The organism best suited for its environment is able to succeed while the less well suited die. Strong and weak don't enter into it.

 

[Sach]

The problem is that the question you asked was one that does not bear relation to reality. You said "in my opinion... question" and asked me to explain. The explanation is that it's your opinion.

However, your new question at least has an answer. The first organisms with DNA probably acquired it through its more energy efficient manner of encoding and replication than the RNA that the earliest life probably used - one of the unusual keys to evolution is that a function that can be carried out for less expended energy is a survival advantage.

"Probably" is an assumption, an opinion.

You asked if something was true and the answer was no!

I am aware, I was only asking for a more detailed response.

One of the problems with public perception of evolution is the phrase "Survival of the fittest", which generates the notion that the physically more able succeed while the weak die. The phrase is apt, it's the interpretation that is flawed - it means "Survival of the best suited". The organism best suited for its environment is able to succeed while the less well suited die. Strong and weak don't enter into it.

I understand the difference.

 

[Famine]

"Probably" is an assumption, an opinion.

Nope. It's a summation of statistics.

Neither RNA nor DNA fossilise well so we're stuck evaluating what we know. The earliest life probably used RNA as its nucleic acid and this was probably supplanted by DNA which is better at it for lower energy requirements. Even present day Archaeabacteria, which are amongst the most simple cell-based lifeforms on Earth, use simple DNA loops.

 

[Sach]

No, a summation is different. "Probably" infers a judgment based on that summation, and that judgment is an opinion of where the collected data points.

 

[homeforsummer]

Summation: The process of adding things together, a sum total of things added together.

I'm not sure how that constitutes "an opinion".

 

[Sach]

"Probably" is not a summation, it's a judgment call.

 

[TankAss95]

Summation: The process of adding things together, a sum total of things added together.

I'm not sure how that constitutes "an opinion".

Sometimes an opinion is based on what you think has priority or has more value etc.

 

[homeforsummer]

Probable: Likely to be the case or to happen.

Likely: Such as well might happen or be true.

We're not talking guesses here, we're talking educated estimates based on collated data. Both the above words imply more of a chance that something is true than a chance that it isn't.

And neither have anything to do with opinion. They're entirely to do with likelihood.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

Probable: Likely to be the case or to happen.

Likely: Such as well might happen or be true.

We're not talking guesses here, we're talking educated estimates based on collated data. Both the above words imply more of a chance that something is true than a chance that it isn't.

And neither have anything to do with opinion. They're entirely to do with likelihood.

Not to split hairs but here's is an example of a "probable" statement based totally on someone opinion: "It's probable there is life on other planets." What is the probability that there is life on other planets? No one has any idea as there way too many variables to consider.

 

[Exorcet]

Not to split hairs but here's is an example of a "probable" statement based totally on someone opinion: "It's probable there is life on other planets." What is the probability that there is life on other planets? No one has any idea as there way too many variables to consider.

Probability gives you the best answer based on what you know, so not knowing everything doesn't matter. And probability isn't opinion.

Once when I did wind tunnel testing, I got a few 1000 data points for various conditions. But that wasn't it. I needed to take some of the uncertainty out of the data or else it was meaningless. The final answer was a curve and not the actual data that was taken from the wind tunnel. And, the curve was "only" 95% correct because we determined that 95% was correct enough. The end result wasn't an opinion or a guess. It was a curve that was probably, with 95% certainty, the drag curve of the vehicle vs speed. And not only was that acceptable, it (less than 100% certainty) was the best answer possible.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

Probability gives you the best answer based on what you know, so not knowing everything doesn't matter. And probability isn't opinion.

Once when I did wind tunnel testing, I got a few 1000 data points for various conditions. But that wasn't it. I needed to take some of the uncertainty out of the data or else it was meaningless. The final answer was a curve and not the actual data that was taken from the wind tunnel. And, the curve was "only" 95% correct because we determined that 95% was correct enough. The end result wasn't an opinion or a guess. It was a curve that was probably, with 95% certainty, the drag curve of the vehicle vs speed. And not only was that acceptable, it (less than 100% certainty) was the best answer possible.

I guess you never watch the weather forecast. It's not unusual to heard two or three different forecast where I live. More likely they look at the same data but came to different conclusions.
Evolution is even worst as it seem different scientist come up with totally different trees looking at the same data. Every one of them thinks their scenario was the more probable one. One reporter years ago mention that when he interviewed a group of scientists that had different view of what happen (past event) that he noticed everyone of them thought the ones with a different view were a butch of idiots.

 

[Exorcet]

I use the internet to check the weather usually. The forecasts may differ by a few degrees or be off from each other by an hour or something, but I usually don't see one website predict tornados and the other predicting clear skies.

Do you have this report you mentioned? Or a link to it? What was the event? Was it something relatively newly discovered? Or something that was surrounded with a great deal of uncertainty?

 

[Rich S]

I like this old post because its typical of an evolutionist.

So...human beings are "naturally" so powerful as to destroy and alter the world how we see fit? But...wouldn't that fall more into the Creationist theory?

.

No, its natural to have power, just like a cheetah has power over the antelope.

Even when a pack of wolves goes into "kill mode" in a heard of cattle, they don't kill 6 million cattle.

I think They would if they could. My dog wishes he could have the whole thanksgiving turkey, but he cant because he doesn't have the means.

(The forests in the Cascade Mountains are like this. Where Seattle is now, was a forest like this. It's pretty crazy...the trees are like a wall.)

I dont consider cutting down trees to be supernatural, although Paul Bunyen is belived to be super natural here in MN.

"Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants have descended from some one prototype. But analogy may be a deceitful guide." (Which, if we did descend from one prototype, evolution would dictate, that, eventually, we would return to one specie. Evolution implies an end eventually. A point where everything has evolve to the point where it simply can't anymore.)

Who says that? I was taught we never stop evolving (high school biology). Citation needed.

That is a very...loose definition of "homosexuality." In a sense it IS accurate to say that the bonds I make with my male friends is a "homosexual" bond. However, I'm not going to go out and sleep with my best guy friend. In the animal kingdom, this happens all the time. Female hyenas are known to mount each other; male AND female lions mount each other...dogs, cats, dolphins, wolves...It is literal homo-SEXUAL behavior. Again, I'm not going to "mount" all my friends at a superbowl party to build my bond with them. I might give them a hug, but that's about it.
.

And it's the more direct and literal sense of the word that I'm referring to. But, like I said, in my opinion, even if you were to ask every animal specie on this planet, you'd get a completely different answer for why they commit homosexual acts.

Dont quite get what this is all about.....certainly if you are gay thats perfectly ok. Yes homosexuality has been theorized as being a result of evolution. Thats one theory, another older theory is that homosexuality is a psychological condition similar to neuroticism. I dont buy into that one, but each is his own I guess.

Dont know why you'd want to mount all your guy friends. Wouldn't that make your best friend jelous?

 

[niky]

I guess you never watch the weather forecast. It's not unusual to heard two or three different forecast where I live. More likely they look at the same data but came to different conclusions.
Evolution is even worst as it seem different scientist come up with totally different trees looking at the same data. Every one of them thinks their scenario was the more probable one. One reporter years ago mention that when he interviewed a group of scientists that had different view of what happen (past event) that he noticed everyone of them thought the ones with a different view were a butch of idiots.

Proof required.

You still haven't stated when or where you heard of any peer-reviewed articles regarding how dinosaurs evolved from birds.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

Study challenges bird-from-dinosaur theory of evolution - was it the other way around?

"The weight of the evidence is now suggesting that not only did birds not descend from dinosaurs, Ruben said, but that some species now believed to be dinosaurs may have descended from birds."
Peer-reviewed story telling articles are often overturned by future stories.

 

[niky]

Study challenges bird-from-dinosaur theory of evolution - was it the other way around?

"The weight of the evidence is now suggesting that not only did birds not descend from dinosaurs, Ruben said, but that some species now believed to be dinosaurs may have descended from birds."
Peer-reviewed story telling articles are often overturned by future stories.

Doesn't overturn Evolutionary Theory at all. The implication is merely that the point at which the families branched is further back in time than previously thought...

 

[homeforsummer]

Oh cripes, where do I start?: http://twitpic.com/7z17zc

Incidentally, that chap's twitter account is hilarious.

Thought this particular picture more appropriate for this thread, though much of his ramblings are more suited to the "Do you believe in God?" thread.