Evolution in a Lab

[Elrohir]

Oh, wait, you're running off. I'll have to guess your answer...

That's exactly why I refuse to debate with you anymore. You can't post in a civil, or respectful manner. If you change that, I will be glad to debate with you, on any subject. I won't waste my time talking with someone, unless they have manners and understand the simple concepts of decency and politeness.

In this thread, and the other, you've shown that you do not understand either. Grow up, then get back to me. Otherwise, don't even bother.

 

[Boris Godunov]

That's exactly why I refuse to debate with you anymore. You can't post in a civil, or respectful manner. If you change that, I will be glad to debate with you, on any subject. I won't waste my time talking with someone, unless they have manners and understand the simple concepts of decency and politeness.

In this thread, and the other, you've shown that you do not understand either. Grow up, then get back to me. Otherwise, don't even bother.

You started it:

Anyway, this will be my last post in this topic. I'm tired of debating something that A) Doesn't fundamentally matter, and B) Is useless because the opposition won't listen to simple logic. Thank you for this little discussion; until next time.

This was both childish and impolite. Until then, nothing in our exchange was such. But once bitten, I will bite back. Doctor, heal thyself!

 

[Smidlee]

I have yet to read or heard any creationists who doesn't believe in evolution. It's the limits and degree of evolution that's being debated. So even creationist has no problem with the fact all butterflies could have come from a single group of butterflies or dogs are descendents of wolvies,etc.
Thus it's Darwinism that most creationists disagree with , not evolution of itself.

 

[classical_hero]

I have yet to read or heard any creationists who doesn't believe in evolution. It's the limits and degree of evolution that's being debated. So even creationist has no problem with the fact all butterflies could have come from a single group of butterflies or dogs are descendents of wolvies,etc.
Thus it's Darwinism that most creationists disagree with , not evolution of itself.

The problem is the confusion of terms. Most people use the temr to mean that we came from Apes and by conlusion that we all came from a single celled microbe. If evolution was just simply about animal changes then everyone would agree with this, but this is not what evolution is really about. Often these examples are given as proof that we can come from a different animal altogether when all this is a process that does not prove that we once came from another creature. Another problem I have is with the definition of species, because we are implying that variety of the animals are totally different from each other, when there is just a slight change between the two. Under this we must the separater the various varieties we see in humans since this is the basic problem we are doing with other creature in the world. Spearating them according to their various characteristics just like we do according to the animal kingdom. But the problem with that is by doing that, people will become racist, which is eactly what happened in the past.

 

[Perfection]

Evolution doesn't make people racist. Evolution is a poor excuse used by racists. The fact is that evolutionary biology contradicts a racial-centric worldview. Human races are extremely similar with much more interracial diversity then extra.

As for what is and what is not evolution, it's all part of evolution. You can't see the whole thing in complete detail because its ginormous, but you can get a pretty decent overall handle on it.

 

[Archbob]

I doubt you'll convince the hardcore creationists until you manage to breed a dolphin from a dog within a few generations.

But yes, the evolution from ape to man is quite convincing. It begins in Miocene Kenya about 20 million years ago. We have decent records of the species and the in-between dating from about 2 million years back. I suggest to the hardcare creationsists to actually read some scientific documents.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

It is possible. I mean evolution is to a large extent mutations. If they all happen at once it can go fast. It is a question of luck for the scientists.

 

[Sidhe]

I doubt you'll convince the hardcore creationists until you manage to breed a dolphin from a dog within a few generations.

But yes, the evolution from ape to man is quite convincing. It begins in Miocene Kenya about 20 million years ago. We have decent records of the species and the in-between dating from about 2 million years back. I suggest to the hardcare creationsists to actually read some scientific documents.

They do read documents but you have to understand that these people only see what they want to see, so if they read a paper that has a point that questions evolution in some way, they cherry pick all the points that agree with there view and discard the rest, what then happens is later a scientist challenges there view based on the whole picture and it is completely destroyed. What creationists involve themselves in is pseudo science, because the nature of their argument is usually weak and a melange of misinterpritation and clever but futile reworking of the facts. Also a so called theory of there's will take off because a multitude of laymen are fooled by there misinterpretations, and so the pseudo-clap trap gets a foot hold, of course I've yet to see creationism succesfully gain a foothold in the scientific community, because in the main scientists ignore it as a waste of there personal time, and until creationists can learn to discuss the topic without fooling themselves why should they?

The fact is evolution is our best guess if creationist want to replace it with something else then good luck, you'll just need to prove it, and theres the rub they think that disproving evolution is the key, but of course it's simply doing people a favour by making it stronger. Anyway there are hundreds of other fields that creationists have also failed to disprove, they really are very strangely obsessed with literal intepretation, so obsessed that they have given up any chance at doing anything that could be of benefit to anybody at least IMO. I honestly consider adherence to creationism is a mental illness, because I can see no merit in arguing a fairy tale.