The Age-old Argument

[Tekki]

I just need to make this comment, because really, the entire world uses certainthings wrong. THERE IS NO WAY TO PROVE EVOLUTION OR CREATION, TRUE OR FALSE! They both happened in the past, and since evidence can be tainted and processes and assumptions can be wrong, only eye-witness testimony can truly prove either one. Another thing, please don't again refer to an evolutionary theory or creation theory. They are NOT theories. a theory can be tested in an experiment. No one has yet devised an experiment to test evolution or creation other than(for evolution) sticking some substance or animal in a cage or test tube and waiting for evolution to occur. They are models, not theories. Well, since there is no proof that the laws of physics weren't in existence at the start of the universe(I still see no explanation from evolution for how you get something out of nothing...)then why do you say it is irrelevant. It has been tested and tested, and it is proven a law of science. What evidence suggests that a law of science that has been proven will not work in any circumstances...it is only a guess.

About my math, we are talking about earth. How would a primitive life form get to earth from those billions of other galaxies so far away? So, a billion attempts at instantly evolving a perfect INCREDIBLY simple organism(a 200-part organism doesn't exist NASA says, the very smallest is 400-part)is incredibly generous. And if it doesn't instantly evolve into a 200-part organism...it becomes a MUCH larger probability. Instead of one in 200! it becomes 1 in (1! + 2! + 3!...200!) this is a MUCH larger number, and by the calculations done in this experiment, in 30 billions years, there is not enough time to be sure that ONE 200-part organism will evolve ONCE! How can you say millions of plants and animals evolved billions of times in 30 billion years? It's completely ludicrous!



------------------
The protagonist is trying very, very hard to think very clearly about trying not to think about something else. Read it again

 

[Algernon Pondlife]

Tekki, you are losing me completely. I have been very careful not to say "evolution theory" throughout (I've just done a word search and couldn't find the phrase in the entire post, if I've missed it then I apologize). Evolution is a process. It is observable and consistent and predictions can be made concerning it, although you are correct that there are difficulties when dealing with the past. The theory bit is about the explanations as to how it came about.

Theories do not require experiments to admit of proof. They need prediction and verification. Much testing can be done by defining and searching for counter-examples.

Much of the work done in astronomy relies on postulating that a certain kind of event happens, then predicting that if it is true it should be possible to observe specific phenomena, then looking at the sky for these, possibly in a predicted proportion or relationship to other things. The theory becomes substantiated by success in these observations and holds stronger likelihood of being totally true the more supporting evidence found and the longer that it proves impossible to find counter-evidence and the degree to which no other theory has been developed to satisfactorily explain the same phenomena.

If you want to debate the meaning of proof you need to talk to philosophers (I haven't touched such subjects since about 1970 and they are far too hard to talk about casually). What I will say is that eye witness situations are nothing to do with proof and are notoriously unreliable.

Are you saying that it's okay for life to have started somewhere in the universe but not here? The odds against any specific instance are not relevant to the odds against the overall possibility. I once reported on a Go tournament (a game somewhat analogous to chess, played in one to one competition) during which a false fire alarm interrupted the proceedings. I stated in the report that it had not seemed to disturb the players too much as half of them had won their games.

If life actually did start out without divine intervention and if it has only once ever started out then it is a certainty that it started on Earth or that it migrated to here by some means that I am unaware of from some other place.

In terms of the statistical possibility of it occuring all places have equal chances only modified by the practicality of their environment.

By adding up all those shriek numbers (I'm not very good at technical terminology) you seem to be assuming that each step includes starting from scratch. I might need to go away and draw pictures for myself to be able to understand it well enough to explain it, but one point is that if you have, say, your fifty component organism and by some process (but I am not saying this describes the process, it merely describes your mathematical model) it becomes a fiftyone component organism you cannot count any of the combinations that don't include the original fifty components exactly as they are.

One final point: irrespective of what the probabilities are, you do not need "enough time to be sure". You only need it to happen and once it has happened everything gets easier. It is just as easy to get a six on the first roll as on the sixth.

------------------
"Ridicule can do much...but one thing is not given to it, to put a stop permanently to the incursion of new and powerful ideas"
-Aaron Nimzovitch

 

[Algernon Pondlife]

Sorry I just realized I missed your key point.

The process of evolution does not create matter. Therefore the fact that matter cannot be created is irrelevant to the discussion.

As a matter of (equally) irrelevant fact, I recently saw some television programs in which scientists were speculating that there may be some circumstances in which matter did in effect emerge from nothing. I don't pretend to understand it and it may anyway prove to be invalid. but on a simpler level, Newtonian Physics is not cotradicted by Einsteinian physics. It is simply redfined as valid only within certain boundaries. That is what I meant by expressing the possibility of boundaries.

Many scientists don't consider it possible to describe the events of the (postulated) first instants of the universe simply by reference to the physics that we know and understand. They are not guessing. They are thinking very hard about the implications and indeed considering how to find evidence and clues.

------------------
"Ridicule can do much...but one thing is not given to it, to put a stop permanently to the incursion of new and powerful ideas"
-Aaron Nimzovitch

 

[FearlessLeader2]

This is getting good.

I maintain my earlier smack-down, and am pleased with its results. Thus far, rhetoric and self-defeating logic have been generally absent since my post, and the quality of the debate has improved, and maintained a higher level of civility.

That said:

The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics was invoked not to imply that the natural process often mistaken for the ongoing deception called Evolution created matter, but rather that it created order out of disorder without intelligence involved. No where in nature does this occur on a regular basis, else long ago, all carbon would have become diamonds. By that I mean that diamonds, and other crystals are rare, indicating that forces causing order are weaker than forces causing disorder. The rarity of crystals bears this statement out.

Someone, I forget who, invoked Occam's Razor. I believe they did so in support of Tekki and I, however, I would ask that such aid not be given. Too often have I cut myself shaving with that untrustworthy tool. Occam's Razor exists to explain away that which would make a scientist's life more difficult: evidence that supports conclusions contrary to his premise, and the conclusions it supports.

To wit:

Suppose I saw a unicorn in the garden, and ran in to tell you, Algernon. You would dismiss my report as a trick of the light, or say I was lying. You might ask if I had imbibed any mind-altering substances, or even speculate on whether or not insanity was a genetically pre-disposed condition in my bloodline. You would certainly suggest a hoax was involved, and that I was either involved, or an unwitting victim. The one thing you would never do, is get up, and look into the garden, because you know there is no such thing as a unicorn, and Occam's Razor is handy for slashing apart any need to go look at the unicorn.

Occam's Razor is not a useful tool in science, and even less so in debate. It stifles thinking and squelches contrary opinion, the foundation of debate. Whoever Occam was, I can only assume he was often frustrated by evidence that did not supprot the conclusions he wanted to support.

As I said earlier Algernon, I'm don't even think it was you who invoked the Razor. If it wasn't you, please don't feel the need to get defensive about it, merely say so, and we can continue with more profitable discourse.

Now then, since the Laws of Thermodynamics clearly indicate the physical world's strong predilection towards ever-increasing entropy(disorder), Tekki and I are having a hard time reconciling the existence of a natural tendency towards order such as evolution. The Laws of Thermodynamics offer themselves as direct evidence against any tendency by nature to inflict order on the physical world. That, as I understand it, is Tekki's argument.

I would like to expound on that, by attempting a brief breakdown of the various portions of the Darwinian Synthesis, or whatever it is they're calling evolution these days.

That will be the subject of my next post, as this one is long enough.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Part Two, in which Doris gets her oats.

As I understand it, evolution is a, well theory has been denied me, let's call it an explanation, for the diversity of earthly life, and as a means of explaining how it came to be.

As to the beginning of life, well, I'm not a betting man. Those supporting evolution are insisting that I suspend disbelief and accept the notion that life erupted out of a tidal pool as simple chemicals like water and carbon dioxide combined with each other and other chemicals like methane over the course of billions of years, until finally they reach a level of complexity sufficient to be considered life. Water became a cell.

This flies in the face of several basic concepts: First, all of this is happening while the earth is undergoing dramatic tectonic shifts, atmospheric changes, meteor bombardment, exposure to intense solar radiation, and a host of other hostile forces, any one of which could destroy the very petri dish this molecular musical chairs is supposed to have taken place in. Second, water evaporates. Even if we assume that this tidal pool will be refilled by rain or tides, rain and tides cause erosion, which would destroy the tidal pool. Erosion is a very fast geological force. Rivers can shift their banks by yards in a single year.

Given either of these two arguments, the support for spontaneous formation of life on earth must become tenuous. In the light of both arguments, it must wither away.

As to the diversity portion of the Darwinian Synthesis:

There are, as I have come to understand it, two main forces underlying the evolutionary process as it is understood: mutation, and natural selection.

Mutation can be dismissed for two very good reasons. First, it is 99.999% fatal, survivors are often worse off than their unmutated fellows. Secondly, mutations breed out of the gene pool rapidly, often disappearing in as little as two generations. Experiments on fruit flies, using radiation to mutate them, bore out both of these statements. The fruit flies, even the most grossly mutated ones, had mostly normal children, almost totally normal grandchildren, and completely normal great-grandchildren. Also, despite all the mutations, all of the offspring were clearly fruit flies. None were wasps, bees, ants, moths, or tarantulas.

Natural selection is the other main force involved in evolution, so let's closely examine it. NS is the process by which organisms with the best traits for survival in their environment proliferate, while those with less desireable traits dwindle. The spotted moths in Europe are a great example of this. However, natural selection, while it does allow for variation within a species, has never been observed to cause a species to transform into another species.

Unpredated sheep have not transformed into predators to devour the ample food available to them. The finches on the Galapagos islands did not become hawks, nor did they become ducks, egrets, or terns.

Man has managed to breed dogs selectively to make wolves(his starting point) smaller(chihuahuas, poodles, and daschunds) to hunt rabbits and other burrowers, gentler to guard his sheep(collies, sheepdogs), smarter, to hunt with(setters, retrievers), and territorial, strong, or big, to go to war with or guard things(Dobermans, rottweilers, pit bulls, St Bernards). Yet every single one of these animals is 100% genetically compatible with a wolf. Nearly 10,000 years of eugenics, and no new animals have evolved. We can't do it when we put our minds to it, but nature just does it without trying?

Natural Selection does not make new creatures. Mutation does not make new creatures. So why is the force that explains where all the new creatures came from based on these two phenomenon?

 

[Algernon Pondlife]

What is the process that allowed man to turn wolves into spaniels? Darwin had never heard of radiation or any scientific explanation for mutation, but he recognized that there was a process at work.

Ironically it is because of the extremely low success rate of mutation that you can have species. A higher success rate would just proliferate unstable changes.

nice trick, defending Tekki's use of the first law of thermodynamics by invoking the second law.

There is no more contradiction of this than when we build a new town. The key bit is the "if left to itself". Anywhere you have heat, tectonic rumblings, meteors and chemicals it is certainly not being left to itself.

Inferring the ultimate decay of the universe simply allows us to understand that eventually all things will cease. It says nothing about tomorrow morning.

Every time a seed grows into a plant nature has created order out of disorder. Crystals are indeed an ordered form of certain minerals, but the process for forming them requires a very specific set of conditions. Do you know of instances where those conditions exist properly and the crystal has failed to form?

As for Occam. it is nice to know that you consider me to be unscientific while attacking me for being on the side of the scientists. Occam's Razor is only applicable in circumstances in which you are unable to determine any additional information. It is not a device for determining the truth of anything but for coming to a conclusion that, with what you know, has the best chance of being true.

If you have cut yourself on this device then either you were unlucky or you were lazy in your efforts to investigate your problem, or your logic circuits let you down.

Nobody is asking you to believe that life erupted out of anything and water did not become a cell. Hydrogen and Oxygen are two essential components of life as we know it and they are most readily available in water.

All the thunder and lightening and earthquakes and meteor showers that were so busy shaking up our cradle may well have destroyed a million starts to life (or on the other hand maybe they did not), but what they also did was provide the kind of volatile environment that gave things a chance to happen. It is rather hard to imagine life forming on an inert lump of rock. Of course things did not stabilize for life until they stabilized for the planet.

Why are you picking on a tidal pool as your test tube? It seems a singularly unlikely way for a successful start for the very reasons that you state. I would have thought it was easier in a slightly more permanent body of water.

It is not a law that mutations breed out of a species although undoubtedly many do in fact disappear within a few generations (how does that happen by the way?). If they did, where would you get all the differences between instances within a species.

Presumably, by one hundred per cent genetically compatible, you do not mean identical? Correct all dogs are still one species by that way of defining species.

I have never heard of species transforming into other species. That would be some kind of magic.

Ther is more material in your statement, but I have to get ready for work now and I am playing chess this evening so you will have to wait a couple of days for a more complete answer.

------------------
"Ridicule can do much...but one thing is not given to it, to put a stop permanently to the incursion of new and powerful ideas"
-Aaron Nimzovitch

 

[CornMaster]

Woooo!! This is getting heavy.

*CornMaster Runs and Hides, Not Having Anything Else To Add.*

 

[Leowind]

Don't run too far, Corn

Not having anything to add does not mean you can't benefit from reading. That is what I mostly try to do, despite some of my rambling posts here and elsewhere.

 

[CornMaster]

Oh.....I still read. See....I'm replying, therefore I must have been reading the post.

But your right. You can learn a lot from these posts, if you take the time to read them.

The reason I don't beleive in Creationism is because I don't beleive in God/Gods/Creator. It's all too childish and storish to me....but that's another discussion.

 

[Leowind]

Algernon, I'm having trouble tracking this statement:

The subject of whether a "creator" exists is also interesting, but I would prefer to debate the nature of the putative creator first or we could find that subject rendered irrelevant before we got to it. We would have to then discuss the nature of different religions in a context where perhaps none were valid if we had concluded that there was no such thing as a "creator"

Seems to me its the other way around, What's the point of debating the nature of a Creator if we haven't established the existence of a Creator? Am I missing what you are trying to say?

Conversely, I think FL2 is correct in that I'm not sure we can "prove" the existence/non-existence of a Creator, so the discussion of necessity must exist in the messy realm of several possibilities, including the possibility that none are correct. (we need a "big sigh" smiley to put right here

)

 

[Leowind]

Originally posted by CornMaster:
Oh.....I still read. See....I'm replying, therefore I must have been reading the post. <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/wink.gif" border=0>

But your right. You can learn a lot from these posts, if you take the time to read them.

The reason I don't beleive in Creationism is because I don't beleive in God/Gods/Creator. It's all too childish and storish to me....but that's another discussion.

Glad you're still with us Corn (does take a lot of time to read, doesn't it

). You're right, maybe should be another thread. Think maybe I'll start it right now...

 

[Algernon Pondlife]

from Leowind
Seems to me its the other way around, What's the point of debating the nature of a Creator if we haven't established the existence of a Creator? Am I missing what you are trying to
say?

Sorry. I was a bit light-headed at the time. I think I was trying to say that if you do it the right way round you could deprive yourself of the interesting second debate by coming to the "wrong" conclusion in the primary one.

This is not to say that, once we have established the non-existence of any deity

(one possible outcome of debating its existence), it would not still be interesting to discuss the diversity of religious beliefs and styles and mores. But it would be a more academic discussion and that is not to everyone's taste.

------------------
"Ridicule can do much...but one thing is not given to it, to put a stop permanently to the incursion of new and powerful ideas"
-Aaron Nimzovitch

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Algernon Pondlife:
What is the process that allowed man to turn wolves into spaniels? Darwin had never heard of radiation or any scientific explanation for mutation, but he recognized that there was a process at work.

Unnatural Selection.

nice trick, defending Tekki's use of the first law of thermodynamics by invoking the second law.

Since I'm sure this isn't meant as a compliment, I'll not thank you. Given that the two laws are different(hence the numbers) it's not circular logic, if that's your contention.

Every time a seed grows into a plant nature has created order out of disorder. Crystals are indeed an ordered form of certain minerals, but the process for forming them requires a very specific set of conditions. Do you know of instances where those conditions exist properly and the crystal has failed to form?.

Given that I am not a creature of the deep, high-pressure magma environment, I would have to say no.

As for Occam. it is nice to know that you consider me to be unscientific while attacking me for being on the side of the scientists. ?.

Given how unscientific Evolution is, I don't see any paradox there.

Nobody is asking you to believe that life erupted out of anything and water did not become a cell.?.

Except the evolutionists.

Why are you picking on a tidal pool as your test tube? It seems a singularly unlikely way for a successful start for the very reasons that you state. I would have thought it was easier in a slightly more permanent body of water.?.

Me too, but the way I heard it described was a tidal pool. I alos think the ocean would have diluted this 'soup' too much.

It is not a law that mutations breed out of a species ?.

No, just an observation from years of fruit fly research.

although undoubtedly many do in fact disappear within a few generations (how does that happen by the way?). ?.

I believe the wroking theory is that DNA is self-repairing, which really makes one wonder how any minor, let alone substantive, alteration could stick.

If they did, where would you get all the differences between instances within a species.?.

So your saying that pale humans and dark skinned humans are two seperate races. THere are some guys in my country that wear white sheetes and pillowcases on their heads that would love to hear that. They'd probably make you Grand Dragon of the KKK.

Presumably, by one hundred per cent genetically compatible, you do not mean identical? ?.

Compatible is the key word.

Correct all dogs are still one species by that way of defining species.?.

Is there another definition?

I have never heard of species transforming into other species. That would be some kind of magic.?.

No, that would be evolution.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Algernon Pondlife:
This is not to say that, once we have established the non-existence of any deity <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif" border=0> (one possible outcome of debating its existence)

An outcome I have expressed a strong desire to see. Not having god around would make my life a whole lot easier. I support Creationism not out of blind faith, but rather because Evolutionism has done an exceptionally fine job of eliminating any possibility of itself being correct. There is a lot of outright deception out there masquerading as real science that got its start with Origin of the Species. Darwin, with no intention of doing so, made it fashionable to put forth a controversial theory with utterly insufficient evidence. The precedent set by 'scientists' of the era in embracing his theory regardless of its incompletedness gave them the courage to publish outright rubbish, in the sure and certain knowledge that their fellow 'scientists' would back them.

Everyone on this board doubtless assumes that there actually was a recent epoch in earth's geological history in which most of the northern hemisphere was covered in glaciers. A scientist said it, it got into a textbook, and noone has bothered to point out that both the laws of physics and the evidence clearly show it to be impossible. But that is another story.

 

[Mongol Horde]

Wow excellent topic, can I say I am glad to see the decorum maintained by Tekki, Pondy et al. I can't really add a lot and I feel that a post of under a thousand words looks a little out of place. Pondweed, I have to say that I have been absolutely dazzled by your intellect in this thread, where were you educated?

I would like to pick out one of your points Tekki where you said that nothing from the past can be proven unless we have eyewitness accounts. Does this mean that we cannot prove that Stonehenge was built or that dinosaurs didn't exist. I believe in evolution simply for the reason that it makes sense to me while creation doesn't. I have a related question but I will post another thread rather than ruin the debate here.

 

[Algernon Pondlife]

I just lost about five hundred words in a system crash. I know it won't come out as good in this re-write. Anyway I'm doing it in a text editor first this time (with saves) and, being a parsimonious Scot, I won't post it until my next free connection time this evening. Its just turned 08.00 now.)

Fearless, It was Darwin's genius (so far so good; I remember I said that first time

) that he was able to infer such a deep explanation of evolution from such little information compared with what we know today. He demonstrated the same powerful reasoning when he inferred how coral islands and coral reefs come about and what that implied about the geology (everyone should try to read his paper on that because it is so clearly presented) He did that before he had ever seen a coral island. If you tell us what parts of evolution science bother you I'll do my best to help.

Welcome Mr. Horde. I know it is a trite hackneyed cliche (don't you just love tautology? By the way I know its not very sharp at the end, or should that be serious?), but I haven't been educated I'm still learning (as are we all). To put it in a context when I was forty I hadn't a clue about evolution and for that I blame the education system that fails (for the most part, even now) to teach this important subject about which there are such horrendous misconceptions.

I've been worrying a lot about the first and second laws of thermodynamics (I'm even more worried about the third, because I can't remember even if there is one or what it says

). I have this image of someone (anyone) developing a scientific theory that stands contrary to these laws. I see this person strolling (metaphorically) around the scientific community and people coming up to him (or her) and saying "Hey. Heard about your theory. Pity you forgot about the thermodynamic laws." or "Hey. Cool theory man. By the way how have you dealt with the thermodynamic laws?" He would not last a week.

Then I'm wondering how evolution (which is only about change, not growth) can be held to contradict these laws when every day complexity and order grows out of seeds and eggs etc. billions of times and is not claimed to in contradiction. We are even in a position to plausibly speculate that we will develop terra-forming science and be able to extend all this order and complexity out to the rest of the universe, still without hurting the laws of thermodynamics.

It is obvious that Tekki and others are quite sincere in their argument, but the whole idea is absurd. Presumably the argument has been published somewhere and therefore someone has put a lot of thought into it.

So what is going on? Is this person just pulling the wool aiming at an audience that has little understanding or knowledge of science? Is this person sincere in the presentation of the argument.?

Well I think that is possible, so I am going to dismiss any thoughts of calumny.

Okay, this person is sincere. So presumably their motive is to reinforce their beliefs (this happens to everyone and is normally detrimental to science, but it's human nature so we have to live with it). So probably when they read about science their mind is working in a search for inconsistencies and areas of uncertainty. So that makes it a bit easier to get confused about what is going on. But it is not enough.

After my chess match the other night I had a bit of an idea and I think it might be relevant. It occurs to me that there may be some difficulty (probably at a subcinscious level) with the word "law" in this context. The description earlier in the thread of carbon and its propensity (or lack of it) to crystalize is an example. It is as if there is some inherent tendency implied in matter to conform to laws. Whereas in fact these "laws" are mere descriptions of what happens. Sometimes it is easier to talk about things as if they actually involved decision making because it makes the descriptions more vivid. In point of fact the classic example of this is the phrase Darwin coined. "Natural selection" is a metaphorical, not literal description of the evolutionary process.

I'm afraid I'm not being very clear, but that is the best I can think of it just now.


------------------
"Ridicule can do much...but one thing is not given to it, to put a stop permanently to the incursion of new and powerful ideas"
-Aaron Nimzovitch

 

[Algernon Pondlife]

This post is an ego trip<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif" border=0><IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif" border=0>.

This morning I could not get into civfanatics and a whole host of other sites (I don't know why, but you lot will probably tell me it's 'cos I've got Netscape<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/mutant.gif" border=0>

<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/cwm33.gif" border=0>). SoI followed Håkan's link into http://www.talkorigins.org/ and looked up the article on the second law of thermodynamics.

I had never heard the argument before Tekki posted it and so I was quite pleased to see that I had pretty much done the same reasoning as the "experts", although they put it much better than I did.

End of ego trip<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/biggrin.gif" border=0><IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/biggrin.gif" border=0>.

------------------
"Ridicule can do much...but one thing is not given to it, to put a stop permanently to the incursion of new and powerful ideas"
-Aaron Nimzovitch

[This message has been edited by Algernon Pondlife (edited April 28, 2001).]

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Algernon said--
Fearless, It was Darwin's genius (so far so good; I remember I said that first time) that he was able to infer such a deep explanation of evolution from such little information compared with what we know today. He demonstrated the same powerful reasoning when he inferred how coral islands and coral reefs come about and what that implied about the geology (everyone should try to read his paper on that because it is so clearly presented) He did that before he had ever seen a coral island. If you tell us what parts of evolution science bother you I'll do my best to help.
___________________________________________

Oh, I see. So because he made some good guesses about coral reefs and geology, everything else he said is true, even without support of evidence. And here I thought there was some fallacious arguing going on...

As to the 'science' of evolution, I have two problems with it. It is, as I have noted, based on two main phenomenon, mutation, and natural selection.

Now both of these processes happen. I do not even slightly argue this point. Mutations occurs, and creatures with superior survival traits breed more successfully than their counterparts. GRANTED, GRANTED, and GRANTED.

HOWEVER(and we all knew it was coming, that or BUT), it has been shown, PROVEN, by EXPERIMENTATION, repeated experimentation at that, that mutations breed out of an organism's offspring, because DNA is self-repairing. Natural selection, while it does allow for variation within a species, has never been observed to transform a species to another species. In approximately 6,000 years of guided, unnatural, deliberate selection, man has still not managed to generate a dog that can't be successfully mated with a wolf(if the two can be convinced to perform). 6,000 years that have to count for untold millennia of natural selection, and no new species.

The two pillars of evolution, shattered in a few sentences. So tell me, Al, what is left for evolution? Show me the money. The theory doesn't have any legs left to stand upon. Forget Thermodynamics, the law of gravity will do just fine...

 

[scorch]

can't be bothered reading through all thisshit.

all i have to say is...

i can't be bothered wasting my life, and valuebal time, argueeing about this ****.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by scorch:
can't be bothered reading through all thisshit.

all i have to say is...

i can't be bothered wasting my life, and valuebal time, argueeing about this ****.

Then why waste our time posting such a worthless response? Where's Natural Selection when you need it?