Yet again, caught red-handed....

[JamesM]

 

Could you please define "kind" and give me an example of what you mean when you talk about one "kind" evolving into a completely new "kind"?

 

I.e. Are you looking for examples of a fish evolving into a bear in one generation?

 

No, but I think when it is referred to ...."we see evolution around us," this is within a species of say frogs. I am not asking for examples here. The theory of Darwinianism (right or wrong...that is not being debated at this point) extrapolates that to mean that this is how all of life went form one kind to another over "millions" of years.

 

It also doesn't eliminate a Cerulean Starfish as an Intelligent Designer.

 

There's no evidence to suggest that the Starfish is responsible, so why add it in there?

 

Correct. Researching how my computer is made and designed does not mean that I need to know the designer. But I DO know that it was designed.

 

I think I've heard you claim this before. Can you provide a source?

 

Here is one quick one....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8916982/

[lovelorcet]

"Every year we have thousands of papers being written that the Sun revolves around the Earth. I find it frustrating that we need to tell you that your theory that the Earth revolves around the Sun cannot be true. There is no credible debate about this issue. Nothing has ever been shown to disprove this."

 

And so these words could have been spoken to Copernicus or Galileo, who both believed in God.

 

Thanks you for making this point... And who turned out to be correct? Yes indeed the scientific mind. The fact that these men believed in God in no way changes the validity of their theories.

 

Everything I have read, and I have not read everything, but I do read articles and books written by evolutionists, does show that mutations do exist and change among species or kinds. I just read an interesting article that explained the many adaptations among humans in different areas of the world. And an example has been used about one frog mutating into another frog. Do you have an article that I can read that explains an observable mutation of something into a completely different kind? My limited science is probably at fault here. I guess I should be able to extrapolate the idea that if a frog can somehow "evolve" into another frog, then something can evolve into a completely different creature.

 

Look into the variation of form in teleosts (a group of bony fish) all of these fish share a common ancestor and there range of form is astounding.

 

Try reading Dawkins or Gould... And if you want to see this stuff in action read up on Diamond

 

http://www.pbs.org/gunsgermssteel/

 

 

How many of the observable mutations that we have recorded actually can be shown as improvements toward a better creature? For instance, because Europeans can tolerate milk while other areas of the world cannot, does that mean Europeans are better? And when I went to Mexico, I was told not to drink the water, yet the Mexicans had no problem, have they adapted, mutated, or evolved? Is that an improvement? Please don't dismiss this as ignorance, because the example of milk was used in the article as an example of observable evolution. (The article referred to was in Newsweek regarding a new fossil fish that was found).

 

Whoa whoa whoa! Fist off you don't go from one mutation to a new species, this is multi step process and usually upon rearrangement of chromosomes finally causes one group to not be able to interbreed with another.

 

But your point about milk is is very disheartening why does one have to be better than the other. If you were to take the time a look a little deeper into this issue you would find the obvious answers to these questions.

 

When and where were cows and other milk producing animals domesticated? The cultures who can eat milk productse are the ones who have been exposed to them the longest. So if they never had the need to breakdown lactose as an adult why would they have that trait?

 

Same thing with alcohol. Drinking water is a very dangerous thing so people came up with to solutions to this. In Europe they made alcohol which more or less sterilizes the beverage and in the east the made tee. So guess why Europeans are better able to digest alcohol? Because they have more copies of ADH as this was advantageous to their culture (ie environment).

 

No one ever said that one was "better" than the other... That was you not Darwin theories...

If there was an Intelligent Designer, would we expect to see every creature with no genetic similarities?

 

 

Or does genetic similarities have to mean that each creature evolved into the next?

 

And just because we see evolution within species around us, does this rule out a supernatural design?

 

 

 

 

It is just one less thing that can be explained by the "God theory"

[Enema]

No, but I think when it is referred to ...."we see evolution around us," this is within a species of say frogs. I am not asking for examples here. The theory of Darwinianism (right or wrong...that is not being debated at this point) extrapolates that to mean that this is how all of life went form one kind to another over "millions" of years.

 

You didn't define "kind" yet.

 

We have observed instances of speciation. How is a "kind" different to a species?

 

Correct. Researching how my computer is made and designed does not mean that I need to know the designer. But I DO know that it was designed.

 

Come on James, stop using this tired old analogy... it does you no service.

 

You know your computer was designed because none of its parts occur naturally in the world.

 

Plants and animals are different in that they exist naturally without any apparent designer bar evolution.

 

Here is one quick one....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8916982/

 

I find it interesting that those scientists that are the least likely to believe in a god are those that study life. (Biologists).

[JamesM]

It is just one less thing that can be explained by the "God theory"

 

Is THIS what it is all about? Is science out to disprove God...in your mind?

 

Thanks you for making this point... And who turned out to be correct? Yes indeed the scientific mind. The fact that these men believed in God in no way changes the validity of their theories.

 

Uh, ALL were scientists. The prevailing scientific theory was that th earth was the center of the universe. ALL believed in God.

 

Look into the variation of form in teleosts (a group of bony fish) all of these fish share a common ancestor and there range of form is astounding.

 

I assume, the common ancestor is another fish.

 

Try reading Dawkins or Gould... And if you want to see this stuff in action read up on Diamond

 

I have read both, but not nearly everything. Too much Dawkins, I might add. But unless I am mistaken he uses "evidence" to show how an evolution from one kind (say fish) could evolve into another kind (say amphibian). And Gould believed that new species occurred "suddenly" not gradually from the same evidence. Gould was not out to disprove a God, while Dawkins vehemently opposes God.

 

I will check out the PBS link. It looks interesting, but I do not have time to search for something now. I am hoping it is not an animation of evolution...which is educated speculation.

 

Whoa whoa whoa! Fist off you don't go from one mutation to a new species, this is multi step process and usually upon rearrangement of chromosomes finally causes one group to not be able to interbreed with another.

 

I know, it takes millions or thousands of years, per the theory. How can a rearrangement of chromosomes ADD chromosomes to go from simpler organisms to more complex organisms? When the amoeba rearranged its chromosomes, how did they "move up" in complexity using the same materials? Sorry for my stupidity, but I guess a question never asked is something never learned.

 

No one ever said that one was "better" than the other... That was you not Darwin theories...

 

I guess I shouldn't have used that for the example, but in the article lactose tolerance was used as an example of evolution in action. Along with it , it talked about how man evolved from this fish. Since it was referring to simpler organisms to more complex, then somehow the lactose adaptation must fit into that.

 

So, does science conflict with "the God theory" or is it separate from "the God theory?"

[JamesM]

You didn't define "kind" yet.

 

We have observed instances of speciation. How is a "kind" different to a species?

 

I am sorry. You are right. I want to somehow differentiate a frog adapting to a different mutation of a frog versus a fish "adapting" to a frog. It really was a point only in that we observe "evolution" within species of frogs say versus evolution of fishes to frogs. The theory of Evolution uses the evolution within species to explain evolution between species.

 

Come on James, stop using this tired old analogy... it does you no service.

 

You know your computer was designed because none of its parts occur naturally in the world.

 

Plants and animals are different in that they exist naturally without any apparent designer bar evolution.

 

No, the point of that analogy is simply this. You can dismiss complexity as somehow not intelligent. As for the parts of computers not being natural, all components are made of natural existing chemicals or materials that have been combined through processes to end in a computer. The metals have been formed and smelted, the plastic has been made through chemical reactions, the chips even came from materials that first had nothing to do with the computer. Yet from much research and design, all of these natural materials came together as this computer.

 

It is really unbelievable how much intelligence HAS gone into making a computer, yet when we examine the human body alone, we see so many more complex features that make us stand back in awe and wonder.

 

As for an apparent lack of a designer, that is your perception....not necessarily reality.

 

I find it interesting that those scientists that are the least likely to believe in a god are those that study life. (Biologists).

 

Let me quote from the article:

Some stand-out statistics: 41 percent of the biologists don't believe, while that figure is just 27 percent among political scientists.

 

The reverse is that 59% of all biologists BELIEVED in a God. I find it interesting that so many believe in a God. That is almost 2/3 of all biologists. So, the majority DO believe in a God. Based on what I hear, this high number is very surprising.

[lovelorcet]

 

I know, it takes millions or thousands of years, per the theory. How can a rearrangement of chromosomes ADD chromosomes to go from simpler organisms to more complex organisms? When the amoeba rearranged its chromosomes, how did they "move up" in complexity using the same materials? Sorry for my stupidity, but I guess a question never asked is something never learned.

 

 

 

 

One way this occurs is through the duplication of chromosomes or entire genomes. Humans happen to have a diploid genome, meaning they have 2 copies of each gene. Many species are tetraploids (meaning 4 copies) or even more. When a genome duplicates it is then possible to the duplicated genes to acquire mutations while the "old" genes keep doing their original.

 

One of the models I work with for example under went a genome duplication somewhat recently but has returned to a diploid system. So what we see is in humans is gene X doing different jobs. Gene X in humans is used as 2 different isoforms to carry out different jobs where as in the model I work with there are 2 different but related copies of gene X on different chromosomes gene Xa and gene Xb. They have separated the function of gene X into 2 different subunits.

 

Chromosome rearrangements happen all the time it is also one of the major contributors to cancer development.

[JamesM]

 

Chromosome rearrangements happen all the time it is also one of the major contributors to cancer development.

 

Good explanation. So, we can ADD genetic material through duplication and rearrangement of chromosomes? Or is it a replacement of genetic material?

[lovelorcet]

 

The reverse is that 59% of all biologists BELIEVED in a God. I find it interesting that so many believe in a God. That is almost 2/3 of all biologists. So, the majority DO believe in a God. Based on what I hear, this high number is very surprising.

 

You are completely missing the correlation here... Ask them how many believe in evolution.

 

You are taking a group of people who have been raised (or I would say brainwashed) in a religious world. Do you at all realize what it means to claim to be an atheist in America? Do you realize how much culture your are pissing on by doing that (at least from the prospective of religious people)?

 

Weddings

Christmas

Easter

Funerals...

How many elected politicians are atheist? I think there is 1.

 

So it is no wonder that these people are reluctant to go head on with the very real cultural ramifications of making such an outspoken statement.

[lovelorcet]

Good explanation. So, we can ADD genetic material through duplication and rearrangement of chromosomes? Or is it a replacement of genetic material?

 

It is everything... rearranged, added, duplicated, lost... There is no rhyme or reason to it.

 

You asked for an explanation of how genetic material can be gained. This in an observation that can be made looking across may genomes.

[JamesM]

You are completely missing the correlation here... Ask them how many believe in evolution.

 

 

 

So it is no wonder that these people are reluctant to go head on with the very real cultural ramifications of making such an outspoken statement.

 

The question is not how many believe in evolution but believe in God. What correlation am I missing?

 

So you think that many/most of these scientists are lying? I guess then we can doubt many studies...both statistical and scientific. Observations are made and questions are answered based on our upbringings and past experiences. Are the answers and findings of scientists affected by their own opinions and experiences?

 

Again, you seem to feel that one cannot believe in evolution and God at the same time. This has shown to be possible.

 

And this was a survey not a commitment to a stand. I am not sure why the ramifications of their answers will be relevant. I doubt if Mr Scientist declares he believes in no God that his actual family and life will be in jeopardy. I doubt the surveys kept note of the names and addresses. So this is simply a survey.

 

But to use your theory, it would seem more likely that if most did not believe in a God, then it would be known and more easier to answer no...since all/most will answer no. However, the argument can be made that it was known that most DO believe in a God, so more answered yes...but that still means it was known that most do believe in a God.

 

I am guessing that if the reverse were true, you would have considered the results trustworthy?

 

Anyhow, it was a link asked for by Enema.

[Moai]

First of all, the argument is from design. If I look at my computer, I know that it is intelligently designed. Or at least that it looks that way to me. I don't understand how it all works and it does seem incredible to me, but it also breathes signs of intelligence.

 

So it seems to me.

 

I'll jump in here, and address one thing at the outset from your first post.

 

It isn't just ONE page that describes Creationists lying. It just so happens that the person whose blog I linked is working in the field in question, namely HIV-1 and HIV-2 virology. She is in an excellent position to describe how Creationists take her data and obfuscate it and/or totally misrepresent it. Further, she also links to other working scientists who have had similar experiences, as well as links to PZ Meyers blog, who was interviewed for the movie. When the interview was set up, the filmmakers lied to him about the content and purpose of the film.

 

Here is a recent post about the film that will feature him:

 

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/01/expelled_not_even_released_and.php

 

Go and watch some trailers. The selective editing is so blatantly obvious it would be funny if these people weren't so dangerous.

 

Yes, your computer is designed. You see, we can tell the computer is designed because it is so different than the natural world around us. To say that the computer is designed and then leap to say life is designed as well is fallacious, since you are using the lack of design in nature to determine the design of the computer.

 

While I always find it amusing that the creation critiques the Creator, we can pretend this is true. When I look at my computer, I can see things that I (as someone who already thinks it is quite something and has not education in computer design) would do differently.

 

But that critique by me does in no way mean that the designers are bumbling fools.

 

They aren't, but if you postulate a supernatural creator, you are assuming that he/she/it is a bumbling fool.

 

The argument will quickly be made that we KNOW there are computer factories because we have seen them, etc., etc. Yet if we landed on the moon and found a complex appearing machine...whether it be biotic or mechanical, I am pretty certain that the logical man would still assume that something was behind it. Yet we can look at all of the creatures around us and say that they just happened to evolve randomly through adaptation.

 

This I find interesting.

 

Creatures did not evolve randomly. EVOLUTION IS NOT RANDOM.

 

In everything else, we admire the complexity and speak in awe of the designer. We would think a man a fool for assuming that an uneducated two year old could have designed a computer. We would scoff at the man who thinks it is easy to put together a rocket...and rightly so. Yet here, we look at the animals and plants and scoff at the man who assumes that complexity is evidence of intelligence and a Creator.

 

Yep. That is because the man who assumes a creator doesn't know the first thing about the issue. That is where "Irreducible Complexity" comes from. So far, no system has been shown to be irreducibly complex, yet that doesn't stop IDers from denying reality.

 

See my explanation above.

 

It is not just the complexity, but it is also the beauty of it all.

 

But I kinda thought this thread was about the movie Expelled.

 

The thread is about how Creationists are liars, and that their upcoming movie is a fraud and a travesty--which is what any thinking person would expect. By all means go see it, and then look up the actual quotes they use, and the reasons why IDers don't publish. Not only that, go to Kent Hovind's website, or AIG, or any of them, then check on their assertions, and the fact that they have been falsified and they leave them up and even repost them. Any thinking person would reach the conclusion that their position is untenable and that they are deliberately misleading people.

 

Anything to say about the fact that they stole the video and misrepresented it? Was that a good thing, a bad thing? Why?

[Moai]

While I find this laughable if it was from someone who has not been well versed in both sides of the argument, I am surprised that you believe that those who believe in creationism are simply spoon fed, while those who do not have been somehow enlightened. I can see that since you do not believe there is a God that you would consider those who believe creationism as wrong, but when one considers the opposition as simply parrots, then this does his or her own view quite a disservice. It certainly makes it easier to hang on to one's own beliefs when one convinces himself or herself that the other view is simply a "party line," but it also leaves one in danger of never increasing one's intelligence and education.

 

Creationism has already lost. The debate is over. All thinking people know this. Do I have to go and check the "other side" regarding a spherical Earth?

 

Every Creationist I have encountered uses the same tired "evidence" that has been debunked ages ago. And as I said, I don't think that most of them are deliberately lying, but the people generating their "arguments" are.

 

I think you do your view more justice if you focus on the actual views and beliefs rather than to focus on the alleged criticisms of a few. It is certainly your right to attempt to invalidate a belief that is centuries old by persuading yourself that "if I prove that these people are liars, then I can prove that creation and God never happened."

 

I just think that you are better than this based on your level of arguments and demonstrable level of intelligence.

 

Just because a belief is centuries old doesn't mean that it is a true belief. Slavery was seen as natural and good longer than it has been seen as immoral. Evolution has nothing to do with god one way or the other, actually. Creationists come from many perspectives, from YECs to OECs and IDers. Evolution clearly shows that their mythology is just that, a myth, but that doesn't mean that there isn't some superbeing somewhere. It just means that every one so far described doesn't exist, or at the very least the books that describe him are flawed.

 

But that is beside the point. Would you care to look at the facts and show the assertion that Creationists are liars as wrong? Since you are so into both sides, why don't you read the work of them men directly involved with them, and whose work they lie about?

[lovelorcet]

 

And this was a survey not a commitment to a stand. I am not sure why the ramifications of their answers will be relevant. I doubt if Mr Scientist declares he believes in no God that his actual family and life will be in jeopardy. I doubt the surveys kept note of the names and addresses. So this is simply a survey.

 

But to use your theory, it would seem more likely that if most did not believe in a God, then it would be known and more easier to answer no...since all/most will answer no. However, the argument can be made that it was known that most DO believe in a God, so more answered yes...but that still means it was known that most do believe in a God.

 

I am guessing that if the reverse were true, you would have considered the results trustworthy?

 

Anyhow, it was a link asked for by Enema.

 

Let me put it like this... Nice and simple...

 

If I were to tell my grandmother that I do not believe in God this would not only immediately bring tears to her eyes but it would also cause her great emotional distress.

 

If I were a real life acquaintance of yours and you had me over for dinner and we were talking about all this I would be much more reserved in how we speak about these things. I would most likely only argue the facts of evolution but make no comments about God.

 

Actually James I do kind of wish we could do that, because I would invite you back to my lab for a tour and I think at the least you would be blown out of the water by the things your saw. This whole evolution "debate" is really a closed book, this is one thing I wish I could show a great many people so we can stop wasting our time.

 

"Is there a God?" Well we can debate about that one for a long time but I am convinced beyond all doubt (an this by considering the facts not any beliefs) that life has evolved from a single cell organism on this planet.

 

Where did that single cell organism come from? Now if you want to tackle that question then we will have to roll up our sleeves and start dealing with some hardcore RNA biochemistry.

 

Now where did that RNA come from? Pfff... well you know what, it is only 4 nucleotides, 4 chemical compounds :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA

 

Where is God there?

[JamesM]

I'll jump in here, and address one thing at the outset from your first post.

 

Good, I have been wondering where you have been.

Edited January 30, 2008 by JamesM

[Moose]

...and certainly NOT a scientist or anything, but...

 

If evolution is true, how come there are still monkeys?

I was wondering when that would come up.....

[JamesM]

Let me put it like this... Nice and simple...

 

If I were to tell my grandmother that I do not believe in God this would not only immediately bring tears to her eyes but it would also cause her great emotional distress.

 

I understand very well what you are saying, but I don't think this survey was mailed to all of the grandmothers.

 

If I were a real life acquaintance of yours and you had me over for dinner and we were talking about all this I would be much more reserved in how we speak about these things. I would most likely only argue the facts of evolution but make no comments about God.

 

And that is okay, because many people believe in both. I am guessing that your studies brought you to the conclusion that God does not exist.

 

Actually James I do kind of wish we could do that, because I would invite you back to my lab for a tour and I think at the least you would be blown out of the water by the things your saw.

 

And truthfully, with my interest in zoology/biology, I think you know that it would be quite a thrill for me, but I don't think I will fly to Europe for that tour. Maybe there is a lab nearby in Michigan you can recommend?

 

"Is there a God?" Well we can debate about that one for a long time but I am convinced beyond all doubt (an this by considering the facts not any beliefs) that life has evolved from a single cell organism on this planet.

 

Yet many who believe as you do still believe in a God. I am guessing that you think it is possible for this cell to have started from non-living materials?

 

Where did that single cell organism come from? Now if you want to tackle that question then we will have to roll up our sleeves and start dealing with some hardcore RNA biochemistry.

 

Now where did that RNA come from? Pfff... well you know what, it is only 4 nucleotides, 4 chemical compounds :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA

 

I am not arguing that there is a theory of a cell starting everything although it seems more fantastic to me than a God. Yet it seems you are making a huge stretch from some chemical compounds to a living cell. And then the stretch continues as it must increase its genetic material and information in a non-random yet non-designed and with no purpose fashion. This goes back to the idea that yes, we can see evolution within species as they adapt, but to extrapolate that between species...especially more complex species....seems harder to believe.

 

As a scientist, are you comfortable with directing me to wikipedia? There is a page regarding abiogenesis...or do you have a better one?

 

Where is God there?

 

Abiogenesis is an interesting theory, but it cannot be tested...as Creation cannot be. Personally, the likelihood of a God seems much stronger than a special form of spontaneous generation.

[JamesM]

...and certainly NOT a scientist or anything, but...

 

If evolution is true, how come there are still monkeys?

 

Some of the guys I know certainly ACT like apes.

[JamesM]

Something happened to my first post. Maybe my computer IS beginning to be a living creature! It eats information!

 

It isn't just ONE page that describes Creationists lying.

 

Go and watch some trailers. The selective editing is so blatantly obvious it would be funny if these people weren't so dangerous.

 

I am not actually taking sides with that film. Personally, as I said, I was not aware of it. And if what you say is true, the I agree with you, it is not good and does a disservice to their cause.

 

I do not like selective editing any more than you do. Unfortunately, it is overused from right to left. If this is similar to Michael Moore's films, then I am also not interested.

 

But as I thought I said at the beginning...I posted some links to put up the other side. Rather than assume one side is correct, I thought it would be helpful to bring out the other side. However, if these scientists did not know the true purpose of the film, then if I were them, I would be angry also.

 

Yes, your computer is designed. You see, we can tell the computer is designed because it is so different than the natural world around us. To say that the computer is designed and then leap to say life is designed as well is fallacious, since you are using the lack of design in nature to determine the design of the computer.

 

Actually, starting with the abiogenesis theory, it is said that life began from non-life. So, my analogy could go farther and say...do you expect the computer to come to life?

 

I get your point, but it seems odd to me that with all of our knowledge, we can rule out design in nature so easily. But truthfully, if I was so convinced as you are that God does not exist, then there is no other option.

 

They aren't, but if you postulate a supernatural creator, you are assuming that he/she/it is a bumbling fool.

 

Actually, no, I don't assume that. I am guessing that since you are a student of Dawkins and similar militant atheists, then you feel that if there was a God he would have made the world a lot better. This of course rules out that (if one uses the Bible as the source) sin has ruined His Creation and made it imperfect.

 

Creatures did not evolve randomly. EVOLUTION IS NOT RANDOM.

 

Ouch, quit yelling. I know, I know. Evolution has no design, but it is not random. So it had a purpose? If I look up the antonym of random, I see the word "ordered." And the definition of ordered is: "To put into a methodical, systematic arrangement."

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ordered

 

And the definition of systematic is: "relating to or consisting of a system." And the definition of system is: "harmonious arrangement or pattern."

 

Yet there is no design or purpose? Help me out with this one. Seriously, I do not jest.

 

Yep. That is because the man who assumes a creator doesn't know the first thing about the issue.

 

Or perhaps the man who believes there is no God cannot accept the idea that this is a possibility?

 

That is where "Irreducible Complexity" comes from. So far, no system has been shown to be irreducibly complex, yet that doesn't stop IDers from denying reality.

 

Since I haven't read much of this, could you help me out and provide a link that refutes Behe's Idea? I am not a big "fan" of his, but I would like to read this. I know that Kenneth Miller (biologist) did have some rebuttals to Behe, but do you have a good one online that you could share?

 

Anything to say about the fact that they stole the video and misrepresented it? Was that a good thing, a bad thing? Why?

 

Well, I think you know me well enough that IF the video was stolen, then this is "a bad thing." I don't try to defend wrongdoings. Why? Easy:

"You shall not steal." (Exodus 20:15 RSV)

 

The question becomes...is it stolen? And for the sake of argument and to stay away from issues that are trivial and not beneficial, I will accept what you have presented as truth...until it is proven different.

 

And then the question becomes....can you then assume that:

1. All creationists are liars.

2. The theory of creationism is a lie.

3. Therefore God does not exist.

 

I do not believe so, but Moai, you are welcome to that opinion. While I do not agree, I can see how you would find this attractive.

[lovelorcet]

...and certainly NOT a scientist or anything, but...

 

If evolution is true, how come there are still monkeys?

 

Read the few books by Jared Diamond and I assure you that this will answer those questions.

 

And as I have said a number of times, we share a common ancestor with other modern great apes.

[Moose]

Shouldn't all apes have turned into people by now? Good grief, it's certainly been a long enough time for them to have all evolved.

Not only that, but if evolution is fact, why is it that we humans haven't sprouted wings, or developed the ability to walk through solid objects, or why are there even multiple species since evolution is in fact, "survial of the fittest".......I'm sure these can be explained away too....

[lovelorcet]

Not only that, but if evolution is fact, why is it that we humans haven't sprouted wings, or developed the ability to walk through solid objects, or why are there even multiple species since evolution is in fact, "survial of the fittest".......I'm sure these can be explained away too....

 

 

How often have you needed wings in your life moose??

 

I would prefer to fly home after work but this has not really been a selective advantage for me until now. But seeing that I ride my Ducati home everyday I might kill myself on it and help select better motorcycle riding biologist...

 

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Moose]

How often have you needed wings in your life moose??

Exactly lovelorcet.....you've just proved my point.

 

Wrap your brain around that for a while, and don't expect me to explain it to you either......just go on believing what you want....

[lovelorcet]

Exactly lovelorcet.....you've just proved my point.

 

Wrap your brain around that for a while, and don't expect me to explain it to you either......just go on believing what you want....

 

I don't "believe" anything dear...

 

I only report what I see...

[lovelorcet]

So, by your theories, we should have grown wheels, then.

 

The ability to understand sarcasm would be a bit helpful here...

[lovelorcet]

That was by no means an insult I was just trying to explain my tone in my reply to moose...

 

 

I think there was at least a drop of sarcasm in his comment...

 

 

 

Please point out and explain where I have insulted you? That is a serious question and I would appreciate an answer if you are going to make an accusation of me insulting you...