Final Statement

[Guest Sick to his stomach]

You're right. No one is forcing me to read this, I just needed to express how I felt.

[Guest Steve_C]

If evolution is so unlikely then how much more unlikely is a Complex Designer?

Wow. The stupid it burns.

The 747 argument is a tired old one. Evolution is not chance and it's not random.

[an American in Texas]

Graduate_Student (allegedly in biology, which I take leave to doubt): Think about that; if all the living creatures of the world came from a common ancestor, we should be tripping over transitional fossils, yet there are none.

Nonsense. Here are some hominid transitionals: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html

The web and science journals are full of pictures of transitional fossils of many species. It's purely a lie to say there are none.

And the 747 thing? Extensively debunked already. But here is a better analogy, shamelessly cribbed from a friend of mine who posts as OncomingTrain on the Beliefnet discussion group Evolution/Creationism:

"Let me suggest a better comparison:

Which is more likely:

1. Someone devised the computer - exactly as it is today - from scratch.

or

2. The computer is the result of a long (long) process of trial and error, starting with extremely simple forms (knots in a rope), moving through many intermediate forms (abacus, slide rule, punch cards, pocket calculator, Commodore, Atari, etc.), leading up to today's computers... which will in turn be replaced in the future by superior models that do their jobs better.

Choice 1 represents "intelligent design". Choice 2 represents evolution. In the case of the computer, the act of selection was done by humans. In the case of life, the selection was merely the ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. But in both cases, each form is the result of trying many variations of the previous form... most of which failed, but a few of which were superior to their predecessor. That's how computers came into being, and that is how the current complexity of life came into being. "

Leigh Williams

Austin, Texas

[Guest A Christian]

I'm back one more time.

As I stated previously, The Darwiniacs (I love that) are a dying breed.  Science is leading us away from the notion that all living things evolved from soup.  The fossil record DOES NOT support macro evolution.  NOT ONE transitional fossil has been found anywhere in the world dispite extensive digs.  Think about that;  if all the living creatures of the world came from a common ancestor, we should be tripping over transitional fossils, yet there are none. Paleontology in Darwin's time was primitive so we can understand his naivety. Also, now that we can see cell make-up at the molecular level, we know how incredibly complicated living tissue is and the impossibility of a "blind" nature designing it all by accident.

  Consider this analogy; Imagine  evolution (natural selection) designing a jet airliner. The jet won't fly until all the parts are designed correctly and they are all in their correct places.  And of course, until all the correctly designed parts have evolved in their correct places (billions of years ??) this creature is non-functional and won't fly (won't live). (was does this say for "survival of the fittest") As impossible as this anology is, that's how impossible it would be for blind evolution to design a cell (I won't even get into designing a bacterial motor or an eye).

  So, this is what the Darwiniacs have; absolutely NO fossil record and impossible evolutionary theories.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm so thankful someone with your credentials has stepped forward to debunk the nonsense being circulated in this forum. Nothing will ever change the minds of the atheist zealots that post here, but that's OK, we'll leave them to their ignorance. For those of us with an open mind, we appreciate your expertise and the time you have taken to post your excellent message.

[Guest Believer]

I'm back one more time.

As I stated previously, The Darwiniacs (I love that) are a dying breed.  Science is leading us away from the notion that all living things evolved from soup.  The fossil record DOES NOT support macro evolution.  NOT ONE transitional fossil has been found anywhere in the world dispite extensive digs.  Think about that;  if all the living creatures of the world came from a common ancestor, we should be tripping over transitional fossils, yet there are none. Paleontology in Darwin's time was primitive so we can understand his naivety. Also, now that we can see cell make-up at the molecular level, we know how incredibly complicated living tissue is and the impossibility of a "blind" nature designing it all by accident.

  Consider this analogy; Imagine  evolution (natural selection) designing a jet airliner. The jet won't fly until all the parts are designed correctly and they are all in their correct places.  And of course, until all the correctly designed parts have evolved in their correct places (billions of years ??) this creature is non-functional and won't fly (won't live). (was does this say for "survival of the fittest") As impossible as this anology is, that's how impossible it would be for blind evolution to design a cell (I won't even get into designing a bacterial motor or an eye).

  So, this is what the Darwiniacs have; absolutely NO fossil record and impossible evolutionary theories.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You present such a convincing argument, it's hard to believe anyone would continue to believe in "blind" evolution. When you consider the vast assortment and variety of life on this planet, to suggest that it all came about as the result of "blind" evolution is nonsensical.

[Strife767]

Graduate_Student (allegedly in biology, which I take leave to doubt): Think about that; if all the living creatures of the world came from a common ancestor, we should be tripping over transitional fossils, yet there are none.

Nonsense.  Here are some hominid transitionals:  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html

The web and science journals are full of pictures of transitional fossils of many species.  It's purely a lie to say there are none.

And the 747 thing?  Extensively debunked already.  But here is a better analogy, shamelessly cribbed from a friend of mine who posts as OncomingTrain on the Beliefnet discussion group Evolution/Creationism:

"Let me suggest a better comparison:

Which is more likely:

1. Someone devised the computer - exactly as it is today - from scratch.

or

2. The computer is the result of a long (long) process of trial and error, starting with extremely simple forms (knots in a rope), moving through many intermediate forms (abacus, slide rule, punch cards, pocket calculator, Commodore, Atari, etc.), leading up to today's computers... which will in turn be replaced in the future by superior models that do their jobs better.

Choice 1 represents "intelligent design". Choice 2 represents evolution. In the case of the computer, the act of selection was done by humans. In the case of life, the selection was merely the ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. But in both cases, each form is the result of trying many variations of the previous form... most of which failed, but a few of which were superior to their predecessor. That's how computers came into being, and that is how the current complexity of life came into being. "

Leigh Williams

Austin, Texas

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Interesting analogy, and fits the way evolution is understood to work pretty much perfectly (that is, being a factor of trial and error (keeping what works and tossing what doesn't) rather than a run through a random number generator)). I applaud your friend for it.

[Strife767]

I'm so thankful someone with your credentials has stepped forward to debunk the nonsense being circulated in this forum.

If it's such "nonsense" then why can't this person, Behe, or anyone else prove their conflicting claims? Why can't they get a single paper anywhere near peer review? Oh yeah, that's right, because anyone who understands science can see past the BS. And have you forgotten about the other 99% of molecular biologists who think Behe is full of it? Why do you ignore THEIR credentials, if you insist on your fallacious appeal to authority? You can't even keep your fallacies consistent.

We have evidence--you don't. Until that changes, that will be the end of the story. I won't hold my breath, though--each attempt to "prove" Intelligent Design (the buzzword for creationism adopted practically IMMEDIATELY upon the Supreme Court's decision that creationism was religion (and now "critical analysis of evolution" seems to be the creationists' next linguistic ploy after pretty much the same conclusion was reached about ID)) seems more ridiculous than the last.

At the root of every creationist argument, at the base of every single one, lies one common, and obviously fallacious, "foundation:"

"X is too complex/well-made to have evolved"

Nothing has ever, EVER been discovered with science by starting with an assertion that something is impossible, and that's because that just isn't how science works. And yet creationists have the gall to mock true scientists for not buying their nonsensical junk science.

Creationists start with a conclusion and then look for evidence that supports it, cherry-pick what they think proves their side, and ignore all the conflicting data. You guys don't even understand the scientific method, one of the major reasons none of you have a prayer of ever convincing any of the real scientists of your pretend science.

[Strife767]

You present such a convincing argument,

Of course--this nonsense is touted much more strongly to the laypeople than to other scientists, since those who don't understand science as well are more likely to believe this nonsense. In other words--it's convincing only to the ignorant, whether the ignorance is willful or not.

it's hard to believe anyone would continue to believe in "blind" evolution.

This is a straw man--the Theory of Evolution isn't, and never was, a function of pure chance, nor claimed to be, as you imply.

When you consider the vast assortment and variety of life on this planet, to suggest that it all came about as the result of "blind" evolution is nonsensical.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not only is arguing from incredulity fallacious (and pretty dumb--if everyone thought like you, we'd never learn anything), but you're also wielding the creationists' favorite straw man: that evolution is a random process. It isn't, and no one who accepts the Theory of Evolution claims it is. Drop it already--you only make yourself look stupider by perpetuating long-debunked fallacies.

[Guest Biology Teacher]

Of course--this nonsense is touted much more strongly to the laypeople than to other scientists, since those who don't understand science as well are more likely to believe this nonsense. In other words--it's convincing only to the ignorant, whether the ignorance is willful or not.

This is a straw man--the Theory of Evolution isn't, and never was, a function of pure chance, nor claimed to be, as you imply.

Not only is arguing from incredulity fallacious (and pretty dumb--if everyone thought like you, we'd never learn anything), but you're also wielding the creationists' favorite straw man: that evolution is a random process. It isn't, and no one who accepts the Theory of Evolution claims it is. Drop it already--you only make yourself look stupider by perpetuating long-debunked fallacies.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'd give you a "D" on this posting. You can't have it both ways. If evolution is not intelligent, then it's dumb. And if it's dumb, then it's random. Unless there's an intelligence guiding the evolutionary process, it's a blind, dumb process of hit or miss, or randomness.

[Strife767]

I'd give you a "D" on this posting.  You can't have it both ways.  If evolution is not intelligent, then it's dumb.

So, what is gravity? Intelligent or dumb? How about electromagnetism? Genetics? Is gene theory intelligent or dumb?

What a ridiculously stupid statement. There is no such thing as a measure of inherent intelligence of a scientific theory. Do you even know what a scientific theory is?

And if it's dumb, then it's random.

This isn't even true--lots of people are dumb, but they don't act randomly. That's not what 'dumbness' is. You're just making up new definitions and applying them all around, lol. Find me a thesaurus that has "dumb" and "random" in the same entry.

Unless there's an intelligence guiding the evolutionary process, it's a blind, dumb process of hit or miss, or randomness.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wrong. Evolution is a process by which mutations (which happen all the time, and are occasionally 'big' enough to cause a significant change in the creature) are selected or rejected based on how they affect a creature's ability to survive and propogate.

Just who do you think you're fooling with the name you posted under? Nobody except another creationist would believe something so ridiculous.

[Guest bewildered]

I'd give you a "D" on this posting.  You can't have it both ways.  If evolution is not intelligent, then it's dumb.  And if it's dumb, then it's random.  Unless there's an intelligence guiding the evolutionary process, it's a blind, dumb process of hit or miss, or randomness.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

WTF? Have ID creationists run out of arguments? This is really scraping the bottom of the fish tank. Evolution is a process. Processes are neither dumb nor smart. There is no reason why evolution needs a guiding intelligence. You still don't want to understand the basics of evolution. It is not random, it is adaptive.

If you actually do teach biology it must be at a fundamentalist school. You shouldn't get away with teaching this in a public school, exept maybe KHS.

[Guest Guest]

WTF?  Have ID creationists run out of arguments?  This is really scraping the bottom of the fish tank.  Evolution is a process.  Processes are neither dumb nor smart.  There is no reason why evolution needs a guiding intelligence.  You still don't want to understand the basics of evolution.  It is not random, it is adaptive.

If you actually do teach biology it must be at a fundamentalist school.  You shouldn't get away with teaching this in a public school, exept maybe KHS.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You have an appropriate name. LOL

[an American in Texas]

"Biology teacher": If evolution is not intelligent, then it's dumb. And if it's dumb, then it's random. Unless there's an intelligence guiding the evolutionary process, it's a blind, dumb process of hit or miss, or randomness.

More illogical nonsense. It's neither dumb nor intelligent; it's a process. It is not a random process; in fact it can be described very succinctly as the tendency of better-adapted creatures to fill ecological niches. How did they get better-adapted? Well, maybe they could run a little faster. Or their coloring was darker due to a mutated gene, so predators couldn't see them as well as their lighter kindred. Those adaptations that enable a creature to reproduce, even at only a few percentage points more than its kindred, spread through the population and change it. As we see, this is the opposite of random behavior.

Over geological time, i.e., millions of years, we wind up with a bewildering variety of creatures who are far more complex that the ones we started out with.

This process is well-documented and well-supported by thousands and thousands of pieces of evidence from a broad range of scientific disciplines. The vast majority of scientists (I've seen numbers as high as 99.8%) find the theory of evolution non-controversial.

The only people who have a problem with it are fundamentalist Christians, and to a lesser extent, fundamentalist Muslims.

Leigh Williams

Austin, Texas

[Guest DingoDave]

Graduate student wrote: "The fossil record DOES NOT support macro evolution. NOT ONE transitional fossil has been found anywhere in the world dispite extensive digs. Think about that; if all the living creatures of the world came from a common ancestor, we should be tripping over transitional fossils, yet there are none."

Dear 'Graduate Student', surely you can't be serious?

HEY EVERYBODY, take a look at this if you want a good chuckle.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html

It's a comparison of fossil hominid skulls, and how the various creationist 'experts' categorise them. Basically, the creationists can't even decide amongst themselves which to class as human, and which to categorise as apes.

Want to have a guess why? OK I'll tell you why.

It's because they are transitional forms.

Biology Teacher wrote: "I'd give you a "D" on this posting. You can't have it both ways. If evolution is not intelligent, then it's dumb. And if it's dumb, then it's random. Unless there's an intelligence guiding the evolutionary process, it's a blind, dumb process of hit or miss, or randomness."

Dear 'Biology Teacher', have you ever heard of natural selection? Natural selection is anything but random!

You are obviously a very poor excuse for a biology teacher. I'm just glad that you're not teaching my child.

I think what we have here is one person impersonating a biology graduate, and another impersonating a biology teacher. Neither of whom are very good at it by the way.

But hey, they can take comfort in the fact that they have earned the respect of '2dim4words', 'A Christofacist', and a 'Believer'. (Yes that is sarcasm. Just look at what you have reduced me to.)

I've said it before and I'll say it again, "Never argue with a fool! He'll simply drag you down to his level and then beat you with experience."

And boy, haven't we seen some prize specimens here on KOTW.

[Guest Biology Teacher]

Graduate_Student (allegedly in biology, which I take leave to doubt): Think about that; if all the living creatures of the world came from a common ancestor, we should be tripping over transitional fossils, yet there are none.

Nonsense.  Here are some hominid transitionals:  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html

The web and science journals are full of pictures of transitional fossils of many species.  It's purely a lie to say there are none.

And the 747 thing?  Extensively debunked already.  But here is a better analogy, shamelessly cribbed from a friend of mine who posts as OncomingTrain on the Beliefnet discussion group Evolution/Creationism:

"Let me suggest a better comparison:

Which is more likely:

1. Someone devised the computer - exactly as it is today - from scratch.

or

2. The computer is the result of a long (long) process of trial and error, starting with extremely simple forms (knots in a rope), moving through many intermediate forms (abacus, slide rule, punch cards, pocket calculator, Commodore, Atari, etc.), leading up to today's computers... which will in turn be replaced in the future by superior models that do their jobs better.

Choice 1 represents "intelligent design". Choice 2 represents evolution. In the case of the computer, the act of selection was done by humans. In the case of life, the selection was merely the ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. But in both cases, each form is the result of trying many variations of the previous form... most of which failed, but a few of which were superior to their predecessor. That's how computers came into being, and that is how the current complexity of life came into being. "

Leigh Williams

Austin, Texas

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you represent the educational system in Texas, then we're all in trouble.

[Guest A Christian]

Graduate_Student (allegedly in biology, which I take leave to doubt): Think about that; if all the living creatures of the world came from a common ancestor, we should be tripping over transitional fossils, yet there are none.

Nonsense.  Here are some hominid transitionals:  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html

The web and science journals are full of pictures of transitional fossils of many species.  It's purely a lie to say there are none.

And the 747 thing?  Extensively debunked already.  But here is a better analogy, shamelessly cribbed from a friend of mine who posts as OncomingTrain on the Beliefnet discussion group Evolution/Creationism:

"Let me suggest a better comparison:

Which is more likely:

1. Someone devised the computer - exactly as it is today - from scratch.

or

2. The computer is the result of a long (long) process of trial and error, starting with extremely simple forms (knots in a rope), moving through many intermediate forms (abacus, slide rule, punch cards, pocket calculator, Commodore, Atari, etc.), leading up to today's computers... which will in turn be replaced in the future by superior models that do their jobs better.

Choice 1 represents "intelligent design". Choice 2 represents evolution. In the case of the computer, the act of selection was done by humans. In the case of life, the selection was merely the ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. But in both cases, each form is the result of trying many variations of the previous form... most of which failed, but a few of which were superior to their predecessor. That's how computers came into being, and that is how the current complexity of life came into being. "

Leigh Williams

Austin, Texas

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There you have it, folks. The Darwiniacs nonsense is exposed. ( a knotted rope EVOLVING into a slide rule ) This is the substance of Darwinism; Disneyland -like magic creating computers from rope (through blind evolution of course).

This is more like a criminal concocting an alibi to fit the crime. Leigh, I have to admit, you're good for a laugh.

[an American in Texas]

A Christian: "There you have it, folks. The Darwiniacs nonsense is exposed. ( a knotted rope EVOLVING into a slide rule ) This is the substance of Darwinism; Disneyland -like magic creating computers from rope (through blind evolution of course)."

Oh, good lord. It's hard to know how to respond to this kind of foolishness. The analogy obviously had nothing to do with "blind evolution". If anything, I suppose a believer in Intelligent Design could parse it to support his belief. Personally, I don't read it that way.

The substance of understanding Darwinism, or more broadly the theory of evolution, is to be found in literally thousands of peer-reviewed scientific journals. Even a layman, if well-read and educated, can understand the basics of biology and genetics well enough to comprehend how thoroughly ToE is supported by the evidence.

And "Biology Teacher", I am not responsible for education in Texas, except insofar as my university degrees were granted by Texas institutions and I might therefore be representative of the quality of education here. I am glad to tell you, however, that those who ARE responsible do ensure that our biology teachers are better-qualified to teach than you are. You can't imagine how glad I am to infer that you are NOT teaching here.

Leigh Williams

Austin, Texas

[Guest Steve_C]

There you have it, folks. The Darwiniacs nonsense is exposed.  ( a knotted rope EVOLVING into a slide rule ) This is the substance of Darwinism; Disneyland -like  magic creating computers from rope (through blind evolution of course).

  This is more like a criminal concocting an alibi to fit the crime.  Leigh, I have to admit, you're good for a laugh.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why do we even bother? Let them wallow in their ignorance.

I feel sorry for the kids in the "biology teacher's" class. I sure hope you stick to the text books otherwise we have another Mr. P on our hands.

Answer me this...

Is it random that a lion's coloring is the same as the african plains?

Is it random that a zebra's stripes confuse lions when they are in a galloping herd?

[Strife767]

If you represent the educational system in Texas, then we're all in trouble.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Can't answer any of his post, can you? This ad hominem's all you got, huh? Pathetic.

[Strife767]

There you have it, folks. The Darwiniacs nonsense is exposed.  ( a knotted rope EVOLVING into a slide rule )

It's an analogy, doofus. Living things evolve all by themselves--stuff like the computer 'evolves' through a bottom-up designer called humanity.

This is the substance of Darwinism; Disneyland -like  magic creating computers from rope (through blind evolution of course).

Oh, please...look at the board in your own eye about calling evolution "magic"--what the hell do you call a god poofing everything into existence, then? At least we have evidence (and an amazingly large amount of it, I'll add)--you're just too stupid/ignorant to understand it.

What's your evidence? One compilation of books, written thousands of years ago, which you guys consider infallible for no other reason than it itself claims its own infallibility, full of events that have no historical evidence, and/or make absolutely no sense scientifically. And it is precisely THOSE events fundies focus on, and insist happened. Can you not understand why no major scientific community in the entire world takes you fools seriously? There is no controversy. Your myth is neither historically accurate, nor is it science. Cut your losses before you guys get your ass kicked in Supreme Court a third time for trying to muscle evolution out of public schools in favor of your nonsense.

This is more like a criminal concocting an alibi to fit the crime.

Oh, you mean like when fundies tried to use the Bible to justify slavery?

[Guest DingoDave]

There you have it, folks. The Darwiniacs nonsense is exposed.  ( a knotted rope EVOLVING into a slide rule ) This is the substance of Darwinism; Disneyland -like  magic creating computers from rope (through blind evolution of course).

  This is more like a criminal concocting an alibi to fit the crime.  Leigh, I have to admit, you're good for a laugh.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dear Christian,

This is only an ANALOGY.

The difference is that these things don't reproduce and naturally mutate. That is, they do not have babies that are slightly different from their parents.

A similar analogy could be made for the evolution of clocks and watches.

[Calybos]

Dear Christian,

This is only an ANALOGY.

The difference is that these things don't reproduce and naturally mutate. That is, they do not have babies that are slightly different from their parents.

A similar analogy could be made for the evolution of clocks and watches.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I guess all of Jesus's parables must have been factually true accounts too, huh? Because analogies DON'T EXIST.

[Guest Guest]

Dear Christian,

This is only an ANALOGY.

The difference is that these things don't reproduce and naturally mutate. That is, they do not have babies that are slightly different from their parents.

A similar analogy could be made for the evolution of clocks and watches.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I realize that anyone with the name "DingoDave" can't be very bright, but here's a news flash I hope you can comprehend; clocks and watches don't "evolve", they're the result of "Intelligent Design".

[Guest DingoDave]

I realize that anyone with the name "DingoDave" can't be very bright, but here's a news flash I hope you can comprehend;  clocks and watches don't "evolve", they're the result of "Intelligent Design".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dear 'Guest',

Please allow me to educate you as to one of the dictionary definitions of the word 'evolution' as it relates to the context in which I used it.

Evolution:

1. Any process of formation or growth or development: eg. The evolution of a language; The evolution of the airplane.

Obviously the writers of this particular dictionary can't be any brighter than I am, because they happen to agree with me that the word evolution when used in this context means 'change over time'. In this sense Clocks and watches have certainly 'evolved'.

From sundials, hourglasses, and waterclocks, to Rolex Oysters and Casio digitals, with just about every variation you can imagine in between.

You have also completely failed to recognise the point that I made about computers and clocks not having babies with natural variation from their parents.

If we use your analogy regarding the 'intelligent design' of computers and clocks, it would mean that laptop computers and Casio digital watches would have to have appeared fully formed from the very beginning. This is patently absurd.

I realise that anyone who posts such stupid and disparaging comments under the name 'Guest' can't be very bright, but here's a newsflash I hope you can comprehend; clocks and watches most certainly did evolve. It's just that they evolved through artificial selection rather than natural selection.

It's also a fact that the driving force behind the evolution of clocks and watches, ie. humans, did evolve naturally through random variation and natural selection.

By the way, based on your judgement, I guess the name 'Buffalo Bill' is a stupid name as well. The name DingoDave was chosen just for a bit of fun.

Q: What are you left with when you take the word 'fun' out of 'fundamentalist'?

A: Da Mentalist!

And there sure are some prize 'mentalists' posting on these forums.

[Guest bewildered]

I realize that anyone with the name "DingoDave" can't be very bright, but here's a news flash I hope you can comprehend;  clocks and watches don't "evolve", they're the result of "Intelligent Design".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Guest does not know what analogy is. No one is saying the evolution of tools is the same of natural evolution.

And stop making personal attacks.