To Gen, Take a guess. It’s not b/c I am rude, I had no reason to be rude, star and I were talking over the weekend with no interruptions. But this morning most if not all of mine and ebcdic were censored out. Nice tact. It’s b/c the evidence I provided was enough to support evolution and after providing hours of dialog and links on many sources of actual evidence I get censored. Such...more

To Gen,

Take a guess. It’s not b/c I am rude, I had no reason to be rude, star and I were talking over the weekend with no interruptions. But this morning most if not all of mine and ebcdic were censored out. Nice tact. It’s b/c the evidence I provided was enough to support evolution and after providing hours of dialog and links on many sources of actual evidence I get censored. Such is the world when people don’t want to hear the evidence for propositions they deny, thus they censor people. This sort of nonsense is horrid and is something the Taliban would endorse.

“ I don't know- But one thing I do know is that God still loves you, no matter how much you hate Him.”

Grow up, I don’t hate him, you or anyone. I just don’t see the required evidence to believe in such a notion.

“And God is still willing to forgive you if you only repent. But you only have one life- one chance to get right with God. I suggest you don't waste any more time.’

This is the same nonsense star said, except she used fear mongering as a way to attempt to persuade me to her proposition. To believe in anything simply as a knee jerk response to primal emotions like fear and love is to abandon ones logic and rationale.less

“Christians don’t ignore science.” Okaaay. I mean, if they didn’t we wouldn't have young earth creationists that think the earth/universe are 6000 years old, while old earth creationists contend it’s 10,000 years old. Both of these stances are founded on rejecting, ignoring science from many different realms. Or let me guess, you'll those types 'aren&#...more

“Christians don’t ignore science.”

Okaaay. I mean, if they didn’t we wouldn't have young earth creationists that think the earth/universe are 6000 years old, while old earth creationists contend it’s 10,000 years old. Both of these stances are founded on rejecting, ignoring science from many different realms.

Or let me guess, you'll those types 'aren't REAL christians'.

“Naturalists seem to think that scientists never make any mistakes.”

No we don’t, science makes mistakes, however unlike other forms of knowledge it learns from the past mistakes by using experiments, gathering more evidence, making predictions, testing them and devise a model to explain all the evidence collectively.

Newtonian gravity wasn’t necessarily wrong, it’s the best Newton could have done at the time with the current technology and evidence it provided. Not until Einstein’s relativity did his notion of instant gravity get shot down. Even with Newtonian gravity we were able to use his calculations to measure the distances required to send rockets into space.

“I think there is such a thing as bad science, just as there is such a thing as bad theology’

Right, just not YOUR theology though, just everyone else’s.less

tgender, “Yes, the Creator knows everything from quantum electrodynamics to genetics because He designed them.“ Such a pity we can’t find any verses implying this. Where is god on thermodynamics or the quantum wave function? Surely an omnipotent being would find it meaningful to let his prophets know of such things he’s responsible for as it would certainly give more cred...more

tgender,

“Yes, the Creator knows everything from quantum electrodynamics to genetics because He designed them.“

Such a pity we can’t find any verses implying this. Where is god on thermodynamics or the quantum wave function? Surely an omnipotent being would find it meaningful to let his prophets know of such things he’s responsible for as it would certainly give more credence to the faith toady.

After all, it would have been mighty impressive if Mark or Luke said: ‘and behold, the lord spoke to me and he told me that Energy equals the speed of light squared multiplied by mass (E= mc2)’.

”Yes, as a scientist, you should spend your days in the worship of the Creator. This doesn’t mean that you cannot also study and learn about the mysteries of the universe, however. "

Just so long as your studies in science don’t conflict with a literalist stance of the scripture of course. So that would mean as a scientist you’d have to reject Physics, Astronomy, Cosmology, Geology, Evolution, and others realms of science as they don’t wash.

" Romans 1:25 "

Doesn't this refer to idolatry as other religions worsphied statues and other religious icons and not the quest for knowledge? if worshiping or having praies to knowledge is somehow a sin, it's not suprising why the corelation of education and religiousity exists at all.less

Seedy, Read up on DNA evidence, particularly ERV’s and Human Chromosome 2 Fusion for common ancestry, especially the details on what the data infers for evolution. That coupled with fossils of past hominids and early primitive apes like Australopithecus Afarensis give fairly good credence for human evolution. Ken Miller on Intelligent Design (whole Video) www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWA...more

Seedy,

Read up on DNA evidence, particularly ERV’s and Human Chromosome 2 Fusion for common ancestry, especially the details on what the data infers for evolution. That coupled with fossils of past hominids and early primitive apes like Australopithecus Afarensis give fairly good credence for human evolution.

Ken Miller on Intelligent Design (whole Video)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

Ken Miller on Apes and Humans
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs1zeWWIm5M

Evidence of Common Ancestry: ERVs
www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA

Evidence of Common Ancestry: Human Chromosome 2
www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0

NOVA Judgement Day ,Intelligent Design onTrial. part1
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qk3sRqsVrh4

Humans and chimpanzees have at least 7 IDENTICAL inactive retroviral DNA sequences (Endogenous Retrovirus) in IDENTICAL locations in their genomes. Most importantly is the ERV insertion via reverse transcriptase occurs entirely at RANDOM. The ONLY way this could occur is if humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor which also possessed the inactive retroviral sequence. What about the fact that the human chromosome 2 is a fusion of two great ape chromosomes.

With respect to DNA evidence, especially the Fusion and 7 Identical ERV's, the only response AIG and ICR has is well, 'god made it that way'. Logically this is foolish as it's suggesting god intentionally leaves evidence for evolution, all the while it's somehow not true according to AIG and ICR.

i await your reply to this.less

“I think that it is correct to presume that in the order of things a Designer necessitates one that at least looks like the Christian God.” So, now you agree with me that ID = god, where earlier you denied it? Hilarious. Not just god, but of course the Christian god. “.He actually has stated that ID does not rule out alien spawning” Really, WHERE?. Cite that one for me...more

“I think that it is correct to presume that in the order of things a Designer necessitates one that at least looks like the Christian God.”

So, now you agree with me that ID = god, where earlier you denied it? Hilarious. Not just god, but of course the Christian god.

“.He actually has stated that ID does not rule out alien spawning”

Really, WHERE?. Cite that one for me please.

“Often enough their work overlaps, but it is distinct in their approach, this story is also similar to the young earth creationists.”

You know it is, and there’s more likeness so it’s quite obvious that ID = god, it’s a no brainer.

AO-“ Moreover, you must admit if there is a god that is behind it all, it’s not an omnibenevolent one, it’s one of indifference. A short glance of the chaos in our Universe and domestically on earth will attest to that.”

Seedy “Hugh Ross has taken a lot of time to explain his results leading to an opposite conclusion.”

Please, do tell. This would be interesting.


(referring to the ‘atheist gene you mentioned) “It apparently is somewhere along the spinal cord, we don’t know exactly. It disables them from being able to humble their self before God. Lol”

A typical creationist failed attempt at making a joke. Hardy har har. It would almost have weight if your god had enough evidence to be believed in to pay homage to in the first place.

Since we have gone off on this morality, ethics, and this entirely different tangent than what my first question posed, allow me to retort. PLEASE finally answer these 2 pieces of evidence as they relate to evolution in the post above.

PEACE.less

“You believe that we have been begotten through random acts of blind impersonal materialism, step by step in a world of hostility. Yet guided by Mother Nature it somehow was able to over come the obstacles by sheer determination” Obviously you don’t understand the 4 universal laws (gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces) if you had you wouldn’t hav...more

“You believe that we have been begotten through random acts of blind impersonal materialism, step by step in a world of hostility. Yet guided by Mother Nature it somehow was able to over come the obstacles by sheer determination”

Obviously you don’t understand the 4 universal laws (gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces) if you had you wouldn’t have made such a claim. Matter has to exist (refer to 1st law) it can’t NOT exist, and it also must seek a resolute state, and it operates according to those universal forces. Those forces is what ‘guided’ naturally if you will the universe we see before us. No magic man behind the curtain pulling strings required for any of that.



“The fact that it was relatively recent that the scientific community threw out magical spontaneous generation reveals problems with your analogy.”

No it’s not, science strips away ignorance, it lives off of new data that is tested added and used, unlike religion which never uses any new data in it’s scriptures as to alter scripture is heresy!.

The two are totally different in this dept. Religions work best when no new evidence for anything is uncovered and while the masses are ignorant of evidence; while science thrives as new theories are created, edited (relativity) or crushed to explain the evidence of our world. Science is all about progressing knowledge and explain our universe. Religion asserts there is no reason to even research anything as it asserts it has all the answers in their ancient book.

“God is not merely a ‘posit,’ but rather deduced from the evidence. Looking at the technological advancements of science, how could one say that this is a result of years of accumulated random chance processes by which material came together to form complex structures.’

What technological structures? Please do list, I love refuting ID complexity.less

“The evidence is not so persuasive for natural evolution; certain aspects of evolution, yes; natural evolution, no.” Fine what aspects in natural evolution are so confounding to you that the whole notion that it works naturally must be tossed? My guess is you’ll opt for biological systems and not mention any of the paleontology evidence or any other evidence for natural evolution...more

“The evidence is not so persuasive for natural evolution; certain aspects of evolution, yes; natural evolution, no.”

Fine what aspects in natural evolution are so confounding to you that the whole notion that it works naturally must be tossed? My guess is you’ll opt for biological systems and not mention any of the paleontology evidence or any other evidence for natural evolution. ID resides in arguing from personal incredulity and attempts to hammer in a designer in place of ignorance. Most disingenuous.

“How could I have guessed that you would have introduced atheism of the gaps? The point here is that if a miracle was staring you in the face, you would not believe it until you discovered some kind of a way to dismiss it, in spite of the evidence affirming it.”

No, I want to explain everything that can be explained in a scientific natural method and not resort to opt to use the ‘god did it’ clause which has been used over and over when attempting to explain confounding things. I asked for the evidence of ‘how dead this guy was’, IE was he brain dead? You didn’t bother to answer so I’ll assume he wasn’t and so he was never really dead to begin with.


(regarding spontaneous generation) “To be quite honest I did not know the scientific establishment had changed its mind.”

It’s been over a decade, read up on it. They don’t think it poofed out of nowhere in a single instance. Refer to the chemically bonding processes that molecules naturally have and why such nucleotides and poly nucleotides would have formed, that is one of the leading ideas leading to primitive RNA that composes DNA. No current scientists think DNA in a single instance was up and formed and nor do they consider ‘magic’ to be involved, rather they’re investigating the natural means to explain it as even according to Occam’s razor it makes more sense for things to occur naturally and without adding more complex factors (god) into the equation, especially as this factor can’t be substantiated.

“To say that imperial evidence is the only plausible evidence only reveals the inability on your part to recognize multi-dimensional realities that do not suite your taste buds’

EVIDENCE is everything. If some other dimension exist and there is credible evidence that is the case that it’s logical to accept it. Religious beliefs such as miracles fly in the face of this reality and they assert credible evidence isn’t required, but just ‘faith alone’ and this is why I reject them. To have ‘faith alone’ in any proposition is delusional.less

“Peter Singer” Consistent with his general ethical theory, Singer holds that the right to life is grounded in a being's personhood; that is, in the sense of a being's rationality and self-consciousness. In his view, the central argument against abortion is equivalent to the following logical syllogism: It is wrong to kill an innocent human being. A human fetus is an innoce...more

“Peter Singer”

Consistent with his general ethical theory, Singer holds that the right to life is grounded in a being's personhood; that is, in the sense of a being's rationality and self-consciousness. In his view, the central argument against abortion is equivalent to the following logical syllogism:
It is wrong to kill an innocent human being.
A human fetus is an innocent human being.
Therefore it is wrong to kill a human fetus.
His argument against this is to say that, while a fetus is admittedly a member of the human species, it is not a person, which is defined as a self conscious being that sees itself over time. Species membership is morally irrelevant, but personhood is relevant.

His views on such things stems logically concluding using sciences evidence for what is defined as a human as it relates to conscisouness, sensory of pain and so on. Is a zygote a human, it has no memeory, no sense of conscious being, nor does it feel pain and this can be said further out past when it’s an embryo. Od you consider a zygote human and if so on what grounds? If you ground them on your religious belief in a soul, something that none have even prooved then it’s perhaps time to see what science has to say as to what a human really is.



“Again, without a moral compass, I think that the natural tendancy as noted here prior is one of domination and control.”

Right, no theists have ever tried to assert political control or domination. What are you kidding me?
What religious doctrines HAVEN’T been used in the past to assert domination, control and subjugation over the masses is the real question. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.


‘Naturalism is based on certain beliefs and presumptions that are carried into science.”

Gee, I wonder why?! It’s b/c for something to be included in science an it must be studied in the NATURAL world, that's why naturalism is prefered.less

“My point merely is as simple as this, if it is bad to take the Bible literally, how much worse is it to take survival of the fitest literally” Well, if you read biology you’d realize that in evolution ‘survival of the fittest’ doesn’t strictly mean ‘only the strong survive’. In most organisms they only survive b/c of their altruistic and symbiotic relati...more

“My point merely is as simple as this, if it is bad to take the Bible literally, how much worse is it to take survival of the fitest literally”

Well, if you read biology you’d realize that in evolution ‘survival of the fittest’ doesn’t strictly mean ‘only the strong survive’. In most organisms they only survive b/c of their altruistic and symbiotic relationships with other species and their own species. Only by ignoring this and other biology information would one conclude that evolution or natural selection some how gives a license to go out on a rampage.

We don’t see too many scientists and biologists going on rampages (at all literally) and they’d never blame it on some processes the excuse their actions. We don’t see scientists doing such rampage acts as they fully understand evolution and natural selection and that ‘survival of the fittest’ is a misnomer. It’s not always the most fit, but many times the most cooperative, the most ethical, and most moral species that win out, but of course you’d have to read a biology book and not sound bites to know this.

“This does not mean that all atheists and naturalists are in fact nihilists, but they are in the same religious category”

Fine, how are atheists, agnostics religious at all? We have no sacred holidays, no doctrines, no places of worship, we don’t worship anyone, etc.

“If you presuppose religion should be eliminated because people take it too literally,”

This isn’t my only reason, but it’s among them. Taking anything too literally and not acting rationally and logically is most absurd, theistic or not.

“If you really want to work on some type of social harmony it is counter-productive to come into a Christian sight posting anti-theistic messages.”

No it’s not, my goal is to strip away at unchallenged dogmas that most theists never question. My goal is to inform theists, Christians in particular on what evolution and other sciences REALLY suggests and so they’re no mislead. I have been doing this, but as it seems some Christians here don’t want to even hear of the evidence and so I am censored. If they are still religious in the end then fine, if they move toward Deism fine, if they choose non religious views fine. Perhaps more importantly is to show my Christian brethren that as un believer I have many of the same aspirations in life and can offer a view that they otherwise can’t or wont’ see. I am here to demystify the stigmas attached to non believers as being less ethical or someone un able to know morality without the notion of god.less

“I am sure that you are including atheists [in your diagnosis] as well, such as the Columbine High [massacre], Jeffrey Dahmer…” Well of course I am, any dogmatic literalist approach, theistic or atheistic isn’t rationale or wise. “Nevertheless, atheism as a whole is proven to be the most destructive ideology’ No it’s not, only those that are NIHILISTS...more

“I am sure that you are including atheists [in your diagnosis] as well, such as the Columbine High [massacre], Jeffrey Dahmer…”

Well of course I am, any dogmatic literalist approach, theistic or atheistic isn’t rationale or wise.


“Nevertheless, atheism as a whole is proven to be the most destructive ideology’

No it’s not, only those that are NIHILISTS view the world in such ‘meaningless’ terms.

“Even though non-religious affiliated people only make up around 80% of the world’s population, this small percentage is responsible for the vilest acts of human depravity ever perpetrated on mankind.”

Non religious people globally make up 80% of the worlds population huh? What nonsense, the majority of people are theists! I guess you meant 8%? As if theist organizations haven’t done anything wrong then, is that what you’re saying? Both sides have done wrong and both have done right.

“Meanwhile you are complaining about the extremely few churches that practice snake handling because they don’t know how to properly exegete Scripture and institute hermeneutics.”

Oh those hics are hardly the only ones that don’t interpret the bible as it should be and you know this. Part of the problem is religious doctrines give otherwise san people a license to do stupid things.

“ Meanwhile, what violence have they committed to others?”

Say this about the Muslims who took their holy book literally and flew planes into our world trade center. Taking anything to such a degree of certainty is retarded, and mixing 21st century nuclear weapons with 1st century or 6th century beliefs is like mixing drinking with driving.

“but again I do not see them as raging atheists who are plotting the next coup.”

Where do you even see this? WHAT coup?less

“Hugh Ross has developed a creation model that is falsifiable.” Oh please, do tell! “Explain what basis you have in the scheme of natural evolution to eliminate Christianity?” Christianity isn’t my beef, it’s religion and it’s fantasy beliefs which are largely unproven, unprovable, unsubstantiated, and otherwise non credible. I have nothing with any part...more

“Hugh Ross has developed a creation model that is falsifiable.”

Oh please, do tell!

“Explain what basis you have in the scheme of natural evolution to eliminate Christianity?”

Christianity isn’t my beef, it’s religion and it’s fantasy beliefs which are largely unproven, unprovable, unsubstantiated, and otherwise non credible. I have nothing with any particular religion, my beef is with ignorance of science and how much religion happens to influence people to believe in unsubstantiated things.

“My challenge is and has been that if theism is a matter of biological materialism, than it is a product of evolution.”

Yes, and as I eluded to earlier not all things that stem from evolution are eternally beneficial. Some things that occur via evolution served a purpose but now in the context in which the animal lives serves no purpose at all.

“These beliefs are in fact genetically determined.”

I don’t know about that, I think it has more to do with memes and how they are passed down generation to generation with no one bothering to even question their very purpose. We might be genetically predisposed to make up and manifest beliefs that have no evidence at all simply to explain away otherwise confounding things, but this isn’t a logical or rationale process, it’s a process stemming from recognizing patterns attributing some agent/god behind the scenes and attributed such actions to a god. In other words, sheer ignorance.

After all, why do we have every cultural that have believed in elemental gods that controlled the weather and other confounding things. It all stems from ignorance of how nature really works.

“If you think that methodological evolution is the way to go, then why not argue for it?’

I am arguing for it, read my posts and you’d realize this. I am one of the few on here that seems to even understand evolution at any length and I am trying to stem the tide of ignorance that is rampantless

“A guiding hand does not intend to refer to the idea that God’s hand is literally helping each and every single step of every fertilization and formation” Sure it does, in fact that’s ID principle claim. It asserts that certain complex systems couldn’t have evolved via natural cumulative progressive steps and thus they assert that god/ID designer created the system in a...more

“A guiding hand does not intend to refer to the idea that God’s hand is literally helping each and every single step of every fertilization and formation”

Sure it does, in fact that’s ID principle claim. It asserts that certain complex systems couldn’t have evolved via natural cumulative progressive steps and thus they assert that god/ID designer created the system in an instant. To assert that the designed created something instantly is in principle the same argument as saying ‘god did it’ as even it’s not god the designer has the same skill set. This is also was Behe and other ID folk ignore paleontology fossils as evidence and only deal with biological systems.

“It is the scientific progressives that maintain they don’t know how life began or why it works the way it does.”

This has NOTHING to do with organisms evolving and you know, this ONLY pertains to how life initially got here and not evolution.

“I would very much like to see a scientist build a machine that can reproduce another machine that can reproduce’

Where have you been? Scientists are nearly done in creating a new synthetic species of bacteria from scratch.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/01/080125-artificial-life.html
www.jcvi.org/cms/research/projects/synthetic-bacterial-genome/press-release/
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/24/AR2008012402203.html?hpid=sec-health

“that you should presume to be the one who gets to decide who is right and who is dead.’

Again, you’re a tosser. I am NOT talking about ANYONE being put to death, I am saying in democratic consensus we should determine what we are to believe in and question even wishful propositions in afterlife that we have NO EVIDENCE OF.

“As I said embryonic stem cell research has developed zilch, zero, nada.”

Well it can’t exactly contribute a whole lot if it’s continually denied any ability to do research and funding by our govt. now can’t it? You’re complaining that it hasn’t accomplished anything, but that’s not it’s fault, it’s b/c of the govt that’s in way preventing progress again.

“There is no way on God’s green earth that you can justify despising your neighbors because they go to church on Sundays to honor their creator.”

Well to me it’s akin to a delusion as an adult believing in santa, so in that regard I can justify looking down on them for their beliefs in things that lack empirical backing is something to be questioned.less

“It is interesting that you admit that we have a spiritual nature. Shall I presume you think it is only useful for getting high with LSD? I’m being facetious, but some of your posts make me wonder.” Not necessarily a spiritual nature, but we perceive our world differently based on the random chemicals going on in our brains in given instances. IE, this is why people use such drug...more

“It is interesting that you admit that we have a spiritual nature. Shall I presume you think it is only useful for getting high with LSD? I’m being facetious, but some of your posts make me wonder.”

Not necessarily a spiritual nature, but we perceive our world differently based on the random chemicals going on in our brains in given instances. IE, this is why people use such drugs to experience altered states of reality and so they can view the world from a different view. This is the same reason people engage in meditation and why they isolate themselves in a cave or fast without food for long periods. All of which give rise to a deeper appreciation and greater opening of the minds eye. It doesn’t’ mean one is one a 1 way conversation with god, but that the chemicals in the brain reflect reality differently.

“I couldn’t agree and disagree more, I say it is like a man who looks at a design and dismisses it as not having a designer.”

Oh, you mean like all the designed systems Behe used in his arguments in Dover? All of which were shown that natural evolution could clearly resolve. The concept of what is and isn’t ‘designed’ is largely subjective and stems directly to ones ignorance. In Behe’s case the many instances he used HE couldn’t figure it out in a natural way so he asserted it must be instantly designed. This is an argument from credulity as it assumes that not only will any current people ever figure something out, but neither will anyone in the future.

“I think that the biggest point of contention between evolution and creationists is when adhoc terms are used such as ‘unguided’ are used in public”

Look up natural selection and all the natural processes involved, there is no guiding hand there. Organic systems evolve as they respond to their habitat and the selective pressures.less

“Again, this is a moral judgment and prescription that presumes you know what the best belief for individuals and society is as well as assuming authority as to deciding what is worth keeping” It’s as much a logical judgment as a moral one. We shouldn’t be compelled to keep beliefs in things that don’t hold any evidence for their proposition, to do otherwise is delusion...more

“Again, this is a moral judgment and prescription that presumes you know what the best belief for individuals and society is as well as assuming authority as to deciding what is worth keeping”

It’s as much a logical judgment as a moral one. We shouldn’t be compelled to keep beliefs in things that don’t hold any evidence for their proposition, to do otherwise is delusion. it might fun to believe in such wishfull things as they make us feel more important and warm and fuzzy on t the inside, but this type of delussion in beliving in things for which their is non crebile evidence is like an adult believing in santa.

“so far as I have indicated through the numerous researches and studies that have been done Christianity gives far more benefit in the evolutionary social context than atheism ever has or could ever hope to.”

It’s pretty easy to feel overly sappy when you sincerely consider that death on earth doesn’t matter as you’ll have another chance to see loved ones later. But is there evidence for this? Nada. Same goes for miracles. Yet, these parts of a belief system are critical to keeping it going for it one realizes miracles and after life are unsubstantiated then it’s a process of self delusion and we’re wishfully making manifestations not based on reality that run our lives and decisions and this is wrong.

“Atheism is still a belief involving many things that stem directly from denying the existence God. I think your argument from ignorance is eclipsed by the evidence for design”

Fine, show me the great omnibenevolent design that all theists think the universe was expressly made for us and I’ll smash them 1 by 1.less

HampsteadPete, I'd be carefull with you evolutionary dialog, as they will likely censor you as they are confronted with the evidence. I and ebcdic were. www.christianpost.com/article/20080123/30947_Why_Darwinism_is_So_Dangerous.htm

ebcdic, "They have no idea how rapidly that evidence is growing" Seriously,and DNA is going to be the final straw. DNA is erefutable, and is linchpin to defining many of the details on how evolution works in greater detail. Darwin and others had no ides of DNA and neither did Mendel, but Mendel knew there had to be some process by which information is getting passed onto the offps...more

ebcdic,

"They have no idea how rapidly that evidence is growing"

Seriously,and DNA is going to be the final straw. DNA is erefutable, and is linchpin to defining many of the details on how evolution works in greater detail. Darwin and others had no ides of DNA and neither did Mendel, but Mendel knew there had to be some process by which information is getting passed onto the offpsring causing evolution, but without DNA he couldn't of known. The knowledge of DNA fills that void of ignorance and confirms what he thought, and it also reafrims mny other things dealing with biology, say nothing of evolutin.

However, the challenge is partly in getting the populace to even understand the basics of biology in order to accept DNA and other evidences for evolution that to a laymen seem too complex to comprehend. I think this is where star is at and a good % of the populace. It's easy to reject evidence when you're ignorant of it.

Is it any wonder why we rank so low on science performance indexs globally?less

ebcdic, Sure, check em all out if you're into Science. http://youtube.com/user/cdk007 http://youtube.com/user/ExtantDodo http://youtube.com/user/potholer54 http://youtube.com/user/BonoboBill http://youtube.com/user/Thunderf00t http://youtube.com/user/Acorvettes

“I don't believe that it is possible for speciation to take place.” It won’t? Then please explain the moon butterflies? Here it is, you admitted earlier admitting to know nothing in evolutionary biology and somehow you came to conclusion that it just can’t happen huh? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6896753.stm Or the new species of nylon digesting bacte...more

“I don't believe that it is possible for speciation to take place.”

It won’t? Then please explain the moon butterflies? Here it is, you admitted earlier admitting to know nothing in evolutionary biology and somehow you came to conclusion that it just can’t happen huh?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6896753.stm

Or the new species of nylon digesting bacteria. Nylon a material that never existed till 1930’s.

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

Or a new mosquito species ‘Culex molestus’

Or any of these new speciation’s.

www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

It doesn’t really matter what YOU believe b/c the evidence shows it happens, just like evidence shows what happens in all other science theories.

“The kind of mutations that would be needed for that I believe would have killed the mutant offspring(s) before the male and female (if they existed together) ever had a chance to reproduce.”

You really don’t understand mutation rates do you? Within DNA there is a biological limit to have many mutations a generation can have and this automatically defines if the organism is even born at all as to have too much of allelic genetic difference via mutation would kill the offspring.

How speciation works at a macro evolutionary (species barrier) works.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Nnu-O5x_pRU

http://youtube.com/watch?v=5nj587d5iesless

xizwyck, Since you emphatically doubt evolution, I would like your input on 2 pieces of evidence. 1) Human Chromosme 2 Fusion and 2) 7 Identical ERV's we and Chimps share in the exact same genetic locations. You've likely heard me discuss this, so I don't think I need ot bring up the details. If you'd like though, I will post the links with the related information so you ...more

xizwyck,

Since you emphatically doubt evolution, I would like your input on 2 pieces of evidence. 1) Human Chromosme 2 Fusion and 2) 7 Identical ERV's we and Chimps share in the exact same genetic locations.

You've likely heard me discuss this, so I don't think I need ot bring up the details. If you'd like though, I will post the links with the related information so you can draw your own conclussions. Peace.less

Star, Back to genetics (assuming you’re interested) what it can show regarding genetic markers. Genetic markers are what are used in paternity testing as it shows heredity, no one denies this. Genetic markers may or may not have any genetic function. In the case with ERV’s mentioned earlier, they serve no function and so they easily refute the ‘designer argument’. Somethi...more

Star,

Back to genetics (assuming you’re interested) what it can show regarding genetic markers. Genetic markers are what are used in paternity testing as it shows heredity, no one denies this. Genetic markers may or may not have any genetic function. In the case with ERV’s mentioned earlier, they serve no function and so they easily refute the ‘designer argument’.

Something you’d find interesting is Aarons Y chromosome (yes the Aaron that was a brother of Moses in the bible). According to Jewish tradition, high priests are all male (no surprise) and are all descendants of the first high priest, Aaron. Theses males are known as kohanim, and today their last names have such variants as Cohen, Cohn, and Kahn. Researchers obtained DNA samples (cheek cells) from modern Jewish men who identified themselves as kohanim, in Israel, USA and England.

More than 90 percent of Cohanim today share the same genetic markers of these shared DNA sequence (a marker) in their Y chromosome that had to come from a common ancestor about a 100 generations back-which was approximately the time that Aaron is believed to have lived. This Cohan Modal Haplotype may very well have come from Aarons Y chromosome.

www.cambridgedna.com/y-chromosomal-aaron-and-the-cohen-model-haplotype.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Aaron

Science can verify cases like this, and slave descendants of Thomas Jefferson, the last Czar in Russian, Genghis Khans descendants and so on. In Mongolia 13% of the people share this unique genetic marker that is consistent with Genghis Khans time. Surely if we can accept this DNA evidence to reaffirm what we accept or to confirm that which we were skeptical about, it can equally be used to identify genetic markers that we and Chimps also have.

Again, ERV’s do NOT have any function in determining if a offspring is tall, short, blue eyed, brown eyed etc. This information is the result of viruses that have reverse transcribed their coding into the hosts DNA and as a result all offspring that have this ERV will have an identifiable marker.

Most importantly is the viruses attach themselves at random to host receptor sites and thus can be inserted essentially anywhere within the ‘junk DNA’ section of the genome. For and us and Chimps to share not only the same 7 ERV’s, but in identical nuclear genetic locations is something that really can only be explained via common ancestry.less