Talking with a biology professor who endorses evolution

I doubt that highly, because such a quote flies of all experimental evidence as well as ignores the entire fields of Genetics, Palaeoecology and Biochemistry.

And then to prove your point you take a video from convicted fraudster ppsimmons…you serious…that’s like sighting Kent Hovend.

“one population has never been observed changing into another population”-ppsimmons

Of course it has not, such a thing would fly in the face of evolutionary theory. Every single offspring is the same species as it’s parents, however when the population is separated either chronologically or geographically those 112-150 mutations at conception add up, and because gene flow between these populations (remember these populations are enumerated either by time or a physical barrier) gene flow is no longer effective at preventing speciation. This is an event that people like you like to ignore.

“…assume that chimps came from a common ancestor in the first place”-ppsimmons

Humans are apes, thus through decent with modification are related both genetically, taxonomically and morphologically. The only reason that the “two isolated populations” is mentioned at all is because there is direct fossilised, genetic, taxonomic, morphologic and biochemical evidence for that case. These are not assumptions, those are unsubstantiated claims of which “humans are apes” is not, why? Because it is not up for debate, this is our family group, we are a subset of apes in the same way as we are a sub set of placental mammals, mammals and animals.

Evolution, Abiogenesis and Origins are all different theories…I’m willing to bet that even you know that Max, despite you lack of knowledge in all fields of science and reason, I’m pretty sure that even you are intellegent to reconise the difference between the Field of Biology and three theories only one of which is Biology (evolution) the other is of Biochemistry (Abiogenesis) and the final of Paleontology (Origins).

All of evolution, origins and abiogenesis is demonstrated, observed, tested, repeated and falsifiable. Again I’m willing to bet that even you know that, though beyond that, why bring up a video filled with things from a source that you know is bad, filled with things that you know are wrong?

1. No I would say that he was correct (for his day at least), however if the man had said: “the beetle can spit fire, fly and grant three wishes” then you would receive a different response, it does not matter who makes a claim if it is directly contradicted by ALL evidence in that field. Beyond that my mastery of the English Language knows no bounds:
“And then to prove your point you take a video from ppsimmons…you serious…that’s like sighting convicted fraudster Kent Hovend” Science I’m good at, getting a point across with all these obvious mistakes in my typing I’m not.

2.JESUS CHRIST, WE’VE BEEN THROUGH THIS!
Why do you insist in not reading a single thing I say? Two organisms are different species when they can no longer breed and produce fertile offspring (i.e. offspring that can also breed), if the offspring is infertile the parents are two different species and the offspring is technically not classified as a species (though most common folk will say otherwise due to a limited understanding of Taxonomy) but simply as an organism in it’s own right. Seriously I cannot count how many times I’ve been through this with you, I feel like a broken record playing the same note over and over again and you still asking to hear it!

3. Reality does not show something different, name the physical characteristics of Humans, it is impossible to do so without also describing Apes, aside from out unique skull and Hip (unique to Hominids not to Homo Sapians) lightly build bones (not found in other Great Apes but found in other primates) and relative hairless body we are almost exactly like other Great Apes. In the same way we are mammals and eukaryotes, this is not up for debate nor is it a Theory only an observation. One might as well argue that Earth is not a planet because they don’t believe in our model of the solar system.

4.”Are you going to teach me my A.B,C’s next? I would not put it past you but I am glad that you have resorted to this kind of madness because at the end of your field this is all you got.”

re-I would not put it past you to need someone to teach you the alphabet. Seriously? I deal with teenagers on a daily basis, I sleep in my lab on occasion because I can’t go home and I deal with people telling me I’m going to burn forever because of my “choice” of lifestyle; yet if there is one thing I cannot stand it is stupidity! Not only are you a personification of such a condition but you surpass it so that a new word is in need of formulation to describe your condition, your not just ignorant either because you have been told you just lack the mental capacity to remove your head from your ass long enough to use what little brain power you have in order to think before opening your trap!

BTW, Kent Hovand also thought that if you let a Jackson’s Chameleon live for 900 years it would “turn into something similar to a Triceratops”, or that a lizard would turn into any Dinosaur (even though lizards and Dinosaurs are not closely related) but “the genes for largeness are gone for whatever reason”.

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/8491003-md.jpg
(Jackson’s Chameleon)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/Triceratops_head_(blitz).jpg
(Triceratops)

1. I wish you would stop bringing this up, we’ve been through this before. I don’t need to argue against Intelligent Design Hypothesis, the burden of proof is on that making the claim, therefore one would need to put up a case against Evolution Theory and find substantial evidence to support Intelligent Design Hypothesis. However nobody has ever done either, Evolution Theory is one of the most tested and therefore one of the strongest Theories in Modern Science. By comparison Gravity (General Relativity) and Chemical Theory are both understood only in Theory with less than half the evidence (measured in papers on the subject) that Evolution Theory does as well as Evolution Theory also being understood in reality through the field of Genetics as well as in Theory through the rest of Biology.
Beyond that, Kent Hovand is a convicted fraud, he repeatability lies about his education, experiences and science in general. He like you has absolutely no education and the worst part is that he offers a $250,000 prize that every single person in the field of Genetics has claim to, but refuses to give out because he will no longer be able to say “to date nobody has received this prize” and therefore deliberately deceive his audience.

2.We’ve been through this as well! I do not get angry because you ask questions, that is a good thing. However I do get angry when you ask the same questions over and over again or bring up points already dealt with. For example I may as well ask “what is the supernatural?” then the very next day ask you again, and continue to do this for months on end. That pisses me off because you don’t listen! Beyond that I really don’t care what you believe, believe what you want all I can do is explain the facts and watch you ignore them completely.

3. “Well you have a good straw-man there comparing planets to humans. I still say common designer is the best explanation.”

re-Such a thing is not an explanation, it’s dodging the question by blaming the supernatural, similar to disease, erosion and planet formation: the diversity of life and origin of life already have natural explanations for them yet people like you still trust that it was a God with an incantation spell. In order for that to be an explanation at all one would have to provide evidence for the existence of such a designer/ designers as well as provide evidence against all Evolution Theory both of which we have discussed that nobody has done.

4. We’ve been through this: the burden of proof is with that making the claim, Evolution is not “blindly guided” that’s the entire point of Natural Selection is that Environmental Conditions guide the process, I know you have yet to tell me I’m going to burn forever I listen to what you say! However you also have yet to make me sleep in my lab or make me deal with teenagers but you have not said that this is not your fault, I was making a point about what does and does not piss me off. The first sin of Satanism is inexcusable in my opinion, your stupidity apparently knows no bounds. Further to that point my arguments are not emotional, as when I get pissed these are not arguments as such is a point backed up by fact, I have shared this with you yet you chose to ignore it in favour of your fairy tale.

1. I guess I’ll answer in sections…
fossil record: the fossil record is littered with transitions AS WE PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED, however what you and other creationists do is simply assert that any transition is “100% A” or “100% B” take for example tiktaalik even though it has features of lobe finned fish, lung fish and early tetrapods creationists either assert that it is either a lobe finned fish or a lung fish ignoring completely it’s tetrapod characteristics and either it’s lung fish of lobe finned fish characteristics. Another example is Australiopithecus Afarensis with characteristics of both Hominids and other Great Apes, however creationists either class it as either 100% “Ape” or 100% Hominid ignoring completely the characteristics held by the other classification (i.e. if one says “it’s an ape” they will ignore the Hominid characteristics and vise versa), similarly Therapods (dinosaurs with two legs, “s” shaped neck, bird hip, wish bone, crocodilian spinal structure, bone structure and skull structure: commonly known as “predatory dinosaurs”) and show characteristics of both Aves (Birds) and Crocodiles however depending on the sample creationists will either class it as a crocodile, a bird or place it into a third category “dinosaurs” ignoring that all members of this category hold characteristics of both Aves and Crocodiles. The fossil record supports evolution, not ID…one would expect to find all major groups appearing at once if ID were correct, or if the flood fable was correct they should be sorted by buoyancy not by evolutionary order.

“A true transitional form would have non-functioning parts or appendages, such as the nub of a leg or wing.”

re-no, such a find would actually act against evolution by natural selection, instead one would find parts developed and adapted for different tasks as niches become available (which is exactly what we find), remember evolution is simply mutations compiled over successive generations guided by natural selection, non-functioning parts and appendages are selected against like we discusses with whale evolution previously.

“Where are the trillions of fossils of such true transitional forms?”

re-well I just named three, if you wish to know more then just ask and I shall supply you with one if such a thing should actually exist and I also explained that creationists like yourself always dismiss transitional forms as 100% one kind or the other when there is no case for such things being all transitional forms have characteristics of both groups.

“Critics often say that creationism is simply religion, whereas evolutionism is based on science. The Bible states in Genesis I that all creatures reproduce “after their kind” (no change to another kind, i.e., no transitional forms).”

re-saying creationism isn’t a religion then putting forward a case from a religious holly book doesn’t help, Evolution Theory is a scientific theory, I don’t know how many times we’ve been over this, however the “after their kind” is a blank term, because “kind” is an undefined term in itself such a statement could mean anything, unless one can define such a term (in relation to Biology) then they may/may not have a case, if every single piece of evidence from all relative fields of science didn’t converge on evolution.

“If evolution is true, why don’t they give us answers to our many questions?”

re-we kinda do, however you tend to ignore my answers (I’m not sure about everyone else) and just bring up the topic again after it has already been dealt with.

“Where did all the 90-plus elements (iron, barium, calcium, silver, nickel, neon, chlorine, etc.) come from? How was it determined how many bonds each element would have for combining with other elements?”

re- That’s not evolution but I will answer anyway, all the 90+ are formed (apart from iron which is formed in nuclear fusion like other light elements) in a “supernova” when a star “dies” the heat and energy released is enough to combine the nuclei from two or more atoms making a new heavy element, a quick Google search would clear this up but I am glad that you asked instead of assuming that there simply was no answer.

As for bonds the answer lies in “Chemical Theory” which is how the periodic table’s construction is based on (it will help if you are looking at one as a reference). The elements like He (Helium), Ne (Neon), Ar (Argon), etc are known as “inert” or “noble gasses” these elements are in what is known as a “stable electron configuration” which is when their respected “electron orbitals” are full, this means that they do not react with anything (with the exception of Xenon (Xe) but only under extreme conditions where an electron is physically removed/ added) all other elements seek this “stable configuration” and therefore will either “give”, “take” or “share” electrons with other elements in order to obtain this configurations. The amount of electrons that an element must take/give/share in order to obtain this stable configuration determines how many bonds are available. (btw, I didn’t expect you to already know this I also minored in Chemistry)

“How do you explain the precision in the design of the elements, with increasing numbers of electrons in orbit around the nucleus?”

re- this is actually rather simple, an element is determined by the amount of “protons” in the nucleus (positivity charged heavy particles), this is given by their “atomic number” i.e. Hydrogen has 1 proton, Helium has 2, Lithium has 3 and so on. These protons are positivity charged, because of this more electrons (particles that are negatively charged) are attracted to the nucleus in order to balance this out, the amount of electrons is directly proportional to the amount of protons in a given atom (unless in part of certain chemical reactions where electrons are taken or given) because each has the same charge only reversed.

“Where did the thousands of compounds we find in the world come from[?]”

re- compounds are a direct result of atoms taking, giving or sharing electrons in order to obtain a stable electron configuration, most (but there are a few exceptions) compounds have no net charge, because when one atom “takes” an electron from another one becomes positivity charged and the other negative (balancing out the charge) this forces them together: this is called an “ionic bond”. When electrons are shared this also forces the atoms together because the electron is attracted to both nuclei forcing the atoms together; this is known as a covalent bond. Molecules are formed when one or more of these events happen, for example carbon has 4 electrons it needs to take or share and therefore can bond to a maximum of 4 other atoms, it can either do this by sharing with 2 oxygen (each oxygen needs 2 electrons to take of share) or by any other configuration, often this means that whatever bonds to the carbon still has electrons it needs to share of give away forcing another atom to join. This continues until you obtain a complete molecule, the conditions and what elements there are present determine what compound(s) are formed and in what quantities.

“They could not have developed from the elements, because elements rarely react with each other. For example, did all the salt in the ocean form by sodium reacting with chlorine (a gas)?”

re- there you are wrong, you see elements are always reacting with each other (aside from inert gasses like Helium, Argon, Neon, etc.) for example Oxygen reacts with Oxygen to form O2 or O3 (O3 only in certian conditions) or with Carbon to form CO2. But beyond that yes sodium chloride forms when sodium reacts with chlorine…however both have to be dissolved in a liquid (like water) or both have to be condensed or both have to be vaporised. Chlorine actually bonds with just about anything and so does Sodium because both construct bonds strong enough to rip electrons from the other or give them away strong enough to strip the other from whatever it is currently bonded to, this is why pure Sodium and Chlorine are toxic and sodium chloride is not.

“When did all the compounds we find in the world develop—before the big bang, during the big bang, after the big bang?”

re- after the big bang, because the only element capable of condensing without assistance is Hydrogen and in a universe with only Hydrogen H2 is the only possible compound, for higher elements nuclear fusion is needed, it is only after nuclear fusion can more complex compounds form.

“When evolutionists use the term “matter,” which of the thousands of compounds is included?”

re- matter means everything with mass + photons (which sometimes have mass and sometimes don’t), matter at it’s simplest is condensed energy (energy and matter are interchangeable E=MC^2), therefore all compounds are included because they all are constructed from atoms which are constructed of protons, neutrons and electrons which (aside from electrons) are comprised of quarks, which are comprised of those particles found in the “Standard Model” (the 12 simplest particles of matter we have found so far).

” When evolutionists use the term “primordial soup,” which of the elements and compounds is included?”

re- the “primordial soup” is primary comprised of: water, carbon based sugars, nucliodides (molecules that make up DNA and RNA) , proteins plus dissolved nitrogen, iron-oxide and hydrogen (in the form of H+ ions).

“Why do books on evolution, including grade school, high school and college textbooks, not include such important, basic information? Evolutionists are masters of speculation; why don’t they speculate about this?”

re- what basic information are you talking about? if it’s the questions you’ve asked so far it’s because none are related to Evolution Theory, they are either Physics, Chemistry or Biochemistry each of which have their own text books where this sort of thing is explained. Beyond that, what speculation? we don’t speculate because none is needed, we already have explanations for all questions proposed and are actually quite simple, all are observed and documented.

“How did life develop from non-life?”

re-depending on what you mean by life it’s actually quite simple, first one needs a self replicating polymer such as RNA in a nucleotide solution (this is commonly known as a Primordial Soup) which can replicate before it decomposes, then if such a molecule can attract limpid then you have what is known as a “proto-cell” (because limpid naturally form such structures due to a water repelling end and water attracting end of the molecule) this increases the length of time a RNA molecule has to reproduce before it decomposes, from there a simple protein synthesis reaction can cause the proto-cell to form proteins to do simple tasks, as soon as the proto-cell has what we refer to as metabolism where it must take in energy to have some form of homoeostasis it is considered a true cell (be it an incredibly simple one) and therefore alive.

“Where did the human emotions, such as love, hate and jealousy, come from?”

re- these are caused by different neurotransmitters in the brain and are not unique to humans but found in most mammals, reptiles, birds, amphibians, fish and even invertebrates to some degree. The origin of Jealousy allows for a selective advantage as it makes one protective of their mate making them more likely to breed and pass on this gene, the origin of hate is simply a modified “they are a threat” response and love is cause by three reactions in the brain (my department is currently working on this); one we experience as lust (very, very simple reaction), the other we experience as “more than a friend” (slightly modified lust reaction) and the third we experience as attachment (a modified jealousy reaction), only when all three reactions occur to you experience love.

“What are the odds that the evolutionary process, proceeding by random changes, would produce human beings, plus millions of species of animals, birds, fish and insects, all with symmetrical features, i.e., one side being a mirror image of the other? We take symmetry in all these creatures for granted, but is that a reasonable outcome for a random process?”

re- the chances of a random process doing this…very, very low though I am not going to speculate on the figure. However as we previously discussed evolution is not a random process, due to the pressures of natural selection and events in the past, there is actually very little other paths evolution could have taken…however if say 65million years ago the dinosaurs were not wiped out or oxygen in the carboniferous didn’t drop by 60% or any other huge mass extinction did not take place then things would be very different. However because of these events evolution has very little other options. I also discussed symmetrical organisms in my rant on Taxonomy all animals at some stage in their development are symmetrical, this is actually due to the limited amount of coding it takes to form an animal that has such a feature and is one reason why segmented worms do so well, it’s just code for one thing mirrored.

“What are the odds that, of the millions of species of animals, birds, fish and insects, a male of each species developed at the same time and in the same place as a female of the same species, so that the species could propagate?”

re- almost 0 however this is not how evolution works if you had been paying attention to anything I have been saying. Each offspring will always bee the same species as it’s parent, however if a population is separated (by say an ocean forming) then gene flow allows each population to grow increasingly different from each other, gene flow also makes sure that the chances of several new species emerging in one population is next to impossible but at the same time makes it mandatory when one population is divided (by physical or chronological separation). This is how new species are formed, not through one animal giving birth to one of a different species but successive mutations compiling in a population due to gene flow.

“Why are there two sexes anyhow?”

re- simple, because “sex” allows for mixing of genes and thus a faster mutation rate, thus faster reaction to climate changes and faster immune system development, it also allows for one gender to become specialised in performing one task and the other to perform a different task so that the two genders are not competing for food (however this only happens is certain examples).

” Is there some sort of plan here?”

re- all evidence points to no plan, no help, nothing but cold indifference.

” If the first generation of mating species didn’t have parents, how did the mating pair get to that point?”

re- a lot of organisms can reproduce both sexually and asexually, eventually sexual reproduction became more favourable and thus this is the standard for most animals and some plants. The sexes arose far before sexual reproduction was the norm, for example flat worms are both male and female but still require sexual reproduction (as a result they often fight over who gets to play the male), because of the fast mutation rate that sexual reproduction introduces in many species asexual reproduction became redundant and thus fades out entirely in most linages.

“Isn’t evolution supposed to progress when an offspring of a mating pair has a beneficial mutation?”

re-no just mutations in general, asexual reproduction does not have as high a mutation rate as sexual reproduction but they still occur (and because most organisms that reproduce asexually reproduce in high numbers this is rather common to observe), natural selection operates both on beneficial and non-beneficial mutations, this is not a one way street.

“Conclusion: No parents, no evolution. A species would have to jump from a primitive form to a fully developed male and female, each with the ability and instinct to mate.”

re- as I explained above, this is not the case, don’t assume your conclusions before your questions are answered, that’s constructing a straw-man which is deliberately misrepresenting the opposing party.

“How did the heart, lungs, stomach, veins, blood, kidneys, etc. develop in the first animal by slow, minute steps and the animal survive while these changes were occurring? For example, did the first animal develop 10 percent of complete veins, then 20 percent, and on up to 100 percent, with veins throughout its entire body and brain?”

re- that’s a very good question and shows that you are legitimately curious about animal development, good boy. Short answer: no. Veins probably developed as we see in flat worms with an open system rather than a closed one (simply moving blood to the general area where it is needed) or as a passive system like we see in segmented worms (where water flow moved blood like fluid throughout the body without a pump), eventually you get to more advanced flat worms there the veins are more precise in their delivery and returning of blood to and from a particular part of the body and eventually you find flat worms where the system is completely enclosed delivering blood to exactly where it is needed and returning it to the gills and “heart” where it can be pumped around again. The heart itself seems to be a modified gill “pump” converted to help the pumping of blood as these worms got larger. The Lung (even in modern mammals) is nothing more than a swim bladder modified to absorb oxygen in the same way as gills are. The stomach is actually the simplest where it is only an area where food can be stored and partly broken down prior to digestion, it’s simply a cavity with acid and enzymes. Kidneys are more difficult however, they seem to be modified waste storage sacks, with the ability to filter waste from blood (originally the kidney and bladder were one origin and still are in some organisms). A brain is very simple, it is only a bundle of neurons, kind of like an analogue computer with neurons regulating input and output the organism develops what we experience as a conciseness.

“Then how did the heart slowly develop in the animal and get attached to the veins in the right spot?”

re- a muscular cavity became more robust allowing the pumping of blood around an organism, this replaced the old passive system which needed a flow of water to pump oxygen around the body, it doesn’t matter where the heart is attached, it’s attached where it is in vertebrates because it is close to the lungs and/or gills allowing for a strong mussel well feed with oxygen (and the protection that a rib cage provides also helps).

“How did the blood enter the system? The blood could not enter before the veins were complete or it would spill out. Where did the blood come from?”

re- actually it did, next to all insects and worms have an open system where blood or blood like fluid is simply pumped throughout the body through an osmosis effect, because there is a lack of blood in one part of the body that is where the blood will flow, gaps between cells allowed for more directed action and a faster metabolic rate. Blood probably arose as a fluid comprised of specialised cells capable to moving oxygen around the body without using a lot of it, eventually this got so extreme to the point where the nucleus was sacrificed in blood cells to prevent more oxygen being used than was absolutely needed.

“Did the blood have red corpuscles, white corpuscles, platelets and plasma? At what point in this process of development did the heart start beating?”

re- “blood like fluid” is an organic solvent capable of carrying oxygen better than water (similar to plasma), as cells started to mix with the fluid they could transport oxygen more efficiently and it goes on from there. The hart probably started beating after the development of “blood like fluid” before this a passive system was used, which I previously discussed.

“Did the animal develop a partial stomach, then a complete stomach? After the stomach was formed, how did the digestive juices enter the stomach?”

re- first of all almost all animals have a tubular digestive tract where food comes in one end and waste is expelled from the other, a stomach probably developed as a cavity in this tube able to hold food and break it down for longer made digestion more efficient. Digestive juices were present before the development of the stomach, however because the stomach plays little to no role in actual digestion these could become more potent in this area due to a protective layer (this is all seen in different flat worms).

“Where did the hydrochloric acid as part of the digestive juices come from?”

re- probably a waste product excreted from the cells lining the stomach wall (scratch that it is a waste product, it was just expelled from the body prior to this due to it’s harmful nature in high quantities), because the stomach was isolated from actual digestion it could collect here without causing any harm.

“What about its kidney and bladder? The animal better not eat anything prior to this.”

re- as I explained the kidney and bladder were one organ originally, but became separated in order to perform each task more effectively, prior to this digestive development the only animals that existed were things like flat worms and sea cucumbers where food is partly digested then expelled from the body along with actual waste formed from this process. This is just a simple tube, food comes in one side then exits at a slightly lower energy content, with each addition the animal became more efficient and thus each stage is shown in nature to this day.

“How did the animal survive during these changes (and over thousands of years)? Of course, at the same time, the animal’s eyes must be fully developed so it can see its food, and its brain must be fully developed so the animal can control its body to get to the food. Like the heart, brain, veins and stomach, all of the organs and systems in the first animal’s body must be fully functional in the first moments of life.”

re- firstly an animal does not need to see it’s food in order to eat it, most animals at this stage didn’t like flat worms, sea cucumbers, segmented worms, etc are all completely blind. As for the development of an eye each stage is seen in nature to a degree unrivalled; clams have light sensitive cells so they can tell light from dark, a shallow dip like that from snails allows one to tell where the light was coming from, from that comes a simple pin hole camera seen in the shelled predicator of squid and waste excreted from the cells could and does form a lens to focus the light like in squid themselves, from that mussel control is being developed in order to move this around and the lens sharpened to get a clearer picture (often also being places under mussel control). The brain not need be fully developed either, such is the case in jellyfish, clams and some worms; simple input and response is all that is needed and this can be done by simple chemical responses no “fully developed brain” required. Functional yes, as each stage is functional… efficient in the absence of others, no. A tubular digestive tract is fine but a stomach is better, simple oxygen absorption through the skin is fine but gills are better, a simple open blood system is fine but a closed on is better (in most cases) and a simple mussel pumping blood is fine but a true heart is better.

“The preceding points indicate that evolution couldn’t occur, and the fossil record indicates that it didn’t occur! In other words, if you cannot come up with a detailed, feasible scenario of how the first animal developed, the whole evolutionary theory goes out the window, because it never even could have gotten started. Or is your attitude going to be: Don’t bother me with such details; my mind is made up.”

re- no, my attitude is that such things do exist and each step is viable in nature and recorded (as detailed above) just because you lack the ability to do a simple Google search or actually look at primitive animals does not mean that such things are impossible. Actually the opposite is true, the fossil record coincides perfectly with evolutionary theory and each step to obtain mammalian organs is seen either in nature or the fossil record as I have explained above.

“Why do books on evolution, including biology textbooks, always start with a fully developed animal when attempting to explain how one species developed into another species? Why don’t evolutionists first explain how the first animal developed (an animal with a heart, lungs, brain, stomach, etc.)?”

re- high school textbooks perhaps, university textbooks never. It’s actually rather simple, all animals are fully developed, however animals have succeeding stages of development of different organs, features, etc however each stage itself is fully functional just not as effective as succeeding steps, and this is explained however primarily in university level textbooks because such process are long and complicated, so much so that we don’t bother trying to teach such things to teenagers but save the more complicated stuff for higher education. It’s the same thing as in primary school you learn that everything fits into either a plant of an animal, then you learn about the five kingdom system and finally you learn about Taxonomy, we save the more complicated things for when they have enough intelligence to understand it.

“What are the odds that the evolutionary process, proceeding by random changes, would produce a system in human reproduction whereby exactly 50 percent of offspring are male and 50 percent are female (based on 50 percent X-chromosomes and 50 percent Y-chromosomes)? Again, is there some sort of plan here?”

re-100% because unless there are process to stop this when you have two options to pick from (X&Y) you have a 50-50 chance of picking either, unless there is some sort of system by which one chromosome is retarded (I’m using the correct term don’t get up at me for that) do other probabilities occur, humans have no such system thus there is no other option.

“To a creationist, the incredible complexity of human life, plant life and the universe is absolutely overwhelming evidence that there must have been a designer. Additional evidence for a designer: The law of gravity is basic to an understanding of the universe.”

re- no, that’s extrapolating from data that does not exist, i.e. matter attracts matter, therefore there is a God…your missing a step, i.e. matter attracts matter, God(s) are directly observed (which is not the case mind you) therefore God(s) exist.

“Who invented gravity? Where did the law of gravity come from? Did it have a beginning? Isn’t it reasonable to assume that when matter was created, the law of gravity was established at the same time to regulate matter?”

re- nobody invented Gravity, Gravity is a side effect of things having mass, things with mass distort space-time, this causes things with mass to attract other things with mass. Gravity does not regulate matter, are you for real? Gravity (more specificity general relativity) is the Theory by which things with mass attract other things with mass by distorting space-time, the more mass something has the more of space-time it distorts and the more Gravity it has. Gravity came with mass…sort of, things with energy also have Gravity (E=MC^2 energy and matter are interchangeable) however to a much, much smaller degree (C^2 is a very big number (C being the speed of light)).

“The earth receives an incredible amount of energy from the sun, even though the sun is 93,000,000 miles away. Yet the earth only receives one part in two trillion of the sun’s total energy. And since the sun is only an average star among the 100 trillion billion stars in the universe, the total energy in all these stars is absolutely beyond human comprehension. (It has been written that the number of stars is greater than the number of grains of sand in every beach and desert in the world!)”

re- I know this isn’t your point but I should put something up here, our sun is not an average sized star, it’s a very small star, and prior to our suns birth stars could grow even bigger (because there was to helium yet they could grow to huge sizes). That is all.

“Where did this energy come from? Isn’t the only reasonable answer that it was the result of a creative act by an almighty designer/creator?”

re- no, remember our equation E=MC^2? where energy and matter/mass are interchangeable and our principal of nuclear fusion? well it’s a fusion of these two principals, when a star combines two elements, say two hydrogen nuclei mass is lost, this little bit of mass (M) is concerted into a lot of energy (energy=mass x the speed of light^2), this is the energy a star releases in the form of heat, light particle radiation. A simple Google search would clear this up as well, i.e. “how to stars work?”.

“Why do evolutionists summarily dismiss the evidence of design without any serious consideration?”

re- they don’t because what you claim is evidence is not, it’s called a testimony. Evidence is testable, repeatable, verifiable and falsifiable; God(s) are not and it is impossible to give credit to any particular tale over another because each has equally weighted testimony accompanying it with no evidence accompanying any. Therefore it is impossible to distinguish anyone’s God(s) from the beings some bronze age desert dwellers seemingly made up.

“Professor D.M.S. Watson, zoologist and Chair of Evolution at University College London, has given us some insight as to why this is so. He said, “Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” This, of course, is an admission that the foundation of evolution is not science, but a rejection of the supernatural.”

re- The Creationist Quote mine, do yourself a favour and actually read the rest of the paragraph, I think you’ll be surprised. Science is a rejection of the supernatural because magic is not testable and therefore unverifiable and therefore it is impossible to distinguish anyone’s tale from someone making shit up, we can’t have that in science, evolution is science because it is testable, retestable, verifiable and falsifiable all four criteria for something to be considered scientific.

“Evolution then is simply the best alternative anyone has been able to come up with. This also means that evolution is the only field in science where one decides on the answer first, and then looks for evidence to support that predetermined answer.”

re-as we discussed before at length, evolution is the opposite. Evolution Theory is developed directly from the observed evidence, it is not as you claim “unscientific” because it meets all criteria to be scientific and is not as you claim a “religion” because it does not require faith…please don’t bring up this point again, it has been dealt with, you lost, your wrong, get the fuck over it.

“Other than rejection of the supernatural, how else can one explain the steadfast adherence of evolutionists to this theory even though they do not know the origin of the three main bases of evolution: the origin of matter, the origin of energy and the origin of life?”

re- evolution is none of those things, we’ve covered this. Evolution Theory covers the diversity of life and the Origin of new Species nothing more, origin of matter and energy is physics and the origin of life is abiogenesis. Science is a rejection of the supernatural because the supernatural is untestable, otherwise it is considered natural, I have a feeling now that you’ve simply copied this from somewhere as we have covered almost all of this before…I would appreciate it if this is the case that you proof read what you paste before doing so because of this outcome.

2.I will reason that you are listening to me the second that you bring up something that has not been dealt with or acknowledge something that has been dealt with as opposed to pretending that it never happened.

3.not a single thing in that entire paragraph was even remotely correct

4.no it not need be intelligent, for example if you have a dry environment then genes will be selected that are better suited for the climate, this does not mean that there is an intelligent process only that natural selection works, that is the entire point of natural selection is that evolution is not blindly nor intelligently guided but guided by changes in the environment and other selective pressures. Your stupidity known no bounds.

1. I don’t want to live on this planet any more…I guess I’ll make it simple.
Hominid Features: Homonid hip, Homonid skull, Hominid foot
“Ape” Features: Ape upper and lower arms, Ape rib cage, Ape jaw
You have one skeleton, do you want a cookie? That is the skeleton of Lucy, the first sample of Australopithecus Afarensis that was discovered, since then we have unearthed multiple samples giving us an almost complete skeleton.

“The so called transitional forms that you are pointing out were fully functioning creatures. You brought it out before that everything is a transitional form. If a part of an organism is “developing” there are stages where it is useless, kind of like your claims of vestige parts! Why would evolution keep a part that is in development? That is too much like intelligence anyway! Like I illustrated to you before, just because we want or need wings to fly does not mean that we are going to evolve them. Your evidence does not show this at all and the theory is flawed!”

re-no, there are no stages where an organ will be useless, vestige parts are useless. Think of it this way, a ring of mussel lining a vein acts like a heart, it is no fully formed but functional and will continue to be for the rest of it’s “development”, a cavity in the digestive tract is not a fully developed stomach but is still functional and will continue to be for the rest of it’s “development”, a patch of light sensitive cells is not a fully formed eye but is still functional. In no stages will any transitional form have a non-functioning part, for example for wings if you are referring to birds, pterosaurs or bats they were first adapted for gliding not flying, as the wings became more pronounced they were able to glide further giving each with a selective advantage, eventually this lead to powered flight.
Evolution Theory is not flawed, your perception of it is flawed, you go out thinking of things that would discredit Evolution Theory not realizing that if we ever did find anything you are asking for it would completely debunk Evolution Theory.

“Species is an undefined term and is always changing so I do not see why it is a better term than kind. Sounds like personal preference to me. Creationism points to a creator that is true and that is why there are religious implications, so what!”

re- FOR FUCKS SAKE! We’ve been through this countless times, Species is a very well defined term. If two organisms cannot reproduce and produce fertile offspring they are different species, it is a better term than kind because it actually means something! Creationism is a religion, which is a bias be definition, this is why you constantly say “oh this points to a creator” when it clearly does not.

“About your answers… I don’t want religious answers that have to do with a fantastic imagination like most of your answers are. However I do like the explanations of the compounds, chemicals and gases all coming from a dying star. There are a lot of processes there and I especially liked at the end where you say that “There you are wrong” what, for asking some questions? You think all those processes just go all by themselves with no programmer, that is remarkably STUPID!”

re- no I said you were wrong for assuming that elements don’t react, they do if you ever did grade school chemistry you would know this, these processes do go by themselves they are guided by four forces: Gravity, Electro-Magnetism, Strong and Weak Forces…I’m not going to get into the Weak Force, it’ far too complicated and almost meaningless. Gravity is the force through where anything with mass bends space time and therefore attracts other things with mass and is responsible for star, planet and galaxy formation, Electro-Magnetism is what gives particles positive or negative charges (+/-) and is responsible in part for atom formation, elemental formation and chemical bonding, the strong force (I’m not going to get into how it works…I’ll be here all day trying to explain it) is the force that holds the nucleus of an atom together despite the positivity charged protons wanting to get as far away from each other as possible the Strong Force holds them together, this force is also responsible for nuclear fusion. No programmer needed, no regulator, nobody needed to keep these in line, just these four (I know I only explained three) forces, at it’s most basic these forces govern the universe…nothing else is required for a universe short of space-time and energy.

“So there is not speculation in evolution? How about the feet on Lucy’s feet above? There are tons of speculation in the evolution theory, your just lying now and we cannot trust anything you say. Life does not develop from non life you have not seen it or observed it, here is more speculation on your part!”

re- nope no speculation, none needed. I already explained that we have multiple samples of Australopithecus Afarensis for that, we almost have a complete skeleton. Beyond that I will say this slowly again: Abiogenesis is not Evolution, get this through your think skull! More to that point, we have no observed life coming from non-life, mostly due to the fact that Organic Chemicals are digested by bacteria shortly after formation…but we have observed each step and recreated them in a lab…have we recreated each step in order and made life? No, the chemical process takes approx 1 billion years, time people just don’t have spare, we can however recreate each chemical process either in Theory (using Chemical Theory to construct reactions) or in experimentation.

“Your a real nut job especially when you come to explain human emotion scientifically. I love your answers on evolution not being a random process. Your speculation is a win win situation for you, isn’t it? If I tell you that if its an intelligent process you will say no, its a random process no intelligence involved. Then if I bring up my arguments about random would not “choose” beneficial mutations and keep it because its random then you will prescribe some sort of intelligence to it. This is remarkably idiotic!”

re-No, I never claimed Evolution was a random process, you did. Random Mutation is random, however Evolution as a whole is not because it is guided by Natural Selection, Gene Flow and the Bottleneck and Founder Effects. I don’t know how many times I’ve had to explain this to you. No speculation needed, this is all observed and documented science, you on the other hand seem to enjoy pulling arguments that never existed out of thin air and discrediting them, I highly recommend you actually read what I say and you’ll find I never once claimed that Evolution was a “random process” nobody does because that’s not how it works. Beyond that what’s so difficult about human emotion, Biology at its basic level are all just chemical and Chemistry at its basic level is Physics. We are actually trying to see if we can stimulate these areas of the brain responsible for lust, attachment and love artificially; it’s going well, if you are interested.

“Paying attention? I have payed attention to you and I am amazed that you knowing some of the processes that you do cannot see that you are indoctrinated or just anti-religiously motivated. I have no problem with the facts it’s your conclusions that I find remarkably stupid. Like 2+2=9 this is what I feel like when I read your words. I have no problem with the 2 or even the other 2 these are facts, when you come to the equal’s part I have a big problem with you. You don’t even realize this is speculation on your part that is even more remarkable.”

re-You just said that I claimed that Evolution is a random process, I never did such a thing. You haven’t been paying attention; this is evident in that you bring up old arguments debunked at least three times in the same conversation, you don’t even know how stupid you are…honestly the sooner I get this over with the better.

“LOL, Nothing but cold indifference when it comes to sex? Hopefully you are single!
Greedy- all evidence points to no plan, no help, nothing but cold indifference.
NO SPECULATION HERE EITHER HUH? <-PUN INTENDED”

re-not speculation, just an assessment of the evidence, I’m doubting at this point that you even know what speculation is.

“Not all organisms reproduce asexually and if you are saying that is how it all started out there is more speculation on your part! No evidence for this at all! Asexual is your straw-man!”

re-I’m also at this point questioning that you know what a straw-man is. Correct, most modern animals don’t reproduce asexually with the exception of some reptiles, however all primitive animals like sponges and other stationary animals plus most worms do, some worm’s as I described have varying stages of sexual reproduction. Please pay attention to what I say, I rarely waste words.

“NO YOU DON’T SPECULATE DO YOU? PUN INTENDED ONCE AGAIN! In fact your whole paragraph here is one whole speculation, unbelievable!
So now that you built your straw-man with speculation you are going to speculate more on the speculation and tell me how the cardiovascular system developed, digestive system. Wonderful!”

re- okay, you clearly don’t know what speculation, a straw-man or even a pun is, I recommend you look it up. Nothing of what I said is speculation, all stages are seen either in nature of the fossil record.

“Do you realize how many times you say “Probably”? I need to quote you here:
“we save the more complicated things for when they have enough intelligence to understand it.”
This is truly remarkable and sounds more and more like indoctrination to me. The Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, and Scientologist follow the same line of reasoning. Evolution is nothing but a faith and just like those other ones mentioned here I am not interested in another faith, I just like science. You have touched on some science but mostly you are preaching a faith and that faith is evolution. I have overwhelming evidence here in your comments that this is so, anyone will be able to see that except you of course!”

re-you don’t try and teach Quantum Theory to a pre-schooler do you? It’s the same in Biology, we don’t teach the Calves cycle or Organ Evolution until the student is smart enough and old enough to understand it. Evolution is Science, I’ve explained this before, this is what I mean when I say you don’t pay attention: “Evolution is Faith”+ I deal with this point=brings up same debunked argument over and over again with no supporting evidence. Seriously? I have preached nothing; you just assume it is faith before actually reading, as I explained all these stages are seen in nature of the fossil record, no speculation of faith needed.

2. “ I don’t think that I can reason with you, ever really. It would be like reasoning with a Jehovah’s Witness or a Mormon and telling them that their faith is wrong. I never thought for a moment that I was going to change your mind I just wanted others to see what I see and I think that this is well illustrated in our conversations here. I have listened to you I just don’t agree with your conclusions. I’m sorry that you cannot see that you are wrong but that is the breaks when someone is so indoctrinated as you are. You remind me of my mother a devout Jehovah’s Witness, she is right and everyone else is wrong no matter what points a person brings up.”

re- By what evidence does your faith have any authority over that of a Scientologist or Jehovah’s Witness or Ancient Religion or even just a Fairy Tale that someone made up? Without testable evidence you are relying on testimony alone, and cannot treat any above the other…this is why most people in first world countries are either Agnostic or a Non-Theist, because it is impossible to distinguish one Religion from another or even from some bronze age goat herders fairy tale the only logical path is scepticism to the point when and if any testable evidence is presented to support any notion.

3. “This is exactly what I am talking about. Just to make sure even with my typos I had someone else read it. Talking to you I feel sometimes I am so out of touch with reality so I have to have other people read what we are talking about because you are so out in left field somewhere. My paragraph was perfectly understood by others that I ask to read it.”

re- says the person who didn’t understand Grade School Chemistry until I explained it to him…seriously, did you go to high school?

4. Yes it has to be intelligent if it’s choosing something! Your straw-man of the dry environment here is not applicable when it comes to choosing something that had to evolve out of nothing in the first place. Put a fish on dry land and then see what happens to it you FREEKIIN RETARD! According to you it will not die it will select new genes so it’s adaptable! You know even if you say this occurs over time take a fish put it out on the sand for just a few minutes each day and then do that with 10-20-30 generations of its offspring, what will you find? Feet perhaps? Lungs developing perhaps? NO! Quit trying to feed me your religion, I have on already as I have pointed out.”

re- Put a lungfish like a snakehead on dry land and see what happens, or a mudskipper, or another lobe finned fish, each is an improvement on the other. No, that’s not what I said at all pleas pay attention, if a mutation has beneficial applications that mutation is selected for and spreads throughout the population more easily, as mutations compile the animal will probably be able to access a new niche thus avoiding competition almost completely therefore by the founder effect this gene spreads rapidly through a new population, this only works if the organism can avoid dyeing before reproduction, not die then reproduce it doesn’t work like that. Firstly, a lot of fish already have lungs, this is an adaptation for a lack of oxygen in the water and if found in large river fish known as “lungfish” however if you take a mudskipper (a lobe finned fish) and remove the water it can use damp mud in a combination with primitive lungs to live on land, and this is exactly what we see, now mudskippers are so well adapted to a land dwelling life that they cannot swim, instead they store water underground and hold them in their “gills” in order to breathe effectively and in some mudflats are apex predators.

1. SWEET ZOMBIE JESUS!
Evolution is science; I don’t know how many times I have to explain this. Evolution Theory is ALL science, no faith required, and no imagination required, no magic required; it’s a natural process and one of the most well understood theories in science today.

Correct (to a point) there are 23 different definitions of species (in use within the academic community) all variations of that which I gave you (a species is a lineage of organisms capable of breeding and producing fertile offspring), the confusion comes when dealing with “ring species” (those where specialisation occurs geographically instead of chronologically) and hybrids like the Liger that we discussed earlier (these cannot produce offspring so should they be classified as their own species, or as a lion, or a tiger or both?). For all intents and purposes unless you wish to dive into hybridisation or ring species (I don’t think you do but if you wish I will search for a better definition) that definition is the best, you should know this by now, I rarely waste words.

You didn’t say that?
“They [chemical compounds] could not have developed from the elements, because elements rarely react with each other. For example, did all the salt in the ocean form by sodium reacting with chlorine (a gas)?”
I don’t lie white boy, when you lie you get your shit called out and everything else you say is discredited, as an academic you learn this very quickly. I also pay attention to what you say, just in case you try and bitch your way out of something.
Beyond that, no programmer is needed, it’s all electro-magnetic attraction and the strong force (I WILL NOT EVEN TRY TO EXPLAIN HOW THE STRONG FORCE WORKS), I’ve explained this to you before, if you wish to know how chemicals react the way they do then look back on the section where I go on about electron orbitals and chemical bonds, or ask me to repeat though I don’t think it’s necessary.

Here I’ll try and answer some of your questions, so I’ll be abandoning our point system for a moment:
“Take for instance radiation and what makes something radioactive, those radioactive particles become radioactive through natural processes, this is true. However I entertain the possibility of why?”
re-That my friend is the “weak force”, so named because it has the opposite effect to the “strong force”, while the strong force holds the nucleus of an atom together (this force is released by protons) the weak force acts to rip a nucleus apart (this force is released by neutrons), as the amount of neutrons increases in relation to the number of protons the weak force released by the neutrons begins to overpower the strong force released by protons, this is what causes radioactivity (this is also why heavier elements are more likely to be radioactive). As the nucleus is ripped apart the neutrons (and in some cases protons) are released in the form of radiation, the released neutrons is actually what a gagger-counter (if I’m spelling that right) picks up.

“Why do certain chemicals and elements react certain ways [?]”
re-I’ve explained this before but I will repeat myself one more time before going ape shit for not being listened to. This is caused by the “electro-magnetic” force, this force is what gives particles a charge, for this we will be focusing on the electron (-) and the proton (+), the electron is attracted to the proton by its opposing charge, they however can only get so close because of the “strong force” released by the nucleus. These causes the electron(s) to form a cloud around the nucleus of the atom, the negative charge of the electrons reacting with each other cause them to fall into orbitals. The “Inert” or “Nobel” gasses (those located at the far right of the periodic table) do not react (for the intents of this demonstration we’ll ignore the fact that we’ve been able to make Xenon react by physically removing an electron). This Inert configuration is caused by a particular orbital becoming full, every element seeks to become more stable (second law of thermodynamics) and thus fill any available orbital they do this by giving/taking/sharing electrons with other elements, the amount of electrons that a particular element can give/take/share determines the amount of bonds that they are capable of, this accompanied with the size of the particular element determines its properties. Based on a chemicals properties and what other chemicals are available under what conditions (more/less energy) determines how they react.

“My argument is and has always been that these reactions are Intelligently Designed and I can see design here.”
re- Not technically a question, but it needs addressing, it’s all the electro-magnetic force as I previously explained. If you wish to assert that this force was designed and not the actual reactions (as I explained before this is bullshit) I shall remind you that your assertion “the electro-magnetic force looks designed” has no more ground than “the Earth looks flat”. If you wish to provide some testable evidence to support your claim than that’s great, until then however it is only an unsubstantiated claim and I will not address it any more than I already have.

“Australopithecus Afarensis: Is the picture in the previous comment of mine an accurate rendering of the specimen?”
re- not really, it’s a good guess based on Lucy and the bones available after a single find but Australopithecus Afarensis actually has a much more human like skull, with an enlarged cerebral cortex (the bit of skull above the brow) and a much smaller brow than other hominids of the day and even hominids succeeding it. Australopithecus Afarensis while a very good specimen is an oddity; it has such a reduced brow compared to species before and after it in its lineage.

“So just because you say that it is not evolution [abiogenesis] would it not be a fair assumption that I am concluding that this is what you are proposing as an active science?”
re- Abiogenesis is an active study, of Biochemistry however not Biology however. The study is simple, unlike most people think scientists are not trying to create “life from nonlife” that takes far too long (approx. 1 billion years according to Chemical Theory) and we have yet to find a way to accelerate the process, nor any applications for such simple life other than food for virus colonies and we have a cell colonies for that already.

“I have also talked to you about this before and it sounds like you are proposing panspermia not abiogenesis?”
re- again not a question, you are confusing Abiogenesis by spontaneous generation (debunked) with Abiogenesis by chemical progression (current study), panspermia states that organisms can survive travel between stars in order to make it to Earth and survive re-entry to land in Earth’s oceans in order to evolve and repopulate our alien planet. While there are organisms that are capable of surviving space travel (known as a “water bear” I recommend you look them up, they are awesome) and re-entry they are not capable of living for long enough to travel between stars and are already part of an established lineage and therefore cannot be the common ancestor of most modern life.

I will be returning to our point structure here, and will jump in mid-point to Abiogenesis, if that’s alright.
Abiogenesis is not necessary for evolution, in that if life was brought into existence by an incantation as you claim evolution would still be evident in every taxonomical denomination so that even if such a thing was discovered it would have no impact on evolution in that the incantation would only summon replicating molecules and natural selection can take it from there.

Random Mutation: yes, evolution includes random mutation, yes evolution involved natural selection (“picks a beneficial mutation” I think this is what you meant), I never said that it didn’t. Mutations are random, however because natural selection is not Evolution is not. Random + Not Random = Not Random, they are not evenly rated. A simple example of this is a random number generator, while the numbers it picks are random every time a desired number is picked it stays, therefore the selection process is not random because there is only one possible outcome, however chance does in fact play a role. From this example we can see that a process can be guided but also contain chance elements. I will not admit I am wrong because that would be lying, unfortunately you don’t really have a case here because I’ve explained this to you before, on several occasions. I didn’t say your hypothesis was bad because it was 40 years old, we’ve been through this; I said it was bad because it was debunked 40 years ago. The age had nothing to do with it, the fact was it has been debunked, when are you going to let go of things we’ve already discussed and dealt with? Evolution Theory as we currently understand it is about 150 years old for your information (I’ve also mentioned that but do you listen? No). Questioning is good, asking a question that a 12 year old can answer assuming from the onset that there is no possible explanation (like radiation, chemical bonds, gravity, electro-magnetism, evolution in general and general chemistry) is not good and just because someone does not agree with me does not make them wrong, however when they deliberately misrepresent science, ignore evidence, claim conspiracy/indoctrination/religion when there is no evidence for this and in fact all evidence points to the opposite conclusion and claim that there is no answer for questions a 12 year old can answer does make them wrong.

Yes, random mutation is a process in evolution, I never said it wasn’t and constantly have to remind you it is, there is something that “picks good mutations” it’s called natural selection…you know the shit Darwin spent 5 years on and separated Evolution by Natural Selection from Evolution by Acquired Characteristics, the shit I went on about for days when you couldn’t tell the difference and apparently still can’t. You don’t understand evolution, no matter how hard anyone tries to explain it to you, you just can’t seem to separate Evolution by Natural Selection from the weird Hybrid of Evolution by Acquired Characteristics and your own magical fairy tales. I do agree with dictionaries and encyclopaedias, the problem here is that you use dictionaries that are dumbed down so much that they barely match the actual definition, and you’ve never used an actual creditable reference much less and encyclopaedia.

Good boy, you can use a dictionary, now can you tell the difference between those definitions and what you previously claimed fitted those? I knew what they meant, you evidently didn’t or were deliberately misusing those phrases and words in order to put a point across. Strange how you don’t bother to cross check the definitions with what you said, I recommend you read over what you said again, and see how they don’t actually fit into those definitions.

I am condescending because this is how I talk; it is not a method of talking down to you only to get a point across. It’s interesting that you should use the word faith because when you get right down to it that’s all you really have. Faith is assumed in absence of, independent of and in your case in spite of all evidence to the opposite or confirming the notion. Whereas science is based on what we can test in verify…key difference, you have faith in humanity, God(s), magic and I don’t in retrospect faith is a dumb idea when you really get down to it

My mastery of the English Language knows no bounds! “Evolution is Scientific” not “Evolution is Science” though I’m pretty sure anyone reading this would be able to tell what I meant. You’ve posted these definitions before, and we’ve discussed this before, Evolution is a Scientific Theory and is therefore scientific, I don’t think we need a repeat of this conversation again and I’m pretty sure you knew what I meant anyway.

“White Boy” is just an expression we use here to describe a less than intelligent, American, Christian (but not Catholic or Baptist) male, it is not meant as an insult nor extrapolate details from you, Sorry.

No, we should not see life on the moon if you read anything I said or knew anything about chemistry then you wouldn’t say that. Remember “what other chemicals are available and the conditions (more or less energy) determine how chemicals react”, in case you haven’t realized the conditions here on Earth (while apparently not one of a kind) are very rare and the chemicals needed to “spawn life” are not available on our moon. For example all Biochemical reactions require a polar solution (like water or liquid methane) which is not available in our solar system outside Earth and at least two of Jupiter’s moons (which may or may not actually have life), it also requires sufficient energy (in the form of heat and UV light) to decompose large organic molecules into smaller ones, but not so much energy (still in the form of heat and UV light) so as to decompose such molecules straight away, the planet must have (in large volumes) Nitrogen gas (N2), Carbon (C), Hydrogen gas (H2) and small amounts of Oxygen Gas (O2) dissolved in some form of polar solution as well as other conditions not found on the moon (like a gaseous atmosphere of sufficient density).
“Are you saying that sodium reacting with chlorine produces the salt in the ocean? We already know that there is a gas produced from mixing the 2 compounds, you are missing the point of the whole article.”
re-How stupid can you get? Sodium metal and Chlorine gas cannot react in their current stages. However when both are DISSOLVED IN WATER they can. Chlorine is not produced from two chemicals Chlorine is an element (one of the basic chemicals) it is possible to distil already reacted Chlorine from a compound by reacting it or by DISSOLVING IT IN WATER but Chlorine is not a molecule itself. The gas is not produced from mixing chlorine and sodium (Sodium Chloride (salt) is a solid at room temperature), but from adding Sodium to water and Chlorine to water, the reactions is between Sodium and Water and Chlorine and Water, when that reaction is complete then Sodium and Chlorine react to form Sodium Chloride (just in case you are wondering the gas released is Hydrogen Gas) it’s a series of two reactions one following the other. Please learn something about Chemistry before trying to call bullshit.

“Here is some advice, take all your elements like in Millers experiment and create life like we know it today. What would this prove if you were successful? #1 It takes intelligence to assemble the compounds to make life.”
re- first of all Millers Experiment was of limited success and no it wouldn’t if it had created life. Because if you remember anything I said Millers experiment relies on replicating conditions on the Primeval Earth, which is very different from synthesising Chemicals. One replicates the conditions and the other the results regardless of what the conditions may actually be.

“What would this prove if you were unsuccessful? #1 Elements alone are not responsible for life. You hiding behind eons of time and chemical evolution does nothing to strengthen your case.”

re- Elements are not (remember Elements are only the 100 or so listed in the periodic table) however organic compounds are, remember at its most basic life is Chemical, we are made of Chemicals. Beyond that Chemical Evolution is a made up Creationist Term, I think you are referring to the synthesis of new elements by nuclear fusion…which is observed fact, that’s how Hydrogen Bombs work and how the Nuclear Fusion Reactor in France (still yet to reach equilibrium) works and beyond that if you want a more direct observation; that’s how the Sun works.

“here is nothing ever really that strengthens your case no matter how much that you want to imagine there was not intelligence involved you have to dance to the music sooner or later. There is an elephant in the room, in your lab and that elephant is described in the meaning above, “Creation”.”
re- someone needs to get back in touch with reality, with no evidence for God(s) or magical creation there is no reason to leap to that conclusion especially when one must ignore everything we know about the universe already.

“Everything that we see observe, hear, taste, touch, experience shows us that the Creator is a reality. “
re- okay so let me follow your logic; a rock exists=God(s) exist, someone farted=God(s) exist, a truck is backing up=God(s) exist…I can’t really follow your reasoning, you require the assumption that God(s) exist as an onset, science doesn’t work like that. One must approach an Experiment, or a Theory or an Equation with no assumptions and only from the results can one create a conclusion, one cannot come into anything with their conclusion already like you do.

“This is no magic, this is a logical conclusion even by reading your words and understanding what you say convinces me even further of this. I could not ever be surer.”
re believing something no matter how hard is not the same as “sure” or “know[ing]” something, you must learn that. For example if a I see a Saurapod (large long necked Dinosaurs) walking down my street, I can go up to it, touch it, smell it, see it even ride it if I want to and when I finally get the sense to run back for my camera it has disappeared, it does not matter how much I may believe that there was a Saurapod in my street with no evidence for the case much less an explanation of how it got there or where it went it might not have. Beyond that Speaking something into existence is called an Incantation Spell, can you enlighten me the difference between when a God performs an incantation spell and when a witch or wizard performs the same task and why one requires magic the other does not even though they are both the same task?

“ot to get off the subject there is one thing that disturbs me. You have greatly helped me in my faith and I really don’t like that because I feel like you are going to the gallows below, even you brought this up and I never mentioned anything about that sort of thing. It is amazing to me that you can have such great knowledge and resources at your fingertips but you can never conclude the obvious… I know that there are true parts to the evolution theory like adaptation but chemical elements spawning life, macro-evolution I have a problem with it and I find it hard to believe that you think you put up a case for it.”
re- someone also needs to listen to what I say, Abiogenesis is not Evolution and there is no such thing as Macro-Evolution or Micro-Evolution like Chemical Evolution they are simply made up Creationist terms made in order to divide science even though they are the same observations Creationists like to separate Evolution into Micro-Evolution and Macro-Evolution in order to separate Mutation to the extent that has been observed and documented well in large numbers (Micro-Evolution) and Mutation to the extent that has been observed and documented well but in slightly smaller numbers (Macro-Evolution). There is no difference, unless a barrier presents itself at your imaginary “kind” level or Taxonomy and the entire fossil record has been faked and the entire field of cellular biology and genetics have also been faked then there is no discernible difference between the largely unnecessary categories. Beyond that the resources I have…not impressive, I have one lab and a few post graduate students helping me it’s hardly a global effort.

You have no obligation to reply, academic integrity and sympathy for those less educated than myself keep me replying but you have neither nor reason to. So as far as I can see it the sooner you stop replying the sooner I can leave and stop entertaining you.

No limiting factor has been observed to prevent mutation beyond a certain point…at least you understand that all dogs are still dogs and will be dogs forever, that’s the same reason why homo sapiens are still humans, and humans are still apes, and apes are still placental mammals and placental mammals are still mammals and mammals are still synapsids and synapsids are still tetrapods and tetrapods are still vertebrates. and vertebrates are still eukaryotes (it gets REALLY complicated after that…I will go over it if you wish, but it may take a while to grasp).

Evolution does not claim, modern monkeys gave birth to a human…rather modern monkeys share a common ancestor with the linage that we now consider humans, we are sisters from the same mother so to speak but humans are not the daughter of monkeys.

Max (from the OM forum) – Just as a side point and I really don’t want to discuss on this forum. Evolutionist claim giraffes have long necks because they were constantly trying to feed on leaves in trees. They claim that though natural selection and years of stretching the neck to feed that we have the result we have today. Look at the reasoning here? DUH?

cs – You are referring to Lamarkism. Darwin said half of what Lamark wrote was obsolete, the other half was just wrong.

This is why I have no respect for your knowledge of evolution. You are fighting against something Darwin showed was wrong 150 years ago, and calling it evolution. The perfect example of a straw man.

What’s a “Chuck E Cheese”? is that some kind of movie theatre or a playground or arcade or something like that? Keep in mind I’m on the other side of the planet, if you name theatres and stuff from your little town I can’t know what you are talking about.

Beyond that, some Gibbons count years by the changes in seasonal fruit and can keep track of the age of their extended family by using the seasons (though this is only observed in captivity and may be a result of human intervention(seasonal influx of humans)). But Homo Sapiens are by some measures by far the most intelligent of the Great Apes, but we are still apes because we have a highly developed inner ear, a penis that is separated from our stomach, possible thumbs, Ape hip and highly developed frontal lobe (the section of your brain located above your brow and behind the eyes. For example; a blue whale is the largest of all whales…does this mean that it can no longer be considered a whale? If we remove that then the next largest whale is the Sperm Whale (or Grey Whale depending on gender and time of year)…should that be removed under the same conditions? Similarly if we remove Homo Sapiens from Apes then the next most intelligent would be one of the many Human species that only went extinct relatively recently (Homo Neanderthalis is an example of this) but them perhaps remove Humans or Hominids entirely based on the intelligence of one? If that is so then because Chimps can construct tools and are therefore far more intelligent than all other remaining primates, should these also be removed?

The point of this is that the only way to objectively classify organisms is based on similarities not differences…I just hope your just smart enough to see the difference between classifying by differences rather than similarities.

NOT EVOLUTIONARY SPECIES METHOD, TAXONOMY! NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION, I’VE BEEN THROUGH THIS BEFORE!

One cannot classify based on location as Continental Drift and Migration would throw everything out of whack relatively quickly, but in answer to your question, no you cannot conclude that I am a zebra. Beyond the fact that I cannot reproduce with a zebra Zebras are horses a phylum classified by several characteristics that I do not have but all in that phylum do have…you can however classify both as mammals and beyond that placental mammals because we share all characteristics of this group.

Beyond that, Apes are not confined to the Jungles of Africa, only most of the African Apes are (which we as Hominids are a subset of and because of our strange migratory habits are one of the couple of subsets that don’t). To further this point, do you have any evidence for humans being directly decedent from a God, as apposed to Apes, Mammals, Synapsids and Vertebrates all of which we are a member of? Do you have anything to discredit the millions of “Ape-Man” fossils? If so which are men and which are apes? How do you know?

If you can’t tell I’m putting you into the seat of a grade 4 child doing science; ask a question, ask a follow up question, etc. ending in “how do you know?”. I’m actually interested in your response and how much of it seems of be pulled out of your ass…keep in mind evidence is that which can be TESTED.