http://technology-science.newsvine.com/_news/2009/02/12/2426283-seven-signs-of-evolution-in-action

I've been reading through the posts, and it all sounds very familiar.

Evolution....

....it happens!

GREAT!!!

So this thread's a wrap,

... 'feral' FINALLY EMBRACES EVOLUTION, MICRO, MACRO AND HALLO.

As the animation shows, which helped 'feral' get it, micro-macro is one big continuum,
... Not much different than 'MARIO BRO', SOME STAY STUCK AT A LEVEL OF THE GAME, AND OTHERS MOVE ON!!!

So while the primitive APE I am can't, maybe Jeanniebean could welcome 'feral' in the MACRO EVOLUTED CLUB.

P.S.: Who said that an APE couldn't type full sentences on a keyboard?!??!

CONGRATS Feral! thank you for finally seeing the light. May I suggest that instead of burning your bible, that you recycle it instead? Just better for the environment!

Now, where's MorningSong? We still have a lot of work to do on her!

What begins to occur with these threads is the proponents of evolution state their cases citing scientific websites, links to videos, photographs, documented proof and a research based dialogue.

That goes totally ignored by the religious.

Then they ask the same questions that were just answered.

Then the proponents of evolution post their links to scientific websites, links to videos, photographs.....

And then the cat people attack. Happy Valentines Day

Thanks. Same to you.

No news there then.

The same old tired religious arguments by the same blind led-by-the-nose people.

Obviously things must be slow in the xtian forum that they have to try and stir things up.

Must have had enough happy clapping

the unbelievers attack the believers, the believers attack the unbelievers. Why is this?

Okay - catching up here - since the other thrad on evolution has run amok. I'll edit this down so it doesn't take up the whole page.



So -let me get this straight. You're claiming me know more today about the events of history than the people who were actually there? Or am I reading this wrong?



Well - we differ in our opinions. They are not a set of laws, for theres no one holding you accountable for what is written in the bible. Only those "Laws" which society has deemed to adopt are controlling the masses. Most of the "laws" of the bible are not only ignored by the masses these days, but have been turned into lucrative business' - without a second thought to the consequesnces of these actions. I think that a more careful examiniation of the bible will prove to merely demonstrate that those who break the "laws" therein, suffer the consequences thereof. But those who read the bible and see only fairy tales - aren't reading very much of it.



No, but neither Paul nor John were concerned about the questions of science, so there is no need to adress these issues. They were greatly concerned about the concerns of man, and dealing with the consequesnces of life's actions. It is no secret that Judism was at the core of what they were writing about, and that eminating from Judism was the "coming messiah". But I'm not using the short comings of evolution to support the reality of creationism - it's not about keeping score here, just the cleaverly disguised premise of Macro-evolution being "dressed up" as science.



It matters not if you want to "buy what's in the bible" or not. That's not going to matter to anyone but you in that respect. Just because the stories sound fantastic - doesn't mean they aren't true. All I have to do is look at some of the headlines of what people do today, and I find their idiocy harder to believe than the miricles of the past. No - the trouble I have with evolution has nothing to do with my belief in creationism or the bible. Why should it matter what one's belief is - evolution should stand on it's own with verifyable facts to support it. Where are these facts? All I see or hear is the interpretation of observation. Most of it - with no acceptable foundation. For instance, your statement of "what happened millions of years ago". Nothing. There was no "million of years ago" outside of a Hollywood script. All depends on what you put your faith in.



Actually, I've given this a great amount of thought. Macro-evolution is a lucrative thriving business built on a foundation of fairy tales. It fits right in there with the wealthiest of world religions.

What we've come to know as "micro-evolution", is just another name for the workings of melecular biology. It has nothing to do with the theories that have developed from extrapolating it back into history. Just a matter of how one is interpreting the evidence.



They are not necessarily contradictory - but they are also not mutually inclusive. That is merely wishful thinking.



This is not a good example of the similarities of macro-evolution and micro evolution - unless she gives birth to a chimpanzee. All that is being determined here is the changes within a single female. But we would hardly use this to demonstrate the physical changes of an ostrich - of whom some billions of years ago a common ancenstor is assumed.



But here again - the biblical account has no bearing on the premises of evolution, other than offering a differing theology. The question I really have which remains unanswered it what brings macro-evolution into the realm of science?
Mere observation of fossil records does not make it a science. What is to say that these fossil records aren't just mere accounts of the diversity of creation? NOTHING! No one has given me something I can hold onto that demonstrates otherwise. And sending me off to U-Tube to listen to the ministers of evolution doesn't do it, because they offer nothing beyond the self proclaimed facts of the religion of evolution, as percieved from their world view and the a priori's which must be accepted to support it with no demonstration of fact. I don't need the bible to "disprove" it, it doesn't offer any of it's own proof beyond the faith which supports it.



But it begs the question - why did it stop? If natural selection created this "adaptive differential reproduction" - why can it not be demonstrated to be going on even to this day. What we are viewing today is the de-evolving of the planet. When did we fall off the growth curve of continual improvement over these billions of years - when in fact we hae all of these disciples of Al Gore telling us we are destroying ourselves at an alarming rate.

I'm sorry - but I don't find we're getting any "answers" from macro-evolution, just a lot of hemming and hawing, and all these new findings of atempting to say the same thing differently, just with the attempt of more authority.

We simply CAME from the Earth. We ARE 90% water believe it or not. SOMETHING (not SOMEONE) made us. Or...f*ck it I'm gonna throw this out there. We made ourselves. Study the brain activity and get back to me on this one.


We are our OWN GOD...

Namaste!

And in the same way that we have created and evolved ourselves into the walkin' talkin' mammals that we are today, so shall we destroy ourselves one day and be the cause of our own extinction!

Yup - poof, all at once. Science calls it the "Big Bang" - they just refuse to accept who banged it.

Why - if creation - micro-evolution? That's easy - why not? It is what gives diversity and beauty to the creation. I have a friend who grows Orchids. It is one of his life passions creating crosses of Orchids and how beautiful the leaves (or petals) develop. Without micro-evolution, Roses would be only one color - three's only be one species of Dog, cat - all men/woman would be one color, and likely all look alike...

Was that question rhetoric? Or are you serious?

How do we get butterfly's from Catapillars - (since all of the information of a catapillar is destroyed through metamorphasis). What is the evolution explination for this occurance?

And also - could someone explain how evolution got us Vanilla?

I've watched every U-tube video that I've been directed to, and have not recieved a single answer to any of the questions I've asked on evolution, or how Creationism has been disproved.

I don't think there's anyone on this site who can explain to me how Creationism has been disproved.
Or at least if they can - they haven't posted yet.

I did post this earlier as something I found on the internet as a tangible proof to macroevolution.

Tangible proof of macroevolution

Touching off a scientific furor, researchers say they have discovered the mutation that caused the earliest humans to branch off from their apelike ancestors — a gene that led to smaller, weaker jaws and, ultimately, bigger brains.

Smaller jaws would have fundamentally changed the structure of the skull, they contend, by eliminating thick muscles that worked like bungee cords to anchor a huge jaw to the crown of the head. The change would have allowed the cranium to grow larger and led to the development of a bigger brain capable of tool-making and language.

The mutation is reported in the latest issue of the journal Nature, not by anthropologists, but by a team of biologists and plastic surgeons at the University of Pennsylvania and the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.


The Pennsylvania researchers said their estimate of when this mutation first occurred — about 2.4 million years ago — generally overlaps with the first fossils of prehistoric humans featuring rounder skulls, flatter faces, smaller teeth and weaker jaws.

And, the remarkable genetic divergence persists to this day in every person, they said.

But nonhuman primates — including our closest animal relative, the chimpanzee — still carry the original big-jaw gene and thanks to stout muscles attached to the tops of their heads, they can bite and grind the toughest foods.

Over 2 million years since the mutation, the brain has nearly tripled in size. It’s a very intriguing possibility.”

University of Michigan biological anthropologist Milford Wolpoff called the research “just super.”

“The other thing that was happening 2½ million years ago is that people were beginning to make tools, which enabled them to prepare food outside their mouths,” he said. “This is a confluence of genetic and fossil evidence.”

Over 2 million years since the mutation, the brain has nearly tripled in size. It’s a very intriguing possibility.”

University of Michigan biological anthropologist Milford Wolpoff called the research “just super.”

“The other thing that was happening 2½ million years ago is that people were beginning to make tools, which enabled them to prepare food outside their mouths,” he said. “This is a confluence of genetic and fossil evidence.”

Details of the study
In their experiment, the Penn team isolated a new gene in an overlooked junk DNA sequence on chromosome 7. It belongs to a class of genes that express production of the protein myosin, which enables skeletal muscles to contract.

Originally the scientists were concentrating on determining the biological underpinnings of Duchenne muscular dystrophy, a muscle-wasting disease. But once they isolated the mutation, they spent the next eight months deciphering its evolutionary implications.

Different types of myosin are produced in different muscles; in the chewing and biting muscles of the jaws, the gene MYH16 is expressed.

But the Penn researchers discovered humans have a mutation in the gene that prevents the MYH16 protein from accumulating. That limits the size and power of the muscle.

In primates like the macaque, the jaw muscles were 10 times more powerful than in humans. They contained high levels of the protein, and the thick muscles were attached to bony ridges of the skull.

When did this genetic split occur?

Scientists assume that the rate of genetic change a species undergoes is relatively constant over time. So the Penn group looked deep into the fossil record to determine when the jaws of human ancestors started looking smaller and more streamlined as compared to more apelike creatures.

It's really quite simple, for creationism/I.D. to be proven, someone needs to find an organism that is irreducibly complex. Simply, for ID to be correct, you need to find an organism, or a system within the organism, that if you take just one part of that away, it will no longer work. Each and every example of this that the ID camp has trotted out with, Science has disproven the Irreducibly Complexity of the organism/organism system.

I find it hard to believe that you actually watched all the videos, and didn't get a single answer..

Smiless,

Save your energy! It's not worth it. You're falling victim to their constant running in circles, asking the same questions, and JUST NOT GETTING IT.

There's no getting thru to them. Funny thing is they keep asking for proof, yet all they have to show as proof is an old book full of exaggerated fairy tales and unintelligent babble.

So, I have decided to no longer engage in any mind numbing endless debate with these Bible thumpin' sheeple.


-M