Definitive Proof of Evolution

[SpamSandwich]

Mutation? Evolution? Likely both sides of the same coin.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

It should take mere minutes for this solid evidence to be decried as fraudulent by "intelligent design" fans. :rolleyes:

[SpamSandwich]

You're behind the curve!

The pretext for creationism is now called "strengths and weaknesses."

They're evolving their message! There really is no substitute for good old fashioned ignorance and stupidity.

[dmz]

**I'm going to preface this with an acknowledgement that too many of you who hold with Darwinism demonstrate excessive levels of hatred, profanity, and downright rudeness, if not certain irascibility, which precludes a lot of people from arguing with you. Learning civility may be more elusive than learning the science of life.

-----------------------------------------------------------



I saw that a couple of days ago. There's only one problem with Lenski and his 30,000 generations: It's never going to get where it needs to go in the time given. Of the ~100,000 [somebody check that] generations that supposedly separate us from the chimps, you're going to need more than two or three "double jump" mutations to gain advantage, to adapt our body plans, generate self consciousness, Bach, Newton, etc.


There's a limit to what Darwinism can accomplish, Lenski has found what Behe wrote about last year, that the observable rates of mutation cannot go much of anywhere -- hence "The Edge of Evolution." When you need more than one mutation -- two or three to gain your advantage -- that increases the unlikelihood exponentially, which, one more time, has been demonstrated scientifically. It took trillions of cells to do this -- how could that possibly scale to humans? Or any other lifeform that can't have ever existed -- even cumulatively -- in those quantities? Maybe you guys weren't listening last year what I posted on this? The edge is there, and they've found it again, just like they found it in chloroquine resistance. What it took to get there is what makes evolution unviable.

Now, you can choose to have faith that evolution suddenly happened in all animals, everywhere, constantly for hundreds of thousands of generations -- but back at the lab, under controlled conditions, that just isn't happening.

(You are more than welcome to your faith-based positions, of course.)

[dmz]

Who do you think you're kidding?
Um, I don't know. how far are we going get with one double jump mutation every 30,000 generations?

????

How far?

Hell, ShawnJ, believe what you want, but we aren't finding you guys any favors in the lab. The numbers just keep getting worse, the complexities just keep increasing. And like I said, if they could have put together an simple organism on paper in a stepwise fashion -- and don't think they don't have the software or proc cycles to to do it -- they would have done it by now, and it would be on the front page of every periodical from Nature to Newsweek.

They haven't -- at least guys like Venter don't let it bother them, and actually produce something.

Behave yourself! ;)

[Hiro]

**I'm going to preface this with an acknowledgement that too many of you who hold with Darwinism demonstrate excessive levels of hatred, profanity, and downright rudeness, if not certain irascibility, which precludes a lot of people from arguing with you. Learning civility may be more elusive than learning the science of life.

-----------------------------------------------------------



I saw that a couple of days ago. There's only one problem with Lenski and his 30,000 generations: It's never going to get where it needs to go in the time given. Of the ~100,000 [somebody check that] generations that supposedly separate us from the chimps, you're going to need more than two or three "double jump" mutations to gain advantage, to adapt our body plans, generate self consciousness, Bach, Newton, etc.


There's a limit to what Darwinism can accomplish, Lenski has found what Behe wrote about last year, that the observable rates of mutation cannot go much of anywhere -- hence "The Edge of Evolution." When you need more than one mutation -- two or three to gain your advantage -- that increases the unlikelihood exponentially, which, one more time, has been demonstrated scientifically. It took trillions of cells to do this -- how could that possibly scale to humans? Or any other lifeform that can't have ever existed -- even cumulatively -- in those quantities? Maybe you guys weren't listening last year what I posted on this? The edge is there, and they've found it again, just like they found it in chloroquine resistance. What it took to get there is what makes evolution unviable.

Now, you can choose to have faith that evolution suddenly happened in all animals, everywhere, constantly for hundreds of thousands of generations -- but back at the lab, under controlled conditions, that just isn't happening.

(You are more than welcome to your faith-based positions, of course.)

You show an amazing lack of the power of parallization. Evolution happened on a parallel scale so VAST that we cannot even begin to mimic it on the level you so desire to see for your proof. 1:30,000,000 is a really small number when you are dealing with scales of 10^100 candidate reactions early in evolution. An experiment operating on something less than 10^10 scales just wont show anything more than noise.

[SpamSandwich]

You show an amazing lack of the power of parallization. Evolution happened on a parallel scale so VAST that we cannot even begin to mimic it on the level you so desire to see for your proof. 1:30,000,000 is a really small number when you are dealing with scales of 10^100 candidate reactions early in evolution. An experiment operating on something less than 10^10 scales just wont show anything more than noise.

To the doubters... reality is an immensely complex thing and all of the formulae and theories haven't yet come close to a 'grand unified theory' that encompasses this vast puzzle. Nonetheless, this clear evidence on a micro scale is proof positive of evolutionary processes at work.

[MarcUK]

How far?


Behave yourself! ;)

Every single generation evolved something, some of these were reported - bigger cells - faster glucose growth rates - and dont forget that all the bacteria were in a very very similar fixed environment, so the selection pressure would be extremely limited.

But lets not overlook the fact, that every generation evolved something and just because it wasn't apparent, or had not been tested for, it still happened.

Was that civil enough? ;)

[Fellowship]

Mutations do occur yes that is a fact. I think it is far from proven that mutations explain the origins, diversity and complexity of life forms.

Clean and simple reply with no baiting.

Fellows

[@_@ Artman]

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g255/artman46/Evolution.gif

[MarcUK]

I think it is far from proven that mutations explain the origins, diversity and complexity of life forms.

Clean and simple reply with no baiting.

Fellows

I think its far from proven that believing mythologies based on worshipping the sun explain the origins, diversity and complexity of life forms.

Move along, no bait here! :D :p

[Fellowship]

I think its far from proven that believing mythologies based on worshipping the sun explain the origins, diversity and complexity of life forms.

Move along, no bait here! :D :p

Get over here you big lug and come get a hug!!!

You know I am dragging you to heaven with me despite your heathen ways ;)

Fellows
:D:p

[MarcUK]

Get over here you big lug and come get a hug!!!

You know I am dragging you to heaven with me despite your heathen ways ;)

Fellows
:D:p

Oh come on, im already there, when are you going to drag your butt up here and say hi?

[tonton]

How many genes are there in the chimp body? How many genes in an E. Coli bacterium? Obviously the number of generations per mutation is going to be greater for bacteria! Duh.

Now generations per mutation per gene should be about constant, presuming a similar mutation-conducive environment, which cannot possibly exist, by the way...

[gastroboy]

K.I.S.S.

A wise, gentle, loving old man with a big beard, sitting on a cloud made everything.

And if you don't believe that he'll make you burn in a fiery pit forever.

That or your coconut crop failed because you didn't toss a virgin into the Volcano god last wet season.

... or maybe the beings on Halley-Bop...

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Um, I don't know. how far are we going get with one double jump mutation every 30,000 generations?

snip

c cycles to to do it -- they would have done it by now, and it would be on the front page of every periodical from Nature to Newsweek.

They haven't -- at least guys like Venter don't let it bother them, and actually produce something.

Behave yourself! ;)
How will they slime the bacteria?

Even though we’ve now actually seen evolution occurring in a laboratory, apparently the only evidence that would actually do, it’s still not good enough because human beings are ‘more complex than bacteria.’ Yes, even though evolution’s been documented and the results are even repeatable, there’s no significance in the experiment because ‘other organisms are more complex.’

I thought it would be ‘Yes, but God didn’t invent bacteria!’ or some other form of ‘bacteria doesn’t count.”

Go to your room. ;) Don’t act the giddy goat. ;) Behave yourself. Ikkle snookums. Other patronising epithets and requests designed to make the bad sensible people go away by conceiving of them and the things they say as naughty children. Now don’t talk back to your father, dmz, I’m really displeased now. OK BUSTER NO CHOCOLATE PUDDING FOR A MONTH. ;)

[SDW2001]

Mutation? Evolution? Likely both sides of the same coin.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

It should take mere minutes for this solid evidence to be decried as fraudulent by "intelligent design" fans. :rolleyes:

I've read through the article and the thread, but let me address this point. I consider intelligent design a real possibility, provided it is in its truest form. There are those (both for and against it) that pervert it into something it's really not--or at least---shouldn't be. I myself subscribe to a version of it, though I also think the evidence for evolutionary theory is overwhelming. In other words, evolution clearly takes place...but where did it begin? Secondly, who is to say evolution itself is not guided by a higher power?

Ironically, the best example is the very experiment to which you linked. An intelligent creature, that being a man, began the experiment. The bacteria didn't show up in the lab on their own. They didn't throw a shitload of proteins and amino acids and what not into a jar and voila! Life!

I also think that the article overstates what actually happened. OMG! A mutation!

But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations – the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.

So the bacteria organized themselves into a higher life form, then (any type of higher life form?). Is there evidence this may happen after say, 1,000,000 generations? It just seems like a very small change, even if it is "random."

[groverat]

Not just a mutation, but a beneficial mutation that led to reproductive success in a given environment; which is what evolution is.

dmz:

The sheer number of generations here should not be surprising given the fact that these E.Coli had virtually no environmental pressures put on them at all. Only a handful of things in their given environment were "worth" reacting to reproductively, and you'll notice that the big change noticed involved one of those few things (an ability to "eat" a nutrient they previously had not been able to, but had been around).

Compare that one specific environment (a petri dish in a fridge in a uniform culture) vs. the practically-infinite different ecologies and weather systems across the universe over time.

If you don't understand what I mean, just let me know and I'll clarify further.

[franksargent]

Hiro, MarcUK, Hassan i Sabbah, and groverat pass this evolutionary quiz with flying colors.

dmz and SDW2001 fail this evolutionary quiz with flying colors.

Nature acting in an unconstrained environment (relatively speaking) versus a single bacterium acting in a controlled environment.

I'd rather deal with possible probabilities than with impossible improbabilities.

Oh, and man made god in his own image.

Question: Did god evolve?

[SpamSandwich]

Hiro, MarcUK, Hassan i Sabbah, and groverat pass this evolutionary quiz with flying colors.

dmz and SDW2001 fail this evolutionary quiz with flying colors.

Nature acting in an unconstrained environment (relatively speaking) versus a single bacterium acting in a controlled environment.

I'd rather deal with possible probabilities than with impossible improbabilities,

Oh, and man made god in his own image,

Question: Did god evolve?

Funny you should ask. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptions_of_God)

[gastroboy]

Question: Did god evolve?

Yes He/She did.

Basically God/s exist/s as part of a contractual arrangement for the individual to obtain whatever it is they feel they lack or want.

eg Eternal life, health or wealth, reassurance that acquired wealth is acceptable and possibly even retained in the afterlife, acquisition of land or prestige, victories,vengeance on their enemies etc

So as individuals change their requirements, God/s must evolve to suit.

When a God no longer meets the requirements set by the worshipper, they are neglected in favor of alternatives till they become extinct, as in the Gods of the Romans and Greeks. That is why all Gods demand constant worship, without it they die.

[MarcUK]

Id consider design a possibility - lets just make sure we have a fundamental grasp of what design means in context, and update our rather primitive understanding of God!.

[Flounder]

I'll leave the same obligatory post I leave in every evolutoin thread.

Evolution and Christianity are not incompatible, or mutually exclusive.

That is all.

[Kickaha]

Ironically, the best example is the very experiment to which you linked. An intelligent creature, that being a man, began the experiment. The bacteria didn't show up in the lab on their own. They didn't throw a shitload of proteins and amino acids and what not into a jar and voila! Life!

Dear god, my first post in AO in months, and I know I'm going to regret it, but...

Evolution doesn't explain the origins of life, nor does it try to. You're conflating two topics, but that's beside the point. :)

Yes, an intelligent being did begin the experiment. However, they did not actively interfere with, induce, or direct the mutations during the experiment to produce a particular outcome, which would be intelligent *design*. When a physicist sets up an experiment with a falling bowling ball, is that proof of intelligent gravity?

The experiment was set up to observe natural processes that already exist.

[Flounder]

Dear god, my first post in AO in months, and I know I'm going to regret it, but...

Evolution doesn't explain the origins of life, nor does it try to. You're conflating two topics, but that's beside the point. :)

Yes, an intelligent being did begin the experiment. However, they did not direct the experiment to produce a particular outcome, which would be intelligent *design*. When a physicist sets up an experiment with a falling bowling ball, is that proof of intelligent gravity?

The experiment was set up to observe natural processes that already exist.

++

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Flounder]

I also think that the article overstates what actually happened. OMG! A mutation!

I'm not sure how you get that. They literally don't know what actually happened yet, and the article explicitly states that. It will be fascinating to see how this story progresses.

What they do know is that this is a gain of function that could not have happened due to one simple point mutation, or as you so eloquently put it "OMG! A mutation!" :p

[groverat]

When a physicist sets up an experiment with a falling bowling ball, is that proof of intelligent gravity?

That's beautiful.

[rufusswan]

Great article. Best laugh I've had in weeks. 'Course I'm embarrassed to live in Missouri with folk of that type, but so far I have survived with some reasonable sense of logic intact.

"intelligent falling"....

"secular gravity" .....

"Evangelical physicists" ....

"Anti-falling physicists" ....

I really do need to find out where these type of people find their drugs. :???:

[SDW2001]

Hiro, MarcUK, Hassan i Sabbah, and groverat pass this evolutionary quiz with flying colors.

dmz and SDW2001 fail this evolutionary quiz with flying colors.

Nature acting in an unconstrained environment (relatively speaking) versus a single bacterium acting in a controlled environment.

I'd rather deal with possible probabilities than with impossible improbabilities.

Oh, and man made god in his own image.

Question: Did god evolve?

The reason why you need to act like this really escapes me.

[SDW2001]

Dear god, my first post in AO in months, and I know I'm going to regret it, but...

Evolution doesn't explain the origins of life, nor does it try to. You're conflating two topics, but that's beside the point. :)

No, you're right. I realize they are essentially separate issues.



Yes, an intelligent being did begin the experiment. However, they did not actively interfere with, induce, or direct the mutations during the experiment to produce a particular outcome, which would be intelligent *design*. When a physicist sets up an experiment with a falling bowling ball, is that proof of intelligent gravity?

The experiment was set up to observe natural processes that already exist.

That's true. Then again, we know that "things like this" happen already. It doesn't disprove that there may well be or have been something/someone guiding our own evolutionary processes.

And...just to throw a wrench into things here: Who is to say that a higher power didn't guide this particular experiment? ;)

[SDW2001]

Not just a mutation, but a beneficial mutation that led to reproductive success in a given environment; which is what evolution is.

That's directly contradicted by this:

In the meantime, the experiment stands as proof that evolution does not always lead to the best possible outcome. Instead, a chance event can sometimes open evolutionary doors for one population that remain forever closed to other populations with different histories.


dmz:

The sheer number of generations here should not be surprising given the fact that these E.Coli had virtually no environmental pressures put on them at all. Only a handful of things in their given environment were "worth" reacting to reproductively, and you'll notice that the big change noticed involved one of those few things (an ability to "eat" a nutrient they previously had not been able to, but had been around).

Compare that one specific environment (a petri dish in a fridge in a uniform culture) vs. the practically-infinite different ecologies and weather systems across the universe over time.

If you don't understand what I mean, just let me know and I'll clarify further.[/QUOTE]

[groverat]

Could you explain for me what the contradiction is? I don't see it.

I said that what they observed a beneficial mutation that led to reproductive success, which is what evolution is.
What you quoted says that evolution does not always lead to the best possible outcome.

I cannot see the contradiction. :???:

[SpamSandwich]

There are also evolutionary dead ends. Evolution does not always ensure success.

[SpamSandwich]

Nobody appreciated the quote from the Fugitive.

Tough crowd.

:grumble:

I just figured you were rambling. :p

[Akumulator]

We are so stupid.... we've been so wrong and have finally been shown the light by Kirk Cameron an his intelligently designed friend:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=nfv-Qn1M58I&feature=related

[gastroboy]

I'll leave the same obligatory post I leave in every evolutoin thread.

Evolution and Christianity are not incompatible, or mutually exclusive.

That is all.

Neither are Islam, Daoism, Buddhism, Animism, Ancestor Worship or belief in the Loch Ness Monster, the Easter Bunny, Santa and the Tooth Fairy because when it simply comes down to just belief, you can believe anything.

Mankind has proved that many times over.

[SDW2001]

Could you explain for me what the contradiction is? I don't see it.

I said that what they observed a beneficial mutation that led to reproductive success, which is what evolution is.
What you quoted says that evolution does not always lead to the best possible outcome.

I cannot see the contradiction. :???:

Wait...I think I see what you mean now. I was focusing on the wrong part of the sentence, assuming you meant that evolution is ..."a beneficial mutation..." Your meaning was ..."that led to reproductive success."

[Kickaha]

No, you're right. I realize they are essentially separate issues.

Good. I have seen numerous supposedly intelligent ID arguers confuse the two, so it's nice to know you don't. :)

So why did you?!? :err: ;) :)

That's true. Then again, we know that "things like this" happen already. It doesn't disprove that there may well be or have been something/someone guiding our own evolutionary processes.

And...just to throw a wrench into things here: Who is to say that a higher power didn't guide this particular experiment? ;)

Occam? ;)

[groverat]

SDW:

Wait...I think I see what you mean now. I was focusing on the wrong part of the sentence, assuming you meant that evolution is ..."a beneficial mutation..." Your meaning was ..."that led to reproductive success."

It's both. The process of natural selection (the vehicle of evolution over time) is that of beneficial mutations that lead to reproductive success. To put it a little more succinctly: A mutation can only be considered beneficial if it leads to reproductive success.

I hope that's clearer.

[SDW2001]

SDW:



It's both. The process of natural selection (the vehicle of evolution over time) is that of beneficial mutations that lead to reproductive success. To put it a little more succinctly: A mutation can only be considered beneficial if it leads to reproductive success.

I hope that's clearer.

eh....


Then how can it be said that "evolution does not always lead to the best outcome?"

[SDW2001]

Good. I have seen numerous supposedly intelligent ID arguers confuse the two, so it's nice to know you don't. :)

So why did you?!? :err: ;) :)



Occam? ;)


Actually, I don't agree that Occam would apply there. We simply have no way of knowing. The thought that something or someone guided the experiment is not necessarily "complex" and therefore disqualified by Occam's Razor....it's just a question of faith.

[SpamSandwich]

eh....

Then how can it be said that "evolution does not always lead to the best outcome?"

Proof of that can be found on these boards on a daily basis.

[SDW2001]

I think it would be best to leave "Occam's Razor" out of any discussion.

It's just lazy.

I didn't bring it up. You quoted a quote. I think that's lazy. :)

[groverat]

SDW2001:

Then how can it be said that "evolution does not always lead to the best outcome?"

It depends on what you mean by "best". In the context of that article it looks like they mean that "best outcome" means that they could envision a better one from an outside perspective. (i.e. - The "best outcome" for human evolution would be evolving some wings so we could fly around.)

It's a poor word choice in the article that is confusing.

[shetline]

Actually, I don't agree that Occam would apply there. We simply have no way of knowing. The thought that something or someone guided the experiment is not necessarily "complex" and therefore disqualified by Occam's Razor....it's just a question of faith.
Occam's Razor: entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity

Until it's ruled out that the bacterial constituents of the experiment, a known quantity, and reasonably well-understood concepts of physics and chemistry aren't sufficient to explain the results of the experiment, then explanation via a further mysterious external intelligent force, something unproven and hypothetical, is a needless entity. Occam's Razor doesn't prove that such an entity doesn't exist, but it does strongly indicate that such a conjecture is needless and unhelpful speculation.

Those who wish to cling to their needless entities will often try foist off any sign of less than 100% complete understand of every last detail of a phenomenon as sufficient "need" for their fanciful explanations, but that ends up being like a situation where a store has been robbed, but if no definitive human suspect has been identified and proven to be the culprit, going on to speculate that space aliens or invisible pink yetis were to blame, and calling someone else's strong insistence that a human is by and far the most like suspect a "matter of faith" until such time as a specific human suspect is identified and proven guilty.

[Hiro]

I think it would be best to leave "Occam's Razor" out of any discussion.

It's just lazy.

That's a cop out. In order to properly apply Occam's razor you actually need to understand a situation or phenomena and then be able to determine whether a simpler explanation is first valid, and second really any simpler. The concept doesn't mean actual real world items are simpler, but it is indicative of how those real world items came to be.

I guarantee the retina wasn't intelligently designed. It has just about the worst design we could imagine for doing what it does. A whole host of Rube Goldberg-like corrective neural layers and biological fast fourier processing are necessary to overcome that it is for all intents and purposes "inside out". But a simple explanation for why it is the way it is is that early eyes were great as picking up scintillating colors created by interference patterns of visible and UV light. Scintillations were used for finding food and identifying predators. Then an early eye had a deformity where the retina grew folded back on itself and the creature actually learned to use that defective retina. Problem for everything else was that bass-ackwards folded retina was better at actual object resolution when paired with the then developing eye lens that the previous single layer retinas. Even with the receptors pointed the wrong freaking direction and blood vessels all over the front, not behind where they would be out of the way. Over time the entire animal kingdom evolved from that particular eye mutation. Insects and such adapted the scintillation eye away from what it was to what it is now.

Obviously I am simplifying out volumes of information and references, but in a Occam's Razor manner we can simply explain how a mere biological mistake actually provided an advantage and explains whet we really see today. Coming up with a design that does the same thing you would never do what has been done, so you would need all kinds of wild sub-explanations for why something so ass-backwards would be designed the way it was. Or why it should be expected to work. And that explanation would probably still have a hard time explaining why there is still scintillating camouflage in the world or why butterfly scales are EXACTLY the way they are, but if you care to go into eye evolution it all falls into place.

One simple accident that worked, explains a whole host of topics laid down over about 500 million to a billion years. But you would truly need a Rube Goldberg explanation to show any other way we arrived at exactly were that screwed up retina is.

That is Occam's Razor. The exact opposite of lazy.

Making fluffy statement like Occam's Razor is just lazy is a sure sign of willful misunderstanding.

[His Dudeness]

Can someone explain to me, a complete idjut, just what the HELL Intelligent Design is?

[franksargent]

Can someone explain to me, a complete idjut, just what the HELL Intelligent Design is?

... http://nulldot.org/img/dead-end.png

Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection".

It's kind of like a movie, only it's in realtime, and we're all in it, and there's this Grand Puppeteer of the Universe (or GPU) also known as "It" or "Something", who would normally be known as a "Director" (or "Actuator" if you prefer) if this were in fact a movie, but of course this "Realtor" doesn't exist anywhere but in our imagination, and we call this "place" Imaginationland (but of course many people have spoken to "It" or have claimed to be "It" or have seen "It" or "It" has spoken to them or have gone to great lengths to codify "It" (it is rather odd that "It" exclusively belongs to we the people)), and sure as heck this isn't a movie, if fact, if you didn't know it, you would think that "It" acted in an all too random, arbitrary, and capricious fashion, those of us who have come to our senses call "It" Nature.

http://media.southparkstudios.com/media/images/1111/1111_council_of_nine.jpg

http://media.southparkstudios.com/media/images/316/316_deity.gif
It

[gastroboy]

Can someone explain to me, a complete idjut, just what the HELL Intelligent Design is?

It is the remarketing of an idea, using the classical advertising name change to hide the fact it is the same old bumpf.

It is just Creationism, dressed up with pseudo scientific expressions and made up research to satisfy those who just want to believe, no matter what, but look less stupid doing so.

Not surprisingly it really only finds support in the USA and pockets of wannabe "Born Agains" around the world.

Amazing how people will fall for things like this and "Clean Coal", the "Fresh" mentholated flavor of filter tip cigarettes and "Lite" salt, junk food etc.

Just goes to show if you tell a fat, repulsive broad that, if she rubs on rare, dew fresh, mongolian yak turds, handpicked by Shaolin monks on the first full moon after an equinox, she'll look like Angelina Jolie, she'll fall for it everytime.

As long as you charge her enough.

[Denton]

I'll leave the same obligatory post I leave in every evolutoin thread.

Evolution and Christianity are not incompatible, or mutually exclusive.

That is all.

Further to this thought, I would suggest to Christians who want a cogent argument for how to hold both religion and evolution as compatible to read Finding Darwin's God (http://www.amazon.com/Finding-Darwins-God-Scientists-Evolution/dp/0061233501/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213633844&sr=8-1) by Kenneth R. Miller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_R._Miller).

[Denton]

Then how can it be said that "evolution does not always lead to the best outcome?"

It's the difference between "best" and "better."

If you need to get to higher ground, then walk up-hill. Doing so will make you "better" but it's probably not the "best" solution.

[@_@ Artman]

http://controversy.wearscience.com/img190/devil.gif (http://controversy.wearscience.com/)

[Celemourn]

**I'm going to preface this with an acknowledgement that too many of you who hold with Darwinism demonstrate excessive levels of hatred, profanity, and downright rudeness, if not certain irascibility, which precludes a lot of people from arguing with you. Learning civility may be more elusive than learning the science of life.



Ad Hominem, and unproductive statement. I'm sure that upon reflection you will realize that there are assholes on both sides of the fence and that these assholes get in the way of those who would like to have calm exchanges of information and ideas. Making the accusation here, and extending the asshole trait to the entire group of those who favor Darwinian evolution, implying with the words, "too many of you," that it is a significant portion of the population of said group, is RHETORIC. It serves only to trigger emotional responses that serve to polarize people into 'Us vs. Them' groups.

If we were to extend the same argument in the other direction, we might have something like this:

**I'm going to preface this with an acknowledgement that too many of you who hold with Creationism demonstrate excessive levels of hatred, profanity, and downright rudeness, if not certain irascibility, which precludes a lot of people from arguing with you. Learning civility may be more elusive than learning the science of life.



This version is just as valid as the previous, and just as unhelpful. The very polarization that such a statement causes is precisely the cause of hostility in debate and loss of civility.

Oh, and just so I don't look like I'm getting all superior on you, I've done this same kind of thing too. Trying to use emotional triggers in an argument is an entirely natural, if entirely unhelpful, thing to do. If we're careful and avoid it though, we can help keep ideas and information flowing freely. It's the 'Us vs Them' that makes people throw up barriers to opposing views/ideas/ideologies/whatever.

C

[Celemourn]

Proof of that can be found on these boards on a daily basis.

Ha ha ha. You know, Spammy, if it wasn't YOU that said this, I'd probably be ticked off by it. :D

C