Theory of Evolution - argument for/against - Page 5

[GrimJack]

I made the same mistake - I assumed Aia was female. And yes, I have noticed improvement in Aia's responses but we rub each other the wrong way.

[jbennet]

I thaught Aia was a chick too...

you are a dude, right?

[GrimJack]

Me, well, I like chicks - Yeah, I'm a guy.

[jbennet]

same. it would be handy if it said in peoples profiles, then we wouldnt have any wierd situations

for ages when i first joined i thaught Narue was a Japanese man. LOL. Now i know better.

[GrimJack]

Yeah! Have you seen Narue's new avatar? I like it.

[jbennet]

with the dancing anime girls?

i liked chainsaw woman

[GrimJack]

I loved the chainsaw woman - here is her new one.

[jbennet]

haha that ones pretty good

does she do them herself? or just find em?

[Obeledeveloper]

If there is no creator, then things must have evolved somehow.

Where by merlin's beard would evolution have started from dear grumpier, nothing comes from nothing if nothing existed what would have evolved

The only thing needed to disprove my theory is proof of the existence of a creator and then proof that creator does everything on the first go.

there are more than 1school of thought in creationism but a great %age of creationist do not believe that the creator did everything in the first go which doesnt mean there were trial runs but he had everything planned out we are the ones seeing it unfold. truly like Robbob said

For this reason, the only difference that I see between Creationism and Evolution is the supernatural aspect, otherwise they are on the same level of improbability.

only i see it as same level of probability instead

[jbennet]

nothing comes from nothing

Who says that?

Why?

Why cant something come from nothing?

[astatine]

This is completely meaningless...
Although I am not majoring in biology, I am sure that EVOLUTION MUST WORK.
Let's suppose
1. that there is a 'replicator'.
2. 'offsprings' of the 'replicator' displays 'polymorphism' in their 'phenotype'.
3. offsprings with different phenotype has different probability to successfully produce their own offsprings.
Then, the ones with better phenotype (and, in case of carbon-based organisms on the Earth, genes) will win over their competitors (alleles), although those winners are still imperfect, and the influx of new replicators (genes) and the change of the environment are ceaseless. (Sorry for my English skill.) As a result, their will be an incessant shift in the frequencies of genes in the gene pool. This is what we call evolution, right? Then, if we are sure that the presumptions I stated above are true, why do we have to have doubt aboutit?

[Obeledeveloper]

jbennet:
How do i explain that nothing comes from nothing, its somehow like explaining that the whole is greater than its parts, how does one explain that?
If something comes from nothing that will be creation. So u are a creationist now?:P

[umbraco]

If you don`t accept Darwin, you also closes down knowledge for astronomy, anthropology, geology, biology, physics and zoology.

Counterknowledge by Damian Thompson
- $12.77 at amazone.com

[Obeledeveloper]

Seems there is another thread for this same topic.

[GrimJack]

This thread looked like it was going to die - here is some life support:

evolutionary biologists and other members of the Coalition of the Sane have done the following very well:

1. Calling creationists f*cking morons (because they are).
2. Arguing that a better understanding of how life evolved is good in and of itself, and can imbue us with a certain sense of wonder.
3. Refuting specific creationist claims.

These are necessary, but not sufficient. What we rarely do is make an affirmative, positive argument for evolution (as opposed to against creationism). I proposed one particular argument: we can't do applied medical genomics at all without using evolutionary theory and tools. There are many other examples that can be made (I merely chose this one because I know it rather well).

The other thing we evolutionary biologists don't do enough of, and this stems from the previous point, is make an emotional and moral case for the study of evolution. Last night, I concluded my talk with a quote from Dover, PA creationist school board member William Buckingham, who declared, "Two thousand years ago someone died on a cross. Can't someone take a stand for him?"

My response was, "In the last two minutes, someone died from a bacterial infection. We take a stand for him." [ 1 ]

[GrimJack]

Seems there is another thread for this same topic.

If so, link to it; but at least read the last couple post to find out that it was closed for being too long for any newcomer to read it all or it was decided to take the argument to another level.

[GrimJack]

Where by merlin's beard would evolution have started from dear grumpier, nothing comes from nothing if nothing existed what would have evolved

It was not anywhere near Merlin's beard - this is where it was:

The oscillator representation is used for the non-perturbative description of vacuum particle creation in a strong time-dependent electric field in the framework of scalar QED. It is shown that the method can be more effective for the derivation of the quantum kinetic equation (KE) in comparison with the Bogoliubov method of time-dependent canonical transformations. This KE is used for the investigation of vacuum creation in periodical linear and circular polarized electric fields and also in the case of the presence of a constant magnetic field, including the back reaction problem. In particular, these examples are applied for a model illustration of some features of vacuum creation of electron-positron plasma within the planned experiments on the X-ray free electron lasers.