Creationism does not always have to be associated with religion. Though there is this THEORY of evolution, it is not fact. We could have been created by some other group of "something." We (humans) now can create without sexual reproduction. Whos to say for instances that some scientist clones a population of humans on some "farm" that can't be evolution. As far mutations, I myself would merely call them adaptations, not evolutions. An organism adapts to its environment, the simplist of which would be a tan or dark skin in environments with harsh sunlight. Now, it seems to me that evolution today points toward humans and not as much toward animals. If humans and others organisms evoled in the same regions of earth why is it they are so different. Now some of what I say might be somewhat outlandish but, for a theory with so many holes, many scientist, scholars, etc. put too much effort in to it. And there seems to be a slippery slope that if you don't believe in evolution then someone is a religious fanatic. Why are scientist fixated on evolutions, do they find or have any other theories.
Sorry, Mike. You seem to have bought into a number of misconceptions here.
The first and foremost is that you've forgotten any of the stuff they taught you in science class. A scientific theory differs from your average garden variety theory quite a bit, and you are saying that they are exactly the same. A scientific theory is something that cannot yet be absolutely proven, but every piece of evidence that has been found has supported it. What you are describing in science wouldn't even get to the level of scientific hypothesis. And where exactly are these numerous holes in evolutionary theory that you speak of?
Not believing in evolution is saying that you refute at least a century of carefully designed and audited experiments designed to test that theory. Those experiments have shown that in every way that science could find to test the theory, its' test supported it. That sounds to me an awful lot like rejecting the evidence of rational experiments designed to find the truth no matter what it is, and could be considered by some to be dogmatic and a refusal to consider presented facts. Maybe it's just me...
I'm also wondering if you can tell me what sort of scientific experiments can be performed to prove or disprove the (non-scientific) theory of Intelligent Design? or are you trying to say that the scientific method itself is suspect? Any way you slice it, it still looks like Pastafarianism to me.
Actually, creationism does always have to be associated with religion. That's kind of the point. If there is a "creator," then you are talking about religion. It may not necessarily have to be associated with Christianity or any organized religion, but the concept of a being who "created" the universe is, by definiton, a religious belief.
Evolution is a fact. Scientists use the word "theory" in a different way than the average yahoo. Since scientists make no claims that they are all-powerful and all-knowing, they admit that all knowledge is tentative. This is the same reason why you will hear reference to the "theory" of gravity. There is no debate in the scientific community about whether or not evolution exists. It is agreed upon, based on mountains of scientific evidence, that evolution happens. The disagreements come on the exact mechanism through which evolution works. Its existence is confirmed.
Science also doesn't speak to why evolution began, just that it did. Your cloning example would fit in fine with evolution, but your suggestion that this means that the same thing could've happened at the beginning of the evolutionary process seems pointless. There is no evidence to support this "other" concept that you refer to and there is lots of evidence to suggest otherwise.
You can play with words all you want, but mutations, adaptations or whatever you want to call them, they all support evolutionary theory.
The whole point of evolution is that different species evolve to fit different niches in the ecosystem. If humans and other animals developed exactly the same, they would crowd each other out and one or both could not survive. The fact that human beings and animals are so different supports evolutionary theory.
What you are saying isn't as much "outlandish" as it is ignorant. And I don't mean that in an insulting way, I mean that you seem wholly unaware of what the theory of evolution actually is. You have apparently gathered your impressions of it from TV, politicians or religious people, none of whom seem to have even a basic understanding of evolution, but make up their own version of it in order to denigrate it.
I never said that anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is a religious fanatic, but anyone I've ever heard who doesn't believe in it solely relies upon the theories and arguments of religious fanatics to make their case. They always fail.
Scientists are fixated on evolution because it is a fact. They have not found and do not have any other theories because this one is proven. There is no need to come up with new theories once you have already discovered the truth.
Funny Tom, we were typing those responses at the same time.
Tom I am quite aware of theories in the scientific community and theories of who is going to win the super bowl.
Most of what I am talking about has been done. DNA modifications have been done so that you can choose the sex of the child, it eye color, hair color, etc. Not to mention we have the ability to clone. Oh, finding the gene for hereditary diseases and destroying it has also been done. Now, I am not an expert in genes, cloning, etc. But, I would call that intelligent design. We know most of the chemical composition of DNA, possibly in the future, we will create our own DNA molecule and design our own gene pattern possibly creating the most genetically perfect humans.
"The whole point of evolution is that different species evolve to fit different niches in the ecosystem. If humans and other animals developed exactly the same, they would crowd each other out and one or both could not survive. The fact that human beings and animals are so different supports evolutionary theory."
If this is so, how come then two organisms that evolved in the same ecosystems are so different.
Also, the point that all scientist agree on evolution is false, many scientist (including atheist) do not support the theory of evolution based on the facts. Not to mention, most scientist do not agree on one track of evolution either.
I would call that intelligent design.
Intelligent design that comes out of evolution.
If this is so, how come then two organisms that evolved in the same ecosystems are so different.
I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse here, since I already explained this. Two organisms in the same ecosystem are so different because they fill different niches in that ecosystem.
Your claim that many scientists (inculding atheists) reject evolution is at complete odds with everything I have ever seen or read. Prove it.
Scientists are fixated on evolution because it is a fact. They have not found and do not have any other theories because this one is proven. There is no need to come up with new theories once you have already discovered the truth.
I am surprised this comment comes out of your mouth (fingers?), I believe this begs the question
Alright, how about an example please.
Also, an article in the Gainesville Sun mentioned this it might be on-line, also I will get some more evidence to prove this.
The only reason you think this begs the question is that you don't know enough about the subject. You should read up on something from legitimate sources, rather than commenting on it in ignorance. And keep in mind that I am a scientist and "an example" is not going to prove anything to me, since that would constitute anecdotal evidence, which anyone with even basic scientific knowledge knows doesn't prove anything.
No, that would not be anecdotal evidence. You say this is fact and is true, so would you please share your observations of your expariments, your data from those experiments, and your conclusions or those of another scientist. The example was not to prove anything to you but, to me, because I am unclear of your niches in an ecosystem theory.
Sorry, I don't have the time or interest in proving evolution to you. If you are interested, I suggest you check out the library or a bookstore as there are hundreds of books on the topic. I'll give you one to start with: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obido...=books&
n=507846 This one gives a good introduction to the subject and is written in a way that non-scientists can easily understand. I'm sure you can find others from there.
The niche concept is really simple. Let's look at one aspect of life, eating. If you have multiple organisms in an ecosystem and they all evolve the same way so that they have the same food source, then that food source will quickly be exhausted and all of the species will die off. So organisms that eat the same thing would not reproduce and survive and evolution would kill them off. But if the different organisms in the ecosystem found different food sources, then they would all compliment each other and would all evolve differently and those that did -- or those that could fight off animals that tried to eat their food sources -- or that could easily find new food sources -- these species would survive and live on. Thus natural selection would allow the species that could adapt or had mutations that made them eat different food sources would survive and those that couldn't would die off. And this, of course, is not just limited to food, but applies to every aspect of life. Organisms have to develop differently in an ecosystem because if they don't, they die off. Animals find their niche in order to survive and those niches interact with each other and compliment each other.
Besides, an ecosystem is complex and varied and any basic examination of any ecosystem would show you that it makes little sense that animals that live even with mere feet of each other are not living the exact same lifestyle and therefore they would experience things differently and would then evolve differently.
Well, that is quite wrong. Many niches of many species and organisms overlap. "The competitive exclusion principle, derived from many hundreds of hours of observation of ecosystems, tells us that in a stable ecosystem, no two species are in direct competition with each other. So what happens when two or more species whose fundamental niches overlap occupy the same ecosystem? They work out an arrangement which we call "resource partitioning." This means that they jostle around until each species has reduced its niche size until there is no competition in other words, they divide up the goodies so no one is consistently fighting over them. The result is that, in a real ecosystem, a population is almost always utilizing only a part of the niche they could have used if they were the only species in the ecosystem, so they are using only part of their fundamental niche."
http://www.cod.edu/people/facult...cher/
Niches.htm
Good quick read of niches and where I quoted the competitive exclusion principal
http://evolution-facts.org/
Encyc...clopediaTOC.htm
Presents facts and logic against evolution. Please read it with an open mind.
Especially the fallacies of evolution and cleelular evolution.
cellular
believing in "intelligent design" or "creationism" or whatever it might be called next year, is still about believing in a supernatural power that is responsible for creation. whether you want to believe that supernatural being or creator is human, alien or whatever, it is not scientific unless there is some evidence of that creator. and let's be honest here, we all know that people are saying God. and that is religion. they are being disingenuous here if they really want to pretent that creationism or intelligent design stands up to the same testing as the theory of evolution.
belief in god is about faith. and while i don't believe that science and having faith are incompatible, i think it does a disservice to all of us -believers and non- to set about trying to prove the existence of god, for one. secondly, until there is a body of evidence that proves, physically (meaning not just faith or belief that there is something out there) then it cannot be tested scientifically.
See, Kenny, the trouble I've been having with this? No matter the evidence, no matter the proof, no matter WHAT, these folks are unwilling to admit that evolution is the best theory to apply to the reality all around us.
And, as i said before, if you want to toss out science, then one should get off their computers. Because THEORIES dictate how they work.
No, no, no. I never said that there was no overlap or that the process was neat. You made that assumption. I just gave you the basic argument. After that, your argument is talking about short-term ecosystem stuff, while I am talking in evolutionary terms, which means over multiple generations.
I have absolutely no interest any reading any ID or creationist arguments against evolution. I don't have a strong enough ego to believe that while almost every scientist who has studied this subject has come to the conclusion that evolution is real, somehow I'm going to prove them all wrong. It doesn't work that way.
I've seen their evidence and evaluated it and in the past seen the arguments against evolution and evaluated them and found that the anti-evolution arguments fail 100% of the time. You feel free to believe otherwise. For me, this is a settled issue and nothing that comes from the realm of religion, whether you are religious or not, will ever convince me otherwise. When the preponderance of evidence convinces the overwhelming majority of scientists that evolution is wrong, then I'll pay attention. Until then, you ware wasting your time trying to convince me with these types of arguments.
The niche article you link to is from a community college web page and contains absolutely no references or citations, making it useless.
The other site is a wingnut site and not a site devoted to true scientific inquirey. The very language the site uses shows that it has no interest in valid analysis, only in proving its point.
The web is not the place to find information that proves or disproves any scientific theory. It doesn't work that way. You find out the truth or falsehood of scientific theories in scientific journals and books.
If this is the best you can do, Mike, you are wasting your time. Get me some information that uses the actual scientific method and then we'll talk. Any source that starts out to "disprove evolution" is, by defintion, unscientific. Science starts with a question, not an answer.
grubi, I completely agree.
amy, you make good points as well.
Mike, do you not see the irony of asking me to use an open mind to review a site that is completely not open-minded?
Niche article from the community college web page was written by a professor there named Lynn Fancher click on the link entitled "Lynn's Page" to get her background information and a host of other articles she wrote.
Yes, science does start with a question, questioned the validity of evolution, and following logic and the scientific method, the author came to this conclusion. Also, a great neutral source is a book called "Evolution, Creationism, and other Modern Myths by Vine Deloria Jr. (currently reading now) presents even better, the fallacies and holes of evolution.
If you are going bash the work on the site, do so with facts. If you read it closely, it is scientific and follows logic, and does not mention any religious material.
I checked out Lynn's page before I responded.
Your "question" is not a scientifically valid one. "Is evolution true" is not a sceintific question, it is a loaded one that seeks a particular outcome. A scientific question would ask "how did life begin on earth" or something like that.
A book that points out "fallacies" is, by definition, not a neutral source.
I did read the site and I did bash it with facts. The site is non-scientific and while it doesn't specifically mention religion, it uses the exact same language that religious anti-evolution people use. The authors of the site recognize that people would automatically reject a site as scientific if it used religious language, so they hid it. But they don't actually understand science and this shows in the language on just about every page of the site.
Looking a little further, I found that your comment is actually false anyway. When I originally looked at the page, I didn't see religious stuff, but looking again, I find some religious stuff pretty easily. On the page: http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-V1...V1/
1evlch08.htm, which is linked to off the page you sent me, you'll find this: "Although many of its ecosystems were damaged by the worldwide Genesis Flood, yet our planet remains wonderfully designed for living." Genesis, I"m sure you are aware, is part of the Bible. And before you suggest they are referring to any genesis or beginning, answer me why the word is captalized. The only place the word genesis is capitalized in our entire culture is in the Bible (and in Star Trek II & III). Beyond that, the creation they discuss is a strict biblical version of creation, suggesting that the earth is only a few thousand years old. So not only are these religious people, they are extreme religious people, since even most mainstream religious people don't buy the crap that the Earth is only a few thousand years old.
This site is total bullshit. The use of scientific words does not make one scientific. This site couldn't possibly be less scientific.
If you checked Lynm's page then you would see she is a perfectly credible source. Just because she works at a community college does not mean you can discredit her work.
The book is does not just point out fallacies, but it does present some, on both sides of the argument. By definition it is neutral because it does not take one side.
I should of been more specific when referring you to the website. It was supposed to be the Logical Fallacies section chapter 38. And I will present more evidence later on.
You are using the old "argument from authority" fallacy. She is a credible source, and I have no problem with her. But work at a community college is not scientific peer-reviewed work, particularly if there are no citations or sources listed. I'm not putting down community colleges, I am an instructor at a community college by choice, what I'm saying is that community colleges are not research institutions and therefore the employees of said groups are not paid researchers, meaning such things they post on their website are not subject to the same standards one might find elsewhere. I discredit her work because it doesn't follow any standard procedures of sourcing, citation or professionalism.
A source can appear to provide information from each side and still not be neutral. I don't know about this source, but when a book's main focus is to point out fallacies, which is what you mentioned above, then it is not neutral.
It doesn't matter what part of that website you sent me to, if one part of the site is religious propaganda, then it all is. Nothing on any part of that website holds any validity whatsoever. That web site is not valid evidence and you should avoid it in the future. Find some neutral sources or give up your line of reasoning.
Your logic is asstray, she is a biology professor. Second, this is simple "ecosystems 101". These essays are lessons for her online class. Third, she does not have to be associated with a university to do research. There are other independant institutions which she can participate and conduct in research.
Like I said before, pointing out fallacies is not it's main focus, it's not even close. It is one tool in presenting his argument (which is very well researched and cited).
Well, that's a bold statement if you did not read it. Second, it is not an end-all-be-all source and was something that I found quick for the debate, again I told you that I would find some more sources and evidence.
And where are the sources? The items in peer-reviewed journals that shoot holes in evolution? And the theories that replace those holes?
We'll be waiting...
Again, I did not reject her because of her job or where she worked, I rejected her because she didn't follow any of the rules that researchers are supposed to follow.
Even if your book is very well researched, something I'm not sure you are qualified to judge, since you don't even seem to understand the basic rules of research, that is one source against the entire rest of the scientific community.
I said that I did read portions of that site and read more than enough to not that it is not a scientific source.
And grubi is right, you need to be looking in peer-reviewed journals. That is where scientists publish their valid research. It is the professinal standard.
If she were researching a new theory or something to the like, then I would agree with you but, this is very basic and simple stuff, college intro courses, and if another biologist were to read this they would know that this is very basic. This is stuff that is researched and true, years ago. Now, she did mention that she is doing research with rats and gene, if you were interested (which I don't think you are) you could e-mail her and inquire further.
Second, I am quite aquainted with professional research methods but, for the small amount of time that we have been debating (which I enjoy) I have not had quick access to peer reviewed journals. And again you speculate and assume that I am trying to make "defunct" scientific work with one book, is totally bogus. Again, I said I would present more evidence as I find time.
That proves my point that you have no idea of the basic rules of this type of stuff. I have the exact same job she does and when you post information like this, even for an intro class (I teach intro classes), there are rules for citation and sourcing that she did not follow. This has nothing to do with new theories or anything like that. If she didn't do 100% of this research herself, then, basically, she has committed plagiarism. Furthermore, the fact that you say "this is stuff that is researched and true" clearly shows you don't understand how science works, since scientists don't say such things.
Well, if scientist don't say such things, you better revise your statements a few post up. So since you are a biology teacher you can confirm that this material is true, unless you are not a biology teacher. I've had many teachers and professors in the past that post notes and lectures without citations, granted that is was basic material.
I reread everything above and didn't see anything remotely like "this is stuff that is researched and true," so you'll have to be more specific about what you want me to revise.
I didn't say I was a biology teacher, I said I taught at a community college. Either way, it wouldn't matter if I could confirm it or not, it would matter if the preponderance of evidence proved it true or not.
I've seen many people drive their car at a speed faster than the posted limit, so, by your logic, that means it must be legal to do so. The law on copyrighted information is clear, as are the ethics. If you publish something online that you did not write or originate, basic material or not, without citation, you are committing plagiarism. Claiming that someone else's ideas are yours, directly or indirectly, is unethical and illegal. And anyone who would be that shoddy with widely known ethical and legal standards might be the same when it comes to researching evolution.
"Scientists are fixated on evolution because it is a fact. They have not found and do not have any other theories because this one is proven. There is no need to come up with new theories once you have already discovered the truth." That is not scientific, no ifs, ands, & buts about it (First time typing that statement).
Again, this is simple and basic scientific knowledge she learned years ago, she can recite the processes of an ecosystem without books or citations because it is basic. These are not ideas, these are scientific fact. The same way if you had an online class and you wrote about the electoral college, I am sure this is very basic information for you and you can recite it very easily, and there is no need cite it because it is basic. It is the same with this information, now if you think it is plagarized, fine, prove it and report it, that would be the right thing to do. But, plagarized or not, the information is correct and disproved your ecosystems model which was uncited.
Your speeding analogy is false and so is your post hoc reasoing of her research. Again, if it is not her original work, you should ask her or report it, either way, don't jump to conclusions without evidence.
You're harping on this single individual's "research," and yet you have nothing -- nothing -- that has been presented as a theory that better explains the evidence AND has been presented in a peer-reviewed journal.
You just seem unable to admit that your ideas have no scientific viability.
I stand corrected. The reworded sentence should say this: "Scientists are fixated on evolution because it is supported by overwhelming evidence. They have not found and do not have any other theories because this one so heavily supported by the evidence. There is no need to come up with new theories once you have already discovered something so heavily supported by the evidence."
As with other things here, you jump to conclusions that you have no basis for making. Like, say, for instance your assumptions about my posting information on the electoral college. As it so happens, I do have basic information posted on the electoral college here: http://cfcc.quinnell.us/pos2041/
...mpaignslong.htm
Note that each line of the notes on the electoral college is cited. That knowledge is simple and basic, and yet it still isn't something that I came up with myself, so it should be cited, just as her work should be. Now am I interested in hunting down every teacher who has posted things improperly online? No, I don't have the time and, in this kind of context, it causes little harm, other than when people cite it as gospel, which is not something that can be done. When it comes to a debate like ours, uncited work is not valid for argumentation because neither I nor you have any way to check the validity of the work. A scientific fact is always an idea. Every scientific fact starts with a theory and with experiments that prove it. Now some ideas become so basic that they no longer need to be cited, but what you provided does not reach that level. In order for something not to be cited it would have to be so obvious that just about everyone, including nonscientists would know it.
As for this site, you claim it is correct, but you have absolutely no way of knowing that. You're guessing and hoping that it's correct because you want it to be. It doesn't work that way. Second, as I've already pointed out, you cannot disprove something with one uncited source. You need multiple sources to disprove something. Always. Finally, I already addressed this above, but the source you cited was discussing things in a short term, within one generation, while eveolution, like I mentioned, takes place in the long-term, over multiple generations. My argument wasn't cited because, like I said before, I'm not interested in proving evolution to you. You can look elsewhere for that, including the book I referred you to. I'm only interested in responding directly to comments that appear on my site.
My analogy is not false. You claimed that something was acceptable because you had seen a lot of people do it in the past. I showed you the ridiculousness of that claim. I've seen lots of teachers do lots of things wrong. The argument from authority still fails. Like I said before, I have no interest in hunting down every online violation of ethics, laws or whatever. I don't have the time and it isn't my responsibility to do so and it's intellectually dishonest of you to suggest somehow that such a thing is my duty. You're trying to paint me as somehow unethical for not reporting her, when that is not the case. I do not have a job that in any way relates to her or her field, so it has nothing to do with me.
Plagiarism has a clear definition, though, and that is the claiming of the work of others as your own, directly or indirectly. Unless she did 100% of the research herself, which seems close to impossible, then she is committing plagiarism by not including the citations. The evidence is clear that a teacher at a community college did not create the entire field of the study of the niche in ecosystems. If you want to prove something to me, which seems to be your point, then you'll have to find something that follows the basic rules of scientific inquiry AND presents a preponderance of scientific evidence to refute what I believe. I won't be holding my breath, because I know you can't do that.
Beyond that, grubi is correct. You are making nitpicky arguments over poor sources because you want them to be valid. They aren't, and, like I said before, you shouldn't be looking online for sources anyway.
The only way that I will even remotely consider this woman's claims to be accurate is if you contact her and she gives you the sources behind her claims so I can examine them myself. Otherwise, you should drop the line of argument concerning her, since I won't pay it any attention otherwise.
Hey Kenneth!
It seems to be a likely theory (cough) that in this case, Great Minds Think Alike. although you could also theorize that we respond similarly when presented with outrageous illiogicality pretending to show a different side of the story...
Hey Mike!
Just wondering why you couldn't answer one of the first questions put to you in this comments thread:
I'm also wondering if you can tell me what sort of scientific experiments can be performed to prove or disprove the (non-scientific) theory of Intelligent Design? or are you trying to say that the scientific method itself is suspect?
Plus: if I were to ask the question:
Are religiously insane theofascists who want to ram Intelligent Design down everyone's throats willfully ignorant of the way science works, or satanically inspired to sow doubt and dissention in the scientific community?
Would I also be neutral (by your own definition) because I don't take one side or the other?
Smarter theofascist monkeys please...
Now, I don't think Mike is a theofascist, although he does repeat the same phrases they do. To be fair, I think he is smarter than he appears in this thread, but for some reason has put blinders on when it comes to evolution.
Sorry, Kenneth.
I have been on a hair trigger with individuals for some time now who continue to support these sorts of logical fallacies - even to the point of mainstreaming them and suing universities if they don't accept them as science!
It dishonors, and tries somewhat to be blasphemous to the scientific method itself - if such a concept can be applied to reason and logic as opposed to faith and intuition.
I also have had more than my fill of those who try to inject religion into every facet of their own lives, as well as mine if they get the chance. Especially when religion's inherent intolerance rears its' ugly head. Believe whatever you want on your own dime and your own time. It's bad enough that they don't pay taxes and have been allowed to molest their clergy by and large for pretty much as long as they've been around. It's worse that they still consider themselves honorable enough to pass judgments on those outside of their own faith, without noticing the rot within their own walls.
And, no, I'm not attacking those who are trying to find a sense of spirituality within their lives. But those people should be condemning Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Fred Phelps, and their ilk. They should be demanding that the Vatican admit its' systematic harboring of pederasts, and freely offer any help to its' victims as possible. They should be concerned about the charlatans who have dishonored their faith and shown the rest of us the horrid examples of what some will do in the extremes of their belief. And they should be much more willing to show the positive aspects of their faith instead of twisting it to serve other ends.
If they think it is rational to require everyone's minds to be fouled with that hogwash, then I have to raise my voice in protest. Perhaps my language has been a tad harsh. But consider this argument (cough):
I would never let my child be taught by a christian. Once you let them into the school population, they start to seduce their students into their christian lifestyle. Pretty soon, they're molesting the kids, and a generation of promising youth are ruined.
I have personally heard much the same argument come from some people. Except they used the word homosexual instead of the word christian when they made the argument. And fifty years ago they used an N-word that would get me in trouble if I used it today. It doesn't matter what the word is, it's still just as vile a sentiment.
Theofascist sort of covers the theologically fascist way of insisting on inserting religious fervor into public school curriculum. Personally, I'd still like to take under God out of the pledge and off the currency myself. But I'm willing to compromise. How much would you say Mike is willing to answer my arguments, much less concede that I may have a point? And would you say that Mike would support the argument I spoke of earlier whe
D'oh! Cut off just at the end...
And would you say that Mike would support the argument I spoke of earlier when the word homosexual was used, but refute it when christian is? And use Intelligent Design to back up his arguments? I would ask him to answer those questions as well, but he seemed to have difficulty with the concept of proving (or disproving) a scientific theory.
I agree with you 100% on everything in these two comments, Tom, I was just saying that based on his comments, I don't think Mike is a religious person.
Actually, I'd say Mike was having a whole lot of fun egging you on Kenneth.
That wouldn't surprise me. I always respond as if that isn't the case, so that readers who don't know that such a thing is going on don't jump to the wrong conclusion.
But, but, but JESUS and GOD MADE DINOSAURS and JESUS and and THE FOSSIL RECORD IS INCOMPLETE...
and JESUS.
Well, if you believe in God and Jesus and all that, then in your worldview, God did make them all, and he made evolution, too.
No, no, no, no! The Great Spaghetti monster in the sky. He's responsible.
Oh, wait.
He's responsible for my heartburn at night. Never mind.
I've always thought the whole Spaghetti monster thing was quite weird. Even as an extreme metaphor to prove a point, it's just damned strange.
Tom, maybe what you think of what intelligent design is and what I think it is are different. As I stated before, intelligent design has been done already. When you can now choose the sex, eye color, etc., I would call that intelligent design. We know the chemical composition of DNA, which we can soon "reproduce" one day.
Now, I don't know how evolution explains homosexualality but, I'd sure like to know.
Second, if we are going to talk about science, evolution, fine, if you are going to bash Pat Robertson, Jerry Fawell (sp?) fine, but, don't be a little man and generalize and attack millions of people and stereotype. It's ridiculous.
And, as far as Rook's comment that I am egging you on is just fucking bullshit. I been posting here long enough and spent quite some time debating on this topic, so fuck that.
Your playing semantics, Mike, sinc ehte term intelligent design has a specific meaning (creationism) and you are breaking down the words and taking them in a different meaning. But when you say ID, it has a specific meaning that is different than your example.
Evolution isn't the purpose behind everything that develops in a particular species. Homosexuality is a mutation that developed randomly and if an entire species developed as homosexual, then that species would die out and evolution would be working properly. Many, many species, though, have developed this random mutation and it can serve as a check on excessive population growth, so that a species that develops this mutation doesn't overuse its resources, so maybe it does have an evolutionary purpose, on a species-wide level.
"but, don't be a little man and generalize and attack millions of people and stereotype." I'm nor sure who or what you are referring to with this one.
Rook was joking. That's one of the things he does. Don't take it so personally.
Well, lets ask some questions, what can we say (or science) caused these mutations. What has mutated? What is behind homosexuallity if it is not evolution? What species have mutated?
Oh, second comment was to tom.
And, I am not taking it personally and what I said before was quite extreme and really uncalled for.
Your misunderstanding what evolution is. Evolution doesn't really cause anything, it is the result of things that happen naturally or randomally combined with the inborn instincts for survival and reproduction. Mutations are not caused by evolution, they cause it. When a mutation randomlly happens, it can improve or decrease chances for survival and reproduction. If it increases them, the mutation is likely to survive and be passed on. If it decreases them, it can die off, but it can still randomly appear again.
What causes these mutations?
They are randomly occurring in nature.
So, nothing causes these mutations. So, what mutated (gene, etc.) to make the homosexual?
I wouldn't say "nothing" caused them, as everything seems to have some kind of cause, but with the exact how you're moving into pretty heavy science, not quite my area of expertise. And I'm sure you are aware that the research hasn't fully discovered the source of homosexuality, although the scientific consensus is genetics.
Commenting by HaloScan
