• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Evolution: the Facts.

Some good stuff about ERVs in primates here.

Those charts look like they might be useful, and if you credit the source, that's fair use.
 
Last edited:
[swiki]Selfish Genes[/swiki]

Have a look at that last example. Yes, it's a bit technical, but it is an explanation of how natural selection can wipe out a species. I swear that's the freakiest thing in population genetics.
 
Dr Adequate said:
[swiki]Selfish Genes[/swiki]

Have a look at that last example. Yes, it's a bit technical, but it is an explanation of how natural selection can wipe out a species. I swear that's the freakiest thing in population genetics.
Click to expand...

As you said, freaky...

Could one consider cancers to be a similar example of type of example? The genes in the cancerous cells initially prosper at the expense of the non-cancerous cells, but (usually*) theses genes die out with the death of the individual.

*not always: e.g. canine transmissible venereal tumor
 
Note: Radrook inadvertently posted his defense of the intelligence of creationists in the wrong thread. It should have gone here, along with the message that he was trying to reply to.
 
Last edited:
Dr Adequate said:
Note: Radrook inadvertently posted his defense of the intelligence of creationists in the wrong thread.
Click to expand...

Thanks

I, for one, was utterly befuddled

It's great to know that there are people who can not only see through the fug, but are committed to exposing what lies beneath
 
Last edited:
Wowbagger said:
www.TalkOrigins.org

I have no time to point to specific articles in it, right now, but everything you are looking for is in there.
Click to expand...

I agree.

I think the issue is psychological. The IDers think that TalkOrigins is biased in favor of evolution and are hoping that we skeptics will be skeptical of evolution. Which isn't a bad thing, cause I was raised as Fundamental Christian, was skeptical of evolution, and it passed the test and I am no longer skeptical of evolution and am now completely skeptical of Christianity.
 
Radrook said:
In view of your evident ignorance, I don't consider you qualified to call anyone stupid.

Actually, what is stupid is your unfounded claim of the UNPROVEN idea of abiogenesis.
Abiogenesis hasn EVER been demonstrated under controlled laboratory conditions much less observed in nature. If it has, show me your evidence!

Also, what you gullibly accept as fossil evidence is merely interpretation of data within a preconceived evolutionary framework. That species change into other species is a proven fact. What is NOT a proven fact is the other ridiculously absurd transformations you people claim ensued. Even more ridiculous is that these claims are actually founded on well known fallacies and that the general public is expected to be retarded enough not to notice. That too shows your ignorance. So does your inability to see perceive any relationship whatsoever between the Big Bang and the subsequent events that it produced or which developed as a consequence from your own standpoint. In short, nothing of what you claim is rational. Everything that you claim is based on fallacies of reasoning. So in my view it's all first grade unadulterated drivel. With all due respect-of course.
Click to expand...
Meet the first grade.

"Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin."

--- Albanian Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina; Australian Academy of Science; Austrian Academy of Sciences; Bangladesh Academy of Sciences; The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium; Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina; Brazilian Academy of Sciences; Bulgarian Academy of Sciences; The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada; Academia Chilena de Ciencias; Chinese Academy of Sciences; Academia Sinica, China, Taiwan; Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences; Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences; Cuban Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic; Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters; Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt; Académie des Sciences, France; Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities; The Academy of Athens, Greece; Hungarian Academy of Sciences; Indian National Science Academy; Indonesian Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran; Royal Irish Academy; Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities; Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy; Science Council of Japan; Kenya National Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic; Latvian Academy of Sciences; Lithuanian Academy of Sciences; Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academia Mexicana de Ciencias; Mongolian Academy of Sciences; Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco; The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences; Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand; Nigerian Academy of Sciences; Pakistan Academy of Sciences; Palestine Academy for Science and Technology; Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru; National Academy of Science and Technology, The Philippines; Polish Academy of Sciences; Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal; Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Singapore National Academy of Sciences; Slovak Academy of Sciences; Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academy of Science of South Africa; Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain; National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka; Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences; Council of the Swiss Scientific Academies; Academy of Sciences, Republic of Tajikistan; Turkish Academy of Sciences; The Uganda National Academy of Sciences; The Royal Society, UK; US National Academy of Sciences; Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences; Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela; Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences; The Caribbean Academy of Sciences; African Academy of Sciences; The Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS); The Executive Board of the International Council for Science (ICSU).
 
becomingagodo said:
The big bang explaines how matter comes from nothing.
Click to expand...

Well, to be exact, the big bang theory doesn't explain how matter came from nothing. There was -something- "before" the event that eventually turned into the universe as we know it, and this "something" is mostly referred to as a singularity, but that is of course to simplify it a lot so that people like I can even try to imagine it. As for what that "something" was, this is - as far as my current knowledge, though I'll be happy to be corrected - that part is indeed mostly on the speculative side for now, because it's pretty hard to find evidence from a place that didn't even have the same laws of time and space that the universe now has. "All" we have (that is a whole lot of all, though) is evidence that started to accumulate as far back as to mere nanoseconds after this "singularity" suddenly started to expand.

So of course, anyone who tries to criticize evolution with the "matter came from nothing" argument clearly had no idea about cosmology. The big bang theory doesn't claim something came from nothing. Only creationists will repeatedly say it does (though many laymen, like myself, will be under this misconception until someone corrects us. The difference is, I'm willing to be corrected.)
 
Radrook you have now done it twice.
Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.
Each time you have presumably lost your temper judged by the increase in typos when you have have come up with this stupidity.
You have still not responded to joobz with any rational argument against or showing why all the evidence supports anything other than the theory of evolution. Any cogent reasonably argued defense of your belief can be discussed but copying the id/creationists in just sheer denial of facts makes you look silly. I know that you believe any criticism of your beliefs is an ad hominem attack, it isn't, you must try to convince people rationally if you want rational argument, otherwise you are just pissing in the wind.
 
1) Can Radrook's crap posts please be removed from this thread? I thought this thread was ONLY for CONSTRUCTIVE posts and discussions.

2) Does anyone know of a computer program that simulates <something> and shows how languages can be created and used by non-intelligent entities? It seems like such a program would be very useful in this debate.

I don't want to have to write one myself... it sounds pretty complex...
 
Last edited:
rocketdodger said:
2) Does anyone know of a computer program that simulates <something> and shows how languages can be created and used by non-intelligent entities? It seems like such a program would be very useful in this debate
Click to expand...

It seems as though there's one on another thread... but it's bit buggy


​

rocketdodger said:
I don't want to have to write one myself... it sounds pretty complex...
Click to expand...

I think they're rather simple
 
six7s said:
It seems as though there's one on another thread... but it's bit buggy
Click to expand...

No, it's just that you haven't presented convincing evidence.

Why do you assume that it is a problem with the other person?
 
Last edited:
rocketdodger said:
1) Can Radrook's crap posts please be removed from this thread?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I haven't kept an eye on it for a few days and look what happens!

I've sent request for tidy up now. If it happens again, just jump in and use the report button yourself - being a stcky thread, we usually get fast action.
 
Not sure if my question should go here - Or start a new thread. I have been curious about the evolution of flowering plants. A sweep of the net really didn't bring much up that answers my question

My understanding is as follows. Flowering plants as an evolutionary process seems to have occured very quickly, and from what I garnered on the internet we have not identified anything that might be considered a transitional species.

Currently our understanding of the process of how and why is very poorly understood. So knowing scientists like to have hypothisies about virtually everything, can anyone point me to a link or source of information where I could read up what their latest thoughts might be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom