Primate Fossil Could Be Key Link in Evolution

[Wedgebuster]

Brainwashing defenseless little children seems to me to be criminal, but here we call it, a good church upbringing..

[wideright82]

Sorry guys, but I'm with SeattleGriz on this one. Normally I'd probably be sympathetic to evolutionary biologists and ashamed of Christians who throw temper trantrums over it, but not with the way things are going now. I'm sick of people saying that denying evolution is equivalent of denying the law of gravitation (such a stupid remark shows a lack of understanding of both subjects and the scientific method). I'm sick of hearing clueless people giving evolution way way way WAY more credit for modern medicine than it deserves (nuclear physics has done more for modern medicine than evolutionary biology has). Most of all, I'm sick of how so many people go ape-s^it over putting stickers in textbooks that say "evolution is a theory, not a fact" but don't give a sh^t about the sorry state of math, physics, and computer science (you know, sciences that actually matter and make the US competitive on a global scale) education in this country. I'll bet any of you that even if scientists don't really find anything of interest with the fossil, it will still have created more headlines than any major discovery the large hadron collider will make in the future. F%^& this Darwin-worshipping nonsense.

So you think it's wrong out of spite. cool. I'm sorry though, we don't accept spite as an excuse here.

[D1B]

We are pricks aint we? You love us though,..,.

Did you just admit you love pricks?

I don't know Z, did I? Take a close look. Did I?

Be careful Red Bull, otherwise I'll be beatin your ass like I have since last October. Thought I'd be civil last night, but you are asking for it.

[AZGrizFan]

Did you just admit you love pricks?

I don't know Z, did I? Take a close look. Did I?

Be careful Red Bull, otherwise I'll be beatin your ass like I have since last October. Thought I'd be civil last night, but you are asking for it.

Looks like to me, Ted.

[SeattleGriz]

You've got to be kidding right? Evolutionists can't prove something, so they just get to toss it aside and press on? Wow. That is a doozy. Make sure to tell the global warming crowd just how that works...oh wait, another very badly disguised attempt at liberals own religion that is already doing just that.

My issue, aside from you being a moron ( ), is the logic you are using to support intelligent design is faulty. Not wrong per se, but faulty. Just becaue something has holes in it, whether legitimate or not, does not make it wrong, just incomplete. It seems almost archaic to think that something is right because the other is not completely correct. Intelligent design, which i now know you believe in, is actually something I believe in too, but that does not discount evolution at all. Intelligence could have designed the big bang, it also could have designed the earth to evolve, the two aren't necessarily independent. Hell even if it was intelligence by aliens to cross us with themselves, we still have grossly evolved from that given point. Anyway, this thread is a hoot, so if you wanna find a creationist so we can all bash him/her for their idocy, I'm down.

Calling me a moron is a little uncalled for, even with the winkey. I am on here trying to string thoughts together on a couple of subjects because I am the only one who will answer them right now. Never said I could pull it off, just trying to convey why some don't buy into evolution 100%

As to the logic. I don't believe I ever stated that holes in evolution proved ID, and if I did, I was misspoken. I believe I was saying that that is where ID proponents attack the holes in evolution to gain a footing. That is why I posted the article. I am not educated enough to point those attacks out in the first place, but when pointed out to me, I understand what they are saying. ID will always have to tear down evolution if it wants to gain any footing.

[D1B]

I don't know Z, did I? Take a close look. Did I?

Be careful Red Bull, otherwise I'll be beatin your ass like I have since last October. Thought I'd be civil last night, but you are asking for it.

Looks like to me, Ted.

We'll you are an idiot, St. Wronge.

Oh and was that sposed to be funny? Listen John, take a look at my cat shit thread, that is funny. Hell I know you laughed your ass off at that one last night. Probably woke up the wife to show her. "Honey, wake up, you should see what Jeff did! I sooo funny"

[wideright82]

My issue, aside from you being a moron ( ), is the logic you are using to support intelligent design is faulty. Not wrong per se, but faulty. Just becaue something has holes in it, whether legitimate or not, does not make it wrong, just incomplete. It seems almost archaic to think that something is right because the other is not completely correct. Intelligent design, which i now know you believe in, is actually something I believe in too, but that does not discount evolution at all. Intelligence could have designed the big bang, it also could have designed the earth to evolve, the two aren't necessarily independent. Hell even if it was intelligence by aliens to cross us with themselves, we still have grossly evolved from that given point. Anyway, this thread is a hoot, so if you wanna find a creationist so we can all bash him/her for their idocy, I'm down.

Calling me a moron is a little uncalled for, even with the winkey. I am on here trying to string thoughts together on a couple of subjects because I am the only one who will answer them right now. Never said I could pull it off, just trying to convey why some don't buy into evolution 100%

As to the logic. I don't believe I ever stated that holes in evolution proved ID, and if I did, I was misspoken. I believe I was saying that that is where ID proponents attack the holes in evolution to gain a footing. That is why I posted the article. I am not educated enough to point those attacks out in the first place, but when pointed out to me, I understand what they are saying. ID will always have to tear down evolution if it wants to gain any footing.

I was merely poking fun at D by calling you a moron, Francis.


To gain a footing by bashing something else, seems a lot like the dullards who thought the earth was flat. No proof, but because the other side couldn't prove it they bashed it. I think the issue is that ID folks, can't grasp both, as if ID and evolution are so separate that they can never BOTH be right. That's all.

[D1B]

My issue, aside from you being a moron ( ), is the logic you are using to support intelligent design is faulty. Not wrong per se, but faulty. Just becaue something has holes in it, whether legitimate or not, does not make it wrong, just incomplete. It seems almost archaic to think that something is right because the other is not completely correct. Intelligent design, which i now know you believe in, is actually something I believe in too, but that does not discount evolution at all. Intelligence could have designed the big bang, it also could have designed the earth to evolve, the two aren't necessarily independent. Hell even if it was intelligence by aliens to cross us with themselves, we still have grossly evolved from that given point. Anyway, this thread is a hoot, so if you wanna find a creationist so we can all bash him/her for their idocy, I'm down.

Calling me a moron is a little uncalled for, even with the winkey. I am on here trying to string thoughts together on a couple of subjects because I am the only one who will answer them right now. Never said I could pull it off, just trying to convey why some don't buy into evolution 100%

As to the logic. I don't believe I ever stated that holes in evolution proved ID, and if I did, I was misspoken. I believe I was saying that that is where ID proponents attack the holes in evolution to gain a footing. That is why I posted the article. I am not educated enough to point those attacks out in the first place, but when pointed out to me, I understand what they are saying. ID will always have to tear down evolution if it wants to gain any footing.

Well then you're a maverick SG. Good luck to you.

[SeattleGriz]

I was merely poking fun at D by calling you a moron, Francis.


To gain a footing by bashing something else, seems a lot like the dullards who thought the earth was flat. No proof, but because the other side couldn't prove it they bashed it. I think the issue is that ID folks, can't grasp both, as if ID and evolution are so separate that they can never BOTH be right. That's all.

My bad, I completely missed that one. I'm a moron.

[wideright82]

I was merely poking fun at D by calling you a moron, Francis.


To gain a footing by bashing something else, seems a lot like the dullards who thought the earth was flat. No proof, but because the other side couldn't prove it they bashed it. I think the issue is that ID folks, can't grasp both, as if ID and evolution are so separate that they can never BOTH be right. That's all.

My bad, I completely missed that one. I'm a moron.

It's cool seabear

[JMU DJ]

The problem D1B, is that I know too much. I have a degree in Microbiology. A large part in why I am not big on evolution is that many of my professors had to gloss over any serious questions about evolution and asked us to just believe...with faith that evolution was airtight.

From page three of this thread... I don't have the time to read through the rest of this garbage... I gotta finish my research proposal and hopefully not get the boot from my graduate committee.

You negated the virus concept... but, As a microbiologist, how do you explain bacterial drug resistance? How do you explain parasitic organisms that can infect only certain host but over time can be conditioned for infectivity in other host? You can see adaptivity... or if you think about it, evolution... happening in these organisms in the matter of days or weeks in the lab.

Is man merely a mistake of God's? Or God merely a mistake of man's? ~ Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

You're also expected to believe in creation with no question correct? With faith that creationism is airtight? Why not believe in a creation that allows us to evolve instead of being wiped out by a drop in temperature or some penicillin?

[Cleets Part 2]

You're also expected to believe in creation with no question correct? With faith that creationism is airtight? Why not believe in a creation that allows us to evolve instead of being wiped out by a drop in temperature or some penicillin?

This seems to be the proper resting place for the above thread argument... thank you JMU DJ

[houndawg]

You're a religious fanatic. This has nothing to do with life "just sparking itself", that is a separate argument that evolutionists don't, can't or care to address. Just another Joltin Joe red herring.....

You've got to be kidding right? Evolutionists can't prove something, so they just get to toss it aside and press on? Wow. That is a doozy. Make sure to tell the global warming crowd just how that works...oh wait, another very badly disguised attempt at liberals own religion that is already doing just that.

You're the one that has to be kidding, SG. Your entire case for creationism /ID is based on evolution being wrong. Which, even if all of those Nobel laureates were wrong, would prove exactly nothing about the so-called "theory" of creationism or intelligent design or whatever you're calling it this week. You won't even state your so-called "theory" though I keep asking to see it in writing. You claim to have earned a degree in a science, fer cryin' out loud, and then you bring this feeble "evolution can't explain this so there must have been a creator" nonsense and expect other people that have earned their own science degrees to swallow it.
Whoever paid for your degree did not get their money's worth. One more time: Please state the theory of creationism or intelligent design.

[houndawg]

Bump for Seattle Griz.

Still waiting to hear THE THEORY OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN stated in plain language. If you can't do it, how about something a little more substantial than "your theory is wrong, so mine must be right? Can you do that for us, sport?

[grizzaholic]

It is has been a while since the last HOLY war was fought here at CS.COM.

[houndawg]

My issue, aside from you being a moron ( ), is the logic you are using to support intelligent design is faulty. Not wrong per se, but faulty. Just becaue something has holes in it, whether legitimate or not, does not make it wrong, just incomplete. It seems almost archaic to think that something is right because the other is not completely correct. Intelligent design, which i now know you believe in, is actually something I believe in too, but that does not discount evolution at all. Intelligence could have designed the big bang, it also could have designed the earth to evolve, the two aren't necessarily independent. Hell even if it was intelligence by aliens to cross us with themselves, we still have grossly evolved from that given point. Anyway, this thread is a hoot, so if you wanna find a creationist so we can all bash him/her for their idocy, I'm down.

Calling me a moron is a little uncalled for, even with the winkey. I am on here trying to string thoughts together on a couple of subjects because I am the only one who will answer them right now. Never said I could pull it off, just trying to convey why some don't buy into evolution 100%

As to the logic. I don't believe I ever stated that holes in evolution proved ID, and if I did, I was misspoken. I believe I was saying that that is where ID proponents attack the holes in evolution to gain a footing. That is why I posted the article. I am not educated enough to point those attacks out in the first place, but when pointed out to me, I understand what they are saying. ID will always have to tear down evolution if it wants to gain any footing.

And I was pointing out that attacking holes in evolution is the only thing ID proponents have. Apparently they don't even have a theory. You'd think that one of the geniuses among them would at least try to sell "God created evolution".

[SeattleGriz]

Bump for Seattle Griz.

Still waiting to hear THE THEORY OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN stated in plain language. If you can't do it, how about something a little more substantial than "your theory is wrong, so mine must be right? Can you do that for us, sport?

No need to bump, just had some work that needed to be done away from the computer.

This is my definition, so it might not be exactly as the official definition. Trying to put it in plain language:

Intelligent design believes that certain aspects of life cannot happen by chance, but have been guided by some greater entity.

I will have to go back and reread through this thread again, but I don't believe I ever said because Evolution has it holes, that Intelligent Design is correct. I said it was a foothold for ID to show evolution was lacking in completeness. You see the backlash I am getting by admitting I believe evolution to be weak. An intelligent design theorist needs to find something provacative, to get any traction. If there weren't some PhD's on the side of ID, do you think I would be so adamant that it has merits?

[dbackjon]

What holes do you see in evolution theory?

Yes, there are fossil gaps, but those are closing as more and more fossils are found.


Believing in Evolution does not preclude one from believing that God (or any higher power) created the universe to begin with.

ID is creationism dressed up - basicially admitting that evolution is REAL, but that there has to be some guidance from above because one's faith leads them to believe that.

[Cap'n Cat]

Seattle,
You're a very sharp guy. Hate to see an intelligent person die on such a stupid cross.

[Wedgebuster]

[Cleets Part 2]

What holes do you see in evolution theory?

Yes, there are fossil gaps, but those are closing as more and more fossils are found.


Believing in Evolution does not preclude one from believing that God (or any higher power) created the universe to begin with.

ID is creationism dressed up - basicially admitting that evolution is REAL, but that there has to be some guidance from above because one's faith leads them to believe that.

ID & Creationism do not account for all the Natural mistakes that have happened... that's my only beef with them in general... and that "stupid people" tend to go there because somebody told them that Evolution by definition excludes God...

other than that... it's all peaches & Cream

[Cap'n Cat]

What holes do you see in evolution theory?

Yes, there are fossil gaps, but those are closing as more and more fossils are found.


Believing in Evolution does not preclude one from believing that God (or any higher power) created the universe to begin with.

ID is creationism dressed up - basicially admitting that evolution is REAL, but that there has to be some guidance from above because one's faith leads them to believe that.

ID & Creationism do not account for all the Natural mistakes that have happened... that's my only beef with them in general... and that "stupid people" tend to go there because somebody told them that Evolution by definition excludes God...

other than that... it's all peaches & Cream

And, so...?

[SeattleGriz]

From page three of this thread... I don't have the time to read through the rest of this garbage... I gotta finish my research proposal and hopefully not get the boot from my graduate committee.

You negated the virus concept... but, As a microbiologist, how do you explain bacterial drug resistance? How do you explain parasitic organisms that can infect only certain host but over time can be conditioned for infectivity in other host? You can see adaptivity... or if you think about it, evolution... happening in these organisms in the matter of days or weeks in the lab.

Is man merely a mistake of God's? Or God merely a mistake of man's? ~ Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

You're also expected to believe in creation with no question correct? With faith that creationism is airtight? Why not believe in a creation that allows us to evolve instead of being wiped out by a drop in temperature or some penicillin?

Thanks for chiming in JMU.

First off. I am not a microbiologist, and never worked in the field. Was hoping to get my PhD, but life happened and I haven't had the chance to go back.

What bacteria and viruses accomplish in short weeks doesn't amount to any new genetic information, (unless they get it by conjugation or other scary means), just reshuffling of their current DNA to produce a different protein.

It would seem to me that it is more natural selection (component of evolution). I understand that bacteria are incredible research tools because they burn through generations at a highly accelerated rate, but can we really extrapolate an organism that has a much higher point mutation rate and many other inherent DNA changing strategies as being close to the animal model?

A bacteria either changes it's DNA, or it is wiped out as you said, by penicillin or a drop in temp. On the same note, are we to consider the bacterial shock response as evolution as well? How about the shuffling that occurs in the heavy chains of our immunoglobulins? No net gain, but different products in the end.

I am not a creationist, so I don't adhere to it. Even if I did, I couldn't accept it without scrutiny.

I simply just do not accept Evolution without scrutiny, that is all.

[SeattleGriz]

Seattle,
You're a very sharp guy. Hate to see an intelligent person die on such a stupid cross.

I think I would come across better in person. I can easily admit this one has gotten away from me. Too many people coming at me and not enough time to address each question fully.

[dbackjon]

Seattle,
You're a very sharp guy. Hate to see an intelligent person die on such a stupid cross.

I think I would come across better in person.

As long as people don't mistake you for Cleets, you'll do fine