A calm debate

[emprworm]

I did not respond because you do not respond to me. You completely ignored my prior post which was a rebuttal to your tree analogy. I have been responding to your arguments, but you do not respond to my arguments.

As you yourself admitted earlier in this thread: "I will ignore Empr's post as it does not keep this thread calm" - a tactic you frequently use on me when I post my best posts. You never responded to irreducible complexity but instead used the ole' "empr is too agressive" excuse to avoid it.

When I get the impression that you are responding to me, I will respond to you. Until then, it is futile for me to attempt doing so.

[Acriku]

Yes, your best posts are ones that childishly insult atheists?

So you can take your emotionally driven "no true palentologist" BS and toss it with the rest of the garbage.

Basic frustrated insult.

They need to know that the idea of a bunch of particles somehow just 'coming together' via a really biggy big lightning bolt (or whatever) to make a magical "protien" is a faith-based initiative. They need to know that the very conditions that created this magic protein would have also killed it- but that somehow....very very magically...this cute 'lil protein manages to survive...and being the tough 'lil cookie that he is....he even replicates..wow. And not just that....the protiens grow to lifeforms....which grow to things like mollusks...and then the mollusks eventually become elephants and even dinosaurs.

lol. Here is what I have to say to that load of poppycock:

Shows how little you know of biology, and how you try to belittle what you do not understand.

Is evolutionary theory so weak, that it cannot withstand a competing theory? You atheists talk all the talk, but when it all comes down, your views are as frail and fragile as a glass house, or a baby's soft gentle butt.

Ouch. Cough.

Evolution is not proven even in the slightest. Where is this so-called "proof?" WHERE? SPEAK IT OR BE SILENT. lol

get $250,000.00 bucks for proving evolution here: http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=250k

Profusive using of caps, denying any proof of evolution when it has been researched and documented and studied and tested by many many scientists.

nice fairy tale.

Basic attempt to insult.

ok, i'll also try to think of a great sky pixie, pink in its brilliance, granting me three wishes.

Attempt to belittle my argument by redicule.

"might develop"

"Just might be"

"could have come"

"if they somehow"

Does this sound like something that is empirically proven? Of course not.

Using words out of context, and using them to argue that it isn't empirically proven. And remember that how evolution occurs is not empirically proven, and I never said it was.

lol. the ole' ad-hominem scape goat eh? Nice excuse to avoid ID evidence. I think my point about letting kids make up their own minds is clear. Teach both theories, let them decide- not acriku- not some atheist, but themselves

If you would stop editing your posts right before I hit post after typing a long post, you will not find me doing this. Nice try.

Not allowing for this says to me that people are afraid of ID. Weak, frail, and scared.

I have no fear...none whatsoever, of my kids learning evolutionary theory. Yet think about all those cowering atheists....shaking in their closets...eyes wide with gripping fear over the thought of their kids learning ID. rofl

Ouch. Cough.

And all of this is from this thread alone. Your best arguments contain these? Seems like some of your tactics in debating is to belittle the opponent, and try to make his argument seem less likely.

And as I have said before, you posted the post that did not contain irreducibility complex that contained nothing but insults and laughing, then I posted in response to that, but 3 minutes before I hit post you edited it, deleted the content and added the rest about irredicibility complex, (in which the posts under the reply text area did not contain the edit, I posted, it went to the next page, I had no reason to look at the last page before it, as it did not contain it then). So you see, stop editing the posts that I was right about, and change them and then challenge me because I did not respond to your post. That is a cheap tactic.

[TMA_1]

To be an atheist requires strength of mind and goodness of heart found in not one of a thousand." - Samuel Taylor Coleridge

I only see one good athiest in a thousand of them.lol I think that you have grown bitter acriku. You used to be reasonable with christianity and other beliefs. Now you try to hurt the other side. Just like other people on this site do. Its sad man.

[Acriku]

From that quote I have grown bitter? Or from my post? Hey, I can't help it if times change. I will like you and think you're a great friend, but when it comes to debating theism (more specifically christianity since that is the majority here) and atheism I go all out. I research, I post every thought that I can think of at the moment, and I am furthering my debating skills. Remember when I started out on the religion thread? I had no skills, and didn't like it, so I saw what edric and others were doing, I went online to find ways to improve my skills, and basically just argue a lot and research.

[TMA_1]

nah man it isnt that its the fact that you used to treat what I believed in with some semblence of dignity. It doesnt seem so anymore. I bring this up to you because I respect you most on this site. Athiesm is wrong in my beliefs but I would like to think I dont attack. I just thought you were attacking fora second is all. militant athiests are just as bad as hardcore christians.lol

[Acriku]

I was pointing out to empr that some of his debating tactics were cheap. As well as other things, in my post above. He could take it as an attack, but he has been attacking me all throughout this thread, and I have not resorted (to my knowledge) to such things. I have tried my best to keep it a calm debate. You can see it in my posts, with Gob and sneezer and empr. We can still keep it a calm debate, but I alone cannot accomplish this feat, unless I am arguing against myself.

[TMA_1]

very true. I am well aware of when people twist my arguments and then turn them into some sort of insult.lol

[emprworm]

Emprworm: So you can take your emotionally driven "no true palentologist" BS and toss it with the rest of the garbage.

Acriku: Basic frustrated insult.

which was in response to your the "No true Scottsman" fallacy: "Well any information about paleontology from a creationist should be extremely criticized" made by Acriku.

Emprworm: They need to know that the idea of a bunch of particles somehow just 'coming together' via a really biggy big lightning bolt (or whatever) to make a magical "protien" is a faith-based initiative. They need to know that the very conditions that created this magic protein would have also killed it- but that somehow....very very magically...this cute 'lil protein manages to survive...and being the tough 'lil cookie that he is....he even replicates..wow. And not just that....the protiens grow to lifeforms....which grow to things like mollusks...and then the mollusks eventually become elephants and even dinosaurs.

Acriku: Shows how little you know of biology, and how you try to belittle what you do not understand.

Oh, and were you there, Acriku? Did you actually see what happened to cause life to begin? Lets see how much you know. Tell us all...emprically...precisely how life began. Then tell us how those same initial conditions did not kill that life once it began. I want the historical facts please. Anything less is pure speculative faith that should not be taught in school unless a comparitave scientific hypothesis (ID) is given as well.

Emprworm: Is evolutionary theory so weak, that it cannot withstand a competing theory? You atheists talk all the talk, but when it all comes down, your views are as frail and fragile as a glass house, or a baby's soft gentle butt.

Acriku: Ouch. Cough.

yea, thats precisly right. You whine cry and scurry around in your chairs when the though of ID in school is brought up. Just look at all the atheists trying to stop it from being taught. However, I am intellectually and rationally stable enough to have no fear of evolution being taught. I'm not afraid of evolutionary theory.

Emprworm: Evolution is not proven even in the slightest. Where is this so-called "proof?" WHERE? SPEAK IT OR BE SILENT. lol

get $250,000.00 bucks for proving evolution here: http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=250k

Acriku: Profusive using of caps, denying any proof of evolution when it has been researched and documented and studied and tested by many many scientists.

profusive ignoring of scientific evidence for ID, and profusive ignoring of nearly every rebutal given to your arguments.

Emprworm: nice fairy tale.

Acriku: Basic attempt to insult.

If my intent was to insult, believe me I would have used better words. lol. That statement was in response to Acriku's so called "scientific proof" of evolution in which he said:

"and then slowly (very slowly) each gene alteration that actually benefitted the organism"

Since there is no proof for this other than massive speculative faith, I see it as a fairy tale and nothing more. But please note: believing in such a story is by no means evil or bad. I support people's right to believe whatever religion they want- even if it is the religion of macro-evolution.

Emprworm:

"might develop"

"Just might be"

"could have come"

"if they somehow"

Does this sound like something that is empirically proven? Of course not.

Acriku: Using words out of context, and using them to argue that it isn't empirically proven. And remember that how evolution occurs is not empirically proven, and I never said it was.

Those are the typical words that you, along with other evolutionists, frequently use when describing how life began. Basically, you all really have no idea other than wild guesses with no proof whatsoever. So it is no surprise to hear such terminology used frequently by evolutionists.

Please note: That does not mean it is bad to believe such stories. I have faith in God, of which I cannot prove. I am the same as the evolutionist. We both believe, by faith, in that which is unproven.

Emprworm: lol. the ole' ad-hominem scape goat eh? Nice excuse to avoid ID evidence. I think my point about letting kids make up their own minds is clear. Teach both theories, let them decide- not acriku- not some atheist, but themselves

Acriku: If you would stop editing your posts right before I hit post after typing a long post, you will not find me doing this. Nice try.

This entire post is just another dodge of my rebuttals to your arguments. I have responded to every argument you posted in here. You responded to none. This latest ad-hominem cop-out was rather long winded, but same effect. And the thing about me editing posts....cool...a new excuse have we? Well, then go ahead and respond to my posts then. But it really doesn't matter. This debate itself is proof that ID is a scientific theory. An atheists' opinion regarding ID as a scientific theory is meaningless. The fact that there are scores of scientists that uphold it is evidence enough of its viability. Also the fact that many who believe ID do so as a result of looking at evolutionary evidence. I.E. They were at one time evolutionists who later turned ID simply by being objective with the evidence.

I think Acriku's entire premise about ID is the following: People believe in ID first and then they become scientists.

That reasonsing (if Acriku believes it), is false. Many scientists subscribed to ID after they became scientists and examined evolutionary evidence (or lack thereof). They concluded in ID based upon the evidence....not the other way around.

This is certain proof that ID is at minimum a scientific theory. It might be false...but that is why it is a theory!

[Acriku]

If everyone can just walk with me to our new exhibit over this way, I can say we are very proud of this one, and we should let it speak for itself to capture it in all its worth.

Emprworm: So you can take your emotionally driven "no true palentologist" BS and toss it with the rest of the garbage.

Acriku: Basic frustrated insult.

which was in response to your the "No true Scottsman" fallacy: "Well any information about paleontology from a creationist should be extremely criticized" made by Acriku.

Emprworm: They need to know that the idea of a bunch of particles somehow just 'coming together' via a really biggy big lightning bolt (or whatever) to make a magical "protien" is a faith-based initiative. They need to know that the very conditions that created this magic protein would have also killed it- but that somehow....very very magically...this cute 'lil protein manages to survive...and being the tough 'lil cookie that he is....he even replicates..wow. And not just that....the protiens grow to lifeforms....which grow to things like mollusks...and then the mollusks eventually become elephants and even dinosaurs.

Acriku: Shows how little you know of biology, and how you try to belittle what you do not understand.

Oh, and were you there, Acriku? Did you actually see what happened to cause life to begin? Lets see how much you know. Tell us all...emprically...precisely how life began. Then tell us how those same initial conditions did not kill that life once it began. I want the historical facts please. Anything less is pure speculative faith that should not be taught in school unless a comparitave scientific hypothesis (ID) is given as well.

Emprworm: Is evolutionary theory so weak, that it cannot withstand a competing theory? You atheists talk all the talk, but when it all comes down, your views are as frail and fragile as a glass house, or a baby's soft gentle butt.

Acriku: Ouch. Cough.

yea, thats precisly right. You whine cry and scurry around in your chairs when the though of ID in school is brought up. Just look at all the atheists trying to stop it from being taught. However, I am intellectually and rationally stable enough to have no fear of evolution being taught. I'm not afraid of evolutionary theory.

Emprworm: Evolution is not proven even in the slightest. Where is this so-called "proof?" WHERE? SPEAK IT OR BE SILENT. lol

get $250,000.00 bucks for proving evolution here: http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=250k

Acriku: Profusive using of caps, denying any proof of evolution when it has been researched and documented and studied and tested by many many scientists.

profusive ignoring of scientific evidence for ID, and profusive ignoring of nearly every rebutal given to your arguments.

Emprworm: nice fairy tale.

Acriku: Basic attempt to insult.

If my intent was to insult, believe me I would have used better words. lol. That statement was in response to Acriku's so called "scientific proof" of evolution in which he said:

"and then slowly (very slowly) each gene alteration that actually benefitted the organism"

Since there is no proof for this other than massive speculative faith, I see it as a fairy tale and nothing more. But please note: believing in such a story is by no means evil or bad. I support people's right to believe whatever religion they want- even if it is the religion of macro-evolution.

Emprworm:

"might develop"

"Just might be"

"could have come"

"if they somehow"

Does this sound like something that is empirically proven? Of course not.

Acriku: Using words out of context, and using them to argue that it isn't empirically proven. And remember that how evolution occurs is not empirically proven, and I never said it was.

Those are the typical words that you, along with other evolutionists, frequently use when describing how life began. Basically, you all really have no idea other than wild guesses with no proof whatsoever. So it is no surprise to hear such terminology used frequently by evolutionists.

Please note: That does not mean it is bad to believe such stories. I have faith in God, of which I cannot prove. I am the same as the evolutionist. We both believe, by faith, in that which is unproven.

Emprworm: lol. the ole' ad-hominem scape goat eh? Nice excuse to avoid ID evidence. I think my point about letting kids make up their own minds is clear. Teach both theories, let them decide- not acriku- not some atheist, but themselves

Acriku: If you would stop editing your posts right before I hit post after typing a long post, you will not find me doing this. Nice try.

This entire post is just another dodge of my rebuttals to your arguments. I have responded to every argument you posted in here. You responded to none. This latest ad-hominem cop-out was rather long winded, but same effect. And the thing about me editing posts....cool...a new excuse have we? Well, then go ahead and respond to my posts then. But it really doesn't matter. This debate itself is proof that ID is a scientific theory. An atheists' opinion regarding ID as a scientific theory is meaningless. The fact that there are scores of scientists that uphold it is evidence enough of its viability. Also the fact that many who believe ID do so as a result of looking at evolutionary evidence. I.E. They were at one time evolutionists who later turned ID simply by being objective with the evidence.

I think Acriku's entire premise about ID is the following: People believe in ID first and then they become scientists.

That reasonsing (if Acriku believes it), is false. Many scientists subscribed to ID after they became scientists and examined evolutionary evidence (or lack thereof). They concluded in ID based upon the evidence....not the other way around.

This is certain proof that ID is at minimum a scientific theory. It might be false...but that is why it is a theory!

And a story is attributed to this fascinating work. It is said, long ago, that a man named Acriku once stood up to Emprworm, in a debate that was in front of the whole world to see. This man, Acriku, pointed out Emprworm's cheap tactics of belittling, rediculing, *crowd gasps*, and yes, taking words out of context. He was defiant, stood for his cause. He did not blink in front of Emprworm, even when Emprworm gave his side after this. And what you see before your eyes is what he said.

*crowds gasp* *lady faints to the ground*

Yes folks, it's true, he used the same tactics in his counter-argument against Acriku. No one knows what Acriku did then. Perhaps we will never know. Some say though, that he prophesized that somehow Emprworm in the distant future will once again post using those tactics. But let's hope it isn't in the near future today folks. *scattered laughs*

Ok moving on people...

[emprworm]

here's an idea: if you are going to quote a 5,873 character post in block form, try doing this instead:

Emprworm's 5,873 Character Post

it saves a lot of space.

Ok moving on people...

indeed. we can end this red-herring debate really fast. How about the next post you make in this thread respond to one of these posts:

Rebuttal #1

OR

Rebuttal #2

[Acriku]

Well that would have killed my joke now wouldn't it? ;) I like to amuse myself, possibly others are amused in the process.

But I will respond to your post, since you asked nicely :)

Ah irreducible complex. Amazing that some things that are an irreducible complex work? Life is great. And to answer the question in the green font that why does blood clot when you are cut, but not when a clot could cause a stroke or a heartattack; what does this mean? That there are some circumstances that when a person is cut it does not clot, because the person might go into cardiac arrest? That would be absurd, since the person would then bleed to death so it can't be that interpretation. Does this mean that why does a blood clot save your life when you are cut but a clot may cause you to go into cardiac arrest and die? Well the clots are different clots. The blood clot's function is to stop blood from coming out of the body, it does not clot the vein/artery, and the clot in the blood vessel is not composed of the same thing a blood clot is made of. Perhaps there is another interpretation that was meant by this?

As for the rest of the essay, well why don't we take a trip down to http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Darwin/DI/clot/Clotting.html lane. It explains possible answer(s).

And now for your second rebuttal. The tree analogy does not prove evolution exists. There is already proof for that, and this does not serve that purpose. It serves to show that it is illogical to compose an argument that states that it is very unlikely very small amino acids could have been changed into something extraordinary like human beings. That what its only purpose. No more. No less. Possibly more if you go into it real deeply, but it wasn't intentional.

[emprworm]

Ah irreducible complex. Amazing that some things that are an irreducible complex work? Life is great. And to answer the question in the green font that why does blood clot when you are cut, but not when a clot could cause a stroke or a heartattack; what does this mean?

basically what it means is that the theory of evolution is unable to account for irreducible complex systems. ID is able to account for these systems, making ID a more powerful theory. Note that many well-trained and peer-accepted scientists hold to the theory of ID, making it a scientific theory. Sure, you don't have to agree with it.....but its just a theory...remember? And any honest scientist would teach kids differing theories...especially when one theory (evolution) cannot account for a numerous amount of biological systems and fossilized lifeforms.

And now for your second rebuttal. The tree analogy does not prove evolution exists. There is already proof for that,

but there isn't acriku. You keep repeating this delusion that evolution is a fact. Even secular schools teach it as theory. Since when did you start opposing even secular scientists? All that is proven is micro-evolution, yet even ID proponents agree with that. I think what you need to show is proof of macro-evolution (cross-special). Good luck.

It serves to show that it is illogical to compose an argument that states that it is very unlikely very small amino acids could have been changed into something extraordinary like human beings.

and in that purpose, it failed. Human beings are developed from small cells- eggs/sperm, but this is not evolution. This is not random chance, this is predictable growth predetermined by genetic coding that already exists. There is absolutely no evolution taking place.

[Acriku]

basically what it means is that the theory of evolution is unable to account for irreducible complex systems. ID is able to account for these systems, making ID a more powerful theory. Note that many well-trained and peer-accepted scientists hold to the theory of ID, making it a scientific theory. Sure, you don't have to agree with it.....but its just a theory...remember? And any honest scientist would teach kids differing theories...especially when one theory (evolution) cannot account for a numerous amount of biological systems and fossilized lifeforms.

How is it unable? Please tell me, and not that it seems "unlikely" or "highly improbable." Check out the link I gave you that gave a possible answer to the question. And remember, we don't know everything, so yes it is a "possible" answer.

but there isn't acriku. You keep repeating this delusion that evolution is a fact. Even secular schools teach it as theory. Since when did you start opposing even secular scientists? All that is proven is micro-evolution, yet even ID proponents agree with that. I think what you need to show is proof of macro-evolution (cross-special). Good luck.

Gob can we get this plastered on the front page? Ok empr, you just said microevolution is proven. Did you know that micro-evolution is...evolution? Evolution at a smaller scale. Evolution baby. Thank you for finally realizing what I was trying to tell you all this time. Halllelujah praise the lord! And how can I prove macroevolution if we haven't been here for more than a few million years? But there must be a reason why biologists do not distinguish between macro and microevolution, right? ;) Check it out for yourself.

and in that purpose, it failed. Human beings are developed from small cells- eggs/sperm, but this is not evolution. This is not random chance, this is predictable growth predetermined by genetic coding that already exists. There is absolutely no evolution taking place.

Empr, I think you misunderstood. It was not analogous to how human beings are formed from 2 gametes and then a zygote, it was analogous to amino acids to human beings, which was by chance.

[Gobalopper]

I said microevolution was proven in some cases in my first post I think... that doesn't mean macroevolution is proven and until that is evolution is still just a theory.

[Acriku]

But evolution is just the change of alleles in a gene pool of a population over time. Microevolution does that, so there is evolution happening. But we don't know how it happens. Macroevolution is microevolution, but over a grand scale, and longer period of time. So of course there is no proof, that I know of, but why do biologists never make a distinction anymore between the two I ask you?

And evolution is both fact and theory. It is a fact in the way I explained above, and a theory in the terms that it is used to refer to the common descent idea. I say again, we do not know how it happens. We just know that evolution happens. Is it by common descent? We don't know without a doubt.

[emprworm]

How is it unable? Please tell me, and not that it seems "unlikely" or "highly improbable."

it is not my job to say how it is unable. It is your job to say how it is able, else it is unable by default. in that link, even the author admits:

"To paraphrase Darwin, the notion that evolution could have produced a system as intricate as the blood clotting cascade seems, we might freely confess, "absurd in the highest possible degree." This is especially true if you believe, as Behe seems to, that clotting is not possible until the entire cascade of factors is assembled."

And he states "that evolution doesn't start from scratch, and it doesn't need fully-assembled systems to work."

Yet he maintains that the system of blood clotting, for example, could have come about gradually. He presents a theory that has no evidence. YOu want to see religion in its finest?

Right here:

That plasma protease gene is now subject to the same witches' brew of copying errors, rearrangements, and genetic reshuffling that affect the genes for every other cellular protein. Over time, bits and pieces of other genes are accidentally spliced into the plasma protease sequence. Because the selective value of the plasma protease is pretty low (it doesn't help clotting all that much), most of these changes make very little difference. But one day, through a well-understood process called "exon shuffling," a DNA sequence known as an "EGF domain" is spliced into one end of the protease gene. EGF stands for epidermal growth factor, a small protein used by cells throughout the body to signal other cells. EGF is so common that just about every tissue cell has "receptors" for it. These receptors are cell surface proteins shaped in such a way that they bind EGF tightly.

The fortuitious combination of a EGF sequence with the plasma protease changes everything.

In a flash, the tissue surrouding a broken blood vessel is now teeming with receptors that bind to the new EGF sequence on our serum protease

Anyone have any Hindu Vedas?

Gob can we get this plastered on the front page? Ok empr, you just said microevolution is proven. Did you know that micro-evolution is...evolution? Evolution at a smaller scale. Evolution baby.

lol, nice try. Micro-evolution is adaption. Adaption stays stricly within ones species. I refer to my code :

b = CInt(Int((27 * Rnd()) + 97))

B will always be between 97 and 123. At no time can B leap outside its code. Adaptation happens all the time in life. That is because life is designed to be extremely resillient and adaptive. If you moved to a hot climate from a cold climate, over time your blood will thin, and your skin darken. This will pass to your children. But at no time will a new species emerge- no evidence for this exists. You have a fantasy that new species evolve, yet no one has ever seen it happen, and no one can demonstrate it as mandated by the scientific method.

If your goal is no longer to have a discussion but instead just try to trap me, Acriku, you are gravely mistaken. Your other thread about God asking one to kill your mom is another feeble attempt at a trap. Can you not do better? Why do you resort to low-balling like that? Have you really run out of rebuttals?

[Gobalopper]

Well I don't think they've proved that cells changing can create new creatures, just that under very strict conditions you could create very basic life. That doesn't prove much, it may prove microevolution somewhat but that isn't enough. This isn't a A implies B, B implies C, I have A, therefore I must have C case.

[emprworm]

"Well I don't think they've proved that cells changing can create new creatures,"

no, they havent. no one has. which is why evolution is still considered...even by atheist scientists...to be theory.

[Acriku]

Empr, I said it was a possible answer. We don't know everything and can't explain the universe! Yet ;)

Emprworm, please tell me what your definition of evolution is. As an animal adapts to its environment, given time to do it or be extinct like many times before, it changes, and it stays within the population over time. Therefore, they have evolved. Not to another species, but nevertheless evolved. Over time, with the environment changing a lot or through migration, many changes would occur and to a point where the latter can't mate with the former, and voila a new species. Macroevolution. Of course I do not know any proof of this, I am just giving you my best answer at the moment for what I think happens.

For an example, Africans have a big problem with mosquitos and maleria. They adapted to it with sickle cell disease, which is why African Americans are more likely to have the disease and have the trait. Sickle cell disease gives them an immunity to maleria. The trait is passed from generation to generation, thus staying in the population over time. They have evolved. Dun dun dunnn.....*shriek*

And I don't see how my other thread is a trap? I ask a question, you answer it, with that data I give you what was the purpose of the whole discussion. Some give one answer, some give another, some give me many answers. If you are insulted by it, I can understand why it might seem like a trap. And I apologize if you inferred any indication that I claimed God was imperfect or in any other way than you believe, and were offended. Have I ran out of rebuttals? Not that I know of?

Well gob, that is the problem for me. I can't be here long enough to collect data that suggests either way, so I can't prove macroevolution. To you, to myself, to anybody. But it's a very good idea, and stands pretty well on itself. We have only cracked the shell of evolution :)

[Gobalopper]

Acriku what you're saying is that survival of the fittest is evolution. I would say that is adaptation not evolution.

[Acriku]

What I was saying, is that the Africans adapted to the environment (maleria-infested mosquitos) and thus changed the alleles of the genes in the gene pool in a population over time. That is the exact definition of evolution, biologically-speaking.

[Gobalopper]

Changing skin colour is a *very* simple example and its not something I would consider evolution. Every humans skin would get darker or lighter over time depending on where they live. I don't think that is evolution but just adapting to your environment. Their cells are drastically undergoing changes, their bones are still the same, they aren't growing extra arms, etc.

[Acriku]

Was someone talking about skin color that I missed (wouldn't be the first time) or is this a new thing?

I think it would be evolution. Because think about it, atleast 2 genetic loci (places on chromosomes that have the alleles for the genes) control skin color, and they would have to be changed to allow the extra/lacking amount of melanin produced, and since they are alleles changing and going through a population over time, well by definition it is evolution.

[TMA_1]

"Empr, I said it was a possible answer. We don't know everything and can't explain the universe! Yet"

Ahh--hmmm but dont scientists try to focus on the now, not the ultimate truth of our universe which is impossible to answer?

"Changing skin colour is a *very* simple example and its not something I would consider evolution. Every humans skin would get darker or lighter over time depending on where they live. I don't think that is evolution but just adapting to your environment. Their cells are drastically undergoing changes, their bones are still the same, they aren't growing extra arms, etc."

Correct, but I would have to add, that the skin color of a race does not seperate the spieces. I see many species of fish, birds, reptiles,amphibions. They have many different shapes and colors, but their basic structures that seperate the many classes of animals havent been noted to change. (I.E. fish mutate to form lungs that process air for chemical reactions in cells with A.T.P. molecules.)

Micro evolution is an obvious fact. The leap of faith is in believing in links between classes of animals and that it does occure. We have not found any structures of animals that are in between evolution between classes of animals.

[Acriku]

Micro evolution is an obvious fact. The leap of faith is in believing in links between classes of animals and that it does occure. We have not found any structures of animals that are in between evolution between classes of animals.

Actually that reminds me, I was watching a show on Discovery Channel on weird animals or something like that, with a galloping crocodile :O and some jumping fish (hehe), but what caught my eye were three species of frog. It was like a surreal ladder of evolution, they were, but I can't explain my memory doesn't help me. Did anybody else see this? And can you add anything about what you saw? It had to do with webbed feet frogs. I'll try to find it on tv again.

Ahh--hmmm but dont scientists try to focus on the now, not the ultimate truth of our universe which is impossible to answer?

Scientists focus on everything, there are scientists that study on the past, like paleontologists, archaelogists, and the now, biologists, zoologists, and maybe future don't know. But I am no scientist :)