Autonemesis

That would appear to be our curse, yes.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

(of course he hasn't left yet )

scombrid

Well, for most animals, everyday is an extreme pressure in that rather mundane activities might result in death and failure to pass on replicates of your genes. The simple act of reproducing is a life or death struggle. Anything that results in your passing on just a fraction greater number of your genes than your neighbor will result in an increase in the frequency of those genes in the population. You don’t even need to die to have reduced relative fitness. Take the salmon. George turns out to have a gene that allows him to more efficiently sequester the necessary pigments to turn red at maturity so he’s just a shade redder than I at spawning. He scores more mates and produces more copies of that “redder” gene than I do my less red gene. The whole population gets redder.

lpetrich

The Pope has a Pontifical Academy of Sciences to advise him; this comment reminds me of Stalin's famous comment "How many legions has the Pope?"

So you'd rather be created from some DIRT??? (Genesis 2:7)

I don't know what you think, but I'll take the chimp. At least the chimp looks almost human, behaves almost human in some ways, and is genetically almost human.

If you don't believe me, look long upon a chimpanzee.

I wonder if "evolskeptic" believes that spiders intelligently design their webs, honeybees intelligently design their hives, beavers intelligently design their dams, etc.

Evolskeptic, I challenge you to disprove the hypothesis that evolution is driven by the design efforts of time travelers from our future, who hope to ensure that they will come into existence.

First, which sect of it?
Second, there are numerous other religions; what makes you so sure that Islam, for example, is false?

Like who?

Including the descent of our species from a long-ago chimp-like species.

Actually, transitions between fossil species are found, though they are rare.

And Evolskeptic complains about flames.

Dr Rick

That's a non sequitur; completely irrelevant and totally meritless.

<strong> No, but that's another non sequitur

<strong> Also irrelevant; you incorrectly argued that acceptance of evolution excludes theism, and it does not.

<strong> That's a series of assertions begging substantiation, not evidence.

<strong> Strawman fallacy; evolution is not based on "fortuitous accidents" but well-identified processes including readily observed random mutations. For instance, the average person has seven or eight random mutations; multiply that by 6 billion and there are perhaps 48 billion random mutations right now in the human gene pool. Most of those are not expressed or provide no advantage or disadvantage to those who have them, but under selective pressures, not "fortuitous accidents," a mutation can confer an advantage to a human. That's the case for a few people now who have a random mutation in one of their T-cell receptors and as such are impervious to HIV infection. Under other circumstances, such a mutation would remain silent, but under the selective pressures imposed by our environment it has the potential to confer a survival and reproductive advantage.

<strong> ad hominem fallacy; remember the topic is evolution, not what people believe. But since you asked, the answer is "the ID theorists." There is no evidence to support creationism, so one who believes it is operating only on faith. Evolution is supported by over-whelming evidence which creationists must ignore completely to maintain their beliefs.

<strong> We're still waiting for you to argue in favor of creation and present your evidence.

<strong> Fortunately, we are not in that position. Evolution explains all the relevant evidence from the fossil record to the human genome. Furthermore, science by definition excludes supernatural explanations, so your quest to introduce one to explain physical phenomena will never be scientific.

<strong> Another strawman fallacy; evolution is not an explanation for abiogenesis. The only person who made that false assertion on this thread is you.

<strong> Introducing yourself that way sure does, and it's another fallacy known as ad hominem attack.

Rick

Clutch

pz, thanks for your interesting remark on speciation. (In fact, thanks Dr Rick for the good question.)

Does this mean that the thing to say about ring species like Ensatina is that speciation has already strictly occured there, and it's a further matter of reproductive isolation that's happening now?

Viking

I often wonder whether evo-skeptics, or anyone for that matter, can really comprehend the enormity of the time scale upon which evolution occured. Given our extremely short individual life spans (less than 4 billion minutes, on average) the concept of 4 billion YEARS can only be understood abstractly, not viscerally.

It is why our understanding of geologic processes took so long to become clear; geologists simply could not grasp the time scales involved. Of course, they began with the assumption that god created the earth 4,000 years ago and tried to fit the evidence thy could see with their own eyes into that absurd belief.

happy trails to all!

Gregg

I think whoever coined the term "deep time" got it about as right as anyone can.

Another thing I think creationists have a hard time comprehending is that it really wasn't that big a leap from our apelike ancestors to us. All the hard work had already been done...what was left was a few cosmetic changes.

Gregg

Evolskeptic

Sent to "My Profile:"

Topic: Warning.

Pz (posted December 23, 2002 06:30 PM):

“You [Evolskeptic] have only been on this board long enough to make 4 posts, and you have already compiled a remarkable record of abuse, smarmy innuendo, and self-proclaimed intransigence. The comments below are not acceptable, and tell me that you are determined to be a nuisance. Please control yourself. ...

“The moderators will be trying to rein in any derogatory comments that you will receive in reply, ...”

Topic: "Evolskeptic's worst kept secret"

pangloss (posted December 23, 2002 06:36 AM) : “He [Evolskeptic] is a waste of time and bandwidth. Dishonest, incompetent, overconfident, arrogant, and deceptive. Typical right-wing Old Testament imbecile.”

pz (posted December 23, 2002 07:20 AM ): “Believe me, we could all spot that in his very first post. You didn't need to tell us.”

*****

Evolskeptic: OK, pz, here’s your chance to recover some credibility and demonstrate your even-handedness:

Please re-print for us here the warning you also sent to pangloss on December 23, the one advising him that his openly inflammatory, derogatory remarks were against forum rules for civil and ethical conduct. Go ahead, reprint for us that warning you sent him. I’ll resume posting again right after I’ve seen it.

Seriously people, is it any wonder why so few educated creationists would choose to waste their precious time at a site that employs “moderators” like pz? I should think not.

Bubba

Evolskeptic-You have been challenged to a civil and scientific debate in the formal debate forum by Rufus Atticus, who is married to a Christian and is one of the most tolerant and open minded people in this forum.

If you want to seriusly debate Dembski, Johnson and Wells here is your chance. Put up or shut up kid.

Actually, there are several other people here who would be willing to debate you as well.

Bubba

[ December 24, 2002: Message edited by: Bubba ]</p>

Bubba

By the way, not only do I feel that you owe Karl, David, Sarah, SLP, and a few others at creation talk an apology...I think that you owe pz an apology as well. I've been posting on this board for almost two years and he is open minded and civil to a fault in my experience.

Should you merely apologize and agree to a debate based upon ideas, the infidels here will probably give you a second chance. I can only speak for myself.

However...

Evolskeptic, if you continue to flame people and argue based on rhetoric then people will reject the message.

My open question to you, Evolskeptic is this. Do you believe the message is worth a careful presentation in a debate format? Should you doubt the ability of a creationist to openly debate in the debates forum I would urge you to read the previous debate between Douglas J Bender and Scigirl.

Bubba

[ December 24, 2002: Message edited by: Bubba ]</p>