Consistency

No, they are evidently true, evidence points very strongly in the direction of common descent and in no other direction... In a court of law the evidence for evolution is similar to deductive reasoning, such evidence is commonly used to solve murders where there is no eye witnesses...

 

At one time it would be difficult to refute your assertions with complete certainty but now with genetics we can indeed say that all life on earth is evidently not only related but descended from earlier life forms.

 

I have to ask, what evidence do you have that various life forms were specially created? The fossil record certainly doesn't show any evidence for this and the genes do not give us any indication of this, in fact the genes say that all life is related.

 

Again not true, the fossil evidence indicates common descent and so do the genes... Can you provide any evidence of special creation?

I didn't make any claims or assertions. I suggested a view point.

Of course all life is related on paper since the DNA is the blueprint of every organisms body.. we all have a liver, a heart, muscles, kidneys etc.. SO.. all species will certainly without a shred of doubt have similar genes. Hence what you said doesn't refute my suggestions.

I don't have any evidence that various life forms were spontaneously created and you don't have any evidence on creating DNA yourself in a lab from non-biological molecules.

Do you see the fallacy in both religion and man-written evolution?

Yup, Horses and donkeys can mate and have viable off spring and they differ genetically by 2 chromosomes...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mule

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_(biology)

 

It is not impossible...

Why hasn't a mad scientist tested it out? You know.. a chimp with a human. See the result...

I'll treat this as an honest question and give you an honest answer, no one is really sure, all we know for sure is that there are (afaik) three basic linage's of organisms that seem to have emerged after a very long time in which DNA was freely exchanged between all organisms and the idea of common decent as we know it is inapplicable.

 

Eukaryotes have further diverged by the inclusion of bacteria as part of their cells, mitochondria and chloroplasts are two examples of this.

When no one is really sure.. they aren't facts.. they are assumptions.

Now.. Lets say a creator(s) exist, I'm not saying one does or more do, I'm being skeptical. "What if?"

Lets say a creator or creators created one ape, not in the way architects create a blue-print of a building and then hire people to build the building but in a spontaneous creative process create 1 ape; then modify the DNA during a new creative process and by doing this create a different yet similar ape.. and by continuing the same DNA modifying process.. these creators create 50+ different ape species.

Would you really be able to tell million years after the creative act if a creator(s) created DIVERSITY between species by a spontaneous altering DNA creative process?

Actually it does, you seem to be expecting an ape to give birth to a non ape, this is not what happens, evolution occurs in populations not individuals... As i said earlier, if you could somehow look outside time and see all of your ancestors (or mine for that matter) there would never be a individual that you could point to and say that is the first human. Each and every generation would be predominantly the same as it's parents with tiny differences the same way your children are similar to you but not identical, the further back you go the bigger the differences would be but at no time would a parent look down and wonder if their child was not the same species as themselves...

I am not expecting an ape to give birth to a non ape. I understand you perferctly but you seem to not understand what I am saying.

I don't believe in a specie evolving into another specie and there is no direct evidence other than man-written assumptions.

Actually we do interbreed animals that are further apart biologically than a human and say a Bonobo chimp, genetically there is a problem due to one of chromosomes having to do with reproduction being radically different but I doubt the experiment has ever been done, a chimp might object to mating with a human (considering how strong chimps are that could be a very bad thing for the man) but it has been proposed that with a little technological intervention it could be done... the resulting off spring would probably be a sterile "mule" but it is not impossible by any means...

A chimp with 48 chromosomes can mate with a human with 46 chromosomes and produce a sterile offspring?

 

Consistency, on 13 Feb 2013 - 18:38, said:

Can I mate with another ape and produce offsprings? (Seriously)

Yes. The only animal you can successfully mate with would be an ape.

Not just any ape, obviously: it needs to be one of the apes designated as homo sapiens.

The fact that you didn't realise that, is testament to your monumental ignorance of the subject on which you are pontificating.

Perhaps you should stop.

You assume I didn't know.

another.. as in not homo sapiens.

Your point?

That assumptions are common in the scientific literature and hypotheses are rare. People should know the difference so they can spot the assumptions in the scientific literature. Assumptions lead to confusion when taken as fact and ultimately to chaos.

And please don't take it as a personal attack if you're a scientific researcher.

Addressing the OP's question fully: Is Mathematics Alone a safe medium for exploring the frontiers of Science. Or should Observation and Hypothesis lead in front ?

Mathematics = man made.

Observation and Hypothesis without coming to your own conclusions is the best way for exploring the frontiers of science. Coming to your own conclusions is making assumptions.

chickens came from jungle fowl, if you were able to trace any one chicken and trace it's origin from each chicken to the last chicken generation before you would at no time be able to point to a particular chicken and say this is where the chicken became a chicken. Even though you could look back as far as you liked there would be a complete spectrum of chicken all way back to a lizard or if you wanted you could trace it back to a single eukaryotic cell but at no time could you pick out an egg and say yes that's the egg the first chicken came from, yet again you show the dishonest creationist tactic of ridiculing science with no real knowledge of science your self.

 

you could trace your own linage the same way and all you would get is a spectrum of individuals that slowly of time have more and more monkey like traits but at no time would you be able to point to an individual and say "yes that's the first human"

It was a rhetorical question.

How did the first single eukaryotic cell come to be? (I'm really interested)

 

BTW, every human is born with mutations, the average is something like 120 mutations per zygote but older fathers pass down more mutations than younger ones...

 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v488/n7412/full/nature11396.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20120823

 

Seriously dude, your lack of understanding does not falsify the thing you know nothing about...

Mutations are normal and part of real evolution. Sperm DNA changes all the time when new sperm is produced... so Its obvious older fathers would pass down more mutations than younger fathers... nothing new. This does not explain a complete divergence of DNA into another specie.

Addressing the link: Where does diet and environment fit into the data? Folic Acid?

Can I mate with another ape and produce offsprings? (Seriously)

. hypothesis : " a suggested explanation for a group of facts, accepted either as a basis for further verification or as likely to be true. [ Greek hupotithenai to propose, literally: to put under ]"

hy·poth·e·sis

• A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
• A proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.

as·sump·tion

A thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof: "they made certain assumptions about the market".

ev·i·dence

The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An assumption is a guess without evidence while an hypothesis is a good guess made from the evidence. The purpose of making an hypothesis is to come to the truth and making an assumption is to twist the facts to fit your view point at all costs.

Read up on evolution and what it is and you may be able to have valid criticisms.

First, we should clarify what "evolution" means. Like so many other words,

it has more than one meaning. Its strict biological definition is "a change

in allele frequencies over time." By that definition, evolution is an

indisputable fact. Most people seem to associate the word "evolution"

mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common

ancestor. Many people believe that there is enough evidence to call this a

fact, too. However, common descent is still not the theory of evolution,

but just a fraction of it (and a part of several quite different theories as

well). The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also

includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift,

which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved.

The biggest problem with evolutionary theory is when the basis of its theory is indirectly based on a "common descent".

I agree.. life evolved and mutations happened but like I stated.. the theory falls apart when a group of people state that a specie can evolve into another totally different specie. Its bolony when a person has knowledge of biochemistry and bacteriology.

The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty

we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something

a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain.

The most contradictory sentence I've ever read!

What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has--evidence, and lots

of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout

the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and

others. If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address

that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or

irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this,

you must know both the theory and the evidence.

Willful egotism.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_or_the_egg#Science

The theory of evolution states that species change over time via mutation and sexual reproduction. Since DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) can be modified only before birth, it can be argued that a mutation must have taken place at conception or within an egg such that a creature similar to a chicken, but not a chicken, laid the first chicken eggs. These eggs then hatched into chickens that inbred to produce a living population.^[13][14] Hence, in this light, both the chicken and the structure of its egg evolved simultaneously from birds that, while not of the same exact species, gradually became more and more like present-day chickens over time.

I hate when people tip-toe around it while NEVER ADDRESSING THE QUESTION.

If a creature similar to a chicken laid the first eggs... where did this first creature come from? An egg? ...and who created the egg of the similar chicken creature?

Consistency: when you post an open question on a members' forum, by definition, you are addressing all readers. Anyone is entitled to answer, whether or not you are happy with the answers. If you want to argue with one person, either send them personal messages, or address the reply as I have. I understand, tho, that my comments can be addressed, shot down, or applauded by any reader, as well.

My answer above was a specific reply to another user. People shouldn't interrupt because they have a need to break everyone down.

 

You say you cannot believe how creatures can evolve from herbivore to meat eaters, that fish can evolve into land mammals and a small percentage of them return to a water life, but the facts are there, IF you actually read them AND understand them. You cannot say, because YOU can't understand something, it has to be faulty.

I read them and understand the bolony they project.

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

Biochemistry doesn't line up. Let me know when humans acquire the urate oxidase enzyme to break down uric acid after eating large amounts of meat.

 

I can say that I cannot fathom how I get a picture on my tv, when I plug it in, and once tuned in, I can watch my favorite shows. It doesn't mean I pour scorn on tv repairmen and tell them only I and a few others know the real reason, that lots of mini animals, including people, live in my tv and all rush around doing quick costume changes, to act out everything from news bulletins to Lonely Planet, to costume dramas. Doesn't mean they aren't going to look at me, shake their heads, and charge me double for being a berk. For all my knowledge of little creatures, I can't FIX my tv, only watch it, having had an expert ignore my crackpot theories and fix the solders.

TV is man-made like evolution theory is man-written.. like the bible is man-written. All made up to stroke egos. None are real like you and me.

 

The overwhelming feeling that swept over me, when I read your OP, was the same depressed feeling I had when I saw a young woman peering into a tv camera and sincerely, and CLEARLY deeply felt, announced she had THE question to silence all atheists.

 

If God doesn't exist, WHO wrote the bible?

Men wrote the bible to control and relax the masses.

 

The difference between you. is your attitude of superior intellect and the ability to quote extremely simplified lines of evolution, but every time your knowledge of animals and evolution fails, or YOU don't comprehend the line, instead of learning more, you reject it and embroider your own bits to get you to a rejection.

There is no such thing as superior intellect. You either have intellect or not.

 

I have pet sheep - well established Herbivores, who have at times, stolen cooked steak and eaten it - and clearly loved it. They also love cheese and will steal it. A hard and fast herbivore eats the occasional cooked meat, now. Give it access to meat daily for a thousand years, and it will reclass as omnivore and perhaps the first changes in stomach acid production will have started, a few more thousand years, teeth may show changes. raw meat may excite them, they will start scavenging dead creatures. The line of logic can trail in many directions. It is far from an unbelevable theory. (I think they liked the salt).

Of course the sheep would steal it. The sheep's nose is getting stimulated by the odors of cooked meat. Even I don't eat animal products and my nose gets stimulated by cooked meat.

 

Your sureness of your generalisations are worrying..

I know how humans co-produce Vitamin B12 with bacteria.. so the generalisations of the so called experts thinking we are omnivores are just as bad as the generalisations that we evolved from a common ancestor.

 

In actuality, a lot of human penises DON'T fit perfectly into average vaginas. Again, your generalisations leave your arguments just gaping. A lot of women climax from clitoral stimulation, Women DON'T as a rule, show disappointment. Tends to have the males splenetically enraged/curl into a ball of humiliation, or go home immediately, and avoid a woman so hurtfully honest.. Have you ever heard the term 'fake it?' If many, many women go with that, and let me tell you, as a woman, (those conversations only happen between close friends OR in the anonymity of big groups, where the understanding is NOT specifically referring to current partner, often acknowledged as a doctor acknowledges that 'you are asking for a friend...' ). your assumption that your sex is a perfect fit for female vaginas is breathtaking. In your head, maybe. Why is the raised little finger of a woman with a pointed glance, understood by women, certainly across the western world? I also know of the opposite problem.

Clitoral stimulation only goes so far... intercourse is a need.

Its called natural selection. Like I said before.. everyone gets a distorted view of nature. Nature doesn't include human civilization. Nature is for the strong and contains predators which hunt down and eat those men with small penises and the weak women that indulge in foods.

 

Every triumphant generalisation and opinion you splenetically announce just makes a lot of really intelligent, really well educated people, (and me), feel depressed, (not another one), and many are being SO polite and actually trying to make you consider what you are saying, Giving you pointers of where you might find explanations. I may well be thrown off for this post. I'm really only trying to demonstrate your ignorance in basic human biology, let alone elsewhere, and VERY male assumptions.

Education is basically copy and paste information in the brain. A PHD just shows a person can regurgitate information without thinking for themselves.

I'm really only trying to demonstrate your ignorance in basic human biology.....

 

Truly, be grateful you have the anonymity of your user name, go away, read and learn a lot more, get a new user name and come back and say hello.

 

As to herbivores/carnivores WILFULLY deciding to be so? Does that pass as even a scientifically valid question? Did I WILFULLY decide to be female? Did I WILFULLY decide to be infuriatingly short? I WILFULLY chose to research WW2 bomber crew, but as no one objected or cared, I dropped the wilfull bit.

Your first sentence basically states that I should not think for myself. I have to think like you and everyone else.

Yes it does pass as a scientifically valid question. You only believe it doesn't because you can't answer it...

Willfully making a man-made choice of civilization such as studying has nothing to do with real evolution.

...even civilization is one of the forces contributing to the overall equilibration process. And....

 

As Arete pointed out, "Succession and disturbance are natural forces. The assertion that nature is in "constant equilibrium is trivially proven false...." I didn't read the links, but hopefully there is a mention of non-equilibrium thermodynamics, which describes processes operating in the real world. The concept of balance or equilibrium or homeostasis or a perfected symbiosis is useful to help understand the forces involved, but those concepts do not describe a "real" static state. Balance may be achieved, but only fleetingly as the "non-equilibrium" forces battle it out--in reality--in much the same way that walking is basically a "constantly corrected" fall.

Succession and disturbance are natural forces = constant equilibrium = balance.

There is no major disturbance in human civilization; its mostly egotistic succession.

Science is just a tool for helping us to understand reality. If religion (as well as science) was understood to be nothing more than that, maybe there wouldn't be so much conflict generated by attempts to reify either; but it is easy to confuse concepts with reality.

You'll need to elaborate on how science is just a "tool" for helping us to understand "reality".... Saying so doesn't make it so. Intellect is a tool. Information for its own sake is useless.

Religion isn't a tool. It was written by wise men like me and then a bunch of people collected the quotes and placed them in a book for those who lack wisdom and ultimately virtues.

No, no one with any knowledge of evolution would suggest this, why do you?

There's a limit to how sceptic one can be. Sure, question everything. But if you are provided with strong evidence of something, denying it for no good reason isn't being a sceptic. It's being willfully ignorant.

Real sceptics like me are rare. Being sceptic is not about rejecting evidence outright like the majority of so called sceptics.

Evolution evidence isn't strong evidence. Its OUTRIGHT assumptions.. "an animal has a hip bone.. so they were a land mammal" without first seeing if there is a purpose of the hip bone in the first place. As a true sceptic.. many reasons come to mind.. stabilizer for swimming and stabilizer for sex.

His description dishonestly suggested that a whale directly evolved from a fish, that is a lie, he knows it, but he said it anyway. in reality a whale is a mammal which evolved from a reptile which evolved from an amphibian which evolved from a fish (very simplified version) so he tried to ridicule evolution by saying something that seemed to be true, the average person who has knowledge of evolution(man-written) probably understands the line of decent in a simple way, but it is not a direct line of decent from a fish to a whale, he knows it but his main goal is to obfuscate the situation, not lend any real understanding of it...

Let me get this straight.. a fish decided to go on land.. grew legs and evoled in an amphibian(frog?)... then through evolution, lets say.. higher sun temperature.. this amphibian evolved into a reptile... then through many years of evolution said.. "screw this.. I prefer the water!"... and hops back into the water to grow a blow hole? Does it sound right? Sounds like the bible.

If all of this happens, then why do Ketone bodies form and what is their purpose?

Fuel for the brain when glucose isn't present. Brain can't produce its own ketone bodies.

Ketosis is survival metabolism.

You should also include fire and agriculture within your “big picture.”

There is nothing wrong with agriculture which follows the laws of nature.

Example: Chickens are excellent predators of insects.. so instead of locking them up.. place them on fruit orchards to eat the insects. We don't need to poison ourselves with pesticides.

As managers(MANIPULATORS) of fire and agriculture, we need to replace the function of your free-range herbivores.

Healthy soil requires micro-organisms from the dung of herbivores. We gotta STOP with manipulating the planet. Its insanity.

And we need to do that within the next generation, while doubling food production, restoring degraded lands and waters, and not degrading any new lands or waters. Convertible husbandry and longer cycles of crop rotations can achieve many of these goals. Restoring humic content to soils, restoring the benefits that natural fires brought to soils (biochar), and rebuilding degraded soils, are ways to achieve these goals. Have you heard of the many groups working on these sorts of solutions?

The lands degrades whether there is too many herbivores and without herbivores. Watch the video on my comment: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/57883-who-here-is-a-global-warming-skeptic/page-8#entry728859

Gaia hypothesis is right. The only thing missing is predators hunting down humans.

Cannibalism comes after all the ruminants are Extinct.

Hydrogen/helium sacs or work on yourself and get a girlfriend.

Egoism in society has gone rampid.

As the sun begins to seriously age it will begin to expand until it occupies the orbit of Venus at least, the surface of the earth will become hotter than Venus is now. This sun will be a red giant, it will radiate away more energy than it does now, but this irrelevant to the issue at hand...

I can also read wikipedia.

Can I get a reference where red giants radiate away more energy?

Thanks for not using the misleading micro/macro evolution labels many creationists use. It's sincerely appreciated.

 

If you understand and trust that natural selection drives small changes within a population over generations, why is it so far fetched to trust that those changes, along with climate and other environmental drivers, can't allow for large changes and even speciation over incredibly vast amounts of time?

Did a carnivore willfully choose to be a predator and a herbivore willfully choose to get hunted down?

Mainly because animals don't move and evolve without predation and/or pressures. The predators had to be created with the plant eaters for the purpose of weeding out the weak; natural selection and ultimately evolution.

The universe is a closed-loop system and so is everything about nature except human civilization.

How can "man-written evolution", which has been investigated every day by thousands of people for the last 150 years, have a more "narrow-minded view" than the one you're displaying through your appeals to ridicule, or that of anyone who assumes everything we don't yet understand is the work of an unobservable creator?

Thousands of virgins. I strongly believe anyone who has never had sex; should not talk about evolution.

How did a penis and a vagina come to fit perfectly together?

I don't believe in an unobservable creator because there is the question of who created the creator. My only hypothesis is that the Sun and the planets are doing their dance and out of this dance... create organisms through a fusion process when organisms are needed to fit in the closed-loop system or after a mass extinction.

Actually, there is evidence that all vertebrates started as very small fish (Haikouichthys is one name I remember). Whales have hipbones so it's thought that they must have been amphibian for a time, walking on land with legs. They developed into mammals at some point but I'm not sure if that was before or after they moved back to the oceans.

thought = assumption(hypothesis without evidence) = a guess.

Maybe the hipbones in whales serve another purpose than in land mammals or they serve the exact same purpose as in humans. Since whales are bigger than small fish.. the hipbone could serve as stabilizer for swimming. Since we aren't whales.. we don't know its true purpose.

Whales evolved from land mammals, the line of decent is quite well known and in some real detail. Consistency was being dishonest, he knows it but he said it anyway because that's what creationists do...

Before or after the land mammals drowned?

Again, no, please look at the link i provided and the graph, real science... it works... the mass reduction in the sun is trivial compared to it's total mass btw... and over time the sun is getting brighter not dimmer and eventually it will indeed get much bigger but that would again require some understanding of real science...

The outer atmosphere is inflated and tenuous, making the radius immense and the surface temperature low, somewhere from 5,000 K and lower.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_giant

A G-type main-sequence star (G V), often (and imprecisely) called a yellow dwarf, or G dwarf star, is a main-sequence star of spectral type G and luminosity class V. Such a star has about 0.8 to 1.2 solar masses and surface temperature of between 5,300 and 6,000 K.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_dwarf

Surface temperature is lower in the red giant.. so I don't see what you are getting at...

please watch your own videos and see how rainfall fits into that equation...

My point is the big picture... more ruminants grazing and migrating leads to more vegetation.. more vegetation leads to more carbon fixation which leads to more oxygen in the air and eventually evaporating... which then leads to more oxygen in the hydrosphere and eventually more rain, aka fresh water.

No, actually this has been documented on high mountain tops and in the lab, cities have no bearing on this...

High mountain tops near volcanoes?

My immune system says different. You should come over to milan, italy and you'll say different when air pollution alarms your immune system which then attacks itself via the cox 2 enzyme.

Creation Science is an oxymoron...

 

lets try real science...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Life_cycle

 

Reduction in mass. Hence less intense and lower temperature on earth.

How does this support your assertion that placing dung in a desert will result in the desert becoming productive?

 

 

I suggest you do so, but since a desert island can refer to an island that has no soil but doesn't mean no rain, i wait to see if your study is relevant...

http://vimeo.com/8239427

http://www.feasta.org/events/general/2009_lecture.htm

Some additional video links: http://www.savoryinstitute.com/2013/02/resources/video-library/

Actually higher levels of CO2 can be shown to decrease modern vegetation growth due to acidic conditions created by extra CO2...

Yes in cities where there is massive amounts of air pollution, which not only kills plants, it kills us. Everyone thrives outside of cities.

As previously cited, a species evolving into another species has been directly observed. It happens - that's unequivocal.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11048719

Can the apple feeding race mate with the hawthorn feeding race and produce viable offsprings?

 

 

a herbivore can evolve into a carnivore and vice-versa by consuming the opposite diet.

Simply untrue. Evolutionary theory makes no such prediction - therefore not only is the argument from incredulity logically flawed in of itself, it's leveled at a strawman.

 

 

The last universal ancestor (LUA), also called the last universal common ancestor (LUCA), or the cenancestor, is the most recent organism from which all organisms now living on Earth descend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_universal_ancestor

If the above is true, so is my original comment quoted above.

 

Higher temps will be bad for some good for others but ultimately it will not be possible to predict who it will be good or bad for other than to say the areas where food production is highest seem to be the most vulnerable.

When it lacks vegetation.

 

Absolutely not true, the sun was dimmer in the past and is demonstrably getting warmer, size is not an issue either way...

 

 

Again, since your basic premise is false this makes no sense.

http://www.icr.org/article/sun-shrinking/

 

This too is false, vegetation growth is more driven by rainfall than animal excrement, a desert is a desert no matter how much manure you place there and rotting manure results in more CO2 not less...

And rainfall is driven by oxygen which evaporates. Who produces oxygen from carbon dioxide?

Manure contains grass seeds if the cow was free to migrate and eat mature grass(which contains seeds) instead of being confined and fed grains. Manure is also rich in micro-organisms which are the basis of healthy soil.

I will find the lecture video where they did an experiment by placing dung on desert land and it turned into a healthy grassland.

CO2 isn't the enemy when there is an abundance of vegetation.

 

During the time of the dinosaurs the temps were warmer on average, more active volcanoes equal more CO2 which of course equals higher temps, the poles were subtropical with short cold winters and no ice caps. Yes vegetation is thought to have been more prolific then but due to CO2 levels and higher sea levels. Possibly oxygen was slightly higher then as well. Continental drift had the continents in different positions as well and that had an effect on the climate too.

 

There were some draw backs to this scenario, stratified oceans with a thin oxygenated layer over anoxic conditions. This would be a problem for us today. I am quite sure that life can adapt to higher temps but humans maybe not so much.

Think big. This is negative small clustured thinking put together for the purpose of sounding smart.

I believe in evolution as it actually happens however not in a specie evolving into another specie and especially don't believe in man-written evolution to fit a narrow-minded view which excludes the possibility of creators without free will.

This contradicts the basic laws of nature and common sense: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_universal_ancestor

Everything about nature is in symbiosis and in constant equilibrium except human civilization and whatever else is made-up from the same type of mentality of a civilized human.

Examples of symbiosis in nature:

1) different types of micro-organisms in the GI tract are only able to break down certain molecules to other molecules until passing them over to another micro-organism which has the enzymes to break these molecules down further.

2) micro-organisms break down certain molecules, produce vitamins and produce a percentage of amino acids for its host in return for a warm place to live and energy.

3) We eat the fruit for the purpose of spreading the seed for the plant.

Example of constant equilibrium in nature: herbivores eat grass to keep an equilibrium in vegetation and to spread grass seeds, insectivores eat insects, frugivores eat fruit/nuts/edible leaves and carnivores eats the weak mammals including their rivals youngs to keep an equilibrium in the whole population.

Absurd assumtions of evolutionary theory: that a small fish can evolve into a 150 ton whale or that a small creature can evolve into a cow over millions of years.

If evolutionary theory is correct... a herbivore can evolve into a carnivore and vice-versa by consuming the opposite diet.

I haven't read the whole thread however I am not convinced entirely on global warming. Is the temperature rising? Yes but whether a higher temperature is good or bad is where I am sitting on the fence.

There is other factors to take into account.

1) We know that the Sun use to be much larger in the past. Hence higher global temperatures.

2) Dinosaurs use to be much bigger than current land animals, had lizard skins for the protection of higher amounts of UV radiation and the herbivorous ones required more vegetation daily.

My hypothesis based on the evidence.

Yes the planet is getting hotter but it could be mainly because we are cutting down large amounts of vegetation, hence less carbon fixation and that herbivorous animal don't have the liberty to do what they are meant to do. That is, eat grass, migrate and poop in less fertile lands and by doing so.. converting unhealthy lands/deserts into healthy grasslands. Healthy soil rich in microorganisms. There is scientific evidence with what I am saying and I will post it once I find it again.

More ruminant dung = more vegetation = more carbon fixation = more oxygen = lower/cooler temperature.

Most people don't have ethics. This is why wise men wrote the religious books and law for the sole purpose of keeping people in line like mice.

The only hindrance is your own inadequacies.

We agree that we can learn from our own mistake if the individual chooses to but we need common sense(ethics) so we don't end up blowing each other up during an experiment.

triglyceride [tri-glis´er-īd] a compound consisting of three molecules of fatty acids bound with one molecule of glycerol; a neutral fat that is the usual storage form of lipids in animals.

triglycerides are most likely back up fuel which circulate in the blood and are used by cells when needed.

Ignorant.

I didn't say I was ANTI-science or ANTI-religion.

A non-conformist is not an anti-conformist.

I read the information and don't accept everything about evolution and religion. Only what is actually factual.

From my personal experience. People let their ego(mental inadequacies/jealousy) get in the way and by doing so, limit themselves and other people. Plus come up with excuses for their mental inadequacies.

Everyone wants to be a Genius.

Religion is bolony to me because it was written by men from an egotistic point of view and contradicts the basic laws of nature.

Evolution theory is bolony to me because it was written by men from an egotistic point of view and contradicts the basic laws of nature.

Religion is anti-science.

Evolution theory is anti-religion.

What do you call someone who doesn't follow the far right and far left type of mentality? Not anti but simply non-religious/non-evolution type of mentality?

We (as other animals) basically lost the ability to synthesize a number of amino acids, presumably because there was no selective pressure to maintain the required genes (and hence, metabolic pathways).Thus it is not that we are any kind special in that regard, as other animals also lack the ability to synthesize all amino acids.

You have no EVIDENCE which says we LOST THE ABILITY to produce the essential amino acids. Its bolony. Stop spreading unscientific information.

Only plants and bacteria have the enzymes, and have always only had them.

If we had the enzymes to produce our own essential amino acids, we wouldn't need to eat, we wouldn't need a mouth, we could stand under the sun and do photosynthesis like plants. But we can't.

Animals(like us) don't lack the ability to synthesize all the amino acids. Animals(like us) lack the ability to synthesize the essential amino acids.

Animals(like us) can synthesize the non-essential amino acids from essential amino acids.