The Problem with Darwinism.....

[DeathBug]

[QUOTE=Japan_86][COLOR=Navy]
When you believe in evolution, you believe that the earth came by a big bang. After so many years things evolve into other things and so on.

If you believe in God in a Christian standpoint, you believe that He created all things. Not evolution and a big bang.
[/COLOR][/QUOTE]
Why can't I believe that God initiated the Big Bang and evolution? =P

Anyway, Darwinism and evolutionary theory aren't the same thing. Rather, Darwinism is a component of evolutionary theory, but evolutionary theory isnt' a component of Darwinism.

Charles Darwin was a deeply Christian man who would have been horrified to think his work suggested man and ape having a common ancestor. That extrapolation came later.

Darwinism was the original proposal of the "Survival of the fittest" philosophy, stating that members of a species with more advantageous genetic traits were most likely to survive and pass those traits on; eventually, these traits would be absorbed by the species.

Darwinism is logical, and can be proven. Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, is just that: a theory.

If you believe purely in evolution, they you have some problems. Bats, for example. Bats navigate at night using a complicated sensory mechanism known as sonar. I'm sure everyone understands the concept, but in case you don't: basically, bats send off a series of sound waves into the air, and process the waves as they bounce back, rebounded by shapes and objects in the enviornement.

Sonar requires the use of about a dozen very specialized organs in the bat's body. If you believe that evolution is the result of random genetic mutations, you have to believe that a single bat ancestor just happened to be bornm with all the sonar organs, because they're useless on their own.

[DBZgirl88]

[COLOR=#004a6f][QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade]DaggerIX1 is totally on a roll in this thread. Modern-day apes are the result of as many years of evolution as man is, because they diverged from a *different* common ancestor.

Chabichou, think about this. To say that evolution cannot give rise to a new species, you are going to have to show to us how there is [I]no evidence of a common ancestor between any two species[/I]. And that you CANNOT do and we all know it. Since you are making this powerful claim in opposition to evolution, the burden of proof rests on you. You lose.[/QUOTE]However, there is no proof either that there is a common ancestor between two species, whatever they may be. Just because your DNA of these two species is more similar than those of others, it doesn't mean that they are related. This is just a theory. There is absolutely no proof that it's true, contrary to what evolutionists want you to believe.

There are so many flaws in the theory of evolution that people simply overlook. It has no scientific back up. There is no proof that organic molecules were formed by chance. The theory therefore does not in fact have "scientific proof" to back it up.

There are no tansitional forms between differnt species. Sure, there have been fossils of whale like creatures with legs found. But the transition has to be more gradual than that, one has to find many different fossils showing the gradual transition, not just one. These have yet to be found to this very day.

Here is an example that also shows some flaws that the survival of the fittest theory also doesn't proove evolution.
[QUOTE][IMG]http://www.harunyahya.com/images_books/images_in20questions/25B.jpg[/IMG]
INTERESTING SPINES: Hallucigenia: One of the creatures that suddenly emerged in the Cambrian Age. This and many other Cambrian fossils have hard, sharp spines to protect them from attack. One thing that evolutionists cannot account for is how these creatures should have such an effective defense system when there were no predators around. The lack of predators makes it impossible to explain these spines in terms of natural selection.[/QUOTE]And the theory that humans evolved from apes also has flaws in it. Skeletons have been found of [B]humans[/B] that were as old as those of the so ape like creatures evolutionists think are our ancestors. Why would it suddenly appear out of no where like that if we evolved from apes might I ask?

I'm not here to convert people, but I see so much evidence in my religion that God exists. He states things in the Quran that people would not have known back then, over 1400 years ago. God states that he created everything in pairs, such as sexual pairs and "that which you may not know of". Anything in particular come to mind? He also states that he "placed firmly embedded mountains on the earth, so it would not move under them". It was also not known back then that mountains kept the ground beneath them from moving. He also states that "he has let loose the two seas, converging together, with a barrier between them they do not break through."(Qur'an, 55:19-20)
[QUOTE]This property of the seas, that is, that they meet and yet do not intermix, has only very recently been discovered by oceanographers. Because of the physical force called "surface tension," the waters of neighbouring seas do not mix. Caused by the difference in the density of their waters, surface tension prevents them from mingling with one another, just as if a thin wall were between them.

It is interesting that, during a period when there was little knowledge of physics, and of surface tension, or oceanography, this truth was revealed in the Qur'an.

There are large waves, strong currents, and tides in the Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean. Mediterranean Sea water enters the Atlantic by Gibraltar. But their temperature, salinity, and densities do not change, because of the barrier that separates them.[/QUOTE]These are only a few of the many scientific facts that are stated in the Quran that were not discovered until recently. Therefore, to say that religion has no "evidence" and "backup" to prove it is a lie.[/COLOR]

[EVA Unit 100]

[QUOTE=Japan_86][COLOR=Navy]
How can you believe in both? You either believe one thing, or believe the other.

When you believe in evolution, you believe that the earth came by a big bang. After so many years things evolve into other things and so on.

If you believe in God in a Christian standpoint, you believe that He created all things. Not evolution and a big bang.

If we evolved from apes, how come the other monkeys and apes didn't evolve?
If we evolve, then how come we haven't changed over 2000 years?

Sure, we gotten taller and we live longer, but that's only due to good hygene, modern medicene, and knowledge to harmful things like lead and DDT. [/COLOR][/QUOTE]

You can believe in both. Think about it. At the beginning of time God said "Let there be light". What was the big bang? A giant explosion of light. And while creatures evolve into other creatures, the evolution is God's intent. Dagger gave a good response to your last 2 paragraphs, so I don't need to do so.

BTW, I'm Jewish, but since Judaism and Christianity come from the same roots and didn't divulge until the Common Era, I'm coming from the same standpoint on God and Genesis.

[Dagger]

[QUOTE=Chabichou][COLOR=#004a6f]Here is an example that also shows some flaws that the survival of the fittest theory also doesn't proove evolution.
And the theory that humans evolved from apes also has flaws in it. Skeletons have been found of [B]humans[/B] that were as old as those of the so ape like creatures evolutionists think are our ancestors. Why would it suddenly appear out of no where like that if we evolved from apes might I ask?[/color][/quote]
Did you read my post? I specifically mentioned that human beings did not evolve from apes as we know them today. There were a variety of primates way back then, some more ape-ish than others, and for a long time human beings overlapped with the more primitive human-like species which were also descendants of the same ancestor(s). Those species vanished because they could not successfully compete with humans for food, resources, shelter and so forth.

It sounds like you're referring to Homo sapiens' now-extinct sister species (that's an over-simplification, but I assume you see my point) rather than a direct parent species. Of course, parent species [i]can[/i] also live alongside their "children," particularly if the newer species have settled into a different niche.

[quote][COLOR=#004a6f]I'm not here to convert people, but I see so much evidence in my religion that God exists.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]
I, for one, never said that evolution precludes the existence of God.

EDIT: I want to respond to some of your other points, but I need to run off to a doctor's appointment. So I'll edit this post and/or type up a second reply later.

~Dagger~

[Delta]

[COLOR=#B33D79][quote name='Chabichou][COLOR=#004a6f']He also states that he "placed firmly embedded mountains on the earth, so it would not move under them". It was also not known back then that mountains kept the ground beneath them from moving.[/COLOR][/quote]
Maybe I shouldn't take this statement literally but I've been taught in my Geology courses that the Earth is dynamic. The Himalayas rose because of converging plates and the waves of December 26 were generated by movement in an offshore plate boundary.

A different interpretation of the above quote perhaps?

Love and Peace!
[/COLOR]

[Retribution]

[quote name='Chabichou']However, there is no proof either that there is a common ancestor between two species, whatever they may be. Just because your DNA of these two species is more similar than those of others, it doesn't mean that they are related. This is just a theory. There is absolutely no proof that it's true, contrary to what evolutionists want you to believe.[/quote]You sound like evolutionists are people who want to trick you. Anyway, it does mean that they are related. If you wish, I can flip your own statement on you. There's absolutely [b]no[/b] proof that the Quran is right; it's just an 'inspired' book. Please, learn more about the theory before you go saying that it has no ground to stand on.

[quote]There are so many flaws in the theory of evolution that people simply overlook. It has no scientific back up. There is no proof that organic molecules were formed by chance. The theory therefore does not in fact have "scientific proof" to back it up.[/quote] Yes, there are flaws, but evolution is strictly scientific. It has plenty of facts which [i]you[/i] are overlooking. Fossils are found showing change over time, embedded deeply in the soil. The farther they are down, the older they are. On the bottom, there is one version of a skull, and as you work your way up out of the soil, the skull of the same animal can be seen to have slight changes.

I think that you're belittling the facts of evolution, mainly that evolution is random mutation. Mutation isn't always a bad thing. Nature mutates itself... successful mutations are passed on by sexual reproduction. Failed mutations die off, as they cannot reproduce, because they lack advantages that other creatures have.

[AzureWolf]

[quote name='Altron][SIZE=1]Before I start, Azure, you're one smart dude. In all the threads I read, you seem to bring the hard facts to the argument. Good job.[/SIZE][/QUOTE][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]Haha, you flatter me. Seriously, it's very appreciated that you actual see me for what I am: a guy. Oh, and thanks for the compliment. :p [QUOTE=Manic Webb][SIZE=1]It can if you're Buddhist. It's a religion with no exclusive belief in either divine creation or evolution. Actually, I think it leaves a door open for either one. I'm not Buddhist, but I just thought I could put that out there.[/SIZE][/QUOTE]I'm going to quote myself, the same exact quote you took, but I'm going to embolden two parts (emphasis on the second bolded words): [QUOTE=Me][SIZE=1]and most [B]around here[/B] have an ill-concieved notion that Darwinism can somehow coincide with [B]their[/B'] religious beliefs.[/SIZE][/quote] At first, I did not think it was necessary to list every single religion that my acquaintances did not emcompass. However, if it really is necessary to create some kind of generalization that you can try to find a real exception to, here goes:

[i]The three major monotheistic religions (i.e., JudeoChristian Islamic) cannot be made complementary to Darwinism, ever.[/i] Hope that clarifies things. [quote name='Baron Samedi][SIZE=1]I believe in Intelligent design...or rather, a more appropriate term would be that I think Intelligent Design is the best theory I've seen put forth. I don't believe in God. I see flaws in Evolutionary Theory.[/SIZE][/QUOTE]But you see, that's the beauty of Intelligent Design: the "force" involved isn't specifically defined as God (otherwise it wouldn't have been [STRIKE]accepted[/STRIKE] partially accepted as a scientific theory). Intelligent Design isn't the belief of God changing creatures for the better, it's the belief that an incalculable force plays a role in evolution (one which isn't random noise). [QUOTE=Chabichou][SIZE=1']First of all I'd like to point out that gene splicing is different than mutation. Scientists have decoded the human genome, so they would know where to find a defective gene. They could splice a working gene and put it in it's place.[/SIZE][/quote] Explain to me how gene splicing is different than mutation. Aside from the fancy words, there's very little separating the two. In fact, the ONLY difference (and you can quote me on this) is that one is deemed natural (or popular) and the other a mistake of nature (or man). In other words, it's a huge ethical debate as to what defines a mutation and what is just a polymorphism (or allele). I don't see where you can abitrarily come here and call the shots as to what's what.

To illustrate, Swedes make up the majority of the 1% of the human population that is immune to HIV. The mutation (or polymorphism) is actually a faulty gene that codes for a unusable protein receptor that HIV normally uses to enter the cell. So, there's a dual nature about this mutation/allele: clearly, loss of protein function is bad, but at the same time, it's provided a means to immunity against a particular disease. So, using HIV as an example, you can understand why scientists have to question whether or not something needs "fixing" or is actually a benefit.

In all honesty, I have no clue why you even brought this up, and how at all, this is relevant to the discussion. But to play it safe, I still wrote a rebuttal.[quote name='Chabichou][SIZE=1']If a good mutation does happen to occur, it's never actually changed the species. The tubercolosis you mentioned did not change into another pathogen. It simply remained as tubercolosis. Some of us are more resistent to pathogens than others. Even if those with no resistance are wiped out, we still remain human.[/SIZE][/quote] See, good is a matter of opinion (just like most mutations/polymorphisms). While there are things that can be clearly called bad or good mutations, such as mutations leading to death or infertility, most "mutations" aren't black and white.

Secondly, I really ask that you watch your fancy words. First you called for mutation, which is very general, and said it can't be good. I supplied you with a good mutations, both naturally and artificially. However, here you are asking for transmutation (or genetic recombination, I'm 100% not sure), in which a new species arises from some genetic change. If you clearly stated what you asked first, then there wouldn't have been a need for the confusion. I'm still seriously confused as to what you are trying to point out/say, but I'll try my best.

Again, both naturally and artificially, new species have been made. In fact, almost all of today's plants are believed to have been transmutated from other species. Yes, you heard right: in the plant world, there have been successful (and fertile) creation of new species in what would be considered the equivalent to a elephant and a dog having a baby.

It's been found that plants readily express extraneous genes, and a greater number of homologous chromosomes simply equates to a greater number of genetic products. This event happens rather naturally, and can be reproduced in the lab. So, species have been created. Good mutations, as you have put it, have been made, both either changing the species or just a gene.

I don't remember all the specifics about the whole plant research, but I think I've elaborated enough.[quote name='Chabichou][SIZE=1']Another thing I would like to point out is this: The law of entropy states that as things are let on their own, they tend to spontaneously move to more and more dis-ordered states, or a higher entropy as you would call it. Organisms however, are highly ordered systems, therefore energy would be required to keep them from become more disordered. How could the first cells have spontaneously, by chance, fromed on their own when they obvviously can't due to the law of entropy? They can't do this spontaneously; this reaction will never happen unless some sort of interference occurs. That's something to think about.[/SIZE][/quote]What does this entire paragraph have to do with anything?! No one ever said that animals don't go against the law of entropy. And really, this whole statement depends on your reference. Animals themselves increase the order within themselves at the cost of an unequal (greater) decrease in entropy in their surroundings. So, [B]overall[/B], animals increase the amount of entropy in the universe, even if they give rise to order within themselves.

And I really see no relevance of this to anything pertaining to Darwinism. Most of this post seemed to consist of just fancy words, no offense.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[Manic Webb]

[QUOTE=AzureWolf][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]I'm going to quote myself, the same exact quote you took, but I'm going to embolden two parts (emphasis on the second bolded words): At first, I did not think it was necessary to list every single religion that my acquaintances did not emcompass. However, if it really is necessary to create some kind of generalization that you can try to find a real exception to, here goes:

[i]The three major monotheistic religions (i.e., JudeoChristian Islamic) cannot be made complementary to Darwinism, ever.[/i] Hope that clarifies things.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]
If you look back at some of the older religion threads, you'd find that there [i]are[/i] Buddhists here on OtakuBoards. I wasn't speaking for myself, but I was saying that there's a chance a Buddhist could very well reply here and give an entirely scientific opinion with no religious contradictory. Did it happen? No. Could it? Yes. Now I'm going to quote [i]myself[/i]:
[quote name='myself]I'm not Buddhist, but [b']I just thought I could put that out there.[/b][/quote]
I understand what you meant the first time, but you made a statement that generalized the members of OB (with a religion, of course) to be wrong in assuming their religion can coincide with Darwinism. I clarified.

[Morpheus]

[quote name='Chabichou']There are no transitional forms between different species. Sure, there have been fossils of whale like creatures with legs found. But the transition has to be more gradual than that, one has to find many different fossils showing the gradual transition, not just one. These have yet to be found to this very day.[/quote]
Exactly. 2 points:
1.We can't just dig up the whole freaking Earth. There will always be fossils we don't find.
2. Most organisms don't become fossils. There is a very delicate fossilization process that has to happen.

[quote name='Chabichou']I'm not here to convert people, but I see so much evidence in my religion that God exists. He states things in the Quran that people would not have known back then, over 1400 years ago. God states that he created everything in pairs, such as sexual pairs and "that which you may not know of". Anything in particular come to mind? He also states that he "placed firmly embedded mountains on the earth, so it would not move under them". It was also not known back then that mountains kept the ground beneath them from moving.[/quote]
Most mountains do move. In fact, they all do. All of the plates are shifting. The mountains make them move slower, But they don't keep them from moving at all.

[AzureWolf]

[QUOTE=Manic Webb][SIZE=1]If you look back at some of the older religion threads, you'd find that there [i]are[/i] Buddhists here on OtakuBoards. I wasn't speaking for myself, but I was saying that there's a chance a Buddhist could very well reply here and give an entirely scientific opinion with no religious contradictory. Did it happen? No. Could it? Yes. Now I'm going to quote [i]myself[/i]:

I understand what you meant the first time, but you made a statement that generalized the members of OB (with a religion, of course) to be wrong in assuming their religion can coincide with Darwinism. I clarified.[/SIZE][/QUOTE][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]Forgive me, as this one is my fault. I told you to pay attention to the second emboldened words and so the first emboldened words were clearly ignored. So, I have to quote myself yet a second time. [quote name='Me... again...][SIZE=1]and most [B]around here[/B'] have an ill-concieved notion that Darwinism can somehow coincide with their religious beliefs.[/SIZE][/quote]"Around here" is a very broad term, and any logical person would see that as a reference to an actual region rather than a definitive internet site. If I was referring to OB and not where I live, then I would have simply stated "here at OB" (notice the lack of the generalizer "around") Secondly, my acquaintances would not be online persons. "Around" is just not a logically sound term to use when referring to any website.

Even if I gave you that amount of freedom, how the hell would I have any idea every OBers' religion?

Congratulations, you aren't Buddhist. Thank you for emphasizing that. Unfortunately, I see little relevance to making note of that.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[DBZgirl88]

[COLOR=#004a6f][quote name='AzureWolf][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]And I really see no relevance of this to anything pertaining to Darwinism. Most of this post seemed to consist of just fancy words, no offense.[/COLOR][/SIZE'][/FONT][/quote]Just a bunch of "fancy words" huh? I'm just trying to explain some things I though people should ask themselves. Okay, I'll put it in more simple terms. If you want to count gene splicing as mutation that's fine, okay. But gene splicing is done by humans, do you know what I mean? It does not happen on it's on accord, unless you count. The theory of evolution does not depend on gene splicing, it depends on [B]random[/B] mutation. A random mutation is very very rare. And so far there has been no random mutation that is beneficial to a creature. If you repeatedly try to force the mutation of a gene, that is [B]not[/B] random. Mutation would occur much faster and many more times than usual, and therefore the probability of a "good mutation" arising would highly increase.

As for entropy, it doesn't have to do with evolution because it disproves it :) . I know that because organisms are highly ordered, they increase the entropy in their surroundings, therefore the overall entropy of the Universe does in fact increase. They must use energy to maintain this highly ordered state, because it would obviously go to a lower ordered state if it didn't, right? What I am asking is how would a cell randomly form if it does not have the mechanisms to use energy to achieve a highly ordered state in the first place?

Can any of you possibly imagine DNA and proteins forming and phospholipids actually lining up to form a cell membrane? They cannot come together with out a source of energy to keep them from falling apart during the formation.

As for plant mutation Azure, I thought new species of plants are made simply by cross breeding different species together. Broccili for instance, is a mix of cauliflower and peas. That's not mutation, that's just reproduction using very different sets of genes. The other species are made when scientists splice the genes with traits they want into another plant's genes. No one has actually left a plant alone and come back to find it's offspring a different species than it. That's just ludacris.

Anyway, I have a hard time trying to explain my self, so If you don't understand me, please try to take some time to look through some of the readings I suggested in my first post if you want.[/COLOR]

[Morpheus]

[quote name='Chabichou']A random mutation is very very rare. And so far there has been no random mutation that is beneficial to a creature.[/quote]
No, they aren't. Conjoined twins is a mutation. Having 2 different color eyes is a mutation. Hemophillia, Cystic fibrosus, and all other genetic diseases are mutations. 1 man had a brain mutation that allowed him to remember everything encountered. Every word he read or heard and anything else was stored automatically. That is very beneficial. A mutation may affect nothing, but there are large amounts in society.

[Dagger]

[quote name='Chabichou][COLOR=#004a6f']Can any of you possibly imagine DNA and proteins forming and phospholipids actually lining up to form a cell membrane?[/COLOR][/quote]

Well, yes. It's been a long time since I so much as thought about cell membranes. However, I was under the impression that phospholipids naturally line up like that because it protects their hydrophobic tails (the hydrophilic heads face outward, coming into contact with the solution around them). Experiments have been performed showing that a bunch of floating phospholipids will automatically assume this formation without any outside aid.

~Dagger~

[AzureWolf]

[quote name='Chabichou][SIZE=1][COLOR=#004a6f]But gene splicing is done by humans, do you know what I mean? It does not happen on it's on accord, unless you count. The theory of evolution does not depend on gene splicing, it depends on [B]random[/B] mutation. A random mutation is very very rare. And so far there has been no random mutation that is beneficial to a creature. If you repeatedly try to force the mutation of a gene, that is [B]not[/B] random. Mutation would occur much faster and many more times than usual, and therefore the probability of a "good mutation" arising would highly increase.[/COLOR'][/SIZE][/quote][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]Again, what does gene splicing have to do with Darwinism? And what splicing is done by humans, because when I started talking about bacteria, you demanded something else.

Also, just because you increase the occurrence of a random event doesn't make it "unrandom" all of a sudden. It's a hit or miss phenomenon where they "screen" for a desired mutation after allowing the random mutations to occur at a scale that will guarantee at least one of the desired mutations. [quote name='Chabichou][SIZE=1']As for entropy, it doesn't have to do with evolution because it disproves it :) ... What I am asking is how would a cell randomly form if it does not have the mechanisms to use energy to achieve a highly ordered state in the first place?[/SIZE][/quote]How does entropy disprove evolution? And evolution has been proven, if only on a micro scale. I thought we were talking about Darwinism, as evolution is simply a scientific fact.

How would a cell randomly form? The data is in the DNA. I'm lost as to what you are asking, and why cell formation is relevant at all, since it happens regardless of the reason. [quote name='Chabichou][SIZE=1]Can any of you possibly imagine DNA and proteins forming and phospholipids actually lining up to form a cell membrane? They cannot come together with out a source of energy to keep them from falling apart during the formation.[/SIZE][/QUOTE]Yes, I can imagine it. You yourself can create micelles and see how phospholipids work. Soap works with micelles, and the formation is due to Brownian (i.e., random) motion. DNA and protein formation is also somewhat Brownian. [QUOTE=Chabichou][SIZE=1']As for plant mutation Azure, I thought new species of plants are made simply by cross breeding different species together. Broccili for instance, is a mix of cauliflower and peas. That's not mutation, that's just reproduction using very different sets of genes. The other species are made when scientists splice the genes with traits they want into another plant's genes. No one has actually left a plant alone and come back to find it's offspring a different species than it. That's just ludacris.[/SIZE][/quote]See, yet again you have changed what you demanded. I hope this is the last time you change your mind. However, I should point out that a seed that has been changed by outside DNA is indeed considered a mutation (hence the name trans[B]mutation[/B]). Hell, that's how viruses work, and that's how quite a few mutations work. I'm not sure why this doesn't address your question.

While we are on the topic of viruses, different species of viruses appear all the time, and they can even be spontaneously formed.

Secondly, what you are asking for would, in theory, require millions of years (what with mutations being so rare, and could flop at any point). That is, of course, assuming Darwinism is even true.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[Manic Webb]

[quote name='AzureWolf][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]Forgive me, as this one is my fault. I told you to pay attention to the second emboldened words and so the first emboldened words were clearly ignored. So, I have to quote myself yet a second time. "Around here" is a very broad term, and any logical person would see that as a reference to an actual region rather than a definitive internet site. If I was referring to OB and not where I live, then I would have simply stated "here at OB" (notice the lack of the generalizer "around") Secondly, my acquaintances would not be online persons. "Around" is just not a logically sound term to use when referring to any website.[/color][/size'][/font][/quote]
Hmm. Gee, why ever would I think you were refering to OtakuBoards when you said that? Let's look back...

[quote name='AzureWolf']Only 55% of the US population believes in Darwinism, and most around here have an ill-concieved notion that Darwinism can somehow coincide with their religious beliefs.[/quote]
When I read this, I automatically thought you were refering to the United States, a physical place. The location was one of the first things you said. I live in the US (you can tell by my profile), so my "around here" is probably the same as your "around here." So here was my reply...

[quote name='Manic Webb']It can if you're Buddhist. It's a religion with no exclusive belief in either divine creation or evolution. Actually, I think it leaves a door open for either one. I'm not Buddhist, but I just thought I could put that out there.[/quote]
Unless I'm mistaken, there are Buddhists in the US. So if there are Buddhists "around here" whose religion does allow them to believe in evolution, then their notions are [i]not[/i] ill-conceived. That was my entire point. I was trying to say there are exceptions to what you said.

So when you bolded "around here" in your next response, I assumed you were attempting to correct my statement. I mean, if "around here" doesn't refer to the US like in the beginning of your first sentence, then you must have meant a more specific "here," right? There was no reason for me to think you were refering specifically to New Jersey or your home town, so I could only guess you meant "around here" to be OtakuBoards. I figured that didn't make my point any less valid (as there are Buddhists on OB), so I went with it. Frankly, I thought the use of the word "around" was more of your fault or lingual habit than mine, but I felt no reason to bring it up.

So if you bolded "around here," there must have been a good reason. Were you refering to somewhere [i]other[/i] than the US when you said that? And if so, don't you think it would've been a good idea to say so?

[quote name='AzureWolf']Even if I gave you that amount of freedom, how the hell would I have any idea every OBers' religion?[/quote]
I didn't expect you to know [i]every[/i] member's religion. I said there were signs of Buddhist OB members if you [i]read some of the older threads on religion[/i]. You don't even have to browse back and read every post. There's a search bar to the left, if you don't believe me. There are over 13,000 members here. I think it's fair to guess at least one out there follows a religion other than Judaism, Christianity, or Islam.

[quote]Congratulations, you aren't Buddhist. Thank you for emphasizing that. Unfortunately, I see little relevance to making note of that.[/QUOTE]
When I said I wasn't Buddhist (and repeated it later), it was only to show that I understood the "their" in your original reply. If I am indeed one of "they," then what I said about Buddhism wouldn't apply to me. I didn't want to lead anyone to believe I was (as it might cause confusion), so I said I wasn't. Twice, because you put more emphasis on it when you quoted yourself.

[Farto the Magic]

[QUOTE]INTERESTING SPINES: Hallucigenia: One of the creatures that suddenly emerged in the Cambrian Age. This and many other Cambrian fossils have hard, sharp spines to protect them from attack. One thing that evolutionists cannot account for is how these creatures should have such an effective defense system when there were no predators around. The lack of predators makes it impossible to explain these spines in terms of natural selection. [/QUOTE]

[COLOR=DarkGreen][SIZE=2]I just thought it would be interesting to consider, but maybe the predators were soft invertibrates, which don't fossilize very well. I mean, starfish are predators that wrap around their clam victims, pry them open, then secrete an acidic liquid. Maybe the spines stopped the evil starfish monsters from eating them. Food for thought.[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[AzureWolf]

[quote name='Manic Webb][SIZE=1']When I read this, I automatically thought you were refering to the United States, a physical place. The location was one of the first things you said. I live in the US (you can tell by my profile), so my "around here" is probably the same as your "around here." So here was my reply...[/SIZE][/quote][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]*sigh* You know, even if you had the benefit of the doubt, the generalizer "most" is there, so I'm sorry for not putting that in bold for you as well. I should have put everything in bold and said, "read carefully." Secondly, if you didn't pick up on it on the first go-around, how the hell couldn't you get it the second go-around when I mentioned acquaintances?

Why didn't you just mention that you first thought I meant in the US the first time around anyway? [QUOTE][SIZE=1]There was no reason for me to think you were refering specifically to New Jersey or your home town, so I could only guess you meant "around here" to be OtakuBoards.[/SIZE][/QUOTE] Acquaintances! How hard is that to grasp?! And again, even if I was referring to OB, how could I be acquainted with everyone? Even if not everyone, how would you know who I'm acquainted with here anyway? [QUOTE][SIZE=1]Frankly, I thought the use of the word "around" was more of your fault or lingual habit than mine, but I felt no reason to bring it up.[/SIZE][/QUOTE]Yes, I did not realize I had to be extremely specific to be politically correct, but realize that what I said has held true, and your misinterpretation is [B]your[/B] misinterpretation. But yes, it's my fault for having faith in certain members to easily pick up on things such that I would not have to flesh statements out to ridiculous lengths to get a simple point across. [QUOTE][SIZE=1]So if you bolded "around here," there must have been a good reason. Were you refering to somewhere [i]other[/i] than the US when you said that? And if so, don't you think it would've been a good idea to say so?[/SIZE][/QUOTE]I thought by making it bold, it would have become apparent. The mentioning of acquaintances should have sealed the deal. Sorry for the confusion. Next time I realize I will have to discuss anything with you, I will make sure to write everything, and flawlessly as possible such that other (ridiculous) meanings cannot be (ridiculously) reasoned from my posts.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[Manic Webb]

Really, Azure, I think it's nice how you can so easily omit parts of my post that answer your questions.

[quote name='AzureWolf']And again, even if I was referring to OB, how could I be acquainted with everyone? Even if not everyone, how would you know who I'm acquainted with here anyway?[/quote]
[quote name='Manic Webb']I didn't expect you to know every member's religion. I said there were signs of Buddhist OB members if you read some of the older threads on religion. You don't even have to browse back and read every post. There's a search bar to the left, if you don't believe me. There are over 13,000 members here. I think it's fair to guess at least one out there follows a religion other than Judaism, Christianity, or Islam.[/quote]
So to answer your question (again), I didn't expect you to be acquainted with anyone. I expected you to know there were more than 3 religions world-wide, and that a fraction of 13,000 random people from around the world have to subscribe to one of the others. So even if you haven't read the old threads (which, by the way, you don't have to be acquainted with anyone to read), I would've thought logic would take over. Silly me.

Let the record show that whether or not you acquaint yourself with any other OB members was completely irrelevent to my original point. I never once mentioned your "acquaintances" because you shouldn't have to be acquainted with someone of the world's 5th largest religion to know it exists. Did you have to know Buddhism's stance on creation? No, that's what I said it for. I was pointing out that there are exceptions to the idea that religions cannot coincide with Darwinism.

[quote name='AzureWolf']*sigh* You know, even if you had the benefit of the doubt, the generalizer "most" is there, so I'm sorry for not putting that in bold for you as well.[/quote]
I'm well aware that you used the word "most" in your sentence. But you know what? I'm not combating that. In case you didn't notice, I was trying to clarify and add on to what you said by saying there are exceptions.

[quote name='AzureWolf']But yes, it's my fault for having faith in certain members to easily pick up on things such that I would not have to flesh statements out to ridiculous lengths to get a simple point across.[/quote]
I'm sorry if I thought the phrase "around here" was unspecific, and having to say you don't acquaint yourself with people online is a ridiculous length.

[quote name='AzureWolf']The mentioning of acquaintances should have sealed the deal.[/quote]
Let's take a look back to the first time you mentioned these acquaintances to me...
[quote]I did not think it was necessary to list every single religion that my acquaintances did not emcompass.[/quote]
Why not? It's not like you said "around here" only consisted of your acquaintances the first time. What's that? Another ridiculous length? Maybe. But only if you consider writing "my acquaintances" or "people I've met" ridiculous compared to saying "most around here."

Really, if you were only referring to people you knew, that's all you had to say from the beginning. And really, I'm sorry if a little specificity is too much to ask for.

[quote] I will make sure to write everything, and flawlessly as possible such that other (ridiculous) meanings cannot be (ridiculously) reasoned from my posts.[/quote]
Is interpreting "most around here" as "people in the US" really that ridiculous if it's the same sentence where you said "the US population"? Wow. Color me "taken aback." Also, it's never occurred to me, in my few years on this planet, that the difference between writing "most around here" and "people I've met" is ridiculous. Although, to be honest, that's all you had to write if you didn't want me to open-endedly add anything to your post. I mean, heaven forbid.

[Mitch]

[QUOTE=AzureWolf][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]Only 55% of the US population believes in Darwinism, and most around here have an ill-concieved notion that Darwinism can somehow coincide with their religious beliefs.

What you are thinking of, Chabichou, is either Intelligent Design or Nomogenesis. I personally prescribe to the former.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]

If you prescribe to the former, I beckon you to read this article: [url]http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html[/url].

Anyone else who's going to reply in this thread should also read that link. It's amazing. It certainly blew my mind.

Here is another, opposing above article: [url]http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?program=CRSC%20Responses&command=view&id=1831[/url]

The first article still packs a lot more power. The second is just what the first article said IC and ID, in general, is about: it's about being one step ahead of the ignorance of science. Saying that since something hasn't been explained yet, it must be IC, there must be ID, and Darwin must be wrong - things couldn't've happened by natural forces, there was something that did it, is assumptuous, and is only pointing out holes that have yet to be filled in the theory.

Also, check this one out: [url]http://skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html[/url]. The quotes at the beginning, and the ensuing article are a good read, too.

ID is a really assumptuous and unscientific stance.

I am not saying Darwin's theory is true. It is just what it is: a theory. It is not a truth, but there are more and more claims surmounting that support it. Until there's solid evidence against it, it's the best we have as to what got all that is here.

[Dan L]

[quote name='Farto the Magic][quote]INTERESTING SPINES: Hallucigenia: One of the creatures that suddenly emerged in the Cambrian Age. This and many other Cambrian fossils have hard, sharp spines to protect them from attack. One thing that evolutionists cannot account for is how these creatures should have such an effective defense system when there were no predators around. The lack of predators makes it impossible to explain these spines in terms of natural selection.[/quote][color=darkgreen][size=2]I just thought it would be interesting to consider, but maybe the predators were soft invertibrates, which don't fossilize very well. I mean, starfish are predators that wrap around their clam victims, pry them open, then secrete an acidic liquid. Maybe the spines stopped the evil starfish monsters from eating them. Food for thought.[/size'][/color][/quote]There's also the fact that the evolutionists can't explain it, but then again neither can those on the side of intelligent design.. I mean, think of it this way: God gave this creature huge, sharp, protective spines, when there's nothing around to eat it.. why on Earth did he do that?

Bear in mind that regardless of whether you believe in intel;ligent design or evolution as the way which all things came about, nature is a finely honed environment, where you're pushed to find many attributes which don't have any purpose in any one form of life. The question for debate is whether God/some higher power designed it that way, or whether it came about by itself. And something as random as that is as much a blow against intelligent design (because apparently it's been designed for a completely opposite environment to the one it's in) as it is against evolution.

By the way, I'm for intelligent design.. but [i]against[/i] really bad arguments for intelligent design. It just annoys me that some people can say on one hand "Only a higher power could have designed something that fits together as well as this" and then say "LOOK! There's one that doesn't fit! Surely it's the higher power's work! Take THAT evolution!". Which I'm sure it really is God's work, but whichever way the evidence points, evolution always has to come last with some people.

(The majority of this post wasn't actually aimed at farto the magic, more adding to what was said :p)

[AzureWolf]

[quote name='Manic Webb][SIZE=1]Really, Azure, I think it's nice how you can so easily omit parts of my post that answer your questions.[/SIZE][/QUOTE][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]Really, Manic, I think it's nice how you first include all the people in the US, and then not include all the people on OB, and then ignore the third sentence where I say "Even if not everyone, how would you know who I'm acquainted with here anyway?" [QUOTE][SIZE=1]So to answer your question (again), I didn't expect you to be acquainted with anyone. I expected you to know there were more than 3 religions world-wide, and that a fraction of 13,000 random people from around the world have to subscribe to one of the others. So even if you haven't read the old threads (which, by the way, you don't have to be acquainted with anyone to read), I would've thought logic would take over. Silly me.[/SIZE][/QUOTE]That's some of the poorest logic I've ever heard. Ok, so you graciously assume that I know there are more than 3 religions worldwide (wow, I thought we were restricted to the US at first). Unfortunately, I'm only acquainted with the 3 largest monotheistic ones, and that's what was addressed the first circle around. So regardless of the world's religious make-up, you had no idea the make-up of my acquaintances. Why you would go from the US to OB after thinking of my acquaintances is beyond reason. [QUOTE][SIZE=1]Let the record show that whether or not you acquaint yourself with any other OB members was completely irrelevent to my original point. I never once mentioned your "acquaintances" because you shouldn't have to be acquainted with someone of the world's 5th largest religion to know it exists.[/SIZE][/QUOTE] XD Fifth largest? Really, again, giving you the benefit of the doubt (what, the third time now?), fifth largest sure as hell does not fall into "most." Most people are not Bhuddist, not even in the US if we follow your "around here" logic. So, even if I let you somehow ignore the fact that I mentioned aquaintances, your argument falls apart. [QUOTE][SIZE=1]Did you have to know Buddhism's stance on creation? No, that's what I said it for. I was pointing out that there are exceptions to the idea that religions cannot coincide with Darwinism.[/SIZE][/QUOTE]If I was as anal about your initial reply as you are about my single sentence, then I would have made ridiculously long and boring responses about how Bhuddism isn't the only religion that Darwinism works with and why you decided to omit those out and how illogical that is. Then I would go to great lengths to express how that idea could be extrapolated from your initial reply. But I didn't. And I'll get to why later. [QUOTE][SIZE=1]I'm well aware that you used the word "most" in your sentence. But you know what? I'm not combating that. In case you didn't notice, I was trying to clarify and add on to what you said by saying there are exceptions.[/SIZE][/QUOTE]ALMOST. But no, as you are now just contradicting yourself. See something you said earlier: [QUOTE][SIZE=1]When I read this, I automatically thought you were refering to the United States, a physical place. The location was one of the first things you said. I live in the US (you can tell by my profile), so my "around here" is probably the same as your "around here." So here was my reply...[/SIZE][/QUOTE] So, at first, it was about the entire US, and then it's about clarifying on what I was saying, and then it's about OBers... I hope it's clear why your replies are accumulating to less and less logically sound statements. [QUOTE][SIZE=1']I'm sorry if I thought the phrase "around here" was unspecific, and having to say you don't acquaint yourself with people online is a ridiculous length.[/SIZE][/quote]What? That doesn't even make sense. [QUOTE][SIZE=1]Why not? It's not like you said "around here" only consisted of your acquaintances the first time. What's that? Another ridiculous length? Maybe. But only if you consider writing "my acquaintances" or "people I've met" ridiculous compared to saying "most around here."

Really, if you were only referring to people you knew, that's all you had to say from the beginning. And really, I'm sorry if a little specificity is too much to ask for.[/SIZE][/QUOTE] Actually, after your first reply, my reply did consist of mentioning that I was only referring to acquaintances, so everything you just said here is pointless, as I did point that out (and then you decided that I meant OBers). It's really kind of funny how that works: you thought I was referring to the US, and then when I mention acquaintances, you don't stick to the real world and jump onto the internet. Yes, your logic is certainly sound.

And secondly, you've contradicted yourself again: [QUOTE][SIZE=1] I never once mentioned your "acquaintances" because you shouldn't have to be acquainted with someone of the world's 5th largest religion to know it exists.[/SIZE][/QUOTE] So, you did know I was referring to people I know, and yet you continued to make a comment... And third, you yourself did not go to ridiculous lengths to list every religion Darwism works with (unless you somehow do believe Bhuddism is the only one). [QUOTE][SIZE=1]Is interpreting "most around here" as "people in the US" really that ridiculous if it's the same sentence where you said "the US population"?[/SIZE][/QUOTE] To put it bluntly, yes, Manic, yes it is. However, we are now beginning to go in circles so I will stop arguing here. You misinterpreted a sentence: get over it. I can't believe how much was written about one sentence (and all of it was pointless anyway), and I frankly could care less about why you misunderstood what I wrote.

Sorry to play mod (one of us has to), but this argument is absolutely off-topic and starting to go in circles (as I've addressed almost everything you've said here before). Manic, I can see where this circle of logic is going to head: longer, more useless, and repeated points that will lead nowhere as you are clearly starting to contradict yourself and hoping that, after one post-exchange's time, I'll forget about previously addressed points so you could repeat them once more. I have no doubt that's what your next reply will amount to, as everything above has been addressed before, and with the same responses (save for all the contradictions).

Tell you what. Write everything you want, regardless of how many times you repeat things (written in different ways, of course, so it doesn't seem like repetition). Don't post it - instead, slap a title on the sucker, like "Why Manic Interpreted One Sentence Wrong." Then get it published as one of the most circular novels in history. It'll sell millions - no, billions. In fact, everyone in the WORLD (not just the US) will realize why you were justified in YOUR misinterpretation and why I was so wrong for writing such a simplified sentence.

But finally, Manic, move on. Please, move on.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

EDIT: No edit. :)

[DBZgirl88]

[COLOR=#004A6F][quote name='AzureWolf][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]Again, what does gene splicing have to do with Darwinism? And what splicing is done by humans, because when I started talking about bacteria, you demanded something else.[/COLOR][/SIZE'][/FONT][/quote]Okay,when I first stated that there have been no good mutations discovered so far, you replied to me by giving examples of "good mutations". They didn't seem like the naturally occured when you explained them. It seems like the scientists forced them to happen. Maybe I misunderstood you.[/COLOR]

[Manic Webb]

[quote name='AzureWolf']I will stop arguing here.[/quote]
Good. Because I'm running out of energy, and I'm getting tired of reading your attempts at sounding logical.

[quote]and then ignore the third sentence where I say "Even if not everyone, how would you know who I'm acquainted with here anyway?"[/quote]
Why acknowledge that sentence when you already said this?:
[quote]Secondly, my acquaintances would not be online persons.[/quote]

Moving right along...

[quote]That's some of the poorest logic I've ever heard. Ok, so you graciously assume that I know there are more than 3 religions worldwide (wow, I thought we were restricted to the US at first). Unfortunately, I'm only acquainted with the 3 largest monotheistic ones, and that's what was addressed the first circle around. So regardless of the world's religious make-up, you had no idea the make-up of my acquaintances.[/quote]
This was my fault. I thought you'd be aware of one of the world's largest religious groups. A group, mind you, that is larger than Judaism.

[quote]Why you would go from the US to OB after thinking of my acquaintances is beyond reason. XD[/quote]
You didn't tell me you were unacquainted with OB members until later. You've been engaging in discussions on this board since 2003, and it wouldn't have been at all difficult to acquaint yourself with other members through your discussions. However, I'm willing to admit I was wrong in my assumption. You've made it clear you don't acquaint yourself with people online. However, you didn't bring this up until after I replied with reference to OB.

[quote]Fifth largest? Really, again, giving you the benefit of the doubt (what, the third time now?), fifth largest sure as hell does not fall into "most." Most people are not Bhuddist, not even in the US if we follow your "around here" logic.[/quote]
Why give me the benefit of the doubt? Look it up for yourself. Most people are not Jewish, either. In fact, it falls in as the 12th largest worldwide. But if you want to go by the US' religious population, then Buddhism still falls in as the 5th. In fact, according to the 2000 census, the number of Buddhists and Muslims in the US is nearly even. The difference is within hundredths of a percent. But don't take my word for it.

[quote]If I was as anal about your initial reply as you are about my single sentence, then I would have made ridiculously long and boring responses about how Bhuddism isn't the only religion that Darwinism works with and why you decided to omit those out and how illogical that is.[/quote]
Ah, but that would mean you [i]do[/i] know of more than 3 religions. And you made it clear that you're only acquainted with Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. And as we all know, thinking that either of those religions work with Darwinism would be an "ill-conceived notion."
And if you had presented more religions that work with Darwinism, I would have probably agreed with you and thanked you for pointing them out.

[quote]So, at first, it was about the entire US, and then it's about clarifying on what I was saying,[/quote]
Right. I was trying to clarify and add on to what you said, because I thought you were including the whole US.

[quote]and then it's about OBers... I hope it's clear why your replies are accumulating to less and less logically sound statements.[/quote]
I told you why I included the OB members. Your emphasis on the words "around here" seemed as if you were trying to say my interpretation of "around here" as the US was wrong. So, because you hadn't yet told me your acquaintances weren't on OB, I thought you were referring to OB members. Pay attention.

[quote]What? That doesn't even make sense.[/quote]
You said...
[quote name='You']But yes, it's my fault for having faith in certain members to easily pick up on things such that I would not have to flesh statements out to ridiculous lengths to get a simple point across.[/quote]
My misunderstanding of your first post is rooted in me thinking that "around here" referred to a place you said earlier. It became clear that "around here" only referred to people you knew, and after you explained that, you said that fleshing it out was a ridiculous length. I disgreed.

[quote]It's really kind of funny how that works: you thought I was referring to the US, and then when I mention acquaintances, you don't stick to the real world and jump onto the internet. Yes, your logic is certainly sound.[/quote]
You hadn't said yet that you don't acquaint yourself with people online. My jump onto the internet was a guess, yes, but it wasn't illogical. Your acquaintances could have easily been in both the real world and on the internet.

[quote]And secondly, you've contradicted yourself again: So, you did know I was referring to people I know, and yet you continued to make a comment... And third, you yourself did not go to ridiculous lengths to list every religion Darwism works with (unless you somehow do believe Bhuddism is the only one).[/quote]
No, you're acting under the assumption that I knew [i]from the start[/i] that you have no online acquaintances. You didn't say that until after you first mentioned your acquaintances. And my point wasn't contradictory to anything. I was saying that I expected you to be aware of the world's 5th largest religion. You originally said you didn't think it was necessary to list religions that your acquaintances didn't belong to. You didn't say you were completely excluding them the frist time. If I had known that from the beginning, I wouldn't have replied with my original remark about Buddhism in the first place. And how was I to know you were only including 3 religions when you said something as [i]direct and specific[/i] as "most around here"?
And why would I go to a [i]ridiculous[/i] length to list every religion Darwinism works with? If you can name any other religions, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Why do you think only naming one religion (instead of many) goes against my point? I just felt like naming one at the time. Believe me, there are others.

[quote name='You][quote=Me']Is interpreting "most around here" as "people in the US" really that ridiculous if it's the same sentence where you said "the US population"?[/quote]
To put it bluntly, yes, Manic, yes it is.[/quote]
Now I'm beginning to understand your logic. If I were to say "55% of the population in my hometown listen to heavy metal, and most around here have the weird idea that Britney Spears plays rock music," it would be completely ridiculous to assume that "most around here" referred to people in my hometown. How could I ever fight such sound logic? Pardon my sarcasm.

[quote]hoping that, after one post-exchange's time, I'll forget about previously addressed points so you could repeat them once more.[/quote]
Well maybe if your previously addressed points made any sense...

Now if that's over, I can finally move on to a different topic...

As I said earlier, those first two days in the Judeo-Christian texts could have taken place over any period of time. It's my belief that God (or something) specifically forged the universe as we know it to follow a series of rules we currently know as science. When people think of magic and divine power, they instantly think of something defying all scientific reason. I say that doesn't have to be. A lot of events depicted in some religions can be explained scientifically, and I think there's a reason for that. If there really was an Adam and Eve, and the Divine knows what will happen, then the Divine knew they were eventually going to sin. So maybe everything was made for mankind to slowly unravel the truth behind. Or maybe everything in nature was made to keep itself in order, like a well-oiled machine, and divine intervention is just pulling a clog out of the gears.

So who's to say the powers that be didn't just start out with a primordial soup that, in turn, eventually got us to the forms of life we are today? Every religious text today was written by a mortal man, not carved out of a mountain by a burning bush. So I don't know why so many anti-evolutionists are so dead-set on proving it wrong. Heck, for all we know, Adam and Eve were just a template living in Eden, and evolution was going on the whole time outside of the garden.



--EDIT--
AzureWolf is just upset that I found an exception to what he said, so he tried to change the definition of his original post to compensate. Misinterpretation, indeed.

[DBZgirl88]

[COLOR=#004a6f]Okay, I figured we could try to refresh the topic and approach it from a different point of view. I decided to look through my trusty biology textbook and found to my surprise that it sees evolution as the [B]core theme[/B] of biology!

Interesting. Very interesting indeed. Well, if the concept of evolution is so important to biologists I guess I should keep an open mind. I decided to thouroghly read the material over. I will quote from my textbook and then pose my questions.

[QUOTE][U][B]Darwin and Natural Selection[/B][/U]
Charles Darwin brought biology into focus in 1859 when he published The Origin of Species. Darwin?s book presented two main concepts. First, Darwin argued convincingly from several lines of evidence that contemporary species arose from a succession of ancestors through a process of "descent with modification," his phrase for evolution. Darwin?s second concept in The Origin of Species was his theory for how life evolves. This proposed mechanism of evolution is called natural selection.

Darwin synthesized the concept of natural selection from observations that by themselves were neither new nor profound. Others had the pieces of the puzzle, but Darwin saw how they fit together. He inferred natural selection by connecting two observations:

[INDENT][B]OBSERVATION #1:[/B] Individual variation. Individuals in a population of any species vary in many heritable traits.

[B]OBSERVATION #2:[/B] Struggle for existence. Any population of a species has the potential to produce far more offspring than the environment can possibly support with food, space, and other resources. This overproduction makes a struggle for existence among the variant members of a population inevitable.

[B]INFERENCE:[/B] Differential reproductive success. Those individuals with traits best suited to the local environment generally leave a disproportionately large number of surviving, fertile offspring. This differential reproductive success of some individuals over others means that certain heritable traits (those carried by the best-suited individuals) are more likely to appear in each new generation. Darwin called differential reproductive success natural selection, and he envisioned it as the cause of evolution [/INDENT]
We see the products of natural selection in the exquisite adaptations of organisms to the special problems posed by their environments ( FIGURE 1.16). Notice, however, that natural selection does not create adaptations; rather, it screens the heritable variations in each generation, increasing the frequencies of some variations and decreasing the frequencies of others over the generations. Natural selection is an editing process, with heritable variations exposed to environmental factors that favor the reproductive success of some individuals over others. The camouflage of the sea horse in FIGURE 1.16 did not result from individuals changing during their lifetimes to look more like their backgrounds and then passing that improvement on to offspring. The adaptation evolved over many generations by the greater reproductive success in each generation of individuals that were innately better camouflaged than the average member of the sea horse population.

[IMG]http://occawlonline.pearsoned.com/bookbind/pubbooks/campbell6e_awl/medialib/assets/e-book/fig/thm/fig1-16.jpg[/IMG]
[B]Fig 1-16. Evolutionary adaptation[/B] is a product of natural selection. This sea horse lives among kelp (seaweed). The fish looks so much like a seaweed that it lures prey into the seeming safety of the kelp forest and then eats them. The camouflage also helps prevent the sea horse itself from becoming prey.

[U][B]Natural Selection and the Diversity of Life[/B][/U]
Darwin proposed that natural selection, by its cumulative effects over vast spans of time, could produce new species from ancestral species. This would occur, for example, if a population fragmented into several populations isolated in different environments. In these various arenas of natural selection, what began as one species could gradually diversify into many species as the geographically isolated populations adapted over many generations to different sets of environmental problems.

Descent with modification accounts for both the unity and the diversity we observe in life. In many cases, features shared by two species are due to their descent from common ancestors, and differences between the species are due to natural selection modifying the ancestral equipment in different environmental contexts.[/QUOTE]
Okay so natural selection is a proccess by which a population of organisms becomes better adapted to ther environment. Let's say we had a population of beetles that lived all over africa. Although these beetles live in different regions, they are perfectly capable of mating and producing healthy, fertile offspring. These beetles have many variations in their heritable traits. They come in a wide variety of colors. Some are dark and some light, and some can easily camouflage themselves in their surroundings. Some have longer antanaes than others. Some have longer wings, and some just have longer and narrower bodies. So in this imaginary population, each individual varies greatly from others in the population.

Noting that the environment changes when moving from one region to another in Africa it should come to mind that some of these beetles can survive better in certain regions. Some of these beetles may be green, so they are better camouflage in trees and grasses. Some beetles may be a sandy color, and therefore have less chance of becoming prey in the desert. Some may be red, and can easily match the color of certain flowers.

So, as time passes by, the specific beetles that are better suited for specific environments increase in number at a faster rate than others. Green beetles are hidden better in the grass, so beetles of other colors are more likely to be caught. There would be a higher ratio of green beetles than beetles of other colors, and then these surviving green beetles have a chance to produce more offspring.

What I don't understand is this: Why is it that biologists say that natural selection increases diversity in organisms? From reading the obove, I see that there is already diversity there. All that natural selection has done is islolate specific traits to different regions.

Another thing I don't understand is this: Biologists would say that these beetles have a common ancestor. What is that common ancestor? These beetles used to live together and had all these variations, yet they were still able to reproduce. How does isolating them into different regions make them different then they were back then? Why would it be that over time they won't be able to reproduce with the beetles from other regions?

This concept of "common ancestor" really puzzles me. I look at diagrams showing how the many types of finches evolved from one common ancestor. The diagram shows the "common ancestor" as a sandy brown, dull-looking fnich, and then it branches off into all these different variaties of finches of different colors and beaks. But wait a minute. When I read about natural selection, it said that these variations were already there in the first place. The became isolated to specific habitiats over time. Why would the "common ancestor" be so simple and general compared to the new species it branches off into?

Another question that comes to mind is how these many variations in a species arose in the first place. It's not just some individuals in a population being different than others. There's many different variations. How could so many variations simply arise from mutation, when it is already so rare? (Yes, mutations are indeed quite rare, and that's a fact).

Here is something I would also like to ask about which is not mentioned in my textbook quotation. There are certain species that are more closely related to species that live in their region than to those living in other regions but having an almost identical lifestyle.

[B]Example:[/B] There is a flying squirrel that lives in Austrlia that is very similar to the North American flying squirrel. However, this australian flying squirrel is closer in relation to Koalas and Kangaroos because all these creatures are marsupials (the mothers have that pouch). How is it that these squirrels with different ancestors are so alike? How did different ancestors both evolve into squirrels by chance?[/COLOR]

[AzureWolf]

[quote name='Chabichou][COLOR=#004a6f][SIZE=1]What I don't understand is this: Why is it that biologists say that natural selection increases diversity in organisms? From reading the obove, I see that there is already diversity there. All that natural selection has done is islolate specific traits to different regions.[/SIZE'][/COLOR][/quote][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]I really have no authority to question a textbook, but I don't think there is always diversity at a place. There [B]could be[/B], but then a slew of factors (mutations, emigration, immigration, etc.) would make each type of beetle more specific to an environment, and it may even change a bit (become more diverse) so it is more adapted to a different area. Emigration generally increases the diversity throughout the world (and makes the original region more specific/less diverse), while immigration generally increases the diversity in one region.

In short, you start with one or many types of beetles in a restricted area. These beatles continually reproduce, and keep this in mind while reading the next sentences. Those that can survive do, those that can't die off or emigrate, and still others that can survive but can do better in another environment emigrate. Finally, immigration of any changed species may actually create compeition within the original region, forcing adaptation and change, maybe so the two beetles have different food sources to remove competition, or they eat/kill the other to increase competition. [QUOTE][COLOR=#004a6f][SIZE=1]Another thing I don't understand is this: Biologists would say that these beetles have a common ancestor. What is that common ancestor? These beetles used to live together and had all these variations, yet they were still able to reproduce. How does isolating them into different regions make them different then they were back then? Why would it be that over time they won't be able to reproduce with the beetles from other regions?[/SIZE][/COLOR][/QUOTE]Again, you should probably rely on your textbook, but I think there doesn't always have to be a single ancestor. And if there was, scientists don't always know what that common ancestor is. Most of the time, they have a very good idea of a now extinct specie being the origin of all the varied species, but nothing solid. Over time and (according to Darwinism) random mutation, this bird was able to adapt better and to multiple environments.

Simply put, there's a lot that's up in the air (i.e., uncertain). However, based on various similarities (physiology, behavior, locale, and predator-prey relationships), there's good reason to believe that the animals descended from a common ancestor, or one descended from the other. [QUOTE][COLOR=#004a6f][SIZE=1]The diagram shows the "common ancestor" as a sandy brown, dull-looking fnich, and then it branches off into all these different variaties of finches of different colors and beaks. But wait a minute. When I read about natural selection, it said that these variations were already there in the first place. The became isolated to specific habitiats over time. Why would the "common ancestor" be so simple and general compared to the new species it branches off into?[/SIZE][/COLOR][/QUOTE] I think you might be misreading stuff, but I don't know. The textbook is probably right, but variations may or may not exist. In the case of the finches, there is believed to be one ancestor because of how close the animals are. However, there are other very similar species that, based on their locations (and other stuff) couldn't possibly come from the same ancestor.

As for the simple common ancestor, it's simply a matter of time: more time is needed for the specie to become more advanced. The history of technology is a good illustration, haha. [QUOTE][COLOR=#004a6f][SIZE=1]Another question that comes to mind is how these many variations in a species arose in the first place. It's not just some individuals in a population being different than others. There's many different variations. How could so many variations simply arise from mutation, when it is already so rare? (Yes, mutations are indeed quite rare, and that's a fact).[/SIZE][/COLOR][/QUOTE]I don't know (no one does), but the sure-fire answer is that it was simply a matter of time. For the whole random thing, it's very unlikely (as the monkey analogy points out). [QUOTE][COLOR=#004a6f][SIZE=1]Here is something I would also like to ask about which is not mentioned in my textbook quotation. There are certain species that are more closely related to species that live in their region than to those living in other regions but having an almost identical lifestyle.[/SIZE][/COLOR][/QUOTE] That's the 100 dollar question about Darwinism that the monkey analogy addresses. Intelligent Design and Nomogensis are more sound in their ideas about how evolution works than Darwinism, and explains very nicely why such an almost impossible probability has occurred multiple times.

I think I know what you are asking finally. You are asking about evolution, not Darwinism. Evolution is a law (i.e., a phenomenon in nature), while Darwinism is a theory (i.e., an explanation of why a natural phenomenon occurs). It's important to note that a law simply has to not be disproven (NOTE: it doesn't have to proven). A theory MUST be supported. Well, any you'll ever come across should be, haha, otherwise they wouldn't be accepted.

Anyway, I think you are also mixing some of the ideas together. Evolution is just the observation that life changes gradually (extremely slowly) over time. Darwinism is the idea that all advanced species arose from other species due to random mutations. However, Darwinism isn't 100% sound in its explanation of how new species arise, as you have been pointing out its flaws. Unfortunately, none of the things you have provided disprove evolution.

Also, I think the central dogma of biology is that all cells arise from preexisting cells, but again, I'm not going to argue with a book written by Ph.D's, haha.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]