Darwins Stepchild

Evolution Debate

The Evolution of Sex

You have failed to show that the law of the excluded middle applies in this case. You are applying artificial classifications... invertebrate and vertebrate...to nature and insisting that they MUST apply in all cases. That you can not imagine an intermediate between a chordate and a vertebrate, to me, says more about your lack of imagination than the lack of such an intermediate. Is it so impossible that there could have existed (or may even exist today) a chordate with partial bony plates armoring its notochord? The fact that vertebrate embryos first develop a notochord, which is then replaced by a true spinal column is pretty good evidence that you are quite wrong.  (3 hrs ago | post #9)

Evolution Debate

The Evolution of Sex

You are really determined not to absorb any contrary information, aren't you?  (4 hrs ago | post #7)

Evolution Debate

It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate

You realize that using this "logic", Homer's Iliad and Odyssey would be considered "true" as well. Congratulations. You just proved Zeus to be real. [/sarcasm]  (5 hrs ago | post #18708)

Evolution Debate

The Evolution of Sex

Oh, Jeez. Shubee is starting to sound like Ray Comfort. <That is NOT a compliment, Shub.> Just a few references for you to read... http://en.wikipedi a.org/wiki/Evoluti on_of_sexual_repro duction http://www.pbs.org /wgbh/evolution/se x/index.html http://biomed.brow n.edu/Courses/BIO4 8/19.Evol.of.Sex.H TML BTW, Shub, one mistake here is in your thinking that individuals evolve. Wrong. It is populations that evolve. Males and females within the population remain sexually compatible. Your other mistake is in think that evolution is discreet. That one generation you have one species and in the next generation you have a different species. Wrong, again. Evolution is not discreet. Evolution is continuous (in the mathematical sense). Each generation is only a tiny bit different from its parents. So little different that they always remain sexually compatible with their parents. It is only over hundreds or thousands of generations that we see enough difference accumulating to justify calling it a different species.  (5 hrs ago | post #5)

Evolution Debate

Theory of Intelligent Design

Proof that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real... http://mysite.veri zon.net/sportinlif e/postimages/fsm-m anifest.jpg  (5 hrs ago | post #2337)

Evolution Debate

Theory of Intelligent Design

YOu really don't understand, do you? Seeing patterns in rocks is exactly the same as seeing patterns in clouds...just the human brain trying to make sense of noise.  (5 hrs ago | post #2336)

Evolution Debate

Theory of Intelligent Design

Maybe it's just a picture of one of the Good Hands of Allstate. Talk about nonsense.  (15 hrs ago | post #2331)

Evolution Debate

Theory of Intelligent Design

Talk about declaring facts without evidence. Jeez.  (15 hrs ago | post #2330)

Evolution Debate

Theory of Intelligent Design

Oh Gawd. Not another SCP nut. (Or is it just the same one again?) Quick. Hide the kittens. The Dude is coming.  (21 hrs ago | post #2315)

Evolution Debate

Intelligent Design Book Delivers Blow to Darwin

So let me get this straight... You think the fossil record supports your claims as long as you ignore the last 200 years and throw out the parts you don't like?  (Yesterday | post #73)

Atheism

Darwin and the case for 'militant atheism'

I have found this to be untrue in general. I have found many theists that accept ToE. However, if you said this about fundamentalists, then I would have to be in agreement...at least for the most part.  (Yesterday | post #21)

Evolution Debate

Apes and men: Chromosome 2 in humans and the chimpanzee, pt 1 of 3

That's because you keep your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears. Just because you ignore the evidence does not mean the evidence is not there.  (Yesterday | post #179)

Evolution Debate

Apes and men: Chromosome 2 in humans and the chimpanzee, pt 1 of 3

Argument from incredulity. Also, please explain how ToE implies chaos?  (Yesterday | post #178)

Evolution Debate

Apes and men: Chromosome 2 in humans and the chimpanzee, pt 1 of 3

Er...um..."un available energy" is...well...unavai lable. It can't be used for anything. By definition, if the energy CAN be used, it is not unavailableYes, but the Earth...considered by itself...is not closed. And please note that new stars form all by themselves. Just look at the Orion Nebula or the Eagle Nebula. New stars. Getting very, very hot all by themselves. They have converted gravitational potential energy into thermal energyAnd please note, if the coffee cup at room temperature is sitting in a beam of sunlight, it gets hotter...all by itself. Just like life can use sunlight as a source of energy to do work...like making more complex moleculesBTW...You do realize that using all-caps is considered rude by internet etiquette, don't youAnd, as for this, I have a clue what you are talking about. I only use the one screen name.  (Yesterday | post #177)

Evolution Debate

Apes and men: Chromosome 2 in humans and the chimpanzee, pt 1 of 3

Ok...first a correction. The "available energy" of a system is called "enthalpy ", not entropy. Entropy is associated with the energy that is NOT available to do work. And, following the second law of thermodynamics, the enthalpy of a closed system DECREASES over time. This happens because the ENTROPY increasesThis is true, as far as it goes, but fails to tell the whole story. For one, the concept of "order" in thermodynamics is different than order in the colloquial sense. You are conflating the two, a logical fallacy known as "equivocation ". That is, saying the two concepts are equal when they are not. For another, there is nothing in the second law that says everything in the system has to "run down". It is quite possible for one part of the system to decrease entropy as long as the TOTAL entropy of the system increases. BTW...this is the essential mistake you are making. Life, as a part of the system, can decrease its entropy by creating greater entropy in its environmentOK...th ink about this next thing you say very, very carefullyThis says that it is impossible to EVER heat up a cup of coffee (or anything else). continued...  (Yesterday | post #176)