A little proof of Evolution

Why in the world would it suggest a creator?

All that happens is the ones with larger beaks fail to survive to adulthood and fail to pass on their genes. The smaller beaks make it. It's really not that complicated, and I see nothing in it that suggests anything like a creator, save to someone who was already seeking one before the fact.

That's why Zuzu is so groovy, she asks questions that make me see things from another angle, so thanks.

It doesn't matter if you believe in evolution, because it happens willy-nilly whether or not you accept it. You are free to believe that the earth is not roughly spherical but it doesn't stop being a sphere because you don't think it is. However, if you are an anti-spherist, you'll find that a whole lot of things don't make sense (e.g. why do the prevailing winds move west to east? why do my bombs shot at the infidels seem to veer off course, etc.). It was the same sort of thing that happened when the geocentric model of the universe was dispensed with, suddenly really complicated things became much less so.

Perhaps we are doing the world a favor by getting Der to waste so much time preaching to people who are not sufficiently ignorant to fall for his Duane Gish folderol rehash. His biggest sin isn't holding false antebellum beliefs, it is that he is so painfully unoriginal in them.

I think the key with a lot of the creationist arguments about adaptation is that there has never been seen to be proof yet that a new species has emerged. I've read documentation and argued with friends/etc. in the past and that seems to be what they want - for a brand new species to be created, which is incapable of breeding with the old species. Luckily for us things like large cities and interstate freeways might provide the "proof" but since religion is a belief, not science there will always be nay sayers even if you provide direct, demonstratable evidence.

One of the larger challenges in proving evolution is that being humans our time perspective is on years, not thousands or tends of thousands or millions of years so what would have to have happen is for someone to document a bunch of different species today then come back five hundred thousand years from now with todays breed and show that they could not interbreed due to genetic differences, which would show emergence of true new species.. but like I said above, we can hope that we can force the same result quicker due to the way humans manipulate the natural areas that animals live within but it will be on animals with extremely short lifespans such as squirrels or mice since you need many generations for a new species to emerge.... then the creationists will argue that in order to prove evolution you don't just need a new species, you need for a fish to become a bird, which is far outside of any sort of time perspective humans can comprehend properly.

Sorry, I was drunk then.

Ok, just to be fair - Kevn believes in 'evolution', or as he calls it adaptation. To an extent. He just doesn't believe that it can cause the creation of new species.

So this "proof" of evolution - it's 100 proof?

Isn't that the best kind?

Depends what your drinking:



(all humor aside, I highly endorse this produce and/or service!)

Depends what your drinking:



(all humor aside, I highly endorse this produce and/or service!)

I've seen the evolution of Jack Daniels in person....

Are you talking about going to Lynchburg and seeing (and smelling) sour mash? Or do you just mean opening the bottle and getting to the bottom of it?

Yes, this one!



...and then this one!

Bwahaha! What a concrete demonstration of the fact that you don't have even a basic understanding of what natural selection is.

~Ulrika~

I wonder... for Kevn maybe, but just thrown out to you all...

Why can't evolution be the method by which the creator created the species? I mean, apart from the folks who believe the Earth is 4,500 years old, we'd all agree that he/she/it/they (delete as appropriate) have had long enough.

Siobahn, precisely. Evolution does not address genesis, whether it's abio- or otherwise.

The anti-evolutionaries tend to not know what the hell evolutionary theory actually states.

Several of you are confusing observed fact, evolution, which with the theory that attempts to explain it, natural selection.

Evolution is the observed fact that molecules and organisms change over time. Natural selection is the theory that states random variations in a molecule or genotype are selected over others based on pressure from the environment. This theory does include an explanation for "genesis", which is very simply the chance creation of a self-replicating molecule.


Siobhan, if you would like to explain the observed fact of evolution with an alternate theory that involves deity, you are free to do so, calling it perhaps "deity-initiated evolution". However, like all scientific theories it must be shown to be plausible, testable, and repeatable, which if it contains a deity it by definition will not be, relegating it to the rubbish heap of religion masquerading as science.

~Ulrika~

Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change.

Actually "macroevolution" happens within a single species as well, right up to the point that one sub-population diverges. But the truth is that "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are the exact same thing. The only difference between the two is whether the entire population changes or just a portion of it.

so which is micro and which is macro?

Microevolution happens on a small time scale — from one generation to the next. When such small changes build up over the course of millions of years, they turn into evolution on a grand scale — in other words, macroevolution

The four basic evolutionary mechanisms — mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection — can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time. And life on Earth<as we know it> has been accumulating small changes for over 3.8 billion years — more than enough time for these simple processes to produce its grand history.

If you have variation, differential reproduction, and heredity, you will have evolution by natural selection as an outcome. It is as simple as that.

I was referring to the evolution of Jack Daniels

I know the difference when it comes to critters evolving.

lol im sure you do Billy..no disrespect implied lol..



Whiskey is an alcoholic beverage made by distilling a fermented mash of grain. In North America, corn is the primary grain, usually combined with malted barley, rye and/or wheat. In Scotland, Ireland and Japan, barley is the main grain, both malted and unmalted.

The first difference between whiskey and grain neutral spirits (i.e., vodka) is the proof of distillation. Neutral spirits are distilled at more than 190 proof (i.e., >95% alcohol), while whiskey must (by law) be distilled at less than 190 proof. In practice, most whiskey is distilled at much less than the legal maximum proof, usually between 110 and 140 (55% to 70% alcohol). The proof of distillation is significant because alcohol is alcohol. That is, pure alcohol, regardless of the source, all tastes the same. The distinctive flavor characteristics of any alcohol beverage are conveyed by the non-alcohol components.

thankyou google!!!!

lol, I know all about whiskey, thanks to Grandpa's still I also know all about what proof Jack Daniels is, but for an entirely different reason

Ive never tasted "real" whiskey before Billy...is it true what they say about it knocking you on yer back end?

BTW...

Maerl Olmstead <-------smart ass..sometimes runs off at the mouth as well...