Actually, that's more of a reductionist view, which ignores emergent properties and has been highly refuted. Furthermore, "beautiful" is a construct and relative to the person.

Evolution naturally produces features that are going to be beneficial to the organism, that's a given. You're still ignoring the fact that if it were by a "Great Architect", then we would be a perfect organism. Take cancer, for example, where the own cells of the body grow out of control and can be fatal. That doesn't sound like perfect design to me.

Yes, homology could indicate evolution or intelligent design.

The fact that we see homology while also seeing imperfect design indicates that animals must have had to adapt to their environment with what they already had (from their common ancestors). Another good example of this would be human spines. Any engineer would have designed a spine to be in the center for walking, but ours are in our backs. One explanation is that our ancestors, which walked horizontally on four limbs, hand their organs hang down, which would have been useful with spines now above the organs for support. When this model was transferred to an upright organism, however, the spine did not adapt because the change would have been too drastic.

Uh... you guys all realize that jolie isn't being serious, right?

Do you think he takes naps when 21,000 people die of hunger everyday?

No, this ignores emergent properties. A reductionist point of view may observe life as a large chain of chemical reactions, but looking at the bigger picture provides something much more, such as conciousness.

I don't believe that there is an overreaching of evidence required to show speciation. Mutations and other forms of genetic diversity can cause differences to accumulate relatively quickly. If allele frequencies can change over time, then why can't new species emerge?

Also, could you go into more depth about the circumstantial evidence?

Adaptation, however, is not equivalent to Evolution. Evolution is an unsubstantiated theory that proposes that all life mutated into its current form from a common ancestor over astronomical periods of time, while adaptation is an observable phenomenon.

Evolution proposes that there is a change in allele frequencies over time, I believe you're referring to abiogenesis.

This misunderstanding tends to be the source of these arguments. One side refers to evolution, specially, adaptation within evolution, and the other understand adaptation and then interprets evolution as abiogenesis.

She didn't get the majority vote- she got 48%. That's not a majority. She did get the popular vote, the most votes. Two different things.

Hillary didn't get the majority vote, but she did win the most votes, therefore meaning she won the popular vote. Even if people were voting anti-trump and anti-hillary, she still got the most votes, so she got the popular vote.

I've no idea what you're trying to accomplish on this site, but whatever it is, I find it hilarious.

Any type of month promoting "heritage" in my idea is stupid, as it's saying that some ethnicities should be held in higher honor of others. There's so many ethnicity groups, Europeans, Hispanics, African, Asian, American, etc, that it's impossible to celebrate all cultures. Heritage should be celebrated, but all at once. Not for a month and only for a certain group.

As said, the conclusion is based on evidence that we have found via fossil record, carbon dating, so on. You are the one who was taught to believe that God created the universe, so you try to deny everything else vecause you think you are serving some God. Don't you understand? Christianity has made you into a pawn, a person who cannot do anything to cross Supreme Leader out of fear of burning in hell. If any other being proposed eternal suffering for refusing to submit, he would be called a dictator and sociopath.

You're being used and you relish every moment of it because you get satisfaction from serving Supreme Leader. You claim I was the one being brainwashed- but I was given a choice. Christianity says you have no choice.

Source? Without proper evidence, you're just saying things. I have just as much reason to believe you as I would a person who is trying to convert me to islam.

You've already lost thia argument. Stop trying to change the definition of animal. Homo sapien is an animal, "the image of God" does not change that.

Do you also deny that we are mammals?

If you're going to be in adamant denial, then just admit it. If you're going to refute my argument, then please do.

Evolution, which is the theory that allele frequencies change over time, can very much exists without abiogenesis- there are many Christians who believe in it, such as you.

You think that me arguing in abiogenesis excludes morality? Nope. I fully accept that things I've done are my fault- unless there's an omniscient being, ironically.

"If God knows what I will do tomorrow, then I have no choice but to do that thing. If I do not, then God was wrong and he is not omniscient. If I do, then his knowledge means I do not have the freedom to do otherwise."

This passage summarizes the free-will omniscience paradox, which essentially means that either only a.) we have free will, or only b.) there is an omniscient creator is true- the two cannot coexist.

"Hit me with fact over fact..........hahahhaha........telling me you believe in evolution is not hitting me with any fact except for the fact that you believe in evolution and the only thing proven by that fact is that you are gullible."

Me telling you I believe in evolution is not hitting you with a fact, correct. Me explaining the best current hypothesis of abiogenesis with detailed explanations based on observations is, however.

I agree with you in the fullest that consciousness and our perception are some "divine gift" or whatever you want to call it. Life can arise naturally, but consciousness and our perception of reality is an interesting emergence within us. I'm not sure how we got it, but the truth remains. Consciousness aside, evolution is very much a thing, and abiogenesis could very possibly be very much a thing. Even if you deny that it's very possible that basic life could have arisen with the right conditions, you could at least accept that maybe God planted RNA world or the first organism on Earth, and then we came from there.

Even then, it's highly illogical for that to happen. By what method would creation be done? Would it follow the laws of physics? And so on. If our universe currently follows natural laws, then by uniformitarianism, those laws should persist throughout time.

"Things that cannot be observed cannot be studied scientifically."

While we can't make baseless assumptions without observation, we can take what is observed and then draw inferences from it. That doesn't mean that those inferences are correct, but we can use parsimony to figure out the "most correct" hypothesis. In the case of RNA world, it's the hypothesis that makes the most sense given the observations we have made about our current life.

"You owe God for every moment of your time, and your sins have separated you from Him so you are not worthy to be in His presence. Demanding proof that Hell is real and sinners will be confined there forever will get you nothing but the proof you do not want. You can be saved from Hell, God Himself died for you as God the Man Christ Jesus, paid your prices so you can be relieved of the debt you owe God for your time, you can be pardoned and set free from the curse of sin and death by the One who conquered death and is the King of Creation, coming back to rule the world. He will be your Savior and your sins will be covered by His blood or you will stand before Him in Judgement with His blood trampled under your feet after He died for you and you hated Him with no remorse."

I don't think that I hate God, as I don't think he exists. As you said, observations must be made for scientific study to occur. In this case, I haven't made any observations about either hell or God from which I could draw an inference that a Christian god exists. I do think that consciousness is a sign of an ultimate source or being, I don't think it means anything for proof of a Christian god that rules in heaven, nor does it provide evidence for hell.

"If you will not believe, it's only because you hate God and you love death and you are getting it as you want it, eternity void of any sign of God's goodness like fresh air, sunshine, and water......in the fire of Hell where there is nothing good from God and sinners get what they want, reality void of anything good from God."

I don't believe because I don't have a reason to. No one's given me any observable evidence that god exists, only stories and faith, so why should I believe in it? I also don't believe that aliens created humans because I don't have any evidence either. While it's possible either of these might be true, I believe in abiogenesis because it makes the most sense to me. Why should I be punished by god because there's more evidence that he didn't create the universe? If god wanted be to believe, then why would he try so hard to make it seem like he doesn't exist?

"God is being good to you now, and you are spitting in His face. Somebody is making a fool out of you, and you are cooperating with them to your own destruction."

God is being good to me how? I haven't seen any examples of divine intervention in my life so far. Furthermore, I mean no harm against the god I think exists. How is questioning him equate to spitting in his face? If you think that wondering why a Christian god would want us to serve him is a crime, then you're the one who wants people to have their lives controlled.

Bio 101, basic critical thinking and detailed refutation of misconceptions and creationist arguments.

The things I'm saying aren't really observable- it's inference and inductive reasoning. Evolution, as a change in allele frequencies, however, is very much so. I think one misconception here is that you're confusing the theory of a universal common ancestor with evolution. One says all life originated from one or more organisms, while the other just says that there is a change in allele frequencies over time within a population.

Now that I've hit you with fact over fact and explanation regarding these hypothesis or theories, whatever you wish to call them, can I hear some support for your hypothesis of an intelligent designer?

It's all theory. However, there's plenty of evidence for about everything endosymbiosis and beyond. We can infer that endosymbiosis occurred due to how mitochondria and chloroplasts reproduce separately, have double membranes, and have their own mitochondrial (or plastid) DNA.

Before endosymbiosis, we can provide some evidence. Protobionts are thought to have a bilayer lipid membrane (naturally forming in water due to hydrophilic heads and hydrophobic tails) like all life, with RNA world and it's storage and self-replication in the center it would act as the precursor to all life.

The basis of "life" is considered an emergent property, and originated with cells. Living things do very much so come from non-living things- we are all made of non-living things- atoms arranged in such a way that we are alive. In a different order, they are not alive, but with the order we're in, they are.

If this is true, why wouldn't it be true that given enough time it could occur in an environment with lots of energy, time, and the same organic molecules?

Started with biological molecules with lots of energy to create RNA world, which was a ribozyme, useful for catalysation. Given natural selection, the most efficient reproductions were chosen until protobionts, enclosed by a bi layer lipid membrane, formed. Endosymbiosis allowed for much more efficient energy transfer, resulting in the first eukaryotic cells, and eventually everything after. Eubacteria (along with Archeabacteria) prokaryotic, so they instead have a nucleoid region and some free-floating ribosomes. They evolved earlier.

Are you ready to yet admit that you're in blatant denial of all that I've said?

Look, I know that you're not ready to accept evolution because, well, I don't think you can handle it. You're afraid of what a lack of an intelligent designer might mean. You're afraid that life is going to end and you're just be rotting in the ground, so you search for some meaning in life, some reassurance that it won't just end. That's where the idea of heaven comes from- people desperately want to believe that there is an eternal good, so they do.

Nihilism, which is the belief that life is meaningless, is hard to accept, but it might be what I currently believe in. We can't prove or refute the existence of an afterlife- so why bother? We get to enjoy the nature of life, so let's just enjoy it, and if there's an afterlife, so be it, lucky us. If not, so what? We have to accept that and embrace it.

I don't know why, but the typical Christian rhetoric likes to use fear-mongering and brainwashing by saying that we all have a choice between eternal suffering and eternal peace, and the only way to achieve eternal piece is to agree with them and join their faith- just like many other religions do. Most say that you'll be punished if you don't accept their way of thinking, the one true way of thinking, so which one do you believe? There's no winning.

You don't have to be in constant denial and fear that rejecting the Christian way of faith will give you eternal suffering. If God's way of thinking is "join me and have peace, or have eternal pain for questioning me", then that's not justice at all. That's blatant brainwashing and is nothing more than a threat- why is it such a crime to question the nature of said God and what he does? Wouldn't a just God encourage open discussion and debate, the spreading of information and the instillment of cooperation, not the "my way or the highway" philosophy as seen in extremists and monarchs?

All in all, said God wants us to use "faith", believing in him without the use of evidence- that goes against all critical thinking. Should people be punished because they don't believe in something that there's a lack of evidence for, instead deciding to say that another way of thinking that has more supporting evidence is likely more correct?

What? I don't understand the point you're making here. Are you implying muslims don't exist?

Is the modern Bible an accurate representation of how you think the world should be governed?

A computer simulation is radically different from a cartoon animation, you understand that, right? An animation is drawn, while a simulation is a computer program that simulates something based on initial conditions. The simulation is not the only evidence of evolution, it's among the plethora of over evidence

Somehow you admit speciation and adaptation, yet you deny evolution for some reason? Why can you understand that species change over time, yet they don't change a lot over a lot of time?

Your point? A cartoon is nothing like a simulation. It's like comparing a painting to a scientific lab.

You can't go and say that Evolution is a hypothesis. It's a theory, there's no denying that.

As for believing life came from non-life, yes. But intelligence didn't arise suddenly, it took many generations of development of the brain to achieve the level of intelligence we posses. There's lots of evolutionary links between the fossil record with respect to the development of the brain.

God is very much so "magical". Magic is essentially anything that cannot be explained by science. You keep claiming that believing life arising from non-life is dumb after I keep explaining the method for how it might have happened, yet you ignore it.

Let's clear one thing up. Evolution is not a "belief", it's regarded as a theory, whether or not you buy into it.

Evolution can be simulated and it also happens in real life. The simulation acts as a good explanation and demonstration for evolution- it does nothing to reduce the credibility of my argument. I'm trying to say that the simulation of evolution reinforces the idea that it exists.

For the last time, you know evolution does not say that humans appeared from thin air- we're the result of 3.6 billion years of evolution- biological molecules to RNA world to multicellular organisms to tetrapods and vertebraes and land animals and mammals and primates and apes and with enough cranial development due to cooked food, finally Homo sapiens. You know what I'm saying. Stop denying it and using baseless assumptions.

Look, I know you're denying evolution because it implies nihilism, but what's so wrong with nihilism? Life doesn't have to have a meaning- life it whatever you make it to be. If you want to believe that there's an afterlife, whatever- but don't try to convince others that that afterlife exists when you have no proof besides "faith", which in my opinion is belief with a lack of evidence, yet you stare into the face of scientific fact.

Let's assume for a moment that God exists. How did he create life? Did he create RNA world billions of years ago? Did humans, animals, and the Earth suddenly arise not but 10,000 years ago? It seems nonsensical that no matter the method, some being would be able to make life magically appear. If there was an omniscient and omnipotent being, why would he create life? Desire comes from needs or wants- an omniscient and omnipotent would neither need nor want anything.

I think that the problem with religion is not the fact that there are too many of them, but the enforcement of close-mindedness that many religions propose. For some reason, it's a common trend that most religions have the "my way or the highway...to hell" mindset. Religion should be a topic of encouraged discussing, a branch of philosophy- however people have turned it into some sort of lifestyle.

In short, religion could be some much more, a way to discuss the nature of life, but close-mindedness prevents that.

"When you believe in evolution and/or atheism, you discredit yourself. Whining about your beliefs being called stupid does not help your credibility."

Source? Again, empty claim, no evidence. I've provided and explained how evolution works, and we have evidence through embryology, the fossil record, anatomical structures, and so on.

Evolution is simulated through a computer program, but the computer program is created by intelligent design. However, the actual process of adaptation and evolution that occurs is a pattern that results due to the program. The organisms in the simulation evolve because the ones with the highest evolutionary fitness are chosen to reproduce. It's not just a cartoon, it's a simulation. The only intelligent design is the creation of the program. You're saying that it's making a computer say what you want it to say, which is not true. That would be modifying the results of the program, which is not done.

If you had a program to make a ball to fall down a ramp, it's like saying you designed it to end at the bottom. The only things programmed were the ball, the ramp, and gravity- it's the process of gravity that results in the ball being at the bottom of the ramp.

Evolution is the same. We start with organisms, evolutionary pressure, genetic diversity, and then boom- evolution happens within the program, just like it does within real life. It has nothing to do with intelligent design. If the same starting factors could have arisen in nature, then it doesn't imply intelligent design.

I should also note that you mock so much the idea that humans suddenly poofed from monkeys (which is incorrect, we descended from great apes), yet you believe that humans appeared... out of thin air?

Life arose in an environment where many biological molecules and energy existed. It may be difficult to believe, but it's a lot better proposal than some great invisible force creating non-life from nothing.

Attempting to discredit people who reject your beliefs is necessary in desperation of keeping your lack of evidence for practically any of your beliefs from being exposed.

Anyone can use that argument.

We created self replicating programs. However, even though we created the program, it's the program itself that replicates itself and can simulate evolution. Saying that we created those programs though intelligent design os basically saying that God created evolution though intellegent design.

God created the universe in its entirety in six days. Considering he's supposedly omnipotent, I don't doubt that- I am confused as to why he didn't do it instantaneously, instead drawing in out for a week. One thing I do want to know. God is an omnipotent being. Why did God rest on the seventh day?

Also, you talk about pure, observable science often, yet creation of the universe in six days seems neither observable nor does it have practically any evidence to back the claim up besides hear-say.

I meant opposite of your ideals growing up. So, tell me why I need to be saved?

Correct, RNA world is just a hypothesis, but it's the most likely one. However, we can see scales to feathers based on the fossil record- it's a much better theory than spontaneous generation at creation, with species constantly dying until extinction.

Brainwashing? No way. I was taught critical thinking in my biology class as well, specifically the idea of extraordinary evidence for extraordinary ideas, which the theory of evolution has.

Huh, I'm opposite you then. Evolution makes more sense to me after Christianity was shoved down my throat at an early age. However, some things just don't make sense. I too believe in a God- a deist God who set the universe in order, therefore resulting in evolution.

So what do you believe in terms of universal creation?

So your argument against evolution is that people that believe in it are gullible and that it's a stupid thing to do? Nice use of evidence.

Lizards turning into birds? I've covered this. Lizards don't, nor never will, become birds, because they're already diverged from one another. Some reptiles diverged into modern day lizards, while others diverged into birds- dinosaurs are a transition for this, as scales began to become feathers. So no, a population of lizards will never "turn into" birds. Furthermore, I'm not sure how that argument is even relevant. Evolution accounts for the divergence of species into one another over time- it says nothing about a modern day species suddenly becoming another modern day species.

"and the Savior can save you from frying like an eternal monkey sausage"

This is the best metaphor I've ever heard.

Organisms are very limited in their ability to adapt because they can only work with the genetic code they have. They can't adapt because organisms as an individual do not evolve- POPULATIONS do. reproduction through generation produces natural selection, etc, etc, then you have adaption.

"Your slanders of my character here would maybe get you banned if this were my discussion. I ban people for bad manners. Are you another cry baby who comes to my discussions posting insults like you did here, and then when I ban you and take pleasure in the freedom of making you look stupid, you go off whining like a cry baby because I won't let you bully me around? Go have mommy change your diapers."

Pure hipocrisy right here. Calling people suckers/stupid, then complains about being insulted.

Morals are the basis of deciding social issues, such as gay marriage or abortion. It's the same as ethics. Gay marriage is based on morals. This being said, where do you get your source that gay marriage or just having non marital sex in general is inherently wrong?

You're not regulating me- I'm asking if you would given the chance.

This "perversion" you speak of is freedom of expression, speech, or whatever you would call it.

Explain to me how you regulating how people have sex is "moral"?

Where do you get your morals from?

I don't care how you feel qbout sex. If two consenting people want to have safe, sane, and consensual sex, then let them- thats not for you to decide.

Sex is primarily for reproduction, but it also provides for bonding between to people- gay people too, strengthening a relationship. In short, it's fun, private, and therefore harmless, so whatever your reasons are, you don't get to decide how other people have sex.

This video literally shows it to you. The adaptation of bacteria, which is evolution. If you're talking about macroevolution, I can't show it to you directly because it takes a really long time- but I can show you the fossil record with transitional fossils that provide evidence for macro-evolution.

Reptiles didn't suddenly morph into birds- there was a gradual transition, dinosaurs being the best example, who were reptiles with (most likely) feathers and had some species, such as those in Pterosauria who could fly- so the transition is shown. A modern day lizard will never turn into a modern day bird because divergence has already happened. Furthermore, individuals cannot evolve, populations do. So, given enough generations and some evolutionary pressure, the lizard would eventually change into a different species.

The relationship of changing allele frequencies is what explains this- as allele frequencies change when two populations are separated, they accumulate differences and diverge.

Suprise! variation, mutation, and adaption are all forms of evolution!

Evolution is the change in allele frequencies within a population over time.

And yes, it does show speciation. As differences accumulate between populations due to prezygotic barriers, reproductive isolation can eventually occur and new species are formed.

So there's your proof.

Maybe not, but it's worth a try. There's always a chance that people might come to their senses as long as you keep throwing facts at them until they admit they're in denial, you never know.

As for the marriage debate, I'm for gay marriage. I figured I would just go ahead an add an argument to the pro-amendment side because it looks like no one else did.

Let's hear the proof then. If you don't think I'll believe it, maybe that's because your proof isn't strong enough.

Okay, for the last time. A man is an animal. The two are not mutually exclusive! I am a man, and in being a man, all also an animal. As a human being, Homo sapien, I am therefore a primate, mammal, and an animal.

an·i·mal

ˈanəməl/Submit

noun

1.

a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.

Yes, this very much describes me. You can't change the definition of animal.

Just because I'm an animal doesn't mean I'm "nothing but an animal". As a human, I'm still responsible for my actions and it still means I'm sinful- survival instinct doesn't kick in unless you actually need it, which we often don't.

Either way, we are still most definitely an animal.

I am an animal, a man, and a primate, but not an ape. More specifically, I'm a Homo sapien, or Homo sapien sapien by some.

You are also a Homo sapien, which makes you both an animal and a human, as well as a primate.

I do believe I'm an animal, but there's nothing wrong with that.

As for your claims about heaven and hell, do you have any proof?

...I suppose?

You are an animal, after all.

And yes, again, name-calling. How would you react if I said that Christianity was for suckers?

First of all, we are animals.

Anyways, maybe you should have more of an open mind. People aren't going to readily agree with you if you call them stupid for what they believe in.

I don't think that's name called, that's a fact.

Name calling is taking someone and insulting them for non reason.

So again, they adapt. So they evolve. Please tell me your definition of evolution, because it's the change in allele frequencies over time. As for your lizard example, those two populations of lizards are experiencing allopatric speciation. Given enough time, genetic differences accumulate until a reproductive barrier forms, generating two different species of lizards as according to the biological species concept. Given enough time and enough speciation, let's say the lizards on one side lose their tails, while the other grow an extra toe on each foot. More and more differences accumulate until you no longer have lizards. The common ancestor was a lizard, but now neither species is a lizard.

Again, no support to back up your evidence. For evolution, there's plenty of evidence- the fossil record, embryology, universality of the genetic code, anatomical evidence, etc.

I also hope you don't get banned. I'm not done with you yet.

No actually. I don't have a husband or a wife.

Again, please tell me how I would use evolution as an excuse for this?

Furthermore, describe to me how having sex is perversion?

Again, name-calling and denial. If you're going to make the claim that evolution is false, at least provide some proof. "It's the truth" is not a substantial argument.

This still does not clarify how evolution is an excuse for perversion. Again, please tell me how the two are related.

Again, evolution is the change in allele frequencies over time, I'm not sure what you think it is. As for not adding through mutations, that's a myth. An insertion is a form of a frameshift mutation, and can happen just like a deletion can. Mutation and adaption are two different things- but mutations can result in adaptation. Again, you admit that adaptation to the changes in an environment can be observed, that's quite literally observing evolution. Speciation is not evolution, but the result of it.

I should also add that evolution as a theory can't be proved, only supported. It has very much so been observed and supported.

Again, evolution is a change in allele frequencies over time. Please tell me what you think it is.

I'm no expert on the time it takes for a population to evolve, but I do know it's not some made up number like "kazillion" years. It's still debated whether or not populations evolve quickly at once when evolutionary pressure rises suddenly or whether it's a much more gradual thing that happens constantly. Either way, it will take quite a long time, but it's been long enough for complex, multicellular organisms to evolve. Once you have sexual reproduction, things speed up quite quickly.

Please explain to me how evolution has any correlation with an excuse for perversion.

Denial and name-calling are nearly the worst form of argument to make.

What do you mean by "loss of DNA or DNA function"? If you're referring to the fact that mutations can cause fatalities- mutations aren't always detrimental, the can also be beneficial.

Furthermore, how is that contrary to evolution? Evolution is defined as the change in allele frequencies over time, which happens all the time. You can very much so see it, test it, and show it. Take peppered moths for example- darker moths were naturally selected for during the gilded age, and after the revolution light moths were selected for.

Furthermore, natural selection is only one way for populations to evolve. Artificial selection, sexual selection, mutation, gene drift, and gene flow are all processes that can cause a population to evolve.

Indeed, the bacteria did not evolve into worms or birds, but given enough time it might evolve into something else. Bateria didn't suddenly go "poof!" into multicellular organisms. Slow changes into multicellular organisms, and so on and so on resulted in the divergence of many species such as worms or birds.

So no, bacteria adapting to changes does not prove phylogenic relationships, but it does prove that allele frequencies change over time, whether due to natural selection or other factors of evolution, supporting the theory of evolution.

We're all mutants that have evolved from bacteria. Thanks for bringing party politics and name-calling into a regular debate.

You can "see" evolution. You can't observe it through fossils like Ross suggested, but we've seen it through Peppered Moths in the industrial age. Peppered Moths had higher frequencies of white-bodied moths Pre-Industrial era, but when soot became more common and was absorbed into tree bark, black-bodied moths were of higher frequency. Once the 1900's rolled around and this soot became less common, white-bodied moths became more common once again.

Evolution is highly supported yes, although it is a theory. Don't get me wrong, I believe in evolution, and I understand that it takes a large amount of evidence and irrefutability for a hypothesis to become a theory, but saying that there's no tinsy, bitsy, bit of a possibility that the theory is wrong is just having a closed mind.