Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America'

[Jason Ross]

A British film about Charles Darwin has failed to find a US distributor because his theory of evolution is too controversial for American audiences, according to its producer.

BREvUKpZTeU

[Nubian_Greene]

After seeing the plot in the trailer...its Painfully Ironic.

I want to watch!

[Hyskoa]

dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb

[Randis]

s a d

[Keeviin]

A movie trailer without that really deep and annoying narrator voice? This will never do!

[Katfayheirti]

Oh those silly publishers! If they did release it here in the states, everyone would go to see it because it is so 'controversial.' They should just say that Darwin was a character made up by Dan Brown. They're missing out on a nice sum here.


Ugh, anyway on a related topic, I'm taking a class on prehistoric art and the early history of humans this semester and the professor felt that he needed to put a disclaimer in the syllabus and course description saying "WARNING: this class deals with HUMAN EVOLUTION. This is a lecture course, NOT A DEBATE. If you feel uncomfortable with the topic, please do not take this class. Thanks you." Apparently he's had too many students waste entire class periods arguing with him and he got fed up with it.

[hunchback]

pretty sad really, i mean the fact that he cant get a distributor.

contreversial for american audiences are you serious !!! wtf
why didnt he just say theres too many religious people in north america to make a profit > : (

got nothing to do with being controversial. darwins theory has been around for a long time and even religious people know that

looks like a good B movie, i love that actor too : D,

[Asatira]

:rolleyes: I'm not surprised. It looks like we'll be missing out on a good bio flick which would probably do a lot to better explain what was going on when Darwin was developing his theory. That, and the focus seems to be on the personal story, his relationship with his wife and personal faith and what he saw as his path more than anything else. Like many other bio pic movies.

It may be a good but not exceptional film. May be worth a look.

[squidmonk3j]

A British film about Charles Darwin has failed to find a US distributor because his theory of evolution is too controversial for American audiences, according to its producer.

Advertising takes many forms.

[Qitsune]

why didnt he just say theres too many religious people in north america to make a profit > : (

Hey, not all of north America is the same, it did premiere in Toronto!!!! Even if it is picked up by a smaller distributor, I'm sure it will be picked up, (if it's not already done)

I'm not sure if that news beats the fact that Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort (the guy who says bananas are the proof god exists) are planning to give 50 000 copies of the Origin of species with a 50 pages intro explaining how Darwin is the cause for the Holocaust (I'm not even kidding.) Oh, and they plan to give them to university students.

[Aly Fell]

Well it looks like it might have a deal after all, and was produced by Mel Gibson's Icon Productions. Mel is a traditionalist Catholic... interesting partnership!

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/entertainment/movies/Creation-May-Cause-Big-Bang-in-US-59246832.html

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=10148

[bluefooted]

I'm not sure if that news beats the fact that Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort (the guy who says bananas are the proof god exists) are planning to give 50 000 copies of the Origin of species with a 50 pages intro explaining how Darwin is the cause for the Holocaust (I'm not even kidding.) Oh, and they plan to give them to university students.

These motherfuckers are the epitome of all that is wrong with the creationist 'movement': they're arrogant, they're liars, they're so dumb they don't even know how dumb they are. They know absolutely nothing about biology or evolution, and they're fucking proud of it.

Sorry for the rant - I just really don't like them. At least their banana video was fucking hilarious.

[Ryan K]

I don't understand, what's so controversial?

[Katfayheirti]

At least their banana video was fucking hilarious.

Wow. When I saw that banana vid a couple years ago, I thought it was a joke or parody. Apparently I've been living under a rock :< My belief in humanity has just been shattered.

[dashinvaine]

Well it looks like it might have a deal after all, and was produced by Mel Gibson's Icon Productions. Mel is a traditionalist Catholic... interesting partnership!

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/entertainment/movies/Creation-May-Cause-Big-Bang-in-US-59246832.html

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=10148


Roman Catholicism doesn't have a problem with the fact of Evolution (neither does the Church of England, which has moved on since the days of Soapy Sam). Creationism and Biblical Literalism are vices of the evangelical fringes of the Protestant movement- in the States, chiefly. It's lamentable that such factions have such influence in a nation founded on the principles of secular humanism.

[Jason Rainville]

I thought I made a topic about this earlier in the week, seems the internet ate it...

[Aly Fell]

Roman Catholicism doesn't have a problem with the fact of Evolution (neither does the Church of England, which has moved on since the days of Soapy Sam). Creationism and Biblical Literalism are vices of the evangelical fringes of the Protestant movement- in the States, chiefly. It's lamentable that such factions have such influence in a nation founded on the principles of secular humanism.

Indeed. I was merely making the point that Mel Gibson is an individual with strong Christian views. He is also a businessman. His perspective on Darwin/creationism is not known to me. :)

[dashinvaine]

It looks to be a good film. Bettany played a similar character in Master and Commander...

Bananas are indeed the atheist's nigtmare, by the way. (Point one at Richard Dawkins and watch the colour drain from his cheeks). Another little-known fact about bananas is that if you push your finger into one from the top (having peeled it) it splits into three equal segments. So it's a microcosm of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity- three in one.

[Dorkthrone]

I'm not sure if that news beats the fact that Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort (the guy who says bananas are the proof god exists) are planning to give 50 000 copies of the Origin of species with a 50 pages intro explaining how Darwin is the cause for the Holocaust (I'm not even kidding.) Oh, and they plan to give them to university students.

Wait....they're saying that Darwin caused the Holocaust?

So to them, something that had nothing to do with Hitler's line of thinking caused the Holocaust?

Makes sense.

[s.ketch]

A dramatized biographical movie about a historical figure is too controversial...

Yet Bruno can have a closeup, minute long meat spin and it's just funny. Movies, ones somewhat showing sympathy for Hitler and ones that show two guys shooting hundreds of rounds into his dead corpse are cool. You can also make movies of people getting mutilated, tortured, and murdered and still pull in a good profit.

But a pretty tame movie about Darwin is just too much for our palette?

[hippl5]

1:37 on the trailer. Possible sex scene? And it can't find a distributor?????

[Kiera]

°________O
those debates about creationism are something serious and big?
I always thought they were a tiny marginal group of ultra conservative religious fanatics, but not something that could influence the import of movies.

(sorry if I missed anything, I live in liberal Europe and I don't own a tv.
"You've killed god" lollolol, controversy)

[tobbA]

Bananas are indeed the atheist's nigtmare, by the way. (Point one at Richard Dawking and watch the colour drain from his cheeks). Another little known fact about bananas is that if you push your finger into one from the top (having peeled it) it splits into three equal segments. So it's a microcosm of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity- three in one.

Funny then that bananas in the wild look nothing like the ones we buy in stores...

[Cthogua]

Wait....they're saying that Darwin caused the Holocaust?

So to them, something that had nothing to do with Hitler's line of thinking caused the Holocaust?

Makes sense.

I assume what they're using for ammunition in that particular argument is the concept of "Social Darwinism" that sort of underpins the ideas of Militant Fascism. The problem is the idea that "only the strong survive" is a misunderstanding of natural selection. It's not the strongest, it's the most fit. As in the most appropriate thing for a particular situation. It's also talking about timescales, and organizational scales much larger than an individual. However the idea that one group is fundamentally better than another didn't suddenly spring up after Darwin proposed natural selection. In fact I would say that European arrogance, backed by Christianity is bathed in more blood than the Nazi's could ever even have dreamed of. Europeans trampled entire civilizations on the notion that they were bringing the truth and the light to the world. To this day there are still traces of the concept of Manifest Destiny in the actions of the United States. This has nothing to do with natural selection and everything to do with religiously inspired arrogance. The problem with claiming that you know, or even ARE the pinnacle of human achievement, or evolution, or whatever other poorly understood concept you're using to justify your elevation of your particular groups interests over the lives of other people...is that's only something that can be known in retrospect. It could very well even turn out that the development of large scale societies, urban development, and unrestrained capitalsim, while creating benefits for a small class of people living at the top was actually a maladaptive turn for our species and will lead to our own extinction, or at least to a catastrophic decline in human populations and the survivability of the human race on this planet. The problem is you'll never know until it's over.

[Aly Fell]

I assume what they're using for ammunition in that particular argument is the concept of "Social Darwinism" that sort of underpins the ideas of Militant Fascism. The problem is the idea that "only the strong survive" is a misunderstanding of natural selection. It's not the strongest, it's the most fit. As in the most appropriate thing for a particular situation. It's also talking about timescales, and organizational scales much larger than an individual. However the idea that one group is fundamentally better than another didn't suddenly spring up after Darwin proposed natural selection. In fact I would say that European arrogance, backed by Christianity is bathed in more blood than the Nazi's could ever even have dreamed of. Europeans trampled entire civilizations on the notion that they were bringing the truth and the light to the world. To this day there are still traces of the concept of Manifest Destiny in the actions of the United States. This has nothing to do with natural selection and everything to do with religiously inspired arrogance. The problem with claiming that you know, or even ARE the pinnacle of human achievement, or evolution, or whatever other poorly understood concept you're using to justify your elevation of groups interests over the lives of other people...is that's only something that can be known in retrospect. It could very well even turn out that the development of large scale societies, urban development, and unrestrained capitalsim, while creating benefits for a small class of people living at the top was actually a maladaptive turn for our species and will lead to our own extinction, or at least to a catastrophic decline in human populations and the survivability of the human race on this planet. The problem is you'll never know until it's over.

As much as it pains me to post this, you can read their introduction here, courtesy of RichardDawkins.net:

http://assets.livingwaters.com/pdf/OriginofSpecies.pdf

http://richarddawkins.net/article,4319,Kirk-Cameron-has-gone-too-far-But-we-can-stop-him,Kirk-Cameron-has-gone-too-far-But-we-can-stop-him---Facbook

[ikken]

Did anyone say "hype"?

[Kaycy is tanning]

A British film about Charles Darwin has failed to find a US distributor because his theory of evolution is too controversial for American audiences, according to its producer.

BREvUKpZTeU

I doubt this is true. There are so many small distributors that if they wanted one they could get one.

I would have believed it if they said the film was blocked by a screening agency, but not being able to find a distributor is just a lie, maybe they didn't find a big enough one to their liking or want to hype this movie.

Not being able to find a distributor isn't something you would be proud of as a filmmaker either..but he just happens to blurt it out to every U.S. news agency..shrug much.

[dashinvaine]

Its fortunate that the Nazis were defeated and failed by their own standards. They perhaps failed to appreciate that empathy, mercy and decency were refinements produced by evolution (rather than being mere symproms of weakness), and beneficial things mysteriously linked to a culture's chance of enduring in the world.

[s.ketch]

Sweet. So when does the scientific community get to put a special introduction on the Christian bible?

[Kaycy is tanning]

Well it looks like it might have a deal after all, and was produced by Mel Gibson's Icon Productions. Mel is a traditionalist Catholic... interesting partnership!

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/entertainment/movies/Creation-May-Cause-Big-Bang-in-US-59246832.html

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=10148

Surprise, now the movie is all hyped and now they have a distributor..zzz.

The catholic church has long admitted evolution theory btw, they even offered an apology. This vehement rage against evolution theory happens nowhere in Europe, only the U.S. seems to have this issue, in Africa this doesn't happen either. Where I live (Europe), everyone I know who is a catholic also doesn't believe in creationism but in evolution.

edit: I flipped the two

[Cam Sykes]

Regarding the film I think it's fine they release it. It's merely a matter of opinion.

I used to believe in evolution, strongly. I've done alot of research on the evidence from both sides of the argument. I've come to the conclusion, god does exist. He created everything just as stated in genesis.
The problem with the theory of evolution is it remains a theory and the transitional fossils that Darwin was hoping for have yet to be discovered, if ever.
God created a consistency in design and similarities amongst his creations that make it appear that one came from the other. But if you try to deal with this from an evolutionist standpoint please explain to me where a platypus came from, as just one example of many. Darwins theory also was stated at a time when a cell was believed to be quite simple. Now with advanced technology we see how complex a cell is, and that the information stored within just one cell would fill enough paperback books to form a stack that reaches from the earth to the sun.

Scientists and geologists to this day have only fossils of complete species. God instilled these species with genetic potential so that when animals breed over generations, variations in this genetic data calculate in different results. That is why for example dog breeds are so apparently different but they are still ultimately canine and can interbreed.
Genetic Drift is also a factor which is where a species may transit to different areas. Fro example when humans were created and over generations they split into different tribes which moved onto different areas. These various tribes begun to share the same genepool so within the area they populated they shared the same genetic traits. This is why we can see such distinct groups as asian, caucasion, negro, etc. Yet we all came from the one source.
Many scientists are now questioning evolution and it's validity and more and more are begining to find hard truth facts that are inline with the bible's genesis.
http://creation.com/in-six-days/

If you'd like to read more on the subject I recomend the following books,
Refuting Evolution 1 and 2 by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D., F.M.
http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-index

and the books in this list too
https://store.creation.com/au/index.php?cPath=21_27&osCsid=aef3e29603b5655295af5d37fee1df3b

ICR radio also has very informative podcasts. Even if you are still stubborn in your believe of evolution it covers alot of cool information about creatures and animals.
http://www.icr.org/radio/

If you're going to quote me on stuff please present a proper argument or ask a valid question. I will be happy to answer your questions.

[Randis]

You are kidding right?


> The problem with the theory of evolution is it remains a theory and the transgressional fossils that Darwin was hoping for have yet to be discovered, if ever.

God created teh world in 7 days is a hard fact right?

I can not even beginn to discuss this, this is such a pile of crap, it must be a joke.









Regarding the film I think it's fine they release it. It's merely a matter of opinion.

I used to believe in evolution, strongly. I've done alot of research on the evidence from both sides of the argument. I've come to the conclusion, god does exist. He created everything just as stated in genesis.
The problem with the theory of evolution is it remains a theory and the transgressional fossils that Darwin was hoping for have yet to be discovered, if ever.
God created a consistency in design and similarities amongst his creations that make it appear that one came from the other. But if you try to deal with this from an evolutionist standpoint please explain to me where a platypus came from, as just one example of many. Darwins theory also was stated at a time when a molecule was believed to be quite simple. Now with advanced technology we see how complex a cell is, and that the information stored within just one cell would fill enough paperback books to form a stack that reaches from the earth to the sun.

Scientists and geologists to this day have only fossils of complete species. God instilled these species with genetic potential so that when animals breed over generations, variations in this genetic data calculate in different results. That is why for example dog species are so apparently different but they are still ultimately canine and can interbreed.
Genetic Drift is also a factor which is where a species may transit to different areas. Fro example when humans were created and over generations they split into different tribes which moved onto different areas. These various tribes begun to share the same genepool so within the area they populated they shared the same genetic traits. This is why we can see such distinct groups as asian, caucasion, negro, etc. Yet we all came from the one source.
Many scientists are now questioning evolution and it's validity and more and more are begining to find hard truth facts that are inline with the bible's genesis.
If you'd like to read more on the subject I recomend the following books,
Refuting Evolution 1 and 2 by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D., F.M.
http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-index

and the books in this list too
https://store.creation.com/au/index.php?cPath=21_27&osCsid=aef3e29603b5655295af5d37fee1df3b

ICR radio also has very informative podcasts. Even if you are still stubborn in your believe of evolution it covers alot of cool information about creatures and animals.
http://www.icr.org/radio/

If you're going to quote me on stuff please present a proper argument or ask a valid question. I will be happy to answer your questions.

[Sphyzex_9]

So how did Religilous get released?

http://www.godispretend.net/wp-content/uploads/religulous1.jpg

[bluefooted]

If you're going to quote me on stuff please present a proper argument or ask a valid question. I will be happy to answer your questions.

Okay, can you explain to me how natural selection works? Or how scientists say it works, since you don't believe in it anymore.

[Sphyzex_9]

He's not serious. There's no way he is.

[Ilaekae]

Mr. Sykes, I would be happy to discuss this a bit with you, but not right this minute, because I have a deadline to meet.

I do have a few questions, though, that might help me plan my response a bit more productively...

I. I'm neither a Christian or a Jew. Any discussion using holy books from those specific religions may cause me some bias problems, so would you please recommend any specific sources that are NOT Christian Bible-based to support your statements or beliefs so I can get a broader view of things as seen from your viewpoint?

2. Check your facts before posting, even the least important of them--the domestic canine is ONE species, not many. The breeds that we observe are "forced" manipulation by humans over generations (exactly the same as breeding for supermarket turkeys that have massive "white meat" muscles but can't fly). This means that ALL domestic breeds of dogs can interbreed because they're ALL the same species. You stated that they were different species, which is so simplistic an error that it automatically throws up a red flag on your other statements.

3. "Many scientists are now questioning evolution and it's validity and more and more are begining to find hard truth facts that are inline with the bible's genesis." This statement indicates that you have a source or list of such scientists, etc., to support such a statement. May I have access to it, or a hint as to where I might find it?

4. Your overall statement above seems to indicate that one must either believe in the Judeo-Christian God, OR if one is someone who believes in science, geology, etc., but NOT that God, one must be lying or be of lesser stature/intelligence in society in some fashion. If that's what you intended to convey, please state it bluntly, because I do not waste my time discussing anything with people who automatically assume I'm a fool in advance.

Thank you.


ADD: Just to make sure there are no misunderstandings, this is NOT sarcasm. I really would enjoy such a discussion on Darwin and evolution.

[Cam Sykes]

I believe in Natural selection. It is similar to what I mentioned about genetic drift.
When species breed over generations there are certain traits that result from their genetics. Certain traits may make the creature more survivable in a peticular environment. Therefore there begins subspeciation where those with more survivable traits are more likely to breed and produce offsring with the favourable genetics.
So God instilled genetic potential within the original species.

And yes God created the world and universe in 7 days. He commands, time space, and matter. It's less of a joke than we are here as the result of a highly improbable chance. And if we are a result of chance tell me why new life doesnt spring from shaking a can of soup. And do you think if you shook that can for millions of years new life would spring from it, aprat from the mould, which only occurs because it already exists?
The 7 day fact makes more sense than millions of years because there are so many species that rely on other species (symbiotic) that it would be impossible for one to exist without the other unless they were created within a close timeframe.

Edit: Thanks Ilkalae, I posted as you were posting so hadn't adressed your questions. So here's my reply.

1. I guess the problem here is that even the scientists have to make reference to the Bible because the questions and answers originate from it in alot of cases. I mentioned Johnathan Sarfarti's books. (Disclaimer: He is both Christian and Jewish). In his book 'By Design' he states many facts about design in nature and with every statement he provides a reference to the kind of academic sources you might find credible. As someone who is new these issues and have been doing my research over the last couple of months, I have found the book to be a very interesting and informative read. He looks and presents both sides of the argument thoroughly. Unfortunately 'By Design' is not available freely online, hower 3 of his other books are - http://creation.com/books-online (Refuting Evolution 1 and 2, and Refuting Comprimise.

2. Sorry I may have said the wrong thing I di not mean to say there were different species, I meant differerent breeds, like fox terrier or german shepard. You are indeed right and yes human manipulation has an extreme role in the genetic matching and breeeding of canines.

3. Here's a good list for you mate, http://creation.com/in-six-days/

4. I don't think you're a fool at all. You ask pefectly valid questions. I myself have been doing research for both sides of the discussion and looking at it with an open mind. Sorry if it sounds like I'm passing judgement on anyone. I'm stating facts that I've found on the subject. I don't think it's a matter of religion vs science anymore if it ever was. In many cases it's science vs science. The line is being blurred, as with technological advances to research things is leading back to things already stated in the Bible.

The Bible should not be considered to be a scientific textbook, so I'm not suggesting that. But it contains information consistent with many findings of modern science, even though it was written thousands of years ago.

Randis: What I meant to say was "...when a cell was believed to be quite simple."
Darwin lived and died in the 1800's. DNA was discovered around the 1950's. Thus Darwin had no awareness of DNA let alone it's complexity. Albert Einstein who died in the 1950's was instrumental in bringing about the fields of research you refered to (quantum mechanics, particle acceleration, quarks, gluons, quantum teleportation). So in our current "age" as you call it, The scientific discoveries and advances are actually giving us profound insight into the intricate complexity, which indicates ordered design, of everything whether it be molecules, chemicals, particles, living organisms, atoms, and so on.

The Genesis account was recorded centuries, if not thousands of years, before the rise of Christianity. Claiming that Christianity is "made up" and "fused" seems to indicate that you have a rather limited knowledge of its historic origins. Christianity was the culmination point of the entire Jewish history, as related by the combined texts which form the Old Testament. There is a documented history of the historic personage of Jesus (confirmed by a variety of Christian and non-Christian sources), and, putting aside the origin of the universe and life, many Biblical accounts of history have been confirmed by archaeology.
When the extant Biblical manuscripts are compared to other ancient writings, they are, by far, the best preserved literature of all antiquity. To dismiss them entirely, is akin to expressing no confidence in the entirety of all ancient historic documentation.
With due respect, in light of the evidence I think that your indirect claim that the supporting information of Christianity can be likened to Santa Claus is itself farfetched logic. To suggest such a thing flies in the face of both Christian and secular scholarly examination and well-established views.

The Bible contains information like, "[God] hands the earth upon nothing," (Job 26:7), and we know now the Earth is in a gravitational float; I think information such as this provides reasonable grounds for further discussion. The Bible also states that there is an innumerable amount of stars (Jer 33:22), which indeed is the case, numbering the exact amount of stars is outside of the realm of human capability, and furthermore it shows that the Bible's authors did not try to obscure the reality of the universe's immense size. I make these examples as they are indeed related to scientific findings.

Bluefooted: Many of the alleged transitional fossils were exposed as frauds, were wishful thinking, or are based on inferences from observations of superficial characteristics. Which alleged transitional fossils are you refering to when you claim that they exist?

[Randis]

Darwins theory also was stated at a time when a molecule was believed to be quite simple. Now with advanced technology we see how complex a cell is,
and that the information stored within just one cell would fill enough paperback books to form a stack that reaches from the earth to the sun.

A cell is made of molecules... Are you talking about the nucleotide double helix? Thats old news really....

This days my friend is the age of quantum mechanics, particle acceleration, quarks, gluons, quantum teleportation and many other things along this line.
This is science.

Darwins theory is a theory, not a law, it may have flaws and there are many other theories based on high level scientific research.

You cannot even begin comparing real science with the wild bible stories about the creation of the world written down in some by people who
lived in a very dark and closed minded age based on a made up and fused religion called Christianity. There simply is no hint of logic,
it is so farfetched you could not even call it a theory, it is not more real than the Santa Claus made up by the coca cola company.

There simply is no base for a serious discussion comparing the bible tales with scientific research.


I've done alot of research on the evidence from both sides of the argument.

I don’t know about that… the things you say sound more like elementary school biology class.
I would not call outdated compulsory education a “Research”




cheers

[bluefooted]

He's not serious. There's no way he is.

He's serious.

eta: Do you really believe there are no transitional fossils? I'm honestly just curious. I promise I'll be nice tonight :)

[Ilaekae]

So am I, Fruit Stomper... :)

I'm just hoping I don't embarrass myself in front of you...

[tobbA]

"It's less of a joke than we are here as the result of a highly improbable chance. "

Yup. That's why I threw away that million dollar lottery ticked. I told myself, "It's highly improbable that I won, therefore I didn't. Thank god I'm smart."

[Jason Rainville]

He's serious.

eta: Do you really believe there are no transitional fossils? I'm honestly just curious. I promise I'll be nice tonight :)

Actually he said transgressional fossils, which I can only assume means fossils that move around and violate other fossils' personal space.

EDIT: we should really merge the two religion threads, they seem to be converging.

[Hookswords]

I thought I made a topic about this earlier in the week, seems the internet ate it...

Proof of evolution?

[Ilaekae]

Let's keep things cool... This thread is about Darwin and evolution, not religion. If we wanted to discuss religion, of course, we'd all move over to that thread. I think everybody here realizes that, don't you?

[Jason Rainville]

Let's keep things cool... This thread is about Darwin and evolution, not religion. If we wanted to discuss religion, of course, we'd all move over to that thread. I think everybody here realizes that, don't you?

I just thought that we're talking about science in the religion thread, and this thread is talking about the darwin movie/evolution and it being controversial for religious americans, and having them seperated seemed redundant since the topics are so similar.

But if it's fine with the mods it's fine with me :) No biggie.

[Ilaekae]

I didn't mean to sound like I was stomping on you, Jason. I wasn't. Mr Sykes seems to be interested in science and such, which is why I assumed he posted in this thread. Otherwise he would have posted something religious in the religion thread...

I like--LIKE--science discussions...a lot. Doesn't that come through in my other posts? :)

[Sphyzex_9]

Anyone follow string theory?

[Ilaekae]

Sorry...

I wear slippers all the time.

[VulgarDragon]

As I mentioned before, I do not understand why the film would be controversial in the first place. It is about life of Darwin, and it makes for an interesting historical film. Plus, America is not very religious (at least not any longer), and evolution is taught and accepted by more than half Americans. There have been far more controversial films in America like "The Last Temptation of Christ", "Brokenback Mountain", and so forth.

I think there is a danger in taking the Bible far too literal is because there are many inconsistencies (contradictions) that can be found with careful studies.
Interestingly enough, the idea of 7-day creation according to Genesis was viewed with skepticism by some Jews and the Church Fathers who lived only few centuries after Christ, and far long before Darwin. (see Wiki article here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis)). I believe in Creation but it is possible that it was done in a different way....there is no way to prove how exactly it happened. For example, if you look at the universe, you see galaxies that are billions of light years away...it is possible that the universe is probably really billions of years old while our world is only few thousand years old.

Is evolution a fact? Yes, it is, life does change over time, and the environment forces the species to subdivide into subspecies. Even humans. However, the idea that earth is millions of years old and that all life today is a cumulative result of millions of years of evolution is the biggest obstacle between the creationists and die-hard evolutionists. Evolutionists argue that the fossils show progression of life, while creationists argue that the fossils are a result of a global cataclysm that split the earth and sank continents. Of course, there are Christians who think that Darwinian evolution is a fact, and that God was some kind of mad scientist that made a cell and prodded it around for millions of years until it evolved into a human. I don't agree with that view and support the idea of Genesis flood because I've looked at both sides and feel that in the light of scientific data from geology, biology, astronomy, anthropology, history, and archaeology, that it is overwhelmingly in favor for the cataclysm. I see no point in trying to convince anyone here of my view, for everyone already have their minds made up and also all the info is there on internet and books if you want to look.

I'll now step down from the soapbox and wait for the ridicules and laughter to die down...if that ever happens. Thank you.

[VulgarDragon]

Oh ok...its only about the movie not evolution/creation debate. Sorry.

[bluefooted]

It really makes no difference in the long run that so many people in America don't 'believe' in evolution and ascribe to creationism or believe the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Modern biological sciences, medical sciences, molecular biology, etc are completely dependent on evolution and evolutionary mechanisms. Geology, anthropology, physics, are dependent on an old Earth. We aren't going back. The theory of evolution is the most rigorously studied and tested theory ever thought up in science. Like, really. Ever. Sure, it'll be modified as we get more info, but that's how science works.

What bothers me is that our country sucks at science right now. It really does. Because we have so many young people coming out of our schools who don't have a basic grasp of science, science theory, or history. I see it every day. There's this culture of anti-intellectualism and internet scholarship - where you can honestly believe that there are no transitional fossils, or that the scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports a 6,000 year old Earth - that is killing this country. That's the part that bothers me.

But I'm being nice tonight :) so I think I'll stop there.

P.S. - this movie looks pretty boring.

[Jason Ross]

Evolution is a fact not a theory. Change over time is an observable fact.
The "theory of evolution" is the best name for the scientific model of human evolution.
mLeztJkhi4U

[VulgarDragon]

P.S. - this movie looks pretty boring.

I agree...no space battles in this movie. Move on, folks.

[Cam Sykes]

Jason Rainville: Sorry I did mean transitional, not transgressional. Thanks for pointing that out.

I honestly don't have all the answers and am in the process of doing research also. But the fundamental's of biological and chemical science have firmly established my opposition of the microbes-to-man theory of evolution.

Australian CSIRO microbiologist Dr Ian Macreadie said the following, "All you see in the lab is either gene duplication, reshuffling of existing genes, or defective genes that might help a bug to survive - e.g., by not binding to an antibiotic as effectively. But you never see any new information... Evolution would argue for things improving, whereas I see everything falling to pieces. Genes being corrupted, mutations causing an increasing communtiy burden of inherited diseases. All things were well designed initially."

thanks for your interest in this subject, everyone. ( maybe an art forum isn't the best place to look for answers either :) )

[StreetBehemoth]

Evolution is a fact not a theory. Change over time is an observable fact.
The "theory of evolution" is the best name for the scientific model of human evolution.

oh snap!

[Craig D]

Jason Rainville: Sorry I did mean transitional, not transgressional. Thanks for pointing that out.

But the fundamental's of biological and chemical science have firmly established my opposition of the microbes-to-man theory of evolution.
)

So you know the fundamentals of biology and chemistry but you mistake
transitional with transgressional?

[Ilaekae]

"maybe an art forum isn't the best place to look for answers either"

And just maybe an art forum isn't the best place to push an extreme religious belief that is used by a small very specific minority of ONE religion to subvert and indoctrinate OTHERS to YOUR religious beliefs, especially in a thread on science. That is not a discussion where i come from. You want to preach, go to a church where others like you are willing to listen to your distorted theories of reality. I warned you to not treat me like a fool. I was trying to be polite before and have a decent discussion with you, to see if there were any areas we could at least agree, but you didn't even acknowledge my post. That says a lot to me about what you really intended.

This thread is specifically to discuss a scientific theory and a movie about the man who put it forward. You want to convert somebody to whatever interpretation of a holy book you espouse as the only truth, go to one of your "unbiased" websites you held up as support for your original speech.

Oh, and take a good fuckin' look at my signature. Have a nice day. I have nothing else to say to or about you.

ADD: My apologies on one of my comments, and what pissed me off most--I kept checking back to see if you had answered my post in any way. I just noticed that you did do it since I was last here by editing it in to an earlier post. I missed it before posting this, so I apologize.

[s.ketch]

"All you see in the lab is either gene duplication, reshuffling of existing genes, or defective genes that might help a bug to survive - e.g., by not binding to an antibiotic as effectively. But you never see any new information... Evolution would argue for things improving, whereas I see everything falling to pieces..."

But it's not really a matter of whether things are "improving" in his opinion or not. That's one of the mistakes people make with evolution. They seem to think nature makes things more efficient, better, stronger, increasingly complex or simple, and more logical. That's not really how nature works at all. Random mutation through breeding gives you various results. Some are good and work out pretty well, some don't. Just because something is complex or seems clever doesn't mean it's going to last and just because something is "bad" doesn't mean it will die out. Humans are a perfect example of both. People with genetic disease end up breeding and spreading, people with great genes die out without reproducing very much if at all.

It's the assumption that nature creates things according to efficiency that gives the illusion of intelligent design. Things come together according to their nature. Hydrogen bonds to Oxygen because it's in their nature to do so. If hydrogen suddenly bonded with gold to form a super efficient metal that would never break, then you would have an argument for intelligent design.

It's not much different with genetics. Chemicals came together according to their chemistry. After a while of these bonds forming and breaking a lucky bond formed that happened to be a piece of DNA. More time passed and larger chunks formed. DNA comes together and breaks apart. You get mutations and traits. Yes by the time you get to mutli-celluar organism, it's very complex but that doesn't mean much.

[Randis]

You want to preach, go to a church where others like you are willing to listen to your distorted theories of reality.

Thats where you are wrong my friend, not even the pastor wants to hear that. :D

[emily g]

the microbes-to-man theory of evolution.
People who don't accept evolution come up with these slightly derogatory terms such as "mud-to-man," "microbes-to-man," "goo-to-you" etc.

They make it sound like a bad thing. But Genesis is very clearly "dirt-to-man" so what's the big problem? What if evolution was just the way God decided to work? He can do anything, right?

Edit:
My favorite speech by Ken Miller--biologist, biology textbook author, and theist:

JVRsWAjvQSg

[Jason Rainville]

It's late.... ah what the hell;

I believe in Natural selection. It is similar to what I mentioned about genetic drift. When species breed over generations there are certain traits that result from their genetics. Certain traits may make the creature more survivable in a peticular environment. Therefore there begins subspeciation where those with more survivable traits are more likely to breed and produce offsring with the favourable genetics.

So why do you then believe that evolution does happen, but only "microevolution"? Also, thank you for essentially saying you do not believe in evolution being able to drive speciation, as it makes this very simple:

Observed instances of speciation (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html)

It's less of a joke than we are here as the result of a highly improbable chance.

Except that that highly improbable chance means NOTHING after the event took place. Once an event happens, it is 100% likely to have occurred.... because it did.

And if we are a result of chance tell me why new life doesnt spring from shaking a can of soup. And do you think if you shook that can for millions of years new life would spring from it, aprat from the mould, which only occurs because it already exists?

Do you really think that it's as simple as shaking a can of soup to make life? Or that all you need is the right parts and it should form? It's entirely irrelevant to evolution anyways: evolution is about how life diversified, not how it formed in the first place.

The 7 day fact makes more sense than millions of years because there are so many species that rely on other species (symbiotic) that it would be impossible for one to exist without the other unless they were created within a close timeframe.

Why would it be impossible? It could happen that two animals that are not dependent on each other find themselves in closer proximity due to migration or population increases. Due to their actions and close proximity, their offspring become slightly dependent on each other. this keeps going for millions of years until there are groups of animals that are dependent (sometimes fully) on each other because they've helped each other survive in the past. Organs that evolved that would have normally been useless or detrimental to either of the organisms may provide some benefit when couples with the other. It's not that hard to imagine.

1. I guess the problem here is that even the scientists have to make reference to the Bible because


Even though you say

The Bible should not be considered to be a scientific textbook

I mentioned Johnathan Sarfarti's books. (Disclaimer: He is both Christian and Jewish). In his book 'By Design' he states many facts about design in nature

I have not read his books, but I'd like to hear these facts. Many creationist misunderstandings and assertions have already been debunked, I wonder if he's come up with anything new.


3. Here's a good list for you mate, http://creation.com/in-six-days/

Unlike Ilaekae I know there are scientists who do not accept evolution, but a handful of creationists does not equal a substantial hit to evolution. Science isn't about what how many people believe what anyhow.

But it contains information consistent with many findings of modern science, even though it was written thousands of years ago.

It also contains, for the lack of a better phrase, piles of shit. Bats are birds? pi is 3? The earth is flat? A man can survive inside a whale for 3 days? It might get a few things right, and there may be passages you can stretch, but it has many misses that discount it as a reliable source for anything.

Darwin lived and died in the 1800's. DNA was discovered around the 1950's. Thus Darwin had no awareness of DNA let alone it's complexity.

And it STILL matches up with everything in evolution. Fancy that. How does his not knowing of DNA discredit the theory in any way?

So in our current "age" as you call it, The scientific discoveries and advances are actually giving us profound insight into the intricate complexity, which indicates ordered design, of everything whether it be molecules, chemicals, particles, living organisms, atoms, and so on.

Complexity does not equal design. Snowflakes are incredibly complex, but we know how they're formed. God doesn't have to intervene each time one is formed. Not only can evolutionary theory account for complexity, but even simple computer programs that can only function with random mutation and natural selection can create incredibly complex virtual clocks, animals, programs etc without it "designing" it at all.


NOTE: this section I won't comment on because it's your response to randis, which is a different subject.

Bluefooted: Many of the alleged transitional fossils were exposed as frauds, were wishful thinking, or are based on inferences from observations of superficial characteristics. Which alleged transitional fossils are you refering to when you claim that they exist?


Bluefooted would probably like her own stab at this, but I'll try my hand...

How about these

O4GdZOlPrX8

and these

XUcB_HiCKnM

from primitive fish to sharks, skates and rays (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#fish)
from primitive fish to bony fish (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#bony)
from fish to amphibians (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#amph1)
from amphibians to first reptiles (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#rept1)
transitions among reptiles (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#rept2)
from reptiles to first mammals (long) (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#mamm)
from reptiles to birds (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#bird)
and the large transitions among mammals (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2a.html)


but of course, if you don't want to look at all that, just take a look at this cute little guy, tiktaalik: (http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/)

http://news.xinhuanet.com/tech/2009-02/12/xinsrc_1820206120915312745217.jpg

[Randis]

http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/2784/raptorjesus1ep9.jpg

[Cam Sykes]

Thanks alot Jason. I have reviewed those points and you have made many valid statements. I will look into those. As I mentioned I have only been researching for a couple of months so I am interested in both sides, and had always believed in evolution. I now believe in creationism but I am always open to new evidence. I was stubborn in my belief about evolution but witht he evidence I gathered it swayed me towards creationism, and in turn God. Perhaps with further research I may go back to believing evolution.


In peticular I liked these rebutals
"Except that that highly improbable chance means NOTHING after the event took place. Once an event happens, it is 100% likely to have occurred.... because it did."

"Complexity does not equal design. Snowflakes are incredibly complex, but we know how they're formed. God doesn't have to intervene each time one is formed. Not only can evolutionary theory account for complexity, but even simple computer programs that can only function with random mutation and natural selection can create incredibly complex virtual clocks, animals, programs etc without it "designing" it at all."

I believe though that God began the whole thing. I mean an intelligent being, that is a human in this case, had to create the software to make those complex applications. I do not think God intervenes with each formation but I believe he laid the "data" and potential for such occurances.

I found the video raised alot of qustions for me, so I'm going to look into that.

Thanks Jason!

[Randis]

Randis:

The Genesis account was recorded centuries, if not thousands of years, before the rise of Christianity. Claiming that Christianity is "made up" and "fused" seems to indicate that you have a rather limited knowledge of its historic origins. Christianity was the culmination point of the entire Jewish history, as related by the combined texts which form the Old Testament. There is a documented history of the historic personage of Jesus (confirmed by a variety of Christian and non-Christian sources), and, putting aside the origin of the universe and life, many Biblical accounts of history have been confirmed by archaeology.
When the extant Biblical manuscripts are compared to other ancient writings, they are, by far, the best preserved literature of all antiquity. To dismiss them entirely, is akin to expressing no confidence in the entirety of all ancient historic documentation.
With due respect, in light of the evidence I think that your indirect claim that the supporting information of Christianity can be likened to Santa Claus is itself farfetched logic. To suggest such a thing flies in the face of both Christian and secular scholarly examination and well-established views.

The Bible contains information like, "[God] hands the earth upon nothing," (Job 26:7), and we know now the Earth is in a gravitational float; I think information such as this provides reasonable grounds for further discussion. The Bible also states that there is an innumerable amount of stars (Jer 33:22), which indeed is the case, numbering the exact amount of stars is outside of the realm of human capability, and furthermore it shows that the Bible's authors did not try to obscure the reality of the universe's immense size. I make these examples as they are indeed related to scientific findings.

Please, you have not yet managed to state a single hard fact that supports your theory or any useful quote from all the books you advertise here.
All i read here sounds like some Chinese fortune cookie text interpretation, seriously. It’s nothing more than that.
A bunch of extremely vague dialogs you could interpret any way you need to control a broad mass of simple minded people.

I remember I had a cookie text that was something like:
The sun shall rise and fall again and wake you with a golden smile.
Could be from one of your books!
OMG , look! the sun will rise and fall, that indicates that 2000 BC people already knew that the sun was circling the earth, ZOMG

This is very much the same kind of talk you can have with every catholic teacher, no matter what you say they will answer it with something so vague
and yet annoying that either makes you give up discussing or makes you regret starting a discussion at all.

I just don’t get it really, I mean there are sooo many theories and the least believable is that some ‘god’ mashed out the earth in 7 days….
and yet some people go for it.


EVOLUTION
that’s the way of nature.
Animals seek the physically strongest and skilled partners to pass on the best genetic traits, to adapt to the environment in order to survive and evolve.
Evolving process can go random ways and contain invention as well as reinvention.
Animals develop wings, loose then, develop them again.
Experiments with AI shows best result when the algorhythms are forced to give up their instances and try to find new ways to achieve the same or better results.
Humans evolved over thousands and thousand of years way older than your genesis flyer.
Some studies show and support the process of a very long evolution progress in humans and animals. Certain traits and information’s may already be stored in
our DNA, developed in earlier evolution steps, discarded when not needed and awakened again in some cases.
Studies show that for example in Japan the average spec of eye size increased over the last years due to our intense work and exposure to digital Medias and reading.
This may probably not be the next step of evolution but a long ago developed trait to some support hunting abilities maybe.

With the latest technologies such as the particle accelerators the science very much has achieved solid theories about our universe.
The rest is speculation and philosophy.
And as much as I would like to speculate I truly believe that we humans are not capable to grasp
The process behind this Universe that keeps inventing and reinventing itself.
The state of mind of this universe is beyond our understanding because we are a part of this process, a very small part.
We can only hope that one day if we are able to create AI we might find more answers.


There are some interesting theories you can look into.

Looking at the quantum particle properties, the way our world ticks, the way it is build and the way some physical laws are controlled by the
smallest particles you could draw parallels to a computer game engine.
We could be a completely digital creation, unable to understand or even grasp the borderline that separates us from our creator.
Like a gigantic simulation.

Anyways… getting really bored with this now


let the evolution do the job!

Bacteria’s were found on other planets btw… what? God failed?



http://blogs.citypages.com/food/sea%20kitten.jpg

[Cam Sykes]

Thanks Randis for a much more in-depth response. It is indeed a tiring argument and I believe as much as we research and argue both sides we at the end of the day can not be absolutely certain. Although I believe it is in our best interest to continue research.

I want to discuss the matter further but for both our sake's I believe it is an ongoing tennis match, so let us agree to disagree.

And you never know in 100 years some new stuff could be discovered that throws out any possibly pre-concieved idea that we currently state.

Yeah I've often thought about it being like a big computer game engine, almost like the matrix it's an interesting thought to ponder.

[Duq]

A movie trailer without that really deep and annoying narrator voice? This will never do!

That guy died a year ago ;)

[Randis]

@ Cam Sykes

yep, i second that. All has be said and regardless of the outcome it was entertaining.




At this point i have to give the CA community a big credit, i can picture almost every other kind of
forum bursting out in flame wars over this kind of topics.

The way CA people handles things deserves a big ass pat.

Now back to WERK!

[bluefooted]

I honestly don't have all the answers and am in the process of doing research also. But the fundamental's of biological and chemical science have firmly established my opposition of the microbes-to-man theory of evolution.

Then you don't understand the fundamentals, I'm sorry to say.

If you don't mind could you please give me documented examples of five or more transitional fossils that were faked. I think 5 out of hundreds of examples is probably a reasonable amount for you to find.

I think one of the problems with the 'probability argument' that creationists bring up over and over again - the 'it's too unlikely that this or that might have evolved' argument - is that they're looking at it the wrong way. What they're essentially asking is "what's the probability that I will win the lottery?" When the real question is "what's the probability that anyone will win the lottery?" They are looking at the end product and working backwards, rather than working forwards in the way evolution works.

For example, let's say I'm walking down a street and I see a car go by that has a license plate that says "5CT67B". I think to myself, "Holy shit! What are the chances that I would see that particular license plate today, while I'm walking down the street! It's amazing! It's astronomical!" Seriously, what is the probability of me seeing that particular combination of letters and numbers on that day? It is pretty fucking low - math people can calculate it - but it's highly improbable. Yet this is an everyday event, and cars pass you every day with particular license plate numbers that are highly improbable. You just don't care what the probability of seeing each one is.

That's what creationists do. They look at some organism - and it's always humans, because they are teh bestest - and try to calculate the probability of ending up with the particular set of genes that lead to that creature. (Usually this is the probability of picking all of those genes randomly all at once - like throwing a cup of billions of dice and hoping to get the exact right combo of numbers, like you would if humans were 'created'.) And this is not an accurate test of reality, obviously.

Evolution has had billions of years to 'throw the dice', and because of the way it works, you don't need to get the exact combination all at once. We absolutely know the Earth is old. It's a fact, it's just not debatable anymore. We don't debate that the earth is round or ovoid or whatever, either. Over long times and with billions upon billions of chances, even highly improbable events become infinitely likely.

[Keeviin]

That guy died a year ago ;)

For real? Thank god! I mean natural selection! I mean...
782926

[VulgarDragon]

I don't buy the alien theory, but interesting to watch...

efibEejioDY&feature=related
7ICEgQ8Lw9E&feature=fvw
Oo71OarSgyQ&feature=related

[Randis]

If you were a uber high-tech Alien with technologies and IQ far beyond the human food chain, would you come to a planet and interbreed with a hairy monkey? Seriously

[Jason Ross]

Gotta love Larry.
z1yOckwMm_k

[Hookswords]

If you were a uber high-tech Alien with technologies and IQ far beyond the human food chain, would you come to a planet and interbreed with a hairy monkey? Seriously

Beastiality? Earth was a giant sex farm?

But seriously, everyone knows the Anunnaki came here and made us from monkeys to harvest gold so they could fix their atmosphere, then when the task was done gave us culture and kept an eye on us instead of mass euthanasia of the slave species they created for a task.

[MikeMakesModels]

And you never know in 100 years some new stuff could be discovered that throws out any possibly pre-concieved idea that we currently state.

On that day science will change. Creationism won't.

Darwin himself set up the arguments to disprove his theory - 150 years later every scrap of evidence supports the theory. They'll never discover absolute "proof" - that's not how it works... but I've never heard any ID argument that didn't have a sound(er) scientific counter-argument.

[LORD M]

Pffff! Everyone knows there's no such thing as evolution! It's absurd! I think that even Mr Garrison from Souh Park denounces the "theory" pretty damn well!


8asQkegV_wk

[tobbA]

I believe though that God began the whole thing. I mean an intelligent being, that is a human in this case, had to create the software to make those complex applications. I do not think God intervenes with each formation but I believe he laid the "data" and potential for such occurances.

It's fully possible that our universe is an extremly complex digital simulation or just the chemistry school project of a kid in the year 50000. Although I remember hearing an interview with some guy who did research on the theory of multiple universes and so on, and (I don't remember exactly how he reached the conclusion) he said that while it's possible, if the multiple universe theory is true, it's less probable that we're living in a computer simulation than not, simply because a universe where someone created such a simulation would be less likely to occur than those where someone didn't.

Also, this doesn't really solve anything. Even if our world is intelligently designed, we still don't know whether the person who intelligently designed this universe is intelligently designed as well. And in the end we're left asking where did the first intelligent designer come from? So even if intelligent design is true, we still have to ask ourselves the same questions as before regarding the creation of the universe.

[Black Spot]

If we’re all made in God’s image, why don’t we all look alike?

I sort of think God and evolution in art terms. It takes time to create a masterpiece and it may even go though an ugly stage (current position IMHO) to emerge fully formed eventually.

[Cthogua]

The irreducible complexity arguement is annoying as well because the concept of emergence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence) and systems theory pretty much lays it right out there. There needn't be a guiding hand to create extremely complex structures out of millions of relatively simple interactions. I think the problem is we only have the ability to barely comprehend those levels of complexity in which we are a part. There seems to be a lack of understanding of reality as the constantly evolving product of a process, instead people want to believe in this medieval concept that reality is a concrete thing, whole, final, static. This makes sense in the absence of any scientific education, and considering the span of a single human life. However even some of the more advanced ancient societies had a concept of reality as a ever flowing, pulsing, cyclical thing.

In philosophy, systems theory and science, emergence is the way complex systems and patterns arise out of a multiplicity of relatively simple interactions.

An example to consider in detail is an ant colony. The queen does not give direct orders and does not tell the ants what to do. Instead, each ant reacts to stimuli in the form of chemical scent from larvae, other ants, intruders, food and build up of waste, and leaves behind a chemical trail, which, in turn, provides a stimulus to other ants. Here each ant is an autonomous unit that reacts depending only on its local environment and the genetically encoded rules for its variety of ant. Despite the lack of centralized decision making, ant colonies exhibit complex behavior and have even been able to demonstrate the ability to solve geometric problems. For example, colonies routinely find the maximum distance from all colony entrances to dispose of dead bodies.

A broader example of emergent properties in biology is the combination of individual atoms to form molecules such as polypeptide chains, which in turn fold and refold to form proteins. These proteins, assuming their functional status from their spatial conformation, interact together to achieve higher biological functions and eventually create - organelles, cells, tissues, organs, organ systems, organisms. Cascade phenotype reactions, as detailed in chaos theory, may arise from individual genes mutating respective positioning.[4] In turn, all the biological communities in the world form the biosphere, where its human participants form societies, and the complex interactions of meta-social systems such as the stock market.

more on emergence, because I think it bares quoting, and really just throws the irreducible complexity argument under the bus.
Emergent structures are patterns not created by a single event or rule. Nothing commands the system to form a pattern. Instead, the interaction of each part with its immediate surroundings causes a complex chain of processes leading to some order. One might conclude that emergent structures are more than the sum of their parts because the emergent order will not arise if the various parts are simply coexisting; the interaction of these parts is central. Emergent structures can be found in many natural phenomena, from the physical to the biological domain. For example, the shape of weather phenomena such as hurricanes are emergent structures.

It is useful to distinguish three forms of emergent structures. A first-order emergent structure occurs as a result of shape interactions (for example, hydrogen bonds in water molecules lead to surface tension). A Second-order emergent structure involves shape interactions played out sequentially over time (for example, changing atmospheric conditions as a snowflake falls to the ground build upon and alter its form). Finally, a third-order emergent structure is a consequence of shape, time, and heritable instructions. For example, an organism's genetic code sets boundary conditions on the interaction of biological systems in space and time.

[Bronke]

I don't see how anyone who has honestly done research on Evolutionary Theory and Creationism can pick Creationism over Evolution except for religious reasons.

Even if there were aspects of Evolution that you just can't understand or are unknown, you just don't abandon it and assume that the alternative explaination is that a god created us, especially when there is pretty much no evidence for that.

That's like jumping to the conclusion that leprechauns moved my stuff because I can't explain how things got moved around in my locked room. That's a pretty ridiculous leap there.

[nauvice]

Uhh I doubt that's true, Darwin is mentioned in all science books in public schools in the US. And films like Angels and Demons and its predecessor, BrokeBack mountain, Bruno, etc. can be US made AND make millions at the box office.... then the Religious zealot has little control in Hollywood.

[nauvice]

I don't see how anyone who has honestly done research on Evolutionary Theory and Creationism can pick Creationism over Evolution except for religious reasons.

Even if there were aspects of Evolution that you just can't understand or are unknown, you just don't abandon it and assume that the alternative explaination is that a god created us, especially when there is pretty much no evidence for that.

That's like jumping to the conclusion that leprechauns moved my stuff because I can't explain how things got moved around in my locked room. That's a pretty ridiculous leap there.

Nope, its completely understandable. It's the combination of brain washing and humankind's sheepish nature.

[dashinvaine]

The thing is there must have been millions of years where fish were evolving under the sea. These fish, though only able to exist in the waters, were graually developing features that would enable their descendants to crawl out onto the land. These traits (stronger bones in the fins that would become legs, adaptations in the respiratory system etc) came about even though they were hardly helpful concerning the daily task of living under water. How did these creatures anticipate their eventual destiny of colonizing dry land, turning ultimately into amphibians and reptiles? it almost seems as though these adaptations served a wider scheme rather than the immediate survival needs of the species in question. While it's impossible to support the biblical account of creation there are times when it seems there's a bigger picture as regards what everything's leading towards.

On a related note, it scorpions are the creatures most impervious to radiation and freezing. They seem to have evolved powers of no use to them- yet. Do they also know something about what their future descendants are going to need.

[bluefooted]

Do they also know something about what their future descendants are going to need.

This is a common misconception about evolution and natural selection - it simply doesn't work this way.

The earliest terrestrial vertebrates that you're thinking of - those 'fish' that first walked on land - most likely first lived in what we would consider swamps. These are areas where the water is shallow and there is an advantage to being able to very briefly leave the water in order to scramble from one shallow area to the next, or grab something that's on land to eat. Remember, invertebrates had already colonized land at this point. The fish don't know what they're going to need, but you can imagine why being able to live in these swampy areas is advantageous: no large predators, new food resources. If some fish have a slightly improved ability to leave the water, or have fins that are slightly more useful in propelling a body over land, they'll have a definite advantage in these areas. Living things naturally 'fill' areas that can be exploited - that's why living organisms can now be found in just about every environment on earth.

You can't really think of natural selection as a process that has any direction to it or foresight, because it doesn't. The natural environment basically acts as a filter on naturally occurring variation found in living things.

And scorpions definitely do get a benefit of being freeze-tolerant. Have you been to a desert at night? They get really fucking cold.

[dashinvaine]

I suppose the fact that there are so many regressions and dead-ends in the tree of life also counts as evidence against the notion that there might be any foresight to the whole process, let alone any guiding force. However it doesn't not entirely rule out the idea that it's all leading somewhere for some higher purpose.

[bluefooted]

I suppose the fact that there are so many regressions and dead-ends in the tree of life also counts as evidence against the notion that there might be any foresight to the whole process, let alone any guiding force. However it doesn't not entirely rule out the idea that it's all leading somewhere for some higher purpose.

That's exactly it :) Remember, 99.99% of all species that have ever lived on earth are now extinct. There are entire groups of organisms that we wouldn't even recognize, like the therapsids, that are completely gone.

[Slash]

Ever since i saw the banana video i've been wanting to tell the guy that bananas in the wild are too full of seeds to be really edible, and that the banana he's holding is a result of human cultivation.

[AdventDawn]

or perhaps its possibly not a profitable movie for blockbuster America...or maybe its just not that good.

[VulgarDragon]

Yes, we have extant fishes that can live part time out of water, and we have amphibians that either have fish-like stage or spend their entire lives in water. But that still does not explain how they go from gills to air sacs to lungs...processing oxygen from water and air are two completely different matter and require specialized biological mechanisms.

Sorry but...

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/9/21/128980246970293137.jpg

[Irishdrunk]

So how did Religilous get released?

http://www.godispretend.net/wp-content/uploads/religulous1.jpg

Well Bill threatened to disprove god forever, if they didn't produce it.

Q: "What would people do if they learned there was no God that had a plan for them?"

A: Over 20 centuries of Natural Selection would come down like a tidal wave.

[Craig D]

Yes, we have extant fishes that can live part time out of water, and we have amphibians that either have fish-like stage or spend their entire lives in water. But that still does not explain how they go from gills to air sacs to lungs...processing oxygen from water and air are two completely different matter and require specialized biological mechanisms.

Sorry but...

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/9/21/128980246970293137.jpg

I suppose using a pic of a fictional TV character to disprove evolution
is a step up from "God told me in my dreams". But not much of a one.

[Jason Rainville]

processing oxygen from water and air are two completely different matter and require specialized biological mechanisms.

Not quite as different and specialized as you might think. The first land arthropods "breathed" air with the same organs they used under water, and similarly today there are fish (and I mean, completely aquatic, non-land-traversing fish) that "fart" air past their gills and can stay above water for a while. So already the organs they used underwater have the potential to process oxygen in air and water.

It's not that illogical to assume that mutations would arise that would increase the organ's capacity to process air, and over millions of years would be selected time and time again until it reached a point where the organism was able to breath air only.

[bluefooted]

Yes, we have extant fishes that can live part time out of water, and we have amphibians that either have fish-like stage or spend their entire lives in water. But that still does not explain how they go from gills to air sacs to lungs...processing oxygen from water and air are two completely different matter and require specialized biological mechanisms.

Both lungs and gills are two different types of structures that accomplish the same function: essentially, they both house thin tissues through which blood vessels pass in order to facilitate gas exchange, either through water or from the air.

Gills did not evolve into lungs - we know that from studying fossils and from creatures like the lungfish, which have 'primitive' lungs. Lungs are modified air bladders -structures which other fishes have, and that are also used for gas exchange in some cases. The air bladder is essentially a sac that holds air gulped in by the fish at the surface. It probably originally evolved to aid in bouyancy. But it's not too much of a stretch to imagine selection for increased blood vessel density in the tissues around the bladder, which some species of land-going fish do have. From there, tiny modifications to this bladder make it more functional as a 'lung': adding more surface area by dividing the air sac into a series of smaller sacs, adding more blood vessels for increased gas exchange, adding muscles that 'pump' air in and out of the lung. The lungs of lungfish are primitive compared to our lungs, but they are fully functioning lungs and are clearly derived from the air bladder.

We still have the remains of gills, too - our inner ear bones and jaw structure derive from the remains of the bones and structure that formed gills.

[bluefooted]

And... because I'm bored right now. And because it's cool :) Does anyone remember the movie, The Abyss? Well, the scene with the rat breathing liquid is actually real. It's a real technique that actually works. Not very well, but it works:

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

Also cool: If we were small enough, and our skin was porous enough to allow good gas exchange, we wouldn't need lungs. There is a whole genus of salamanders that lack lungs, and their respiration is accomplished by simple diffusion of oxygen/carbon dioxide across their skin's surface.

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

I'm having horrible flashbacks to when I have to teach glycolysis and my classes have no idea why we breathe in O2 and expel CO2.

[Sphyzex_9]

http://www.paulhina.com/hinablog-archives/duh.jpg

[ChristianWeeks]

I don't believe in gravity either, its just a theory. Thats just gods hands pulling you to the ground to hug you :) cuz he just loves you so much!!! :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart:

[nauvice]

I dont like the word "evolution"... it implies some sort of hierarchy and those who came before us get the short hand of the stick.

[Ilaekae]

But...to their credit, they know how to use that stick to turn you into shish-ka-bob and you don't... That's why monkeys laugh when they see you, hairless one...