newscientist.com — Palaeontologists: this could be your lucky day. Turkish creationist Adnan Oktar has just offered ten trillion lira - a mouth-watering $7.5 trillion - to "anyone who produces a single intermediate-form fossil demonstrating evolution".
Oct 10, 2008 View in Crawl 4
disgodOct 12, 2008
.... please give us a link to some article which will back up your claim.And yes, the fossil record do completely back up the theory of evolution. We have the entire evolutionary path of some organisms, and we have very in depth fossil records for hundreds of other animals, including humans, horses, dogs, and whales. Not only that but the fossil record always shows a progression from simpler life to more complex life. You'll never find a modern dog fossil buried in the Jurassic layers, or a early ancestor to modern horses found in the Triassic era geologic layers. The fossil record most definitely backs up the theory of evolution.
kspanks04Oct 12, 2008
Yes, and maybe this quote will pop up from The Origin of Species:"The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."
android22Oct 13, 2008
dude f**k you..db is awesome
peeequalsnpOct 13, 2008
@sloth -So what is your argument? I agree with evolution and its processes for the most part and still cannot fathom those being the only ingredients in life as it is today on this planet. DNA as a subject is very complicated, and how it makes life work is even more impressive. I have studied on this matter, a lot. I've been on many discussions with people on here who are more knowledgeable than you or I on these subjects and learned a lot and my beliefs and knowledge have evolved in the process. If you'd like to ask specific questions about how DNA and our brain and have discussions on what the "mind" is, just ask. But to strictly judge my understanding of a subject just because I disagree with you is not an intelligible response. You say I have imagination for believing something else had to be behind the evolution of life on our planet, I say you have to have more imagination to believe it happened only with the knowledge science provides today. That knowledge may change in the future, but for now there are holes, there are long shots (statistically speaking). So unless you have specific questions or debating points, agree to disagree.@dafragsta -Informative, but my argument is that the environment does not *cause* mutations. That is, mutations don't occur in any way as a response to the environment. Cancer is not caused by the body being the environment. Our body doesn't cause cancer. A cell simply existing in our body does not give it the chance of cancer (the chance is a property of the cell). Cancer is a mutation of our cells, I'll give ya that. But its cause is not the environment. It's causes are errors in some process of the cell (metabolic or replication). These errors can happen naturally or be caused by carcinogens which don't just become part of the environment, they directly act on the cell and interrupt the processes.@bobbi -Radiation is a carcinogen, it is not an "environmental" property because it directly acts upon the cells, which makes it a part of that system, not the environment. See response to dafragsta.Your other statements provide the same argument that I pointed out as invalid. I never said natural selection is random, in fact, natural selection is very logical and purposed: "Weed out the bad mutations and the beneficial mutations will more likely survive". Once the beneficial mutation propagates through the population, you have your evolution. BUT THE INITIAL MUTATION IS STILL RANDOM. You would randomly mutate the ability to grow tons of hair. There is no evidence to suggest that the cells in your body notice that it's cold outside and decide to mutate until they find the mutation that causes hair growth.And you misquoted or misunderstand DNA when you talked about additive evolution. The odds of a beneficial, hereditary mutation or not "good", and the odds of a second, additive mutations are not "just as good". The cell has a system of replication that is very efficient at preventing mutations in the first place, its not perfect, but it doesn't really have to be since we only express less than 5% of our genes anyway. So this mutation would have to occur in that 5%. And mutations are overwhelmingly negative although some positive ones do exist. And the odds would compound, not simply be additive. The odds of the first mutation being even in an expressed gene are low, then that mutation being additive is also low, the odds of it surviving the DNA replication process are fairly low, and if the process fails the body even has measures to destroy the cell (when this doesn't happen is a cause of cancer). So the mutation would have to overcome all that, and then the next one would also plus have the odds of being additive to the first. Those are odds no one would bet on. And it doesn't "improve its chances" with time either, so don't bother saying "well it happened over billions of years". The mutations would be mutually exclusive events, so their chances of happening are independent of each other and each just as unlikely.
enlightenmentOct 26, 2008
<a class="user" href="http://dinosaurfanfiction.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/raptor-jesus.jpg">http://dinosaurfanfiction.com/wp-content/uploads/2 ...</a><a class="user" href="http://www.withak.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/noah-dino.jpg">http://www.withak.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/n ...</a><a class="user" href="http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh192/adamrector/JesusRidingDinosaur.jpg">http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh192/adamrecto ...</a><a class="user" href="http://images.isthes**t.net/xmyxmaxk.jpg">http://images.isthes**t.net/xmyxmaxk.jpg</a>
slezzzterJan 5, 2009
miktex = TeX/LaTex Distributionand that is not in LaTeX, there's a missing '\' on the frac, among other things.That aside, LaTeX is, indeed, awesome.