Always talking about micro-evolution?

thank you ned. i started laughing as soon as i read your post.

i think you should change your name skeptick. you are obviously not living up to it. how about just plain "tick". it suits you more. by the way, did you hear that darwin had a tatoo of a swastika on his butt? nah, me neither!

i wasn't trying to be funny.

tick says,

quote:

---

You are the one who brought up the idea of "confusing" people, which indeed revealed a glimpse of your inner workings, intents, and methods of debate (whether you use those methods or just approve of those who do).

---

so you are saying that ned is here to purposely confuse people!?! i might not always agree with what he says, but i don't think he is unfair or full of malicious intent when he replies to others' posts.
i on the other hand, am full of malice towards ignorance and dishonesty. so, let's see who has been dishonest lately...

quote:

---

An example of micro evolution is a coyote evolving into a wolf (or vice versa). An example of macro evolution is a frog evolving into an elephant. Or even more macro would be rocks or hydrogen gas (or just non-life) evolving into a human.

---

do you realy proffer these statements as true? if you do, then please share the supporting information for these assumptions.

there are many models, starting with the classic miller-urey exeriment that show how inorganic compounds can naturally become organic compounds such as amino acids and fatty acids. the miller-urey experiment is no longer tenable b/c an early earth would have a different atmosphere from the one they used in their model. other scientists have shown, though, that organic molecules can come from inorganic substances in a whole slew of different atmospheres with different energy sources.the creation of protenoid microspheres in the lab by heating different combinations of amino acids together and then putting the resulting self-ordering amino acid polymers in water provides a model of how the precursors of cells could develop. the research is ongoing and no one is saying that this is how it definitely happened, but this is a far cry from just "belief". besides, like i have said on other posts in other threads, you can still say that god exists and this is the way he/she/it chose to do things. same goes with the big bang. science cannot, and should not, answer the "god question". i don't think a lot of scientists are athiests. maybe agnostic, but i think that goes along with the whole "show me the evidence" mindset of a scientist.

quote:

---

Why would I not believe our teachers of the great theory of evolution, the study that avoids the question of the origin of life?

---

science should avoid the question about ultimate origins as posed by christians, muslims, jews, kabbalists, sikhs, hindus, zoroastrianists, etc. they deal with the supernatural. science deals with nature and natural phenomena.

...i was satirizing the assumption that darwin somehow contributed to nazism. if darwin did have a tatoo of a swastika on his butt, it would have been a good luck charm at that time. the nazis demonized the ancient symbol by taking it as their own. sounds familar...nazis coopting something that had no control over whether it was coopted or not. interesting...