I don't know. I was just typing on my computer at home and next thing I know my ass was in a tent on a moutain in Ladakh. With the lack of a credible explanation, freaking Shiva must have intelligently put me there.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster and his illegitimate offspring The Spaghetti Pulsar Activating Monster enter the fray : http://www.venganza.org/ and http://www.yoism.org/index.php?id=spam
As far as scientific theories with a lack of evidence to support them go, macro (vertical) evolution is about as good as you’re going to get. I can’t think of another as widely accepted theory with as little evidence to support it. Can you? Quite literally there is probably more hard evidence and sound logic to the theory of alien visitation than there is for vertical evolution. This doesn’t mean that it’s wrong to keep studying the possibility vertical evolution, but it does mean that it’s quite wrong to call it “truth” or even a solid theory based on convincing evidence.
Random thought: The Hubble telescope looked out into a random area as far as its lens could go - which means the farthest we've ever looked. Something like the equivalent of holding a nickel 100 feet in the air and looking at it - that's the area of outer space The Hubble targeted and then it zoomed way in. And did we find the "end" of the Universe? No, they found countless - thousands - of galaxies, each galaxy, you are aware, counting billions of star systems. The Milky Way is, for example, over 100,000 light years across. So in that one little eormously tiny part of the Universe, there is so much it really isn't even comprehendible. In the face of all that, at least to me, arguing the intelligent design of humans on this one planet in this one system at this one point in time (remember time is a dimension too), etc., etc. - well, I just don't have that faith, though I do believe in a higher being.
Every single thing changes naturally and continuously. Isn't that understanding enough to lend credit to evolution without calling it a "faith"? IDers proclaiming that different forces cause this change is one thing, but to say that things change because of divine intervention, or appear spontaneously is another. This is what people like me can't accept. All things are connected. If god changes one thing, he changes all things.
Now, Valerie Clark of Cornell University and her colleagues have detailed two instances of convergent evolution--the process in which organisms not closely related independently acquire similar characteristics while evolving in separate ecosystems--between frogs and ants on two continents. __________ Convergent Evolution in Poison Frogs Scientists have discovered one of the most intricate examples of convergent evolution with the help of South American "poison" frogs and ants and their cousins in Madagascar. (And here's an odd fact for smokers: one Madagascan frog studied was found to have nicotine in its system!) Poison frogs can't make their own poison--they steal it from ants. Poison frogs secrete a variety of chemicals called alkaloids to create a poisonous defense against predators. Since they can't produce alkaloids on their own, these frogs maintain a steady diet of specific alkaloid-rich ants to keep up their defense. Now, Valerie Clark of Cornell University and her colleagues have detailed two instances of convergent evolution--the process in which organisms not closely related independently acquire similar characteristics while evolving in separate ecosystems--between frogs and ants on two continents. First, species of ants high in alkaloids had to evolve on two separate continents. "The ants had to be there with alkaloids for the frogs to evolve to get alkaloids in their skin," Clark told LiveScience. Then the frogs had to develop a resistance to the alkaloids--instead of spitting out the ants or passing the alkaloids through their systems, the frogs became able to keep their ant dinners down. Then they evolved to make use of the alkaloids themselves. Also, both the frogs in South America and Madagascar evolved to have "don't-eat-me" skin colorings, the final step in a remarkable tale of multi-step convergent evolution. Up until now, scientists have mainly studied frogs from South America and Australia. But Clark and her colleagues showed that the Madagascan frogs needed the same types of food to be poisonous. They examined the stomach contents of 21 frogs from the genus Mantella and found that alkaloid rich ants made up 67 percent of their food intake. Not only that, but they found nicotine--the same chemical found in cigarettes--in one Mantella baroni frog out of 22 examined. Nicotine is produced by plants and can sometimes be found in animals that eat these plants. But so far no nicotine-producing plants have been found growing in the area where this frog was found. This was the first time researchers observed this phenomena and they are not sure how the chemical enters the frog's system. "Our team has not yet conducted a survey of possible nicotine containing in the area where the nicotine-frog was found, and none of our team's insect samples yielded nicotine in chemical analyses," Clark said. "However, this is some of the most convincing evidence that plant-insect-frog toxin food chains do exist." Other characteristics the Madagascan frogs share with their South American cousins include terrestrial eggs, small body size, and toothless jaws. Scientists have long known that frogs rely on a diet of ants, beetles, and millipedes to produce their poison. When poison frogs are captured and kept in captivity, they retain skin alkaloids for years. But they can't make more without eating the right types of ants. Frogs kept in captivity and fed a steady diet of flies, for example, don't secrete alkaloids. This research is detailed in an upcoming issue of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. link
Well, no. Things change according to certain patterns and tendencies, and science helps us to identify and explain these patters and tendencies. There are clearly change patterns that we don’t see happen. We don’t see objects spontaneously fly into the air in defiance of gravity, for example. We don’t see reverse lifecycles where old organisms reverse age and become young, and we don’t see vertical evolution. That’s not how the process of gene mutation works given everything we know about it. Perhaps the most popular theory in evolution at the moment is the punctuated equilibrium theory that essentially states that leaps in evolution occur. This is a theory that was at least in part devised to address the problem of the gaps in the fossil record. There is no known mechanism for this and in a real sense it amounts to a theory that says things appeared spontaneously. And of course any evolutionary theory relies on the spontaneous creation of matter in the first place. Any way you look at it there is a big mystery here. It requires enormous faith to deny all we know scientifically and believe in vertical evolution. Alien visitation is more logical and there is perhaps more hard evidence for it (of course it conveniently leaves open the question of the origin of the aliens), but it doesn’t happen to be what I believe. IMO the answer to this profound conundrum comes from an entirely different approach to the problem. It comes from the exploration of the nature of our being in a spiritual sense. It comes from an internal, personal, journey to meet one’s maker.
Ya know for the life of me I can't figure out how to set the time on my VCR. The complexity is outstanding and truly mind boggling. I strongly suspect that there must be an *intelligent design* behind all of this setting-the-VCR-time complexity.
please stop posting about evolutionary theory - it becomes very clear, the more you post, the more you show how little you know about it
This proves that evolution is more intelligent than anything man has done. Well I guess this demonstrates three things: 1. Ants are really smart- On two separate continents they evolved with the same idea; evolve some poisonous alkaloids for the benefit of frogs that wouldn't evolve for another million years. And lucky they were in the right ecosystem; they hit the lottery. 2. Frogs are brilliant- Deciding to evolve an appetite for ants and a resistance to the alkaloid poison was a stroke of genious and to come up with the same plan on two separate continents, at the precise time and location- NOW THAT IS GOOD FOREIGN POLICY! 3. Actually this proves frogs from Madagascar and frogs from South America are much more intelligent than humans because they figured out how to have the same behavior without any communication, they did it separated by an ocean and they both came to the same intelligent conclusion- eat ants laced with alkaloids. NO RANDOM coincedence here, this is a plan coming together in perfect timing and location without even a hint of intent, nope everything just fell into place, you know 'stuff' happens. Not a human on earth could have designed it to work out that perfect. (We can't even cure the common cold) Talk about intelligent design, convergent evolution is much more intelligent than we have been giving credit. Next thing you know we are going to find out how the frogs knew to eat the ants who weren't laced with poison until they evolved enough to eat the ants laced with the poison. Smart those frogs are.
Nothing is permanent, all things are ceaselessly evolving, maturing, and decaying naturally. I think the rest of us just see natural change. That's all we are talking about. The star known as the sun was born, then the earth formed, then life began here, or was maybe transplanted (meteors etc). That life grew and changed naturally to be what it is now. Does that line of thinking require faith?
I didn't witness my dad being born, but I'm pretty sure it happened. If it is evident that all things continuously change naturally and are inextricably intertwined, and we can witness the formation of stars and planets outside our solar system, what's the part that requires faith? It's an obvious conclusion based on reason.
Exactly my point you know how your Dad was born because it has been and was witnessed by someone. It is evident that things continuously change naturally they adapt, deteriorate and die. We can witness changes to stars and solar systems that don't tell us anything beyond what we choose to speculate. In fact speculation is healthy except when educated guesses are biased. The part that requires faith is the part where you state in absolute terms we know how the sun was born, the earth formed and life began. I wasn't there when Washington crossed the Delaware River, but I don't think the painting is proof, I would say an eye witness account is a little better validation. There is speculation concerning who shot JFK and theories abound, but the Warren Commission doesn't have to be trusted just because it is the established report. The truth is the truth and it will hold up to the end. So until we know for sure, have faith.
Nobody witnessed the big hole in Arizona or the craters forming on the moon. But we know how they got there. (unless you think it is made out of cheese) The only thing that is absolute is that all these things happen naturally without divine intervention. Can we put that in our textbooks without argument?
Convergent Evolution In many instances, animals which live in similar habitats resemble each other in outward appearance. These similar looking animals may, however, have quite different evolutionary origins. This is known as the theory of convergent evolution. Swifts, swallows and martins all hunt for insects while they fly. They have streamlined bodies with long wings. Hummingbirds and sunbirds feed on nectar from flowers. They have long bills to reach the nectar at the base of flowers. Based on appearance only we would conclude that sunbirds are related to hummingbirds and that swifts are related to swallows and martins. In reality, genetic techniques have shown that swifts are related to hummingbirds, while sunbirds are related to swallows and martins. By Appearance By DNA testing link
Great argument! Well supported! At least you’ve shown the level of debate that a lot of evolutionists operate at. I shouldn’t mock you though because I realize that I’m challenging a deeply held faith. What I’m saying is, look at the evidence objectively and don’t reach for a conclusion that isn’t there, that isn’t supported by the science. Currently there isn’t a scientific explanation that we can point to with any high degree of confidence, so from a scientific standpoint it doesn’t make sense to claim that there is one. Simple as that.
