Hello, Jurassic Park

[KILL]

[Gaazy]

ahhhhahah my side hurts now

[Harrison]

Kill also wants my cock. I'm suspecting more than even Vonkaar. I believe he's just surpassed him in obsessive-photoshopped-images count.

[Tuggan]

hah, thats pretty damn good. kill, are you the same guy that made the Mindia with the clown shoes and guitar? if so

[Narrock]

[Tossica]

Holy fuck. That pic qualifies this thread as an NT's finest.

[Tossica]

Did I mention that pic is brilliant?

[Narrock]

Evolution, by definition, is the acquisition of advantageous phenotypic characteristics brought on through genomic mutations. In other words, when an organism displays a new advantageous physical characteristic that is brought about through a mutation of a particular gene, operon, whatever, and is successufly passed down from generation to generation... it may be construed as having evolved.

Let me give a very light example of the theory of evolution: Many of you are well aware of the growing concern of several antibiotic resistant bacteria strains. This may be considered a form of evolution, on a rather elementary level. Let's say we have bacteria X, which has been implicated in causing disease in humans. So, after a little research we find that bacteria X is susceptible to penicillin and as such our doctors start prescribing the antibiotic to patients who test positive for the presence the bug. For a while it proves effective and will keep the population of whatever bacteria (not just bug X) might be susceptible to its potency, however, SOME of the bacteria will always survive. Eventually, a mutation will occur within the bacteria's genome that will alter its physical characteristics in such a way that the antibiotic will have no effect.

Now, even though most people would consider it the “same” bacteria, in actuality it is not. It HAS changed. It is no longer the same strain... in short it has “evolved” to now be resistant. This is an example of an advantageous phenotypic characteristic brought on through genomic mutation. A mutation that is successfully passed down from generation to generation.

Evolution IS a theory, but it's a theory supported by a great deal of solid observations. More so than Creationism that is grounded solely in faith – with no empirical data to support it, what-so-ever.

I just don't understand why we can't have both. Whether or not we are being watched by a creator is a matter of faith based opinion. If we cannot prove it, then why is it so hard to accept that perhaps such a creator designed the inhabitants of this world to evolve? Because the bible didn't say so? I don't need to point out that the bible has been written and rewritten again and again by the very fallible hand of man. Who really knows what the original words of the bible were?

Anyway, with out digressing further – you cannot look at the data combined with its definition and say that the theory of evolution is lacking of any real credibility.

I can write a novel on this subject, but right now it's 12:30 in the morning – and I have porn to look at.

Diekan, that is not really convincing. (btw... not an attack against you) If you take any kind of medication over a period of time the body will build up a tolerance to it and that particular medication will become less and less effective. To counter that, we have to take either 'more of the same,' or change to a different medication. That tolerance factor has nothing to do with "evolution." It is just a naturally-occurring phenomenon. If you have a headache every day, and you take Ibuprofen for it daily, after a couple weeks you will find that it now takes 800mg of IB to take care of the headache where as before it took 400mg. So then you switch to Acetaminophen and you find that it only takes 400mg of that. What does this have to do with "evolution" or "gene mutation?"

[Harrison]

Bacterium do evolve Mindia, that's not anything new.

But to stretch it as far as humans relating to bacterium...that's ludicrous.

[Lyion]

Shiraz, the crux of this discussion is whether micro and macroevolution are distinct. Despite Rusts distortions and lies, macroevolution is wholly unproved and his sites piss poor FAQ is a great example of bad science. It was thoroughly rebutted and owned above by a link.

Nobody is arguing evolution or change. We're just discussing the things that have been added and the distortions and bullshit such as 'there are transitional fossils' which is blatantly false.

Microevolution is solid. The theory of evolution has a lot of solid info. The crux of my discussion has been solely my doubts about macroevolution, which are shared by many notable biologists.

[Tikker]

Lyion, your links "owned" absolutely nothing

[Lyion]

In your opinion, which is strongly biased to Rusts side. An unbiased opinion would disagree, I'd bet.

Common sense speaking, it did in fact trivialize the link Rust has used throughout this discussion. Maybe you don't agree, but that doesn't change the numerous valid points it brought up.

[Lyion]

That picture is wrong, but funny. Finny should change his hairstyle. He makes a good young Einstein...