If you cant observe it directly, it can't be true...

[random_guy]

seeing as how we're intelligent.

We have learned how to domesticate our lesser relatives in order to slaughter them and eat them without chasing them down to eat them where they lay.

and have even learned how much easier it is to get rid of certain cravings simply by having them gathered in one location, such as sex for example.

well, that pretty much took care of the primary reasons why animals defend their territories.

so if we're more intelligent.... then why are we having wars, committing murder over anything and everything including religion, robbing banks, getting in fights, etc? You'd think all that would be a sign of less intelligence. Intelligence does imply that we have knowledge of right and wrong after all.

Of course I could be wrong. Give an ape our intelligence and maybe it'll start flinging bullets every which way.

This might be better off in philosophy or GA, but I think that it is a sign of intelligence that we do those things. If we weren't intelligent (or sentinent might be a better word), we'd be content living day to day in our little groups. Through intelligence, we come up with abstract ideas such as religion, ownership, and money which leads to many of the things you brought up.

A great man once said, with great power comes with great responsibility. I view intelligence as this power.

 

[Edx]

seeing as how we're intelligent.

We have learned how to domesticate our lesser relatives in order to slaughter them and eat them without chasing them down to eat them where they lay.

and have even learned how much easier it is to get rid of certain cravings simply by having them gathered in one location, such as sex for example.

well, that pretty much took care of the primary reasons why animals defend their territories.

so if we're more intelligent.... then why are we having wars, committing murder over anything and everything including religion, robbing banks, getting in fights, etc? You'd think all that would be a sign of less intelligence. Intelligence does imply that we have knowledge of right and wrong after all.

Of course I could be wrong. Give an ape our intelligence and maybe it'll start flinging bullets every which way.

So we're more intelligent? whats your point?

 

[cwolf20]

So we're more intelligent? whats your point?

point? why aren't there more creatures that have it. evolution means that one particular animal has gone beyond it's predecessors. Which, if according to evolution as I was taught, means its dominant. Of course, a dominancy would imply that what went before no longer exists. Except for the rare sports. Makes one wonder why reptiles still exist then. Mammals did replace them after all.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

point? why aren't there more creatures that have it. evolution means that one particular animal has gone beyond it's predecessors. Which, if according to evolution as I was taught, means its dominant. Of course, a dominancy would imply that what went before no longer exists. Except for the rare sports. Makes one wonder why reptiles still exist then. Mammals did replace them after all.

Where were you taught evolution?

Ghost

 

[cwolf20]

Where were you taught evolution?

Ghost

high school, by a gym teacher. sue me. *grin* I graduated in 93.

 

[Edx]

high school, by a gym teacher. sue me. *grin* I graduated in 93.

I see.

 

[cwolf20]

I see.

I'm also currently on decongestants combined with constant sneezing and a sore throat. I don't normally get this insane during a discussion

 

[Ryal Kane]

I'm also currently on decongestants combined with constant sneezing and a sore throat. I don't normally get this insane during a discussion

Gesundheit.

Evolution doesn't mean that a new species has to replace another. It just mean that they adapt to different environments.
So while mammels are better at living in some environments, reptiles are better at living in others.
Often they can live in the same location but still co-exist, finding differnt niches. A pond can have frogs as well as fish, even if frogs evolved from earlier fish long ago.

 

[D McCloud]

point? why aren't there more creatures that have it. evolution means that one particular animal has gone beyond it's predecessors. Which, if according to evolution as I was taught, means its dominant.

False. Evolution has nothing to do with being dominant over others. It's true natural selection weeds out individuals unfit to survive in particular environment. However, using an evolution perspective, "good enough to survive" is "good enough to survive."

Of course, a dominancy would imply that what went before no longer exists. Except for the rare sports. Makes one wonder why reptiles still exist then. Mammals did replace them after all.

Is this honestly what creationist think evolution says.

The emergence of new species doesn't mean others disapear from existence. The only way that would possible happen is if the original species was in constant competion with the new species, and somehow the origianl was disadvantaged in such a way it wasn't unable to compete.

Dogs evolved from wolves, but there are still wolves. Does the fact that you descended from your father mean that your father no longer exists?

 

[Ryal Kane]

Oops. Double post.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

high school, by a gym teacher. sue me. *grin* I graduated in 93.

Ah well, hardly your fault then. My Geography sucks because I was taught that by a Gym teacher back in my school days.

Ghost

 

[Prince Lucianus]

Ah well, hardly your fault then. My Geography sucks because I was taught that by a Gym teacher back in my school days.

Ghost

Whenever I mention Nain.
Either the thread stops or it gets ignored.

Lucy

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Whenever I mention Nain.
Either the thread stops or it gets ignored.

Lucy

Ah yes well that's becase the first rule about Nain is that we don't talk about Nain...

... no hang on, I'm thinking about fight club.



Ghost

 

[LittleNipper]

This is one entire argument from ignorance.

Nothing suggest the universe could not have established itself. Therefore, why don't you prove the universe was established by a creator before making erroneous claims. I would suggest you start another thread if you wish attempt to do so though.

I suggest you throw in the towel before someone swats you on the backside...

 

[DJ_Ghost]

I suggest you throw in the towel before someone swats you on the backside...

He seems to be holding his own so far.

Ghost

 

[LittleNipper]

He seems to be holding his own so far.

Ghost

His own what?

 

[KerrMetric]

His own what?

His LittleNipper.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

lol

 

[D McCloud]

I suggest you throw in the towel before someone swats you on the backside...

By all means swat away, there is nothing you can present scientifically that would prove the universe had to of had a creator.

 

[SamCJ]

You are correct of course, we have observed it directly.

Ghost

The opening post in this thread seems to concede that beneficial mutations have not and cannot be observed directly. In another thread, I have asked many scientists to provide a short quote from a published paper in which the author claims to have eye witnessed a beneficial mutation in the process of being made. So far, no such quotes have been provided to me. Can you supply one along with a citation or link?