Politics in our schools

[Preechr]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

retarded.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

That's not what it's saying at all, it's saying that from amillion different observations there's pieces of evidence that suggest there's a function like evolution.

There's an infinte number of reasons for anything. If we had a search function, I'd link you everything Geggy's ever said here.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

One of them is the fact that wh ile we're in the womb, for a time, we develop Gills(like a fish) then a tail, then a bunch of other shit that could be said to be our prior evolutions.

Evolution from a common origin.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

There's also more obvious things. Like finding fossils of our 'ancestors' who looked completely different than us. Where did they go? Why is it only us now? Where did we come from?

Evolution from a common origin.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

Another is the fact that evolution has occured within our lifetimes. Ever hear of "Cultivation" of plants? Originally plants were wild, and tiny. The original variety of corn(they are usually called "Heirloom" varieties) was the size of baby corn. Ever seen those? That small.

Evolution within a species.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

Over the course of time they were developed into the size they are today. Another example is soybeans.

Evolution within a species.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

Those weren't even edible originally. So what we say is plants changing drastically, not only through cultivation but also mutation.

Gibberish.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

Ever hear of nectarines? Mutation. Hairless peach, right? Domesticated dogs?

Evolution within several species.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

WHERE DID THEY COME FROM DID GOD MAGICALLY MAKE THEM 35 YEARS AGO OR WHENEVER THEY MIGHT HAVE BEEN CREATED?

That was just unnecessary weirdness.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

Again, those are examples not proof(it's hard to provide proof for things that happened millions of years ago I hope you can see why).

Examples, good and bad, of two different things. It's important you note that.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

The fact that things today can grow and change into other things...

I only disagree with this part. Things can grow and eventually change into different things, specializing themselves into things better prepared to manage life. An apple does not evolve into an orange. A human does not evolve from a lump of snot. To insist so is to sound as idiotic and unbelievable as those that preach that because the Bible says God formed Man from clay it must be so.

The main reason I hate this debate is that evolutionists generally refuse to admit that this is a debate of opinions and ultimately one of sociology rather than science. That makes it pretty frustrating.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

...doesn't necessarily mean that the same thing happened millions of years ago to bring us to where we are today, but it's a good indication of what happened isn't it?

I only ever object to those that wag their opinons on the matter around without understanding the distinction between the two very different definitions of the word "evolution."

I do not believe that the natural process of evolution within a species is in any way proof of any kind that evolution has ever resulted in one species of animal evolving into another sort of animal.

That being siad, I always get the terminology confused... When I say " species," I'm talking about a group of things like humans and
bovines or algae and insects. I think my confusion comes from the title of Darwin's book, and that it might be best if you read my comments replacing my usage of "species" with "genus," or some such whatnot...

Originally Posted by kahljorn

Refute those examples, please. If you really need to I'll post some links with pictures and whatever else.

I'm not trying to refute anything here. If you start picking on me, I will almost surely simply quote that which I just said. It will be very annoying.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

"So a koala bear or whatever went through a set of changes due to enviromental changes?"

That's Scru pointing out the difference in terms...

Originally Posted by kahljorn

Enviromental, diet, mutation, causation of natural genetic variance. Take your pick, there's tons of possibilities. Naturally, there shouldn't be just one trigger for evolution and change since evolution is probably alot like a survival mechanism, and just a natural law.

Yes. That's the natural law of evolution within a species that I support.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

"Can it be determined which one of the millions of variables caused the Koala to look like it does today?"

That's Scru veering into the difference between science and theology, which lies at the very heart of the debate.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

Why would we be able to? That doesn't make any sense.

That's you completely missing the point.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

We can make estimations but we weren't there when they magically changed. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, and it isn't really a good argument.

Neither is that which hopes to prove that just because some things are similar that all things are the same.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

All we know is once there was no koalas, more than likely just something similar, and now there are koalas and not whatever was similar.

Yep. Explain to me exactly why koalas suddenly appeared while giant predator dinosaurs had managed to die out? How about we chase down the specific reasons nature simply had to have koalas because pottos and sloths were no longer satisfying it's needs while we use this same illustration of logical prowess to describe how the survival of the fittest explains the continued existence of so many more sub-species of life than ever when each sub-species evolved from the most dominant versions of themselves.




...Sorry... Got tired of responding.

I just remembered very vividly why I try so hard not to respond to your posts.