Since you brought up "most people": 85% of humans believe in a higher power/God. Atheists are the minority. And not all atheist are educated/science minded so the numbers are really tiny there. If you're equating scientist with atheist and claim "everyone's doing it" you're are doing the field a huge disservice. In fact, IMO it's downright dangerous. I'd love to hear you explain which race is most Evolved/advanced. The more you create a divide between you and the people who rely on you, the less likely they are to believe you and give you a job. And people are starting to wonder who's side modern science is on. Ours/humanity or The Natural Selection Process. Which, of course, is always up for revision... Encourage kids to test the tested...When convictions are made in a US court of law they have to be"beyond a reasonable doubt" We are light years away from that stage and we should have the balls to admit it. Thanks for your reply! My guess is that no one will touch this thread, now.
My guess is that using multiple identities to conceal yourself on this forum is not encouraged by the site administrators. You are trolling, as you did before when you wasted peoples' time. You have no honest interest in discussion.
I wouldn't equate atheism and science, but scientists who know about evolution and still believe in creationism are fooling themselves. The number of atheists vs. the numbers of believers doesn't matter one bit when it comes to figuring out which POV is more logical. -There is no such things as MORE evolved, since evolution doesn't seem to have any direction. -Modern science is devoted to discovering things and figuring things out. Natural selection is not opposed to humanity. That is a false dichotomy. - Science is not a courtroom. Absolute proof of things is mostly lacking, but that doesn't mean our discoveries are wrong. Creationists (and religious people in general) seem have an intolerance of ambiguity.
I doubt thats true otherwise I would have heard that assertion from scientists before. And? Please explain which definition of 'efficiency' is being used, show a comparison of known machines and their efficiency, and show the efficiency of a single cell organism (which I am assuming will mathematically demonstrate machines being thousands of times less efficient). Huh? Humans can design things and lightning can strike tar ponds. How is one more logical than the other? You bet. You bet. When do you personally consider animal A animal B different animals?
Ice, don't be like that. And why would I hide my Identity? Is someone after me? Really, though, when somebody asks "how do you know we came from apes?" and you answer"the trees are budding early this year" along with some name calling, it's not much of a discussion. You come here at your own will to waste time, after all, It's titled Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!esign. So how am I trolling?
You know what the most successful organisms on earth are? Bacteria. Complexity doesn't equate with successfulness. There's evidence that the bloated genomes of eukaryotes, and the resulting diversity, is more a result of small population size and genetic drift. If you guys can understand the math, I recommend you read some of the null models of evolution out there. It will blow your fucking mind. Diversity as accident? Shit, not only is their no God, but there isn't even a real mechanism governing which animals succeed and which ones don't.
It's still really, really poor design. In fact, it's such poor design, that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Because it's the only way you can bait people into responding to your trolling as if it were honest discussion. It's not called "Design, Ice Age's Christian Creationist version". Its' called "design: all faith aside" by somebody else potentially interested in actual discussion. Raven was more quickly perceptive than I. And already we are hearing about atheism - apparently the faith wasn't put that far aside. You are trolling. If you are talking about ecosystems, bacteria provide several components. "Bacteria" taken as a whole are extremely complex - everything from photosynthetic primary production to major components of large cell assemblies such as trees and people.
Not really. They're all quite "simple" when compared to eukaryotes. That's what makes them such great model organisms. Small, compact genome, relatively simple cell cycle, only one cell, etc.
The fact that our ecosystem depends on bacteria isn't a sign of irreducible complexity. This relationship evolved like everything else. Bacteria can be observed evolving in real time. There's a recent thread about an infection that doesn't respond to anti-biotics. This is an example of bacteria adapting to our use of drugs to kill them.
Good luck removing bacteria.... Ahahaha, oh man, that IS ironic. When you try and remove bacteria from, say, someone with tuberculosis, the bacteria will evolve, right before your fucking eyes and become resistant. Removing bacteria would be nigh impossible, since whatever you tried to get rid of it with would just have it popping right back. Same with insects and pesticide resistance.
Spidergoat, But it is STILL bacteria, just as it always was- from the beginning. That fact that it does not evolve away from that should tell you something. It cant.