As far as evidences for macro-evolution, the first thing I’d ask Brien, (besides suggesting he demand a full refund for any monies that he has ever paid for tuition for school…because someone has done him a great diservice, so it seems) is…if you do not believe that macro-evolution is a fact, and you ridicule creationists (or at least Christians) what exactly is your theory? Do you believe that species just pop up out of nowhere? Are you saying that you believe that living things, be it plants or animals just start appearing in their finished form without mutation from previously existing species? I mean, either you believe they are created…ughhh…or you believe they mutated from previous species…or…you have postulated a third, completely original theory that you refuse to share with us. Of course option four is that you are just an idiot, and your inability to grasp a concept is your reason for belittling science and those that actually care about truth and honesty and the pursuit of the answers to these types of questions. So…which is it?

Evidences of marco-evolution:

1. Ensatina eschscholtzi and Ensatina croceater (aka various species of Salamanders found interbreeding and mutating in California which resulted in new species classifications with different DNA composition. These different species can mate with each other, as most mutated variants of species can until the unaviodable and eventual macro evolution of an entirely new species.)

2. Drosophila paulistorum (do your own research you lazy bastard, Google search it whenever you’re finished downloading your bevy of self degrading internet porn).

3. Rhagoletis pomonella & Eurosta solidaginis

4. The fact that some humans have DNA that is closer to some chimpanzee’s, where others have DNA that is more similar to other humans. This is a fact. With some humans sharing as much as 99.4% of their DNA with humans, this is no surprise. It’s also clear evidence of macro-evolution and it is also a pretty clear evidence of something most humans are not comfortable discussing…our ancestors most definately tried to disassociate themselves with primates, however it is clear that there was interspecies cross breeding. (I tried to find a Google search for a photo of your conception for evidence, but unfortunately the Human Society had them removed for unethical treatment towards animals).

5. Tribolium castaneum

These are all cases where micro-evolution has clearly lead to macro-evolution. Your inability to see how the two are related, and the obviousness of what you claim can’t be proven has nothing to do with the obvious. It’s as if you are clueless to the fact that humans have only been looking for evidence of macro-evolution for two generations, and the evidence is already mounting beyond reasonable doubt. Of course there is a lot more evidence to support micro-evolution and mutation without the inclusion of macro-evolution. Again, your alternate theory to explain this? Right.
Geezus.

You know, just like Les’s link, all of the information you claim doesn’t exist is out there. You’re just too lazy and stupid to go find it. I’m normally not a rude person, however after seeing the way you have treated Shelley, and your ignorant behavior towards women in general…coupled with your very basic education and willingness to attempt to mislead other people in regards to the most recent research on evolution (which has enough ignoramuses spouting lies and mistruths without your help)...I feel no mercy towards you. You’re an idiot who feels the need to shoot your mouth off.

This was probably a waste of all of our time, however…if nothing else, we are all working out the best and most recent arguements for debating @ssbags like this. I guess… 

Brien/Ken…you should have ordered yourself a couple of books off of Amazon, instead of buying them for Les. 

Regards,

Bryce/GodlessRaven

Erhmmm…in the previous post, “This is a fact. With some humans sharing as much as 99.4% of their DNA with humans, this is no surprise.“ should have read as follows:

This is a fact. With some humans sharing as much as 99.4% of their DNA with chimpanzee’s, this is no surprise.

GodlessRaven,

thanks for all the links.  i’m checking those out.  i’m totally open to the idea that i’m wrong here. 

towards that i’ve been reading about how they compare our DNA with other things.  ...some of the stuff didn’t make sense.  some ID people were saying we share 27% of the same DNA with wheat.  ...that didn’t make sense to me.  then i read that most DNA comparisons aren’t based on comparing the actual DNA, but rather, an average of statistics gathered using the DNA.  ...i was able to find that with new technology we’ve been able to compare DNA more accurately now…

Past studies that compared human and chimp DNA could only average the differences between a limited number of spots in their genetic codes to come up with a single date for the split, rather than a span of years. The genius of the new study is that it breaks the genetic code into pieces and then looks at each section individually.

Surprisingly, some genes differ so much between the two species that they must not have been mixing for the past 10 million years. But others are similar enough that they appear to have been in contact no more than 6.3 million years ago.

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=502&sid=795110&sidelines=1

...here’s my delima.  the idea made more sense before we looked deeper into the DNA.  but the deeper we look the bigger the divide apparently becomes.

the study above was 800 times more detailed the previous studies.  but that’s nowhere near as detailed as we need to be.

once we can accuratly compare DNA i’ll accept these studies as fact.  but as long as we’re comparing averages it’s still guesswork by definition.

before i’d worked with people in the bioinformatics field i had a different perspective on DNA, Macro, everything really. 

what i learned was that DNA is very mechanical and systematic.  amazingly it works kindof like a complicated computer program.  dispute our differences, i think we can all agree that DNA is amazing shit.

the bioinformatics techniction i spoke with challenged me to show him something that was random.  it sounds like a simple challange, but it’s not.

...even with computers we can’t even generate a truely random number.  we always have to use a system and therefore the number is the product of our system and only seemingly random.

IMHO, random is just a work we assign to processes we currently do not understand.

that’s how i look at mutations.  they seem random, but since EVERYTHING has a system there must be a system for the mutations as well.

this isn’t disproving Macro or anything.  it’s just an observation we might be able to agree on.

again, i’ll be checking out your links.  thanks for the info.

not to be a bitch, but i found this link about the same study on the BBC.  i thought it was interesting enough to share.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4991470.stm

...again, i’m looking into the links i was given so don’t bother arguing with me until i can read all this stuff.  i was honest about being open to the idea that i’m wrong.  ...usually i’m wrong.

IMHO, random is just a work we assign to processes we currently do not understand.

...i meant it’s a WORD not a WORK.

oh, and i wanted to add that my entire harem sends their love to Shelley.  ...we’re still hoping for a day when you’re excited about the idea of being with us.

Brien, this is typical of your “research” methods. You make a claim that scientists have now discovered that human DNA and chimpanzee DNA are far less of a match than I stated. You even give a percentage…which may as well have been directly yanked out of your @ss. Then to prove it, you cite a website that not only doesn’t mention your claim, but actually is OBVIOUS evidence for macro-evolution. If you actually read what that article is stating, it’s telling you that the species of chimpanzee and humanoid were once a different common ancestors, and that later, after they had seperated, they combined to make yet a third species. Thanks for doing a little research and completely proving our case. Was that so hard? Apparently the difficult part is getting you to correctly analyze the information you read. (I can’t help you there).

Nothing in that article stated anything different than I claimed. In fact it references to humanoids and chimpanzees mating. Just like my examples of Salamanders.

Now…I can respect your request to give you time to go read the research, and it is heavy reading, but…you need to address how wrong you were with your idiotic behavior towards Shelley before you take on heavier subjects.

Apparently…being wrong on many levels is your contribution to this website.

Good luck reading. Maybe a book on etiquette towards women wouldn’t hurt either.

Bryce/GodlessRaven

Godless Raven: Maybe a book on etiquette towards women wouldn’t hurt either.

I think being hit over the head with one might do him some good.

To Brien: I’ve said this before, but it is simpler to say it again than ask you to look it up:

Yes, despite the fact that science is self-critical and subject to revision, they teach much of what they know as fact. There are a couple of good reasons for this:

First, we can only teach what we have as our very best understanding based on the current evidence. As I said, science is subject to revision as new findings become available. New findings replace old and we learn and teach new things all the time. When something in science is shown to be wrong or incomplete, science is out there telling us so.That’s not deception, that’s how progress is made.

Second, the ability to critically analyze scientific information is both a talent and a skill that takes time and practice to develop. You could skip looking through textbooks and go to the primary literature (the original journal articles) to evaluate the research yourself, but if you do, you’d better go armed with a degree in science that includes a sophisticated understanding of research methods and statistics. Most people can’t do that because they have neither the knowledge nor the time. When science teaches something as fact, it does so only because the accumulated research has been examined, critqued, and accepted by the majority of scientists in the field.

The idea that there’s some big science conspiracy and that science has never been right about anything is just patently absurd.

To GodlessRaven:

Thanks for sticking up for me. Somehow I’ve never become accustomed to the fact that the anonymity of the internet disinhibits people sufficiently to allow them to be so rude. As an aside, you’re doing a pretty good job of holding your own here—especially considering the meds.

last Hussar: LJ- No Ididit (though thanks for your help with Norway- lovely crinkly edges)

Okay, I’ve been around since 2003, and though I don’t post much here, I read a lot—what did I miss?

Sexy Sadie: I think being hit over the head with one might do him some good.

I agree witht the sentiment, Sexy Sadie, but somehow I always assumed that Brien was a “she.“

I once heard a joke about the difficulty in teaching quantum theory to a monkey.

This thread kind of reminds me of that joke.

Shelley: I always assumed that Brien was a “she.”

I’m fairly sure she’s a he.

To Shelley:

Any time at all.

Thanks for the kudos (although I’d much rather be frying bigger fish than Brien)

I’m sort of shocked right now, because I was just scrolling the posts on the atheist website I used to post on and…some of the “open minded” skeptics on there are now believing the claim that spiritual re-incarnation is possible thanks to some hack named Jim B. Tucker who wrote a book about it. I investigated the claims, and more importantly Tucker and he’s a hack. His “investigation” is a sham. The guys wife is some loon who believes in just about anything paranormal and convinced him to start doing “legit” research on it. He went in as a believer in paranormal. It’s some of the shoddiest excuse for research I’ve ever read. Anyway…so on this website I used to post on, there are atheists that are basically reacting with a “wow! this is amazing!“ without doing any investigation! I guess I’m just a little dissapointed.

I know how you feel about internet pseudo-bravery. It’s something I’m not all that fond of either. To me it’s a lot like guys who get drunk for liquid courage. I guess Brien suffers from Cyber Courage. Well, whatever…he’s clown shoes, and we’re all probably best to move on and talk about other things.

Pleasure to meet you!

Bryce/Godless Raven

LuckyJohn:

Man, your comments crack me up!

I keep looking at your photo when I read them an imagine you mocking Brien and then howling with laughter until you’re red in the face.

Great stuff! 

lol…i keep expecting someone to realize who the real fool is.  i wouldn’t waste my time here if i thought what you do

LuckyJohn: I’m fairly sure she’s a he.

So am I. Then again, maybe he plucked his eyebrows on the way, shaved his legs “and then he was a she.“

*props to Lou Reed

IMHO, random is just a word we assign to processes we currently do not understand.
that’s how i look at mutations.  they seem random, but since EVERYTHING has a system there must be a system for the mutations as well.

brien- what do you mean, everything has a system?  What does “system” mean to you?  A “system” can be just about anything.

And what does “random” mean?  As Stephen J. Gould said

In ordinary English, a random event is one without order, predictability or pattern. The word connotes disaggregation, falling apart, formless anarchy, and fear. Yet, ironically, the scientific sense of random conveys a precisely opposite set of associations. A phenomenon governed by chance yields maximal simplicity, order and predictability—at least in the long run. ... Thus, if you wish to understand patterns of long historical sequences, pray for randomness.

And what do you mean by “understand”?

A full explanation of the path taken by the cup of coffee my cat knocked onto the floor the other day needs to deal with the history of the manufacture of the cup, the physiology and psychology of the cat, the historical circumstances whereby the cat and cup came into contact, and so forth back to the big bang. Such an explanation is humanly impossible.

These things are “contingent”. Contingency is a technical term used in philosophy and science to label things that are “inessential” to the explanation. There are too many things to be explained, and in any event they do not really affect the efficiency of the explanation. Some things one can take for granted, other things just don’t make a significant difference.

-from John Wilkins’ nice discussion of chance in evolution here.

Maybe a book on etiquette towards women wouldn’t hurt either.

Somehow I think that such a book can be condensed to a verse:

And If I Change My Mind
A Million Times
I Wanna Hear Him Say
Yeah Yeah Yeah Yeah Yeah I Like It That Way

Shelley:

I didn’t realize you were a scientist.  I thought you were a psychologist.

lol…i keep expecting someone to realize who the real fool is.

I believe the word you are looking for there is self-awareness Brien. We’re trying…I swear…we’re trying…

i wouldn’t waste my time here if i thought what you do

Exactly! If you thought what we do…you would definately NOT be wasting your time on here. So…why are you wasting your time on here? We’re here to educate ourselves and learn. Clearly that is not your intentions. So? I for one have already learned a few things and I’ve been directed to some excellent links for higher learning. I’ve also lucked out in finding a lot of people that think very similar to the way I do, and for once, I don’t feel like I’m affecting the IQ curve on the website I’m posting on. I feel right at home.

Thanks for not reading any of the information you claimed didn’t exist. Thanks for being consistently ignorant, and rude with a lot of idiotic behavior added in for flavor. Because otherwise I might not have known how to take you. I might have mistaken you for a decent person who just said something incredibly dumb (happens to the best of us sometimes). Thank you for being so outwardly pathetic. Now I don’t have to concern myself with such things. Most of all…thank you for finally realizing that you are just wasting your time, and really aren’t prepared to do the kind of research it takes to belong in a serious debate about evolution.

Regards,

Bryce/Godless Raven

Oh great…is this one of his split personalities? *eye roll*

GR: Thanks for being consistently ignorant, and rude with a lot of idiotic behavior added in for flavor. Because otherwise I might not have known how to take you. I might have mistaken you for a decent person who just said something incredibly dumb (happens to the best of us sometimes). Thank you for being so outwardly pathetic. Now I don’t have to concern myself with such things. Most of all…thank you for finally realizing that you are just wasting your time, and really aren’t prepared to do the kind of research it takes to belong in a serious debate about evolution.

GR, I suspect that Brien is here for the sole purpose of being an idiot. He’s doing a great job on that count. His attitude toward Shelley, his repeated references to his “harem,“ combined with an unwillingness to learn the basic facts of evolution (despite all the while claiming to be open to the idea) demonstrate this.

Consi: I didn’t realize you were a scientist.  I thought you were a psychologist.

Psychology is a science, Consi.

Oh great…is this one of his split personalities? *eye roll*

No, GR, Consi’s a regular here, and a pretty decent guy and one of the few on the other side capable of holding an intelligent debate about these kinds of topics.

Sadie - Yeah, you’re right. I guess I still like pointing it out. 

KP - Thanks for the tip.

You’ll have to forive the misunderstanding. He was quoting Shania Twain as an example of appropriate female etiquette and I found his comment towards Shelley odd. I didn’t know you had to have a bachelor of science to understand it. 

GR:

I agree with you as regards evolution and for the most part about Brien. As to my comment to Shelley, I was giving her a friendly poke.  

What’s your beef with Shania though?

Sadie:

Psychology is a science, Consi.

  You could’ve fooled me.  I get the impression that quite a few clinicians are just winging it as wounded healers.

Consi: I get the impression that quite a few clinicians are just winging it as wounded healers.

I sort of agree, in a way. 
There’s a bit of theoretical knowledge tucked back there in the fog that suggests that what people do for a crust (job) is more for psychological reasons than anything ‘logical’.
I’m fairly sure I picked it up somewhere whilst I was a telephone counsellor for most of the 90s.
I recognised I was wounded (psychologically speaking) and wanted to be needed.
Something like that anyway.
Then again I believe every choice we make is made on the basis of getting a little happy as a result.
And, no, I have no idea why people become lawyers. 
I’m sure many start off with altruistic reasons.

Conigliere - Hah! Well yes, I realize that now, and in fairness, after KP’s comments I went and checked out some of your other posts on other threads to get a better idea of your ideas and we agree a lot on the issue of gay marriage as well.

As far as Shania, I have a few major beefs with her:

1. I have an allergic reaction to her videos, as I seem to get a fever and start to sweat. Somethings diffenitely weird there, because it even feels as though my blood flow has been interupted and for some reason, my brain doesn’t get nearly as much as usual. I also find it hard to concentrate. Sounds like a pretty obvious servere allergic reaction to me (since that’s exactly what happens when I ingest penicillin!)
My wifes theory is that it’s because her music is so bad, but that can’t be it, because it’s the same reaction even when the volume is off. And beleive me, I’ve run hundreds of experiments of watching her videos with the sound off - for experimental purposes, ofcourse. Strange indeed.

b. My wife doesn’t allow me to watch her videos any more. (Probably just concerned about the allergic reaction, and she’s watching out for my health. In fact I’m sure of it, since she even said “if I catch you watching another Shania Twain video late at night…it won’t be very good for your health!“ Like a guardian angel watching out for me. )

and 4. Stupid restraining order.